Talk:Human resources/Archive 1

Posts
Human Resources is the arm of the company which houses various data (Benefits, Compensation, Workers' Compensation, Training, etc.). It is the place which provides resources for managers and employees alike. If the people working in Human Resources are ethical, they will provide a sounding board without leaking information. They remain neutral, keeping in mind the needs of both employee and company. It can be a great place to get a myriad of information. As with any profession, it all boils down to the individuals who represent the department. --Iris Sasaki

The term "human capital" is very specifically defined in macro-economics but "human resources" is the thing they used to call "labor".

There is another whole literature of "human capital" that mirrors the literature of "natural capital", right down to the "resources" language.

A quick search on http://www.google.ca/search?q=natural+human+resources+capital&hl=en&meta= reveals the full complexity of all the issues raised in this debate...

This needs citations, and its view that the term is being replaced by "human capital", could be balanced by some quotes from mean old corporate Simon LeGrees saying that creativity and social contributions on the job are bad. ;-) I am sure there are a few left in the world.

It could also use links to the specialist literature which originated the term in the 20th century, e.g. Taylor and Taylorism, "Organization Man", etc. I am more familiar with the "transition literature" that defined the shift to the term "human capital".

The problem with such shifts of terminology is that they take place over generations, so you can find a lot on "human resources" that is basically saying the same stuff as the present "human capital" stuff.

"The Goat in the rug" uses a variant terminology referring to "natural, human and capital resources" which is nonetheless a good introduction - actually a great introduction.

"The Human Resources Benchmarking Association" is an extreme example of the instructional capital rigor that used to characterize the term... I am not sure these benchmarks would be accepted beyond the context of say ISO 9000 series - but it shows an extreme view of "human resources" as totally predictable manageable things.

"What is Natural Capitalism?" lays out the best intro of this 'capital versus resource' issue, and shows how the term "human capital" is now used in this modern global resource vs. ecology/society integrity debate. It's probably as extreme in its own way as the HRBA view... but is just as compatible with "the goat in the rug".

I still want an ISO 9000 link...

Improvement Drive
Sysop has been nominated to be improved by This week's improvement drive. Vote for this article to support it.--Fenice 06:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Discuss links here
Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!)

I would like to add a link to http://www.personneltoday.com which contains around 20,000 articles on human resources topics. It is a free website which does not require registration. In fact, having just seen the discussion below, I'll add it anyway. Can't see what the objection might be.

TrainingZone and HRZone added 14/03/2007 both these sites have been cited from for wiki articles. same goes for Personnel Today (I suspect that it wasn't added as the above contribution was unsigned by someone else --Pandaplodder 14:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure I'll doublecheck the links also. BrightonRock101 04:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this article has References mixed in with External links. See WP:Footnotes for how to link the references with the text. Once there's a separate reference section, you might want to consider removing any external links that weren't used to create the article, at least for now. It's difficult to concentrate on developing an article when having to constantly fend off gratuitous external links. Just a suggestion. --SueHay 16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New External Link
I would like to add a new link [Humanitics] humanitics.com

The link has wonderful insights into Human resources management from practice standpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjkulkarni (talk • contribs) 12:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add a link to the Inc.com HR Resource Center: inc.com/resources/recruiting/ It provides human resources related info, targeted to small businesses. Mansuetodigital 18:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to add an external link to Advantec: advantec-hr.com, an HRBPO company.

Damon

Hi, I would like to add a link to the Human Resources section of the Employment Law Information Network: elinfonet.com/fedindex/12

It contains 100s of links to articles relating to legal aspects of Human Resources; the site is entirely free for visitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.74.45.30 (talk)

Thanks.


 * To me, the article links look like they all point to articles from law firms trying to attract HR-related business, and in my eyes, that's spam. I'm sure that there is useful information in these articles, but I don't care for the commercial aspect of it.  If this is an appropriate place to cast a vote, I would vote no.  I would wait for other views, however, since I am only one opinion, and certainly don't "own" this page.  (Big brownie points for actually reading the external link discussion section, though!)--Bugwit grunt / scribbles 17:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt that the articles are written with some marketing aspect in mind, but if that were the inclusion criteria, you would have to remove the link to SHRM. The ELIN articles are written by the top firms in the country and they are all completely free.  I think an in-house HR person would find the site very useful.  My $.08 (adjusted for inflation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.74.45.30 (talk)


 * Feel free to add the link if you like...that's what's nice about Wikipedia, you are free to edit anything you like. I won't make any effort to delete the link, given that your reference to SHRM is correct, and once again due to the fact that you actually read the External Links Discussion. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Added link back to the Human Resources section of the Employment Law Information Network; it appears to have been removed without comment after initially proposal with no objection.

The links have been added to various entries do not discuss the subject at all. For example, the linked website has not discuss Human Resources at all except to point to other websites. This type of link spam is totally unacceptable. --Ahsen 01:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's clear to me that you haven't investigated this website and that your objection is just not well founded. The elinfonet.comEmployment Law Information Network (ELIN) is a "portal". Its explicit purpose is to collect and categorize links to information that appears elsewhere on the web. All of the articles are written by the nation's top employment lawyers. It certainly makes more sense to link to ELIN than the 100s of sites to which ELIN links. In addition, ELIN -- on its own pages -- provides example HR policies, forms and contracts. Finally, I would also *strongly* urge you to remove your statement that the site is SPAM; it is not true and very, very irresponsible allegation to make in a public forum. I will not add the link back to ELIN today, but invite your response to add any responsible objection that you may want to raise.


 * Here is the problem. This website has links to articles that discuss certain specific issues with employment law. The linked articles do not discuss human resources as a subject. The links to sample forms hosted on other sites, are completely irrelevant. By analogy, an article on automobiles should not link to a so-called portal consisting solely of links to articles describing which forms to fill out when transfering the title, what the rules are for obtaining a commercial driver's license, or how to beat a drunken-driving conviction. Please review Wikipedia's spam guidlines for more details. --Ahsen 01:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahsen, you're just digging a deeper hole for yourself (and, perhaps, exposing a Wikipedia flaw). You don’t raise a single point that merits removing the links to ELIN.

First, the notion that you can somehow separate employment law from HR is just absurd (and suggests that you don’t have a working knowledge of this field). An HR professional wouldn’t last a day in their department without an understanding of the laws that govern the workplace (it not called employment law for nothing). Even if that were not the case, ELIN contains 100s of articles about non-legal, day to day employee relations issues, from elinfonet.com/fedarticles/12/40 employee discipline to elinfonet.com/fedarticles/12/22 holiday parties.

Second, you’ve again not taken time to review many of the articles, forms and policies that appear directly on ELIN. You’ve also ignored that fact the site doesn’t just provide links to articles, but, as an aggregator, provides users with useful information about what other HR professionals find useful (by ranking popular articles) and what employment lawyers deem important (by listing the topics most often written about by law firms).

Third, Wikipedia’s spam guidelines are explicit and deal with two types of spam: advertisements masquerading as articles and wide-scale external link spamming (and by wide-scale, they mean by spambots). The links I’ve provided to ELIN do not fall into either category and your rote reference to the spam guidelines is just a misguided attempt to make your objection appear credible. I’ve added only a handful of links to ELIN (and all to specific, appropriate sections of the ELIN site) with the intention of providing Wikipedia visitors with the opportunity to explore the discussed topic in greater detail.

As I’ve pointed out to you in your profile page, ELIN is linked to by some of the most highly-regarded legal and HR sites on the web, including the U.S. Department of Labor, Cornell University’s School of Law, Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Workindex, and the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. Each of these links was added independently by these institutions. It’s hard to imagine that ELIN is a respected source by these organizations, but somehow link spam for Wikipedia.

Finally, it’s interesting to note that ELIN provides visitors with much of the information that someone would find on the SHRM site. Unlike SHRM, however, you don’t have to pay to view that information through ELIN. The fact that the articles reside on the SHRM server, rather than someone else’s, cannot be a distinction that makes a difference. In both cases, the information is a click away. I’d imagine that most HR professionals care less about where the information resides than what it costs to obtain.

If the link to ELIN counts as spam under your logic, it would dictate removing all of the External Links sections from Wikipedia. I think that would be a mistake, and ask that you place the links back to ELIN, or, at minimum, allow me to do so. Please let me know. Thank you.


 * I have read the contents of this site. You are wrong that the site "contains 100s of articles". It is a link aggregator with no content by itself. Furthermore, the pointed-to articles deal with the minutiae of employment law. If one of the linked-to articles happens to be relevant, it should be linked directly. It is not appropriate to draw traffic to this website in the hope that the user may stumble on a relevant article. Weighed against External_links, it fails points 2, 3, 4, and 5. Furthermore, you seem to suggest that external link spamming must be "wide-scale" to be a problem. This is plainly silly. --Ahsen 04:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahsen, now you're just being stubborn. Once again, ELIN is a portal – the point of which is to aggregate links. Employment law, like all areas of the law, is a fluid thing. It’s constantly changing and evolving. No web site, including Wikipedia, is in a position to keep pace with these changes. ELIN uniqueness is its ability to provide visitors with a single, free source for current answers to workplace problems. To say that the articles deal with the “minutiae of employment law” only confirms that you’re neither an HR professional, nor employment lawyer. Why, as a non-practitioner, should you make a decision about the relevance of ELIN for those who actually work in this field? Surely your expertise, whatever it may be, is better put to use in sections of Wikipedia that deal with that specialty.

But, again, for the sake of completeness, your objections are simply not true. ELIN doesn’t violate the External link guidelines, as follows:

Number 2: ELIN is a unique resource (in fact, it’s the only site of its kind). As stated, ELIN provides visitors with the ability to keep current on issues relating to human resources and workplace law. There is simply no other site on the web that provides this kind of service and tens of thousands of HR professionals visit the site each month. The fact that the articles appear on other servers is not a reasonable grounds on which to exclude a site of this type.

Number 3: There is no doubt that the link to ELIN was added, in part, to promote the site. As stated in the Note to item three, however, I placed a request to link to ELIN before including it in the External links section. Any objection to the link was raised at that point and addressed. In contrast, you commandeer the external link section and, without any input or discussion, removed the link.

Number 4: ELIN sells one (and only one) service and no products. The service is provided to only a handful of very large law firms. ELIN doesn’t sell anything to HR professionals.

Number 5: Like virtually every small publisher on the web, ELIN does provide Google ads on its site, but the amount of ads is certainly less than others, including by example, the SHRM site (which is currently and correctly included as an External Link).

At this point, I would ask anyone else (particularly if you’re an HR professional) to weigh in on this topic (if anyone’s actually listening). If that doesn’t happen, I would again ask Ashen to add the link back to ELIN or let me do so. If you still have objections, Ashen, I think it would make sense to move this discussion to my profile page and spare this space for other topics.


 * I have made my position and my reasoning quite clear. In the absence of comments by others here, I see no reason to change this view. Linking to this website totally inappropriate. I will continue to act accordingly. --Ahsen 13:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I support removal of the link. Although it looks as if some of the articles may be applicable in certain circumstances as references to support individual specific points regarding HR matters, overall the link is not acceptable for Wikipedia.  Noisy | Talk 13:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check back and see if anyone posts a different view. I have, however, removed a statement form Noisy's post, which was not true.

Hi, I would like to add a link to the Society for Human Resource Management. SHRM is a non-profit organization for about 210,000 HR professionals.

Hi I would like to add a link to the HR themed blog Horsepower ... cavalryhr.com/blog Horsepower — 76.193.18.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Blogs are not appropriate per WP:EL--Hu12 00:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The View of Human Resources
I see there is interesting things about Human Resources, but what does it really mean. Does it involve what a human needs? Does it talk about how human resources are found?, Or Does it mean how human resources are used by our society?--Zhang Liao 04:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The last proposition is right.--Jeanpol 15:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What the term 'Human Resources' really is is a form of words created by over powerful bosses as a means of insulting the workforce. It places staff at the same level as desks, computers buildings etc. The biggest joke here is when a 'Human Resources Professional' starts lecturing the staff about the need for mutual respect seemingly unaware of the hypocracy of their position. It is a word much loved by IS/IT types who use such insulting phrases as - "I have allocated 4 resources to this project". I hope it's a fad but dread to think what the replacement will be. - Alligin


 * Hi Alligin. Sure I'm sure that view exists. If it is relevant and you could find sources for it perhaps it could be included:) I think another look at definitions would help this section BrightonRock101 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alligin, the insult is how society is organized, not the lack of fancy terms to make it palatable. Legions of economists have luckily been unable to sanitize this ugly fact, and have (not surprisingly) unsuccesfully tried to come up with a term that commodifies people but doesn't objectify them. One result, I believe, is human capital. As workers we are just interchangeable units to the megamachine of modern society. Most of us have hours that are owned and bosses do mostly what they like with these life units. Granted, bosses today don't do what they used to before wage slavery was invented - ie. protect their investment (feed, clothe and care for us) or fritter it away at will (beat us and murder us) as they can with their nonhuman possessions. However, most improvements since the industrial revolution likely have to do with the obsolescence of manpower and horsepower rather than real breakthroughs in human freedom. The disparity of wealth is far greater. As long as life units are bought and sold, you and I will continue to be one more disposable and renewable resource.

Wikipedia is proof that the best working systems are non-hierarchical, perfectly organized and better than any encyclopedia ever funded by a group of bosses. So why don't we write the truth about business and bosses and governments? That they're really a bunch of ogres who have been insisting since the dawn of the timeclock that we'd never be able to organize anything decent without them telling us what to do?

Since the two definitions presented in the current article basically take the view that people should be resources, I'd prefer an article that begins without jumping to that conclusion, something like:

Human Resources is the industry which researches and implements ways to efficiently manipulate people so that they are willing to be treated as one more natural resource like land, water, or machinery to be exploited for profit by other industries. Human resource firms hired by or working internally within governments and corporations channel the flow of workers entering and exiting the hierarchy of the organization by means of hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, training, etc. Closely aligned with public relations, this industry....etc. etc.Brallan 23:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding a link.
I would like to add a link or a mention of the recruitment consultancy firm Beament Leslie Thomas. Their specialist Human Resources department are leaders in their field and can open up a variety of options for anyone interested in HR as a career. I feel this link will benefit the article as it will give readers not only knowledge but a window of opportunity into the possibilities of HR.

NPOV
This article is riddled with POV issues and ideological sniping. I wanted to post here first before I edit to NPOV but the bias is fairly clear cut. Issues of class warfare, comparision of 'which is better' between HR and I/O, and politicizing about unions should be removed to moved to a controversy section. Any comments on this? Fbody98 20:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Article summary has been updated to resolve POV issues. Fbody98 16:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge Recruitment and Staffing under HR
Staffing is not a type of recruitment. They are essentially completely different Services. To staff is to provide temporary employment to satisfy a specific corporate need. It is transient and not permanent. To recruit is to permanently retain talent. They are two opposing and equal subjects. similar to renting and buying a home. One is transient, the other permanent.

Also this should not be under Human resources. Again they are completely different roles. Recruitment and Staffing are services that Hr can utilize but does not necessarily fall under their scope and mandate. Recruitment can but staffing will absoloutely not. IF you would like to choose an umbrella category for recruitment and staffing then I suggest "Outsourcing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananaman4u (talk • contribs) 04:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many ways to help staff a company, temporary, contractual and permanent. I would not merge Recruitment and Staffing under the umbrella of HR. --JeffLeF 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC

HR Link here?
"HR" currently links to "Human Resources". I think it should become its own disambiguation page, instead of "HR (disambiguation), as several other very important pages such as "Home run" and "Heart rate" are also abbreviated "HR". Ch3wy (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 11:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Add "Human Resources for Nonprofits" section?
Human resources for nonprofit organizations have some fundamental differences as compared to for-profit organizations, such as legal issues, internal & external stakeholders, and being mission driven.

Please reply with suggestions, criticisms, additional resources, etc.

Here are a few links to justify the addition of this section:


 * Idealist.org's Nonprofit HR Overview (U.S.A.)


 * HR Council for the Voluntary/Non-profit Sector (Canada)


 * Centerpointforleaders.org's Guide to HR for small nonprofits (U.S.A.)

NithSong 16:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant External Links
I have deleted the external link to the Eastern European People Summit. It is not relevant and does not provide access without sign up. I note the protracted discussion above regarding the inclusion of the Employment Law Information Network. I would like to propose the link to the Human Resources Benchmarking Association is removed for similar reasons. I have no axe to grind about the merits of the Association which no doubt has a value for those that join it. However, this site does not represent the HR community as the SHRM and the CIPD. Despite the impression is not a wholly NFP organisation but has commercial associations. It is aimed at largely North American based corporates and its role is around benchmarking HR functions and activities which is a very narrow area of applied HR activity. Finially, the site adds no value for the reader of this Wikipedia artical seeking further information it does not provide direct access but requires sign up. Unless there are compelling arguements put forward to retain I will go ahead an delete in a weeks timeTmol42 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC

Human Resources In The Real World
Is there anyone else out there who thinks this article represents little of what HR is about in the real world both from a practitioner and academic point of view? It has suffered more recently from being subverted on the one hand by a series of edits which are little more than the polemics of 1970's socialism and on the other hand by what look like misplaced extracts from somewhat out of date 2nd division textbooks on HR. Some sensible edits were attempted by User:59.95.204.120 on 2nd Decem ber which at least removed some of the superfluous material which were incoherent and generally not relevant. However, I see today after a series of mainly mischievous edits which have been deleted they have been added back in, possibly inadvertently through reverting.

I could go one but I think you will get my drift. So if there others ho agree with some sound knowledge / practical experience of HR plus one or more with an academic background in HRM who can contribute the equally essential HR research rigour, theories, underpinning citations, HR trends and maybe others with an interest in the historical perspective of HR or its inter-relationship with related topcis, please could you post your thoughts and comments. I realise there is also an issue with integrating the differing models and divergent approaches on HR that will exist in different countries / cultures but that will just add to the challenge, I guess. Depending on what comes from this call to arms we can see if there are as they say some resources available to undertake the project!Tmol42 (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

HUMAN RESOURCE CAN BE DEFINED AS ANYTHING WHICH CAN BE UESD TO DEVELOP OR IMPROVE OUR WAY OF LIFE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.85.21 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

hr motivation
in human ressource i have realised that staff are the core backbone of acompany.so i ssugest that all managers should always motivate junior staffs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.209.16.149 (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A,JSDLS A;DSU ;ZUFPUIAPIUSDFJ AFUIPT UQIUITPAUFHQPREIA[ AQ85I8PADUF Aie['0PI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.92.57 (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Corporatese
I'm not going to start an edit war about it, but I still regard the term "Human resources" as corporatese. The correct word in the English language is "Personnel". User:Biscutin (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is totally incorrect to say 'Personnel' is the correct word. Whether one uses 'Human Resources' to denote the function within an organisation that deals with employees / employment matters etc etc, or the activities of that function or the wider uses of the term used in academic and economic circles. Human Resources when correctly applied also relates to a much broader range of activities which typically will be closely integrated to the central purpose of the organisation. The usage of the 'Personnel' in everyday terms has largely been superseded. Whilst a relatively small number of organisation may continue to use the term Personnel it has been largely been relegated in usage to define a very narrow and low level set of administrative tasks carried out as part of the wider HR remit. Ironically the term Corporatese seems to warrant being rewarded by being adopted as a victim of its own definition.Tmol42 (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing that users of Corporatese are unable to perceive how revealing it is, like a Freudian slip. To call people "Human resources" is deeply insulting and demonstrates a very low regard for employees. Is this the impression employers want to give to their employees? Is it an attempt to make them feel worthless and insignificant? Biscuittin (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comments amount to nothing more than an ad hominem arguement and add nothing to further to the discussion about Human Resources. In good faith I will ignore your inappropriate choice of language relating to my attempt to explain what Human Resources is about. Please stick to making comments related to the article.Tmol42 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing against you, personally. I am arguing against the use of the term "Human resources" in general. To me, it is one of the worst insults I have ever heard, but perhaps I am the only person in the world who feels this way. Biscuittin (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To enlarge on why I find the term so offensive - whenever I read it, I think of science fiction films like Soylent Green where people are made into food. I am astonished that businesses, universities, etc. could choose such an inappropriate phrase. I find it obscene. Biscuittin (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * End of rant. I will try not to say any more about it. Biscuittin (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The main journal in the UK is called Personnel Today which suggests that this matter has not been settledAlnpete (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that most companies have an HR department, which obviously stands for Human Resources. Personnel is more or less a corporate jargon.Pm master 09:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Personnel Vs HR
One cannot help think that this "modern expression" of 'HR' to be rather insulting. Makes one feel like a work unit like a machine. What else will they be resourcing other than humans? The odd space alien perhaps, maybe a few animals. Personnel describes this role in detail in one word. To add, most decent professional organisations tend to have a brass plate on the door saying Personnel, users of the term HR tend to be inexperienced young kids who are sucked in to the new ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.49.110 (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Please discuss: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.49.110 (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Random comment
Lawyers who are paid to evaluate evidence, risk of loss, and media exposure and make all attempts to eliminate previously listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.109.11 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Tidy and copy edit
This article has progressively become dogged with ad hoc additions, either in seems openly plagiarised from uncited text books, copy and pasted from what appear to be various HR student essays or by the incorporation of what I concluded amounts to just WP:FRINGE. As a consequence the article contained several paragraphs attempting to say the same thing in fairly incoherent language. As per WP:BRD I have attempted to do a significant cleanup removing as much of the above as possible whilst trying to retain the essence. I have also reduced and rewritten the lead to begin to reflect the contents of the article. There are several sections without cites so have added some tags and one section which appears to stray away from HR and needs reworking and condensing. Inevitably I may have transgressed here and there so if any of my amendments or deletions offend, apologies please re edit and / or come and discuss here. Much of the text would benefit from some consensus about wherher it is valid and importantly by the citing of some additional quality sources.Tmol42 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)