quote:

Human Resources" suggests we're the same as that length of metal, that piece of paper, that carburrettor- it makes people 'things'. It's a vile term allowing for no individual characteristics within it.

But people are things. They are not concepts or theories; they exist. That they are complex things doesn't alter the fact that they are things.

And I see no reason why calling people by a different terms means that there can be no individual characteristics.

Kalleh implies that she would prefer the term "employees". But that term, also, allows for no individual characteristics since it categorises a group.

And why do I prefer "human resources"? Because the human resources of an organisation are not always employees. I was, for a while, part of the human resources of Kalleh's organisation - but I have never been employed by them. Human resources can be employees, contractors, volunteers, owners - any human that is involved with an organisation.

quote:

But people are things.

The definition of things is interesting. I am doing a theme on wordcraftjr about words that have opposite meanings, and thing nearly fits that description. As you can see, one definition is "inanimate objects," while another is "a creature." My husband reminded me of "living things." BTW, also see how they define it as an "idea." They also define things as possessions; I sincerely hope that we aren't considering people to be possessions.

BTW, Richard, I would argue that you were a temporary employee of ours. Our business office, in fact, classified you that way.

quote:

BTW, Richard, I would argue that you were a temporary employee of ours. Our business office, in fact, classified you that way.

I was working for you but not as an employee - regardless of how your office chose to classify me.

I was under a contract for services, not for employment, and any business lawyer will be able to tell you the essential differences. Most importantly you paid me only for the tasks I did for you - and you wouldn't have paid me had it not been satisfactory. An employee is paid for the hours of service, more or less regardless of what he or she does in those hours.

Here is the definition in Dictionary.com for employee; if that isn't what you did, I will eat my hat!

"A person who works for another in return for financial or other compensation."

You were our temporary employee, just as our temporary workers and consultants are. No business lawyer, at least here in the U.S., would agree with your stance.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

I can't speak for US Law although I'd be surprised if it were all that different. However. in English Law an employee is one who has contract of employment. I had no such thing. I had a contract for services.

A simple example shows the difference. I had a contact for services with your organisation. Had I failed to provide them they could have witheld payment on the grounds of non-performance. Had I disagreed I could have sued for my money but I had no employee's rights.

If your assistant, who has a contract of employment, failed to produce some work for you, you couldn't withold payment of salary for non-performance. You could, maybe, sack her as a penalty for breach of her employment contract - but that's all. Any money you lost as a result of her failure to perform would be lost and gone.

There are many other differences as well but that's the main one.

Incidentally, in UK Law, all employees must have a written contract of employment; no such requirement exists in respect of those working under a contract for services; a verbal contract is quite sufficent.

Shu says that I shouldn't be making legal judgments, so I will just say that our company's attorney considers our temporary workers to be temporary employees. I won't make a legal judgment on that.

quote:

Incidentally, in UK Law, all employees must have a written contract of employment; no such requirement exists in respect of those working under a contract for services; a verbal contract is quite sufficent.

You had a written contract with us. I suppose this is a matter of semantics. You consider it a contract for services, I consider it a contract of temporary employment where you delivered your services. At any rate, since you didn't even meet with anyone in our human resources department, technically you weren't a human resource to us anyway. Semantics again!

This side discussion doesn't convince me, of course, that human resources is an appropriate phrase. While most companies and workplaces use it, I think, in time, people will change the phraseology. I've already seen that happening in healthcare, for exactly the reasons that have been posted here.

quote:

You had a written contract with us.

Indeed. But it would not have been a legal requirement under English Law. A written contract is, however, mandatory for employment.

And my contract was (just like that for the window cleaner, the pest controller or the man who comes to fix the pohotocopier a contract for services - regardless of what your HR department chose to call it.

There are other differences between the contractor and the employee as well as Shu will surely teel you. If a contractor makes an error the blame attaches to him, not the person or organistion that contracted with him. If an employee makes an error then the employing company is responsible (the principle of vicarious responsibility).

Employees and contractors are two different things - even though thay can both be categorised as a human resource (regardless of whether or not they met anyone from the HR department). In much the ssame way, a capital injection is a financial resource, regardless of whether or not the cash was counted by the accounts department.