I got a new co-worker (product manager) who seemed like a nice guy, well-spoken, seemed to listen to us techies, fun to have lunch with. The only thing that seemed "off" about him at first was that he unironically referred to people as resources. "We can deploy without a proper review for now since the design resource is on holiday". Like, there was only one "design resource", he was called Andrew and their desks were next to each other! I thought it was weird, but I just brushed it off since other than that he seemed fine.

At first. After a few months, though, he proved himself to be classical politicking a---hole and a horrible bully if you got on his bad side. I take that as a lesson to trust my instincts more.

I think the difference is that at the C-level, executives play checkers, where every piece is the same and you can allocate "resources" (aka people) as commodities. Below that we're playing chess and every person is a distinct individual. It's at the transition in either the hierarchy or in this case you're co-working trying to position himself in the former while working in the latter where it gets unpleasant and weird.

Did everyone knew Andrew and what his role was?

Though I must admit that design resource is hardcore :) I must try that at the office and look at the reactions.

always when i hear someone calls a fellow colleague a ressource (in corporate context) or device (in sport context) it always proved true that these people were manipulative as hell.

What’s an example of the device usage?

in dance sport calling your partner a sport device ;)

I think the R in ERP systems might have contributed to this ghastly habit.

Not really, though you are probably just making jokes.

"Resources" can surely mean "assets" (note that the relevant resources are selected...), which is not at all diminishing or ghastly, and also honestly means "what is available to fulfil a need". Implication of «expoitation» (or, even farther, "expendability") is not necessary, though "being used" is surely there - but that is the job itself.

"Capital" implies "investment" - what you invest is the principal, "capital", while the additional returns are the secondary part -, not necessarily that «ownership» that implies a loss of freedom: contractually, you allow your employer to make your work part of an investment. Again, it is the job itself. The capital is what you have invested and returns after having brought fruit: again, they are assets.

Terms have broad semantics, it is never a good idea to interpret with partiality. :)

Edit: I am not denying that some employers may de facto as if interpret "resources" and "capital" dishumanly: I am stating that the fault is not in the jargon.

What does "People Management Team" mean? That's what our HR has adopted, I think to sound less scary but to me it comes across like total social control.

> Human Capital" implies your employer owns you.

Which goes to show how correct Marx was, at least from a sociological perspective.

Well, Marx will always appear correct from a Sociological perspective. It's at the foundation of that perspective.

This must be some new meaning of the word "sociological" of which I was previously unaware.

I took it as a synonym for sociology.