[lelanthran]

> I dunno, it kind of accurately reflects the view that in capitalist firms employees are resources, e.g. to be exploited.

Not that accurate, in my view: a resource is something that's a positive thing to be exploited.

"Human resources" in most companies are not there primarily to exploit the employee to their full potential/productivity/burnout level. They're there to protect the company from the employees!

[bartread]

That’s true but also a bit reductionist. And even in that regard, what they federally do is assist managers. So, for example, if a manager has an underperforming team member HR will ensure that manager follows process in applying performance management so that the manager follows process and doesn’t expose the company to liability.

Beyond this they’re also often key players in recruitment marketing, employer branding, hiring and selection, understanding the broader employment market to ensure pay and benefits are inline with desired industry norms, health and wellbeing, and the list goes on.

None of this is ever perfect and, of course, we can all think of companies where it’s been highly dysfunctional.

But, nonetheless, claiming all they do is protect the company from employees is still too reductive.

[lelanthran]

I agree with your entire response except this:

> But, nonetheless, claiming all they do is protect the company from employees is still too reductive.

I didn't claim that that is all they do; I'm claiming that that is their primary purpose.