VinegarChunks comments on Open-minded HR

[–] VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 13 points 1 month ago (5 children)

A lot of places also stopped calling their employees “employees” and started calling them “associates”. What’s up with that?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It's a dimn effort to make employees feel part of the gang in a vain effort to keep them from quitting.

They could actually pay them properly and treat them like humans, but it costs money to do so.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Really? I have always considered “associate” to sound like you aren’t a member of the organization. You’re just loosely associated with the organization.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I always figured it's to de-emphasize the fact that you have bosses and owners. Employee implies that clearly, while associate makes it seem more like you're working with colleagues of your own volition. All in the service of making you infinitesimally more pliable.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago

No it means more like "colleague".

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Boozilla@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

That "associate" thing has been around for decades, and varies by region. In the US it was mostly used for retail employees back in the day, not as much as corporate workers. But it goes in and out of style. When an employer adopts it or drops it, it's probably because some executive is trying to make a "splash".

permalink

fedilink

source

parent