|
The term “human resource”… its use, lumps the labor force in with
inanimate resources and elements such as coal, oil, iron ore, etc.
which, although they are essential to certain day to day operations,
do not represent the human element — the Faces of Labor, our
family, friends, neighbors or the community as a whole. But
our society has accepted the term, and as such, I am compelled to
address its usage.
I, for one, have always found the term “human resource” to be
ironically misleading. Even though the term has the word
“human” in it, my perception is that it is used to de-humanize the
work force. The “human resource” becomes a commodity to broker
or insert into the equation on the expense side of
bookkeeping…numbers on a page, not faces on the production line.
“But, hey, it’s not personal…it’s business!” Funny how that
designation is used to justify any action regardless of the outcome.
I find it interesting that many employers will, however, choose to
recognize the “human” side when they are asked to assume some
responsibility for the “human resource”. Example: an employer
will purchase equipment (computers, power tools, machinery, etc.) to
make their business a success. They will maintain and repair
that equipment either in house or by the use of purchased
maintenance agreements and view the action as a cost of doing
business. But many of those same employers refuse to
“maintain” their work force by providing healthcare, stating that
the employees, by virtue of their human side, should assume that
responsibility. How convenient and yet, how ill-advised!
If you ask an employee of one of those non-providing employers about
healthcare availability, they most likely will scoff at the question
and remark to the lack of concern for employees by their employer.
Doesn’t an ailing employee hamper the production line just as
readily as a faulty piece of equipment? Doesn’t a failure of
the mechanics of an employee’s human body have the same negative
impact as the failure of a piece of production equipment?
Governor Rendell, at a recent event in Johnstown, PA, used the
analogy of the Fram Oil Filter commercials in reference to
healthcare. It is one I myself have used numerous times. In
the commercial an auto mechanic states “You can pay me now or you
can pay me later!” alluding to the cost difference between replacing
the oil filter in your car now, or replacing the entire motor,
later. Money spent maintaining the health of the human
resource is much more cost effective in the early stages and an
employee without healthcare will postpone any action until the
illness forces it regardless of the cost.
Now dissenters to this line of reasoning will say, “Yes, but when a
piece of equipment fails, we just replace it, while an employee
failure has the potential for continued cost (Worker’s compensation,
disability retirement, etc.)”. My two-part answer is first a
statement, “All the more reason to address it early!” And a
question, “How many pieces of equipment are going to take on the
role of consumer for the products or services you are offering?”
Every human is, at some level, a consumer and our society is, after
all, consumer driven. So in addition to focusing on free
market and economic development, businesses should be equally
concerned with consumer development (and maintenance). Healthy
consumers create a healthy economy. So, invest in the economy
by assuring healthcare to your “consumer resource”. Your human
resource will be appreciative and most likely reward you with
loyalty and hard work.
|
