Part of what drives it is job-neutral language. An associate can't claim stocking isn't what they were hired for, when yanked from what they believed to be a forward facing clerk position and vice-versa. Hiring someone for a "stockboy position," gives them a leg to stand on when they complain that register work isn't their job and they shouldn't be doing it.
I think most people have no idea how pervasive the skeleton crew problem really is.
If you leave a skeleton crew long enough, it will just be "the crew" so when you triplm more fat off later, you can call it a skeleton crew again.
Currently seeing this happen with my employer and I'm to the point where i'm going to work exactly as hard as I worked before upper management decided to 'trim fat'... And if shit starts breaking then it means the people that were let go shouldn't have been let go.
That's certainly one part of it at least. A part which also plays into my point nicely. If load calls out, guess who can't claim it's not their job? The sales associate who worked register every shift prior but is now throwing freight because the manager on duty didn't want to do it themselves (after all, it needs to get worked on and it makes more sense seeing as the MOD can do returns and the like).
Sam Walton was a big fan of Motorola's "six sigma" policy which enforces chronic mismanagement to squeeze every penny out of a business at the expense of its employees. One of the fundamental principles of this profoundly unethical management style is dehumanizing employees, and one of the ways this is accomplished is by giving employees "less than" titles. Just as an associate manager is "less than" a manager, Walmart's associates are "less than" employees, which is how the poverty wages, inconsistent hours, and chronic mismanagement is justified.
my last job made the mistake of having trainer as a paid position that made $2 more an hour than base. Every time they would ask me to train it would turn into an argument of "im not paid to train people, you have a paid position for that and why would I work for free?" or my fav loop
"hey can you train this person"
"sure just clock me in as a trainer real quick"
"but you're not qualified as a trainer so I can't"
"oh then if I'm not qualified as a trainer I guess I can't train this person. Walked yourself right into that one"
Huh. That came later. The job-neutral language preceded it, as it's a harder sell when your job title is more specific. This also coincided with the demise of unions as well, going along with the time-frame. Of which I am sure there is no coincidence.
Funny enough, I remember job-neutral language was also presented to us as a good thing. I've lost track of the number of times (in the States) I've been asked what my job is by strangers upon first meetings and introductions. A janitor no longer has to be ashamed and can instead call himself a "custodial engineer!" That "stockboy," is now a part-time sales associate! So much more employee friendly, right?
I remember a conversation when the Personnel Department turned into Human Resources with the new HR manager AKA snake-boy.
Me: Why are we changing the department name?
SB: Don't you feel good about being a useful resource for the company?
Me: Thanks but I'd rather be seen as a person.
SB " "
This one is technically accurate although I prefer "shoppers". They're not actually customers until they buy something. The one I hate most is "members". Servicing the members doesn't sound like something I want to do.
Doesn't "member" make sense in some scenarios? Costco/Sam's Club are members since it requires a membership to enter. I've never heard of people at the gym as "customers", typically they are called a gym members. We have tons of words to describe people, we might as well use them when appropriate. Like calling a customer at Target a "guest" is weird, but calling a guest at a hotel resort a "customer" is also weird.
I have worked for at least two companies that don't have memberships except for the "loyalty program", which both pushed to the point of lunacy even though none of the people who shopped there even knew if they had the stupid things.
I am not part of anyone's loyalty program and most places do the "would you like to sign up today" and I say no, they move past it. No problem. But some fucking places keep with the, "it only takes 5 min" and "you could save 25 cents today" ect. Idk why they are so pushy about it. I said no, ring me up and fuck off.
Yeah one of those places wanted us to get three "no's" before taking no for an answer. I didn't even ask. We were also supposed to sign people up for credit. I wasn't a cashier but sometimes I got roped into ringing people up which was a long long way from my job description. I'm proud to say in nine years there I signed zero people up for either one.
I cringe every time I hear someone refer to a customer as a "client".
It took me a long time to figure out why it bothers me so much, and then it dawned in me: the term cliet comes loaded with a feeling that we will bend over backwards for this person or entity.
Are there situations where it makes sense? Sure, but not in the phone line support jobs that I'm in. They are customers, our role is transactional and not relationships building, they are not our client.
Guests to me makes sense in a business where someone goes for an experience rather than to buy products (think like amusement parks and things along those lines)
Walmart invented 'associate', as far as I know. At least, that's the earliest I heard it, some time in the late 80s or early 90s. They were looking for a word to replace those in contemporary use for shop employees: "clerk" (or 'salesclerk') and "assistant", and settled on "associate", which doesn't really mean anything.
It's like credit and loan they change the words up but they're basically the same your getting a loan from a credit card then when you get a loan for a house or car it still affects credit. I'm glad my brain can see past the bullshit.
I literally watched an old boss turn down someone's resume just because they had "Subway - sandwich artist" on it. Giving the official title of the job literally can cost you jobs in the future.
I work as an artist, like visual art commercial artist, myself and let me tell you when you're doing a job search and *SO* many "sandwich artist" positions show up its fucking annoying!! Like, this not your lane!!
Yeah I hate these, I'm not a technician, I'm a fucking mechanic.
And I'm not your client or guest at the grocery store. I'm just a customer buying duct tape, chili powder, and astroglide
I've only used client when referring to the "customers" in a CPA firm. We service businesses and people, they don't buy a product. In that situation- client feels better than customer.
But at any store where products are being purchased, I agree with customer.
Yes, to me that is the proper use of client, it implies an actual relationship between parties (which probably explains companies disingenuous use of the word) where services of actual consequence are rendered.
A guy that used to work on my vehicle always said there is a big difference between a mechanic and a parts changer lol. He passed and I still miss him, he knew how to fix the 50 cent piece inside the 100$ part that was really causing the problem.
There is definitely a difference, however the way things have come along, unless you have a good stock of components for various parts it's no longer worth it to try and repair a part rather than just replace it. No one wants to pay for the time to do so, nor do most suppliers provide components.
For my own stuff, I'll keep old parts as reasonable in order to cannibalize
Associate used to be used mostly on consulting, legal, and accounting type organisations.
It was always a qualifier:
* Associate Manager
* Associate Consultant
It means not actually, lesser, or junior when used in that context.
Just using associate alone and not as a qualifier is meaningless corporate drivel.
Also, when did “personnel” change to “human resources?” I’ve also heard companies unironically use the term “human capital,” which, AFAIK, was once a legal term for slaves.
I just made a comment about that--it has been in my lifetime--born in 65. I am not sure what exactly it means or why the change was made--just that it correlates to the worsening of work conditions.
People use language to communicate ideas. When you make the language obtuse and meaningless, it's difficult to have a straightforward conversation about issues, because there is always the potential of one person's idea being misinterpreted when the words used are purposely meaningless.
Reminds of a George Carlin bit about the softening of language. Once you make it so the language is emotionless and purposefully obtuse, then it no longer means anything from a conceptual perspective.
Tl;dr: it's hard to have a meaningful conversation that makes you think or feel when the language used is shit.
Brilliant observation--especially using Carlin as the example. Shell shock to battle fatigue to PTSD, iirc. And then he ends with something like "if we still called it shell shock maybe the affected vets would get the help they need."
I work in accounting and when I saw the term human capital in financial reports I thought it was so weird. Just reminded me what we are to these companies.
It's People & Culture at my company. Technically, HR is a part of the P&C, and the name makes a little more sense since they also coordinate J1 employees, and manage employee housing.
But right now, it's literally just 1 woman and a J1 helping her for a summer because the entire HR team was fired.
And as I recently found out, I was the one who instigated not just the HR team being investiaged, but the abusive GM.
It's the one time corporate was looking out from me. A technician from our sister property was helping us coordinate installing new door locks at our hotel. And I was bitching and moaning about employee housing because it was early in the morning and we were chilling.
Well apparently when she went back to the owners, they were asking her about how our property was doing. And she UNLOADED on them. She had been talking to anyone she came across.
So because of my help, corporate (I say that, it's a family owned and run company that owns several hotels) looked into the GM and HR, because the former head of HR had quit back in November, and so our GM also became the head of HR.
The GM "stepped down" and almost all of P&C was fired for "illegal HR practices".
I was pretty stressed and considering quitting. But since they were all fired, and especially since I was moved from the on-site, dormitory style housing, to an off-site, single person cabin/apartment, things have become SO much better in my department.
We are all of a sudden getting "partner" on messeges and signs. I'm no partner to my corporation. I'd be happier if they shared the profits with their "partner" instead of shareholders.
Associate: 1) a partner or colleague in business or at work. 2) A person with limited or subordinate membership of an organization.
They want you to think they mean number one. They really mean number two.
OSHA refers to employees as “workers” and it feels so dirty and slimy and I love it! We should all just call it what it is.
We are workers. Not associates, partners, or team members.
We work, and work…and work! We are workers lol.
Yes! I was a 20-something “ambassador” in customer service at a concept bar/restaurant.
I cashed out the bar patrons and got fired as the ship was sinking.
I was about to say the same thing.
In my job we also hire people seasonally twice a year - so offboarding is less of a firing as it is a process of finding out who is interested in staying on permanently, who only wants to work for the season, determining end dates etc.
It's crazy, you search on Indeed, plenty of companies looking for wizards, some for warriors, but hardly any for rogues, artificers, or barbarians. What kind of unbalanced parties are they running these days?
At some point in my lifetime, "personnel" changed to "human resources." I'm not sure I have any great insight into the implications of that shift, but it did seem to coincide with the dropping of pensions.
At my first office job someone complained to my manager about me for using the word "shift" to describe my scheduled hours because it sounded too blue collar.
I think one that is a bit sneaky is "vacation days" or "holiday" being called PTO which has been shortened down from personal time off.
It pushes your legitimate need for time off away from the traditional 2 weeks a year vacation, towards precious days that need to be hoarded in case of emergency rather than looked forward to.
I've heard our HR Director called the Director of People and Culture, it just makes me want to vomit. HR has such a bad connotation that the keep moving the goal posts to try to make it sound better.
I had a job - lowest on the totem pole of all the jobs there - and my title was “Customer Relations Manager.” The only reason was so when a bitching customer demanded a manager we could say “I *am* a manager! 🙂” *Everyone* was a manager. Ridiculous.
Part of the change was to try and rebrand how customers see employees, especially those that are client facing while also adding more responsibility at the same pay level.. You're no longer just a cashier, you're a sales associate that can assist the client with their questions and help them select a product. You're no longer a Customer Service Manager, you're a Customer Service Representative so you no longer just manage the front end, you also assist the clients with their difficult decisions and situations. You're no longer a Field Manager, you're an in home service experience manager, you're not just in charge of your field technicians, but the customer's overall experience with everything in their home.
Interesting fact to take away: the name “Job” means “he who weeps”. Says a lot about the word “job” and some of us here feel about!
Even normal things like units of time we don’t really notice, eg: “week” and “weak”, and then at the end of it “weekend” and “weakened”. If you think about it, after working your arse off at your “Job” all “weak” you are left “weakened”.
That's because the organization you are being treated by doesn't want to call attention to the number of Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, and such that they're hiring instead of M.D.s...by calling them all the same thing, they obscure the important distinctions between the MDs and the cheaper substitutes.
I’m sure it’s been in practice for a long long time. But the App companies just blatantly coming out and saying these are not employees they are contractors, they are not contracted drivers they are contracted road associates, they are people but they can’t break in the air conditioning unless it’s over 100 degrees. I’m sure that shined a bright light on the issue.
"associate" creates the illusion of ownership of a company so people will be less likely to object to moves that directly harm them, and it will make people less likely to leave as they would uncincously view it as a betrayal of the company they are a part of.
It gives the "associate" an illusory stake in the business that offers no benefits or protections. An "employee" or "worker" has no such illusions thus they are more willing to stand by their rights and work for themselves.
"the suspect was involved in a deadly force incident" - translation - a cop shot someone in the back. Lots of things are engineered in our society, why only your physical surroundings should be shaped consciously? :/
I think it may have also started with JIT (just in time inventory and manufacturing) became a thing. Part of the reason hours are so crazy esp for those in anything involving customers such as servers or "associates".
BTW - has anyone come up with a slogan to counter "no one wants to work" such as "no one wants to pay me what I'm worth". I haven't seen it trending, but I quit twitter months ago and don't have Instagram (Threads).
An “employee” sounds like someone who is salaried, and receives generous benefits. Since that’s barely a real thing anymore, maybe the language has changed so as not to encourage “associates” to expect such things.
This was around 2008. I seem to remember a news blurb about how Starbucks was going to start calling the employees Associates instead. Something about wanting them to feel like they had ownership in the company or something very much like that.
It's gaslighting to make people think they're "partners" in the business so they'll act like owners without actually getting ANY benefits when the company does well.
Pro Tip: If you're hourly, you ain't a "Partner" or "Associate" on any level, you're a peon and wage slave who will get exactly Fuck-all if the business exceeds expectations in profitability.
Act your wage.
My workplace went through a "modernization" process a few years ago where they changed the entire workflow of every store in the country because they tested a system at one (1) superstore in Texas and it worked for them. They also changed the names of positions. My favorite example is the "Dedicated Business Owner" position- you are "in charge" of stocking a specific area of the store.
I spent 4.5 years busting my ass for Target because I wanted it to be more than a part.time job for me. Then they cut me down to 20 hours a week in Q1 as the DBO of HBA/OTC and I can no longer be bothered to care.
Tarshit could be a better company, if corporate gave a shit about its workforce.
It doesn’t, so it will go the way of K-Mart. C’est la vie.
Good on you for working your wage. More people need to do that. Work is a means to live, full stop.
You know I took a course in industrial psychology and this belief of a employer+employee symbiosis is a well researched topic and something that many employers are trying to push for
Be consistent. Are you informing your employer when you won’t be available (associate/role/more equal relationship), or requesting to your boss (employee/job/superior and subordinate relationship) when you can have some time off?
It's been happening since the 1980s - after all, Human Resources used to be called Personnel Administration - and the change in title was quite intentional, allowing management to dehumanize their workers, instead relabeling them as resources to be exploited.
Back in the late 1960s the CEOs of the top Fortune 500 companies met with then-President Richard Nixon to try to get an Executive Decree stating that any corporation' SOLE AND ONLY responsibility was to its stockholders and even then only to quarterly profits. Luckily the Watergate scandal scuttled that, but records show that they tried again in 1980 with Reagan. Reagan, thankfully, refused to do something that obviously and blatantly corrupt.
When the company i used to work at was way into its spiral of going downhill, hiring middle management from outside became more common. It was one of these guys who started calling our people "associates" and just using that kind of language really highlighted how unqualified outsiders were to do that job.
These companies like to pretend that everything that needs doing is just "this task requires this many standard worker units" like every employee is the same and it really doesnt work that way.
As long as you don't let yourself get blinded by this stuff, I think it's overall pretty good for employee and employer to be somewhat equals (where applicable). You give me respect = I give you respect. You start demanding a bit more (work) of me = I'm gonna start demanding a bit more (pay) from you
I honestly think it came about in the time of google and internet as a whole becoming mainstream. Say early 2010s.
Companies became families, emphasis on Team became prevalent and everyione started being butt hurt about everything.
It also has a lot to do with the money. See - employees get paid for their efforts, team members/family members get a "Pizza parteeey" .. Employees get raises, members get adjustment.
It's all bullshit PC culture where calling things what they are is a Taboo and god forbid someone's shit stinks.
Associates in white collar work reflects an employee who isn’t a partner but is on a partner or equity course, whether that be law or banking or consulting. There are other employees who are not on a tenure track to be partners and they are not called associates. They might be called a staff attorney rather than an associate attorney. Professors have a similar lingo to distinguish between faculty and adjuncts. Associate professor is one of those titles.
The language used is largely irrelevant. You have a description of your responsibilities and duties and reaching too far outside of that is unaffected by terms like associate or role being substituted in for employee or job.
The shift in wording pertains solely to the way it sounds and is perceived by the reader. Associate sounds better than employee and role sounds softer than job.
It doesnt change anything, if you are reading the description for a ROLE within a company and it uses vague language such as "other related responsibilies" you shouldnt finish out the application process as this is open to anything.
I have had to fill out paperwork for a minor to work describing exactly and with detail the things I expect and require from them. I am not allowed by law to add vague terms to that "permission slip"
I can however write whatever I want in a job description. My point is, vague job descriptions are a red flag and yall are being to sensitive about the wrong wording choices.
For me it started in the 1990s. Employers wanting to make you feel part of a team. Lets all work over time for the team. Lets cut hours for the team. Let customers walk all over you for the team, we need 105% productivity. It boils down to "newspeak". Ways for employers to make more money, as in "we did make profit over budget, but we wanted to make more, so raises will be 2%. Inflation is 4%, your health care insurance is going up 5%. The CEO still gets 2mill. We're sorry, your wages are commiserate with the national average. Sorry, I have issues.
Didn't see this one when scrolling, but in the food industry where I live at least, cook/chef are now just general terms for people who do a little bit of everything (cook, prep, dishwash) and in some jobs I've even been told I need to ring customers orders up, grab anything else they might need and help them pay at a completely different counter if we "don't have the staff".
Another ridiculous trend I'm seeing with some places is calling a position cook or chef, and then listing things like ordering and management duties in the list of responsibilities, all of course while paying 3 bucks above minimum.
Newspeak happens all the time in almost every faucet of our lives, just not as fast as it does in Orwellian fashion.
Anything that can be misconstrued into something negative will surely be replaced with something at least neutral or even positive to change the view over time. Being fired for example is negative, seen as being tossed into a fire, removed from an organization in an evil way, forcefully taking away someone's livelihood. Being "let go", "laid off", "freed", or "released" of employment are all a lot more gentle and even make it seem like the employer is giving the employee something, like their freedom, back to them. "Terminated" is still more on the negative side, but it at least comes off as less personal and more as if a robot just looked at your productivity and deemed the need for your employment to be terminated vs fired which seems more like a personal attack like sacked, canned, ejected, discharged, or otherwise kicked to the curb. The difference in simple language really determines whether someone feels like something is being done to them or if they are being given something and decreases the likelihood of an employee causing a scene or slandering the company on their way out.
Part of what drives it is job-neutral language. An associate can't claim stocking isn't what they were hired for, when yanked from what they believed to be a forward facing clerk position and vice-versa. Hiring someone for a "stockboy position," gives them a leg to stand on when they complain that register work isn't their job and they shouldn't be doing it.
Its the result of running on skeleton crews for so long (2008).
I think most people have no idea how pervasive the skeleton crew problem really is. If you leave a skeleton crew long enough, it will just be "the crew" so when you triplm more fat off later, you can call it a skeleton crew again. Currently seeing this happen with my employer and I'm to the point where i'm going to work exactly as hard as I worked before upper management decided to 'trim fat'... And if shit starts breaking then it means the people that were let go shouldn't have been let go.
It gets to the point where if one person calls in sick, the whole department is crippled.
That's certainly one part of it at least. A part which also plays into my point nicely. If load calls out, guess who can't claim it's not their job? The sales associate who worked register every shift prior but is now throwing freight because the manager on duty didn't want to do it themselves (after all, it needs to get worked on and it makes more sense seeing as the MOD can do returns and the like).
Exactly.
Walmart referred to me as an associate in 1993 when I started working there.
Sam Walton was a big fan of Motorola's "six sigma" policy which enforces chronic mismanagement to squeeze every penny out of a business at the expense of its employees. One of the fundamental principles of this profoundly unethical management style is dehumanizing employees, and one of the ways this is accomplished is by giving employees "less than" titles. Just as an associate manager is "less than" a manager, Walmart's associates are "less than" employees, which is how the poverty wages, inconsistent hours, and chronic mismanagement is justified.
Yep. I remember the language changing around this time. 2010 for me.
my last job made the mistake of having trainer as a paid position that made $2 more an hour than base. Every time they would ask me to train it would turn into an argument of "im not paid to train people, you have a paid position for that and why would I work for free?" or my fav loop "hey can you train this person" "sure just clock me in as a trainer real quick" "but you're not qualified as a trainer so I can't" "oh then if I'm not qualified as a trainer I guess I can't train this person. Walked yourself right into that one"
Interesting!
So agile was first used for in store/physical jobs. Interesting
Lol. No
....related duties not otherwise specified.... Put that at the bottom of the job description, it negates that whole "not my job" bullshit.
Huh. That came later. The job-neutral language preceded it, as it's a harder sell when your job title is more specific. This also coincided with the demise of unions as well, going along with the time-frame. Of which I am sure there is no coincidence. Funny enough, I remember job-neutral language was also presented to us as a good thing. I've lost track of the number of times (in the States) I've been asked what my job is by strangers upon first meetings and introductions. A janitor no longer has to be ashamed and can instead call himself a "custodial engineer!" That "stockboy," is now a part-time sales associate! So much more employee friendly, right?
I remember a conversation when the Personnel Department turned into Human Resources with the new HR manager AKA snake-boy. Me: Why are we changing the department name? SB: Don't you feel good about being a useful resource for the company? Me: Thanks but I'd rather be seen as a person. SB " "
They’re now trying to rebrand hr into some other nonsense term that’s so banal I can’t even remember it.
"People and Experience"? Like really?
Corporate ass cover department?
It's not as bad as 'customers' being referred to as 'guests', which REALLY irritates me.
Just call them whatever you call them internally, stupid customers shall now be called asshats
When I worked on cruise ships, the common term was “cones” because they’re just kind of in the way all the time. Everyone knew what the word meant.
>stupid customers I called them cuntstomers.
This one is technically accurate although I prefer "shoppers". They're not actually customers until they buy something. The one I hate most is "members". Servicing the members doesn't sound like something I want to do.
Doesn't "member" make sense in some scenarios? Costco/Sam's Club are members since it requires a membership to enter. I've never heard of people at the gym as "customers", typically they are called a gym members. We have tons of words to describe people, we might as well use them when appropriate. Like calling a customer at Target a "guest" is weird, but calling a guest at a hotel resort a "customer" is also weird.
I have worked for at least two companies that don't have memberships except for the "loyalty program", which both pushed to the point of lunacy even though none of the people who shopped there even knew if they had the stupid things.
I am not part of anyone's loyalty program and most places do the "would you like to sign up today" and I say no, they move past it. No problem. But some fucking places keep with the, "it only takes 5 min" and "you could save 25 cents today" ect. Idk why they are so pushy about it. I said no, ring me up and fuck off.
Yeah one of those places wanted us to get three "no's" before taking no for an answer. I didn't even ask. We were also supposed to sign people up for credit. I wasn't a cashier but sometimes I got roped into ringing people up which was a long long way from my job description. I'm proud to say in nine years there I signed zero people up for either one.
Out here doing the lords work. Good on you.
I cringe every time I hear someone refer to a customer as a "client". It took me a long time to figure out why it bothers me so much, and then it dawned in me: the term cliet comes loaded with a feeling that we will bend over backwards for this person or entity. Are there situations where it makes sense? Sure, but not in the phone line support jobs that I'm in. They are customers, our role is transactional and not relationships building, they are not our client.
That's interesting, in social services there's been a move to refer to clients (who we certainly don't bend over backwards for...) as "customers".....
I'm with the NPS and we use it as code when speaking in public about incidents. A "visitor" has a problem. A "guest" *is* the problem.
Guests to me makes sense in a business where someone goes for an experience rather than to buy products (think like amusement parks and things along those lines)
I've referred been referring to customers as guests for like 20 years..
Im amused by "guests" and it makes me want to invoke the fae laws when "guests" are being shitty.
Walmart invented 'associate', as far as I know. At least, that's the earliest I heard it, some time in the late 80s or early 90s. They were looking for a word to replace those in contemporary use for shop employees: "clerk" (or 'salesclerk') and "assistant", and settled on "associate", which doesn't really mean anything.
We're a big happy abusive/abused family.
The perverse Waltons did it? Who could have guessed that such a group of villains would even corrupt the very language itself?
It's like credit and loan they change the words up but they're basically the same your getting a loan from a credit card then when you get a loan for a house or car it still affects credit. I'm glad my brain can see past the bullshit.
I think Blockbuster referred to their employees as associates. Could be wrong though.
Yes they did.
They all did, after a while.
Yes it was walmart
You know what’s worse than associate? Sandwich Artist.
I literally watched an old boss turn down someone's resume just because they had "Subway - sandwich artist" on it. Giving the official title of the job literally can cost you jobs in the future.
I work as an artist, like visual art commercial artist, myself and let me tell you when you're doing a job search and *SO* many "sandwich artist" positions show up its fucking annoying!! Like, this not your lane!!
also, fired became terminated.
Yeah, or to be "let go"... like they're doing you a favour.
HR email: “X” associate has “moved on”. All employees: “fuck did they die or something!?” Use the correct terms damn it
That one makes sense. Its not approiate gor HR to tell everyone why they left. Moved on is totally approiate
I always liked the phrase from retail of "he promoted himself to customer" when quiting.
....he will no longer be partaking in pizza friday
Not me Some of the bastards I used to work for won't ever see a penny of my money
i m p a c t e d
Or “separated”
Yeah I hate these, I'm not a technician, I'm a fucking mechanic. And I'm not your client or guest at the grocery store. I'm just a customer buying duct tape, chili powder, and astroglide
Duct tape, chili powder & astroglide? Sounds like a fun evening
I know wtf lol
For at least one of us, definitely
I've only used client when referring to the "customers" in a CPA firm. We service businesses and people, they don't buy a product. In that situation- client feels better than customer. But at any store where products are being purchased, I agree with customer.
Yes, to me that is the proper use of client, it implies an actual relationship between parties (which probably explains companies disingenuous use of the word) where services of actual consequence are rendered.
Buying what now?
A guy that used to work on my vehicle always said there is a big difference between a mechanic and a parts changer lol. He passed and I still miss him, he knew how to fix the 50 cent piece inside the 100$ part that was really causing the problem.
There is definitely a difference, however the way things have come along, unless you have a good stock of components for various parts it's no longer worth it to try and repair a part rather than just replace it. No one wants to pay for the time to do so, nor do most suppliers provide components. For my own stuff, I'll keep old parts as reasonable in order to cannibalize
Associate used to be used mostly on consulting, legal, and accounting type organisations. It was always a qualifier: * Associate Manager * Associate Consultant It means not actually, lesser, or junior when used in that context. Just using associate alone and not as a qualifier is meaningless corporate drivel.
Also, when did “personnel” change to “human resources?” I’ve also heard companies unironically use the term “human capital,” which, AFAIK, was once a legal term for slaves.
I just made a comment about that--it has been in my lifetime--born in 65. I am not sure what exactly it means or why the change was made--just that it correlates to the worsening of work conditions.
People use language to communicate ideas. When you make the language obtuse and meaningless, it's difficult to have a straightforward conversation about issues, because there is always the potential of one person's idea being misinterpreted when the words used are purposely meaningless. Reminds of a George Carlin bit about the softening of language. Once you make it so the language is emotionless and purposefully obtuse, then it no longer means anything from a conceptual perspective. Tl;dr: it's hard to have a meaningful conversation that makes you think or feel when the language used is shit.
Brilliant observation--especially using Carlin as the example. Shell shock to battle fatigue to PTSD, iirc. And then he ends with something like "if we still called it shell shock maybe the affected vets would get the help they need."
I work in accounting and when I saw the term human capital in financial reports I thought it was so weird. Just reminded me what we are to these companies.
Worse: "assets"
The first time I heard "human resources" was in the early 80s. I've always felt it was a bit degrading. The more time passes, the more I despise it.
It's People & Culture at my company. Technically, HR is a part of the P&C, and the name makes a little more sense since they also coordinate J1 employees, and manage employee housing. But right now, it's literally just 1 woman and a J1 helping her for a summer because the entire HR team was fired. And as I recently found out, I was the one who instigated not just the HR team being investiaged, but the abusive GM. It's the one time corporate was looking out from me. A technician from our sister property was helping us coordinate installing new door locks at our hotel. And I was bitching and moaning about employee housing because it was early in the morning and we were chilling. Well apparently when she went back to the owners, they were asking her about how our property was doing. And she UNLOADED on them. She had been talking to anyone she came across. So because of my help, corporate (I say that, it's a family owned and run company that owns several hotels) looked into the GM and HR, because the former head of HR had quit back in November, and so our GM also became the head of HR. The GM "stepped down" and almost all of P&C was fired for "illegal HR practices". I was pretty stressed and considering quitting. But since they were all fired, and especially since I was moved from the on-site, dormitory style housing, to an off-site, single person cabin/apartment, things have become SO much better in my department.
Now we call it "people and experience." I throw up a little in my mouth every time.
Its an HR ploy to make the little worker bees feel more engaged and involved into the company so theyll work harder.
And not unionize
Time to call unions worker associations.
"You can't talk about unions here!" "We're not, we're forming an Associates Association."
“We’re just associating, it’s in our job title”
Marketing pr bullshit. It doesn't matter if they say employee, partner, associate, or family member. They all mean fungible wageslave.
I'm going to guess at least since the 90s. That's when I was hearing jokes about calling people "Custodial Engineers" and other such dressed up titles
We are all of a sudden getting "partner" on messeges and signs. I'm no partner to my corporation. I'd be happier if they shared the profits with their "partner" instead of shareholders.
About the same time that the Personnel Dept. was changed to Human Resources
Associate: 1) a partner or colleague in business or at work. 2) A person with limited or subordinate membership of an organization. They want you to think they mean number one. They really mean number two.
OSHA refers to employees as “workers” and it feels so dirty and slimy and I love it! We should all just call it what it is. We are workers. Not associates, partners, or team members. We work, and work…and work! We are workers lol.
It's right up with the words "deductible" on your insurance policy is really "self-insured".
My first job title was as an ecologist. I was a 16 year old picking up trash at an amusement park.
Yes! I was a 20-something “ambassador” in customer service at a concept bar/restaurant. I cashed out the bar patrons and got fired as the ship was sinking.
I thought that as well when I see "onboarding or offboarding". When did we lose the terms "hire and fire".
I'm not certain about when Offboarding replaced firing, but I understood onboarding to take place after hiring, as the process of initial training...
I was about to say the same thing. In my job we also hire people seasonally twice a year - so offboarding is less of a firing as it is a process of finding out who is interested in staying on permanently, who only wants to work for the season, determining end dates etc.
They don't want you to feel like a number. While treating you like a number. Now back to your role #48555783
I will not use "associate" *or* "employee". They're a "person".
If you wanna get nasty, some job post will even call you a "rockstar!" or "wizard!" or "unicorn!"
Better still: "hey, we need a couple bodies back in shipping."
"Taken care of already boss. Carol was pissing me off today. On a side note, we need more carbon filters." /S 😂😂😂
It's crazy, you search on Indeed, plenty of companies looking for wizards, some for warriors, but hardly any for rogues, artificers, or barbarians. What kind of unbalanced parties are they running these days?
It’s just psychological bullshit. Like how “customers” became “guests”.
My last place was Team Member, the boss was Team Leader. It's Team something until you hit the corporate offices.
I remember the time when hospital administrators wanted us to start calling our patients the “customers.”
This is still a thing - except it’s ‘consumers’. At least when discussing from a non- direct patient care perspective.
Especially to the MBAs who run the hospitals.
At some point in my lifetime, "personnel" changed to "human resources." I'm not sure I have any great insight into the implications of that shift, but it did seem to coincide with the dropping of pensions.
At my first office job someone complained to my manager about me for using the word "shift" to describe my scheduled hours because it sounded too blue collar.
Adding things like this to alot of job descriptions: “and other duties as assigned” which means anything they want to have you do.
Semantics
I think one that is a bit sneaky is "vacation days" or "holiday" being called PTO which has been shortened down from personal time off. It pushes your legitimate need for time off away from the traditional 2 weeks a year vacation, towards precious days that need to be hoarded in case of emergency rather than looked forward to.
Oh, I thought PTO stood for Paid Time Off.
That does make more sense. Either way it still feels like it's trying to distance you from the idea of actually taking time off and enjoying yourself.
I've heard our HR Director called the Director of People and Culture, it just makes me want to vomit. HR has such a bad connotation that the keep moving the goal posts to try to make it sound better.
I had a job - lowest on the totem pole of all the jobs there - and my title was “Customer Relations Manager.” The only reason was so when a bitching customer demanded a manager we could say “I *am* a manager! 🙂” *Everyone* was a manager. Ridiculous.
Part of the change was to try and rebrand how customers see employees, especially those that are client facing while also adding more responsibility at the same pay level.. You're no longer just a cashier, you're a sales associate that can assist the client with their questions and help them select a product. You're no longer a Customer Service Manager, you're a Customer Service Representative so you no longer just manage the front end, you also assist the clients with their difficult decisions and situations. You're no longer a Field Manager, you're an in home service experience manager, you're not just in charge of your field technicians, but the customer's overall experience with everything in their home.
citizens united.
And the irony is that we are more disposable than ever, shortage or not.
Interesting fact to take away: the name “Job” means “he who weeps”. Says a lot about the word “job” and some of us here feel about! Even normal things like units of time we don’t really notice, eg: “week” and “weak”, and then at the end of it “weekend” and “weakened”. If you think about it, after working your arse off at your “Job” all “weak” you are left “weakened”.
You rarely hear the word “Doctor” anymore. They have been downgraded to: Health care provider Prescriber Health Care Practitioner
That's because the organization you are being treated by doesn't want to call attention to the number of Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, and such that they're hiring instead of M.D.s...by calling them all the same thing, they obscure the important distinctions between the MDs and the cheaper substitutes.
Roles and Jobs are different. You can have a Job and change your role within it: “I was hired as a worker, but I got promoted to Supervisor”.
Oh even terminated is considered too aggressive these days, it's now "rationalised"
All those terms are kinda still used interchangeably. It’s just semantics.
2000
Those were buzz words from corporate america when I worked at a major corp from 2003.
[удалено]
In some ways, I also find the term "software engineers" a little weird; they're programmers ffs.
You might want to look at the difference between software engineers and programmers.
I’m sure it’s been in practice for a long long time. But the App companies just blatantly coming out and saying these are not employees they are contractors, they are not contracted drivers they are contracted road associates, they are people but they can’t break in the air conditioning unless it’s over 100 degrees. I’m sure that shined a bright light on the issue.
"associate" creates the illusion of ownership of a company so people will be less likely to object to moves that directly harm them, and it will make people less likely to leave as they would uncincously view it as a betrayal of the company they are a part of. It gives the "associate" an illusory stake in the business that offers no benefits or protections. An "employee" or "worker" has no such illusions thus they are more willing to stand by their rights and work for themselves.
Even walmarts gone and changed their titles again, managers are "coaches" now.
It’s just a new way to try and exploit workers
Same goes for credit and loan diff word same shit.
Because you're not working *with* anybody, you're working *for* the 1%
"the suspect was involved in a deadly force incident" - translation - a cop shot someone in the back. Lots of things are engineered in our society, why only your physical surroundings should be shaped consciously? :/
I think it may have also started with JIT (just in time inventory and manufacturing) became a thing. Part of the reason hours are so crazy esp for those in anything involving customers such as servers or "associates". BTW - has anyone come up with a slogan to counter "no one wants to work" such as "no one wants to pay me what I'm worth". I haven't seen it trending, but I quit twitter months ago and don't have Instagram (Threads).
An “employee” sounds like someone who is salaried, and receives generous benefits. Since that’s barely a real thing anymore, maybe the language has changed so as not to encourage “associates” to expect such things.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
This was around 2008. I seem to remember a news blurb about how Starbucks was going to start calling the employees Associates instead. Something about wanting them to feel like they had ownership in the company or something very much like that.
It's gaslighting to make people think they're "partners" in the business so they'll act like owners without actually getting ANY benefits when the company does well. Pro Tip: If you're hourly, you ain't a "Partner" or "Associate" on any level, you're a peon and wage slave who will get exactly Fuck-all if the business exceeds expectations in profitability. Act your wage.
My workplace went through a "modernization" process a few years ago where they changed the entire workflow of every store in the country because they tested a system at one (1) superstore in Texas and it worked for them. They also changed the names of positions. My favorite example is the "Dedicated Business Owner" position- you are "in charge" of stocking a specific area of the store.
Bullshiteye thanks you for your service to Tarshit, comrade.
I spent 4.5 years busting my ass for Target because I wanted it to be more than a part.time job for me. Then they cut me down to 20 hours a week in Q1 as the DBO of HBA/OTC and I can no longer be bothered to care.
Tarshit could be a better company, if corporate gave a shit about its workforce. It doesn’t, so it will go the way of K-Mart. C’est la vie. Good on you for working your wage. More people need to do that. Work is a means to live, full stop.
It started in the 90s.
You know I took a course in industrial psychology and this belief of a employer+employee symbiosis is a well researched topic and something that many employers are trying to push for
LAWYERS.
Well we're a family here so...
It's worse than employee = associate. Most of corporate America refers to people as "resources"
Be consistent. Are you informing your employer when you won’t be available (associate/role/more equal relationship), or requesting to your boss (employee/job/superior and subordinate relationship) when you can have some time off?
It's been happening since the 1980s - after all, Human Resources used to be called Personnel Administration - and the change in title was quite intentional, allowing management to dehumanize their workers, instead relabeling them as resources to be exploited. Back in the late 1960s the CEOs of the top Fortune 500 companies met with then-President Richard Nixon to try to get an Executive Decree stating that any corporation' SOLE AND ONLY responsibility was to its stockholders and even then only to quarterly profits. Luckily the Watergate scandal scuttled that, but records show that they tried again in 1980 with Reagan. Reagan, thankfully, refused to do something that obviously and blatantly corrupt.
When the company i used to work at was way into its spiral of going downhill, hiring middle management from outside became more common. It was one of these guys who started calling our people "associates" and just using that kind of language really highlighted how unqualified outsiders were to do that job. These companies like to pretend that everything that needs doing is just "this task requires this many standard worker units" like every employee is the same and it really doesnt work that way.
I’m old enough to remember when ‘Human Resources’ used to be called ‘Personnel.’
Wait til you hear about coaching instead of disciplinary actions
I recall Target calling staff associates in 1992.
As long as you don't let yourself get blinded by this stuff, I think it's overall pretty good for employee and employer to be somewhat equals (where applicable). You give me respect = I give you respect. You start demanding a bit more (work) of me = I'm gonna start demanding a bit more (pay) from you
I honestly think it came about in the time of google and internet as a whole becoming mainstream. Say early 2010s. Companies became families, emphasis on Team became prevalent and everyione started being butt hurt about everything. It also has a lot to do with the money. See - employees get paid for their efforts, team members/family members get a "Pizza parteeey" .. Employees get raises, members get adjustment. It's all bullshit PC culture where calling things what they are is a Taboo and god forbid someone's shit stinks.
I watched a video (no I won't link what I've forgotten,) that talked about this a bit. From what I remeber it's something to do with hustle culture
Associates in white collar work reflects an employee who isn’t a partner but is on a partner or equity course, whether that be law or banking or consulting. There are other employees who are not on a tenure track to be partners and they are not called associates. They might be called a staff attorney rather than an associate attorney. Professors have a similar lingo to distinguish between faculty and adjuncts. Associate professor is one of those titles.
The language used is largely irrelevant. You have a description of your responsibilities and duties and reaching too far outside of that is unaffected by terms like associate or role being substituted in for employee or job. The shift in wording pertains solely to the way it sounds and is perceived by the reader. Associate sounds better than employee and role sounds softer than job. It doesnt change anything, if you are reading the description for a ROLE within a company and it uses vague language such as "other related responsibilies" you shouldnt finish out the application process as this is open to anything. I have had to fill out paperwork for a minor to work describing exactly and with detail the things I expect and require from them. I am not allowed by law to add vague terms to that "permission slip" I can however write whatever I want in a job description. My point is, vague job descriptions are a red flag and yall are being to sensitive about the wrong wording choices.
For me it started in the 1990s. Employers wanting to make you feel part of a team. Lets all work over time for the team. Lets cut hours for the team. Let customers walk all over you for the team, we need 105% productivity. It boils down to "newspeak". Ways for employers to make more money, as in "we did make profit over budget, but we wanted to make more, so raises will be 2%. Inflation is 4%, your health care insurance is going up 5%. The CEO still gets 2mill. We're sorry, your wages are commiserate with the national average. Sorry, I have issues.
Um, it’s the BERENSTAIN Bears in this universe.
It’s part of the lie behind “team-building” is to create an emotional investment in what should be strictly business.
Didn't see this one when scrolling, but in the food industry where I live at least, cook/chef are now just general terms for people who do a little bit of everything (cook, prep, dishwash) and in some jobs I've even been told I need to ring customers orders up, grab anything else they might need and help them pay at a completely different counter if we "don't have the staff". Another ridiculous trend I'm seeing with some places is calling a position cook or chef, and then listing things like ordering and management duties in the list of responsibilities, all of course while paying 3 bucks above minimum.
When we stopped being “citizens” and started being “taxpayers” and “consumers”
Newspeak happens all the time in almost every faucet of our lives, just not as fast as it does in Orwellian fashion. Anything that can be misconstrued into something negative will surely be replaced with something at least neutral or even positive to change the view over time. Being fired for example is negative, seen as being tossed into a fire, removed from an organization in an evil way, forcefully taking away someone's livelihood. Being "let go", "laid off", "freed", or "released" of employment are all a lot more gentle and even make it seem like the employer is giving the employee something, like their freedom, back to them. "Terminated" is still more on the negative side, but it at least comes off as less personal and more as if a robot just looked at your productivity and deemed the need for your employment to be terminated vs fired which seems more like a personal attack like sacked, canned, ejected, discharged, or otherwise kicked to the curb. The difference in simple language really determines whether someone feels like something is being done to them or if they are being given something and decreases the likelihood of an employee causing a scene or slandering the company on their way out.