We would like me to admit that in the simple phrase "human resources" lies a profound contradiction. It would do so on a scale of decisions more or less inhumane trying to ensure that they are the least human potential. It would make me admit I'm a young idealist devoid of sense of reality, as the day I will work my humanist ideals go up in smoke.
Except I do not agree. Not agree at all. The common good of which Aristotle speaks in his Policy is far from ideal, the Philosopher, either, did not live in Bears of the world. Admittedly, social problems were probably not the same as those that we know today, but all was not rosy. I refuse to admit that this property is only permitted in very large companies. In this case, the employee turnover in SMEs is undisputed, yet it seems to be some continuity ... What should you think so? Is that employees who decided to take their troubles patiently, to work in inhuman conditions for years just to get a salary? Or is it instead of companies in which it also manages to show that the good of the company will not happen without the employee's, and that even though the company is a real and recognized as such for the employee?
Today we talk of corporate social responsibility, CSR and this is openly linked to the common good, and yet is not reserved for large enterprises. In this case, if the company accepts that CSR (which also includes a reference to the principle of subsidiarity j'dis me ... well that ...) it must be a humanity in the decisions taken and not only a lack of inhumanity.
So yes, I'm not still in school about this quote, I do not see why the top of my 20 years and completed a degree in philosophy, but it does that if we start like that, in fact, it will eventually transform the human resources in less inhumane. In that case tell me that story I go raise rabbits in Patagonia before the disaster.
0 comments:
Post a Comment