Is "natural wastage" an offensive expression?
Henk Rhebergen
of transfer possibilities and natural wastage" the job losses it had
announced would not lead to major problems. American employees who read the
press release objected to the expression "natural wastage". They suggested
the term "attrition", but this seems to mean nothing to UK people in this
context. Can anyone suggest a different term, or is attrition the right one?
Thanks!
Dave Volek
Henk Rhebergen wrote in message <7tigjh$8pa$1...@reader1.wxs.nl>...
"Attrition" means employees who leave the company because of voluntary
quitting or retirement. However, I think we need more context to see if
"attrition" applies to this situation and whether "natural wastage" is even
appropriate.
Dave Volek
Instructor
Black Gold Online
The Business English Writing Program
www.ppent.ca/blackgold
kevin...@my-deja.com
"Henk Rhebergen" <vertaalb...@wxs.nl> wrote:
> In a recent press release a Dutch multinational company said that "in
view
> of transfer possibilities and natural wastage" the job losses it had
> announced would not lead to major problems. American employees who
read the
> press release objected to the expression "natural wastage". They
suggested
> the term "attrition", but this seems to mean nothing to UK people in
this
> context. Can anyone suggest a different term, or is attrition the
right one?
You are right: "natural wastage" is well understood in the UK and I've
never heard of "attrition" used in this way in Britain. To my way of
thinking, both are offensive.
To me, "natural wastage" (= employees who were going to
leave/retire/die anyway) is offensive because it suggests that people
are being treated as if they were a commodity, like produce that cannot
be sold because it has rotted in the warehouse. We're so used to
hearing it in the UK, though, that it's probably lost most of its edge.
Perhaps the American employees objected because it was new to them?
"Attrition" sounds even worse, summoning up images of 1914-18 and
the "war of attrition", as if it is intended the employees should be
ground down until the last one submits. Perhaps Americans are so used
to this alternative "nasty euphemism" that they no longer think about
what it means?
Why don't companies intending to reduce the number of people they
employ dispense with both and just say, in plain English, something
along the lines of "we will, as far as possible, protect existing jobs
by limiting the number of vacancies we fill"? I would have thought that
that sugared the pill sufficiently.
Kevin Flynn.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David or Robin
JUST AN H wrote in message <19991007202333...@ng-cm1.aol.com>...
>>"Attrition" sounds even worse, summoning up images of 1914-18 and
>>the "war of attrition", as if it is intended the employees should be
>>ground down until the last one submits. Perhaps Americans are so used
>>to this alternative "nasty euphemism" that they no longer think about
>>what it means?
>
>business sense .... and is one way that corporations and, to a lesser
extant,
>government departments scale back personnel. Doing so by attrition (i.e.,
>employees either quit, retire or die while the company hires no new
employees)
>takes time, but is a much more humane way of reducing personnel than, say,
>"laying off" (i.e., axing) a large number of employees and sending them off
to
>look for new jobs.
Yes -- agreed, as J notes, that 'attrition' is the standard American noun
for such workforce actions (and, no, the meaning hasn't been lost on us),
and that it may already be the most neutral word for a bad situation. In
fact, with regard to nasty euphemisms and coinages, I have already heard
'attrit' used as a verb (sorry, I think it's a horrible back formation, too,
but haven't seen it written yet, only spoken), but the alternatives can be
worse. As the ultimate Newspeak for 'downsizing' a group of employees
(already at one or two removes from firing or laying an individual human
being off a job), I've already heard of 'right-sizing' the workforce. ...
I wanted to wait and watch the thread develop the exchange on 'natural
wastage,' which may be current usage or sound correct in the U.K. It strikes
me as a little awkward. But the alternative I thought of, 'natural
shrinkage,' doesn't sound much better either, and 'natural workforce
shrinkage' is even one word longer (contextual goal: it's less painful if
you get it over in fewer words).
Dave
JUST AN H
R. A. Heindl
[snip]
> In fact, with regard to nasty euphemisms and coinages, I have already heard
> 'attrit' used as a verb (sorry, I think it's a horrible back formation, too,
> but haven't seen it written yet, only spoken), but the alternatives can be
> worse.
In some industries machines called "attrittors" (not sure of the
spelling) are used for reducing the size of powder particles, presumably
by attrition. My dictionary lists "attrit" as a verb dating to 1750-60,
so although it's an ugly back-formation, it at least has the patina of
age.
--Ray Heindl
John Flynn
[snipped]
> I wanted to wait and watch the thread develop the exchange on 'natural
> wastage,' which may be current usage or sound correct in the U.K. It strikes
> me as a little awkward. But the alternative I thought of, 'natural
> shrinkage,' doesn't sound much better either, and 'natural workforce
> shrinkage' is even one word longer (contextual goal: it's less painful if
> you get it over in fewer words).
I think that if you suffered from "natural shrinkage" it would be painful
(and no doubt embarrassing) no matter how many words you used.
johnF
kevin...@my-deja.com
jus...@aol.com (JUST AN H) wrote:
> >"Attrition" sounds even worse, summoning up images of 1914-18 and
> >the "war of attrition", as if it is intended the employees should be
> >ground down until the last one submits. Perhaps Americans are so used
> >to this alternative "nasty euphemism" that they no longer think about
> >what it means?
>
> Not at all! Here in the States, "attrition" is almost always used in
a
> business sense ....
Well, with respect, H, I think you are proving my case. "Attrition" on
the west side of the Atlantic is not considered a particularly nasty
word (in so far as job losses can ever be thought of as not nasty per
se). I would continue to submit, however, that to European ears its
meaning (vide Collins English Dictionary) of "constant wearing down to
weaken or destroy" remains very much to the fore, and that any company
attempting to use the term as a euphemism among non-American-English
speakers is courting a public relations disaster!
anne.burgess
>I wanted to wait and watch the thread develop the exchange on 'natural
>wastage,' which may be current usage or sound correct in the U.K. It
strikes
>me as a little awkward.
'Natural wastage' is the normal (dare I say natural?) choice of phrase for
this situation in the UK. It suggests a nice slow ("natural") process where
no-one is forced into anything (whatever the reality may turn out to be).
'Attrition' has a connotation of active efforts by the management to reduce
the workforce by slightly less than honourable and above-board means.
Anne