Category Archives: Working World

Unabashed mockery of work-related language

Don’t blame me!

Harry Truman kept a sign on his desk in the Oval Office declaring that “the buck stops here.” Harry’s acknowledgement of responsibility is, unfortunately, not trending right now. Instead, blame-shifting is on the rise. Take a look at this sign, taped to the door of a major telecommunications company:

Management’s to blame

It’s worth noting that in front of the door is a single, short step. We’re not talking stoop here, or terrace, or anything other than the standard dirty, cracked, Manhattan sidewalk and what might reasonably be termed a ledge.

Some questions arise:

(1) Given the exorbitant rates for cellphone service, can’t the company afford a professionally printed sign? The morning I snapped this photo the paper was taped flat, but by the afternoon, the edges had curled up. Should I worry about network maintenance if the company can’t pay for a real sign?

(2) Has the property management been walking in and out of the building every day, tripping over passersby who sat on the ledge – er, I mean step? This building is near my home, and I’ve seen people sitting in front of it only once. On folding chairs. Striking workers tired of picketing, they weren’t barbecuing, just passing around sandwiches, listening to music, and generally having a fine old time. When the strike ended, everyone went away. Why the sign? Fear of copycat tailgating?

(3) Who is property management? The building, a giant windowless pile of brick, has been a telephone-company outpost since the dial-up era. Yet the sign appears to deflect responsibility to a nameless management. Maybe the person who printed the sign wanted backup authority? It’s not just me, a lowly secretary, who forbids you a seat. It’s them. Pay attention. Or should I say, ***ATTENTION***?

This don’t-blame-me sign is one example of a common type:

The manufacturer’s to blame!

The sign implies that you pay what the manufacturer demands, and not a penny more. The store owner takes no profit. The rent is a charitable contribution, as are the utilities and staff salaries. Right? Or, perhaps the store has ceded its pricing authority to the manufacturer, who applies an algorithm that includes the store’s expenses? Either way, it’s don’t blame me.

A variation on this theme is “lowest prices allowed by law.” I see this phrase on signs atop cigarette racks. Does this statement mean that the store gives you the smokes for free, except for taxes it merrily sends along to the state, city, or wherever? Doubtful.

That’s it for now. If you want more examples, you’re out of luck. I don’t write the signs. I just post what appears. Don’t blame me.

How’s that again?

2 Replies

As a New Yorker, I’m used to oddities. I once waited for the green light on a midtown corner. It was raining hard. A fully-clothed woman standing next to me was calmly lathering shampoo into her hair. No one even blinked – including me. But these signs gave me pause.

First up is this one, which I saw on the window of a toy store:

A sidewalk inside?

I’m not sure what bothered me more: the location of the sidewalk or the idea of a private store selling a public sidewalk. Maybe it was the price. Ten bucks for a sidewalk is a real bargain.

And then there’s this notice from the same shop:

Does the stock get dental benefits?

Yes, I know that they mean “We are hiring people to work in sales or in the stockroom,” but I’m a grammarian, so I’m picky. It comes with the territory.

One more, from a pharmacy:

How about your “ill being”?

To talk about one’s happiness and health, you need the term well-being (with a hyphen) or wellbeing (one word). When you separate the two, the word well describes being. Presumably the pharmacy isn’t interested only in those whose being is happy and healthy. I’d like to think that they are also committed to people who aren’t feeling well.

That’s enough pickiness for one day. Be well!

Playing Favorites

Fisherperson?

1 Reply

Some years ago, while I was teaching Elizabeth Bishop’s poem “The Fish,” a student stumbled over the proper term for the person who caught the animal. He started out with “fisherm…” and then stopped himself and went with “fisherperson.” Fisherperson? Really? I consider myself a feminist, but even I was taken aback by this word. It was fair, of course, because both men and women go fishing. But it sounded like something a late-night television host would mock. Yet what is the alternative? Fisher? Trout-worker? Marine life catcher? Perhaps letter carrier and firefighter also sounded strange when they first entered the language in place of postman and fireman.

I thought about this issue when I saw this sign on a construction project:

A single-sex project.

Only men work there? Or are only the male workers dangerous? Neither meaning is likely, so the sign is incorrect. The habit of assuming that a male term is understood to include both men and women – the “masculine universal” – has been out of favor, and for very good reason, for many years. Yet “MEN AND WOMEN WORKING ABOVE” seems artificial. How about “DANGER: CONSTRUCTION ABOVE”? Or, “WATCH OUT! WE’RE WORKING UP HERE!”

Here’s another sign:

No more “busboys”?

Okay, busboy doesn’t work, not least because some of those doing this job are a couple of decades past boyhood (or girlhood). I can’t really support busser, as buss is a slang word for “kiss.” Table cleaner isn’t accurate, nor is plate remover. So, I’m stumped. Any suggestions?

The larger point is that language changes slowly, especially when it’s tied to a social movement, in this case feminism. And yes, gendered language matters. Children asked to draw a scene with cavemen hardly ever include women, while those asked to draw cave people more or less balance the sexes. So we do need these changes if we’re to see possibilities and eventual equality. Along the way, though, we may have to deal with some fisherpeople.

No workers, but lots of work

Leave a reply

The famous command of the Communist Manifesto — “Workers of the world, unite!’ — is obsolete, and not just because communism proved to be, as the old joke says, the most painful route from capitalism to capitalism. The communist ideology failed, but the slogan bites the dust for a completely different reason. Those who labor are no longer workers. Somehow it has become crass to refer to employees as the underlings they are, as this sign illustrates:

Who is the opponent?

The idea that “we’re all in this together” may appeal to management (where you’ll find many managers but few coaches), but I doubt that the store displaying this sign shares power and profits equally.

Another popular word for employee is partner, which is what you are when you work full time at Starbucks and Whole Foods, among other New Age enterprises. Barnes and Noble invites you to join its community of booksellers, not apply for a job. At Walmart you’re an associate, either management-level or hourly. Traditionally, an associate worked as a colleague, not always as an equal, but close to the power center. New lawyers become associates on their way (they hope) to partner status. Walmart has many employees (sorry, associates) who complain about forced overtime and underpayment. These claims may be without merit, but it’s hard to see the people at the registers of a discount store truly associating with those higher in the company structure, as associates in law firms do.

Conferring titles instead of power and increased pay isn’t confined to the business world. Just ask a distinguished professor or a professor emeritus. True, some with these designations see a small bump in salary, and many an adjunct (a college-level instructor paid a subsistence-level salary with no job security) would love to join their ranks. But the point is the same: Symbolic gestures, whatever the field, have come to replace concrete advantages.

Just ask the partner who bags your groceries.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: