HR Euphemisms & LA Times Redundancies

Balderdash & Piffle recently had a segment on military euphemisms concocted to hid uncomfortable truths. I wrote about it in "More Balderdash & Piffle", but it did get me to thinking that even HR has some pathetic euphemisms not around death but around the dreaded "redundancy" word.

Roy Greenslade in the Guardian has written about the LA times editor's email to his staff regarding impending redundancies (Guardian Blogs:Did LA Times editor have help with redundancy letter?).

In the article Roy muses on his suspicion that the editor had help from HR / Business executives because of the language used. He goes on to offer some of the quotes from the letter as consideration.

Here are some of the best or worst bits:

Redundancy program:

"a voluntary and involuntary employee separation program"

redundancies:

"involuntary departures"

redundancy package:

"a generous separation package"

Notice pay:

"salary continuation"

All of that was in the first paragraph.

The other tendency of all redundancy notifications is to wax lyrical about the future. It is always difficult to judge how to balance news of redundancy with plans for the future or indeed not to complicate the message by linking the two issues too closely.

I tend to agree with Roy Greenslade, in this particular letter they put in too much detail about how much better the organisation would be once the dead wood was removed. Jim O'Shea, Editor of the LA Times, with a little help from his friends tells staff the following:

"We face a dim future only if we refuse to change and do something about it."

"We must move on and convert our staff into a vibrant multi-media organization that breaks news on the web and explains and analyzes it in our newspaper."

There are however some positive notes on what the future will look like without trying to justify redundancies. More upbeat comments about sticking to traditional core values and being the best media outlet in a competitive market place. (Sorry slipped into my own business speak there):

"The Los Angeles Times will remain a full-service newspaper providing the best and most sophisticated coverage of the city, the region, the state, the nation and the world."

"Creativity, flexibility, innovation, great storytelling and smart editing will mark the road to our future. We are journalists and we must sustain and grow our ability to explain Southern California and the world beyond to the people living in this dynamic and vast region. Great journalism in print and on-line will continue to be our legacy. We must seize the future; it is within our grasp."

Some great positive thoughts on the future of the organisation there, I suspect if Jim O'Shea had been left to write the letter on his own it would have be a much simpler, positive message about unfortunate changes in the organisation which was not tarnished by ambiguous rhetoric and self serving justifications for redundancies.