Language

As noted before, I'm a medical transcriptionist, or, as they've begun calling us now, a "medical language specialist."  Whether that change came about as a way of trying to describe more accurately what we do--it ain't all about typing fast--or whether it was just another managerial bone tossed to a bunch of dogs in order to make them feel "better" about themselves or "more empowered," I don't know.  Given that the change in title did NOT bring with it more actual income, I suspect it was just a bone.

Whatever we are--medical transcriptionist (MT) or medical language specialist (MLS)--we have to possess some facility with the language.  We are not necessarily all writers, but we all DO--we MUST--pay attention to, and CARE about, words and their meanings, and MUST forever be aware of the context in which they're used.  We HAVE to know, and care about, the difference between "its" and "it's," between "they're" and "their" and "there."  We MUST care about "nuance," how the same word may mean one thing in one context, something altogether different in another.

The majority of people apparently care about none of this, and I suppose that's okay, in everyday life--as long as communication is happening, fine.  With a medical report that's carved in proverbial stone (or computer program, ether, whatever), it DOES matter, and we have to care.

So, we--MTs/MLSs--maybe have a more acute sense of linguistic bullshit than many other people do.

And there is a lot of linguistic bullshit flung about in today's workplace.

"Personnel" offices became "Human Resources" quite a while back--it was an "empowerment" "thing."  "Layoffs" became "downsizing" became "reallocation of resources" (as a nurse manager I used to work with said, it means "you have been reallocated to the unemployment line") became (my personal favorite) "headcount reduction."

A "head" is a person, by the way.  Just in case any of y'all lost sight of that uncomfortable fact.

I can barely remember a time--think 1970s--when corporate bosses used to seem to be honestly sorrowful when economic forces of nature forced them to "lay people off."  It wasn't long after that, though, that they became sort of "matter-of-fact" about it.  Not long after THAT, they began taking pride in how many heads they could count, how many people's lives they could destroy--hell, they got BONUSES for it.

But they're not to blame.  They've invented language to absolve themselves from any of THAT.  For instance, I once-upon-a-time worked at a hospital in Kansas City.  We got a new CEO in about 1992 (with "connections" to the Clintons, everybody said all breathlessly) who promised "NO LAYOFFS."  But there might be, um, "reductions in force" via "attrition," etc.  He wouldn't be personally responsible for that, of course--he would direct his "people" (and he brought a whole herd of them with him) to direct THEIR people to cut their budgets by 10%.  In our section, we'd already carved costs to the bone--our budget was 90-something percent "personnel"--you know, "people"--and we didn't really have as many of those as we needed.  Yes, people saw their jobs disappear.  But the CEO wasn't to blame--the department heads were. 

Sometimes I find it difficult even to fathom what incredibly self-centered, selfish assholes these CEOs can be.  I accept that they must sometimes make hard decisions, and that the decisions may, will hurt real people, but that those decisions MUST be made.  If you're going to MAKE those decisions, at least have the balls to own up to them, and to take the responsibility for them.

Yeah, yeah, I know--it's just business, not personal.  But it can become pretty fucking personal when you're the one suddenly without a job.  The CEOs, and the politicians, too, need to stop hiding behind words and simply take responsibility.  Stop feeding us bullshit.  Tell us the truth:  "I'm here to feather my own nest, and to hell with all of you little people."