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."

Beginning.

Started out with “Occupy Wall Street,” found myself rereading Thoreau, visiting with Thomas Hobbes for a few minutes, apologizing to Marie Antoinette, and even learning that the “golden age” for American labor--the period in our history when workers were actually respected, appreciated, compensated fairly (well, more or less), when the “American Dream” actually was a real and tangible and achievable goal for the majority of Americans, lasted less than a quarter of a century: 1950-1973, more or less--about 1/10 of our nation’s history.

The latter I had kinda figured out on my own, although I had pegged the time frame as roughly end of WWII until about the early 1980s. Hey, I’m a product of American public schools, and so “don’t know much about history.”

Lucky me: I entered the workforce in 1975, not counting a couple of summers spent detasseling corn, or driving a tractor or “walking beans” for my grandfather.

Also figured out that, despite our “we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take this anymore” Declaration of Independence, we’ve never REALLY gotten away from the elitist society at which we rebelled and from which we declared our independence.

American society, economically and politically, still seems to have underpinnings of “Some people count, some people don’t,” as so eloquently expressed by “Robby” in “Dirty Dancing.”

What I haven’t figured out, and what the Wall Street occupiers haven’t seemed to figure out, is what to do about it.

In microcosm, it’s the same quandary my father faces right now. My dad is a farmer, almost 80, and, as he puts it, “I’m wearing out, the equipment’s wearing out,” so he’s looking at retirement, decreased income, etc., unless he finds a way to find some “labor” to operate the equipment, to get corn and beans planted, sprayed, and ultimately harvested.  He has an ex-grandson-in-law who can provide the labor, but likely not much of the capital. Dad could simply pay the guy a wage, but that wouldn’t be enough to guarantee the “labor” would be there when he needed to be there. So he’s trying to work out a plan that would be fair to them both, yet provide the “labor” enough incentive to show up for the 2-3 weeks at planting and harvest time, say 6 weeks total. Obviously, Dad can’t give “labor” half the crop for 6 weeks’ worth of work--but what would be fair, AND incentive?

Occupy Wall Street seems to want “fair.” But what would be fair?

Difference between Wall Street, politicians and most of corporate America, is that Dad DOES care about fair, which is why the “labor,” the ex-in-law, has a chance to do well in whatever arrangement they work out, and Dad will be able to keep farming a while longer, even if it means he has to share some of the profit. They’ll both “win,” in the long run. Dad may win “less,” in a way, but it’s better than having to close the business down, in which case NObody would win.

It all comes down to “fairness,” and that’s what I think the Wall Street occupiers--and most American workers--are after. Trouble is, “fair,” aside from those 23 years of labor “golden age,” has been defined by “capital”--by modern-day royalists who seem to think they have birthright to 90% or whatever of what America produces.

I mentioned Marie Antoinette and apologizing to her, earlier. The poor old queen of France, dead and headless, in some order or other, has been widely believed to have said, “Let them eat cake,” when told that there was no bread for the peasantry. I did a little (very little) research today and found that the quote, if it was “real” at all--and it probably was just an urban legend--actually dated from a long time before ultimately-headless Marie was even born, probably spoken by the Sun King, Louis Quatorze, the 14^th, Marie’s husband (Louis 16’s) grandfather or something.

So I had to apologize to Marie for blaming her for corporate/political America’s callous disregard of the 99%, and the “let ‘em eat cake” “morality” that seems to drive them.