EDITORIAL – The language of the pandemic

“Even in times of crisis, new words and phrases emerge to connote
meaning or to ensure that people understand policies and/or actions.
This is why language is constantly evolving …” – Bob Stowers, Inside
Business-March 31, 2020

COVID-19 has brought with it not only fever, contagion and death, but
also its own jargon, both of words and symbols. Concepts such as
co-morbidities, herd immunity and community spread were not part of
the popular lexicon before its advent earlier this year. Equally novel
were the phenomena of physical distancing, lockdown, being on the
frontline (much misused), and the flattening of the curve.

With this flattening now comes the new (or next) normal, the ongoing
search for a vaccine, the threat of a second wave of the virus and the
legitimate expectation of a moral global world order, marked by
concern of the major powers for the fate of the more economically
vulnerable states.

We are also constantly reminded “we are all in this together” although
the patent untruth of this has been exposed time and time again.

The pandemic has also fundamentally changed our semiotic processes.
Where once before affection or care for another might be demonstrated
by a handshake, a hug or a kiss on the cheek in greeting, the
equivalent sentiments are now conveyed by the absence of such conduct,
the wearing of a mask, standing six feet away, and coughing or
sneezing into one’s elbow.

However, the concepts that have engendered most public discourse in
recent days are those used to describe the governing administration’s
attempt to reduce the public sector wage bill. Constitutionally
proscribed from description as a pay cut or wage alteration, the
ill-advised and unattractive “forced savings” was initially employed.

Since the initiative required the voluntary consent of the public
officers in order to be successful and since this term implied both an
absence of autonomy and individual dignity, the authorities next
sought comfort in the more euphemistic and vernacular “meeting-turn”.
This too was deemed an inapt analogy as local meeting-turns are
entered into consensually and there was a general expectation that
this procedure would not be of that ilk. More recently, in a third
christening, it has become the Barbados Optional Savings Scheme or the
autocratic sounding acronym BOSS. A fourth iteration might be in the
offing.

We wager that when all the hurly-burly is done, the government will
get its way, despite the apparent current populist antipathy to the
measure. The recent public defence of the number of the Cabinet by two
of its members would scarcely have added to the measure’s allure.
Nonetheless, we conjecture that the appeal to the patriotism of
Barbadians to do their bit to aid their country in its hour of need,
and the forbidding spectre of widespread job loss should suffice to
gain the agreement of at least the representative organizations.

Any such collective arrangement will be the first step only, however,
since we perceive the employment relation between the public officer
and the state to be an individual and not a collective one. Thus, the
consent of each worker to this variation in the mode of his or her
remuneration may be necessary for its legal validity.

Whether this device amounts to an unconstitutional pay cut will have
to be determined by adjudication. The more attractive the terms
presented to the officer, the less likely that that there will be any
dissent so as to spur litigation. But the question begs asking, is it
even legally possible for an officer to surrender by agreement his or
her quasi-constitutional right to be fully paid in legal tender?

Barbados Advocate

Mailing Address:
Advocate Publishers (2000) Inc
Fontabelle, St. Michael, Barbados

Phone: (246) 467-2000
Fax: (246) 434-2020 / (246) 434-1000