3 ms·
i first read it as "hard to recruit" too, but it's grammatically correct, just ambiguous. i wonder if the ambiguity was actually deliberate on the headline writ
by zem 11y ago
i first read it as "hard to recruit" too, but it's grammatically correct, just ambiguous. i wonder if the ambiguity was actually deliberate on the headline writer's part.
- SilasX 11y agoIt's not just ambiguous, but wrong. For all X, the best X is is an X. To convey the meaning they want, the title should be "the best (workers|peformers) have employee status." As it stands, it reads like a statement of the fizzbuzz phenomenon: "the best employees are are already employed somewhere else [and not still looking]".
- a3n 11y agoThat's exactly what I thought it meant before I read the article.
- zem 11y agono, it's just a rhetorical device; read it as "the best employees are actually employed [rather than contracted]"
- SilasX 11y agoWell, the rhetorical device conveys the wrong thing, so it's not very good: - Being contracted is a way to be employed. - The contractor can still be an employee of the contracting agency - It can mean "employee vs out-of-work" [1] just as much as "employee vs contractor" To often, journalists fancy themselves novelists and sacrifice clarity for flourish. In this context, that's the wrong choice. [1] What I and the sibling thought.