KudoZ home » French to English » Business/Commerce (general)

protectionnisme abusif

Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
10:10 Aug 13, 2006
This question was closed without grading. Reason: Answer found elsewhere

French to English translations [PRO]
Bus/Financial - Business/Commerce (general) / Employee dispute/staff management
French term or phrase: protectionnisme abusif
The problem here is not that I don't understand the term (same expression exists in English: 'abusive protectionism') but the sense of the overall sentence in which it is used below (unless I am missing something). It is taken from a letter written by a temporary assistant complaining about their treatment at the hands of their manager (in this case department manager) and criticizing the overall status of 'temps' within that company:

Si pour {company name}, une « intérimaire » n’a pas les mêmes prérogatives qu’une « titulaire », il n’est à mon sens, soit pas utile de la recruter, soit le recrutement par la direction est à reconsidérer, soit la titulaire n’a pas les moyens nécessaires pour exercer sa fonction par ce qu’on peut appeler du « protectionnisme abusif » de la part de la hiérarchie.

It is the third alternative that I don't understand...
'...or the permanent employee/postholder does not have the necessary means (skills?)... to carry out her job...by what could be called abusive protectionism by the management....? I must be missing something, as this does not make sense to me.

I can provide further context if necessary, but would be very grateful is someone could cast some light on this in the meantime. Thanks!
United Kingdom
Local time: 07:08

Summary of answers provided
5 +1unfair protectionism
Maria Luisa Duarte
4bureaucratic sclerosis
R. A. Stegemann
2complaisant and excessive protection

Discussion entries: 13



13 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 5/5 peer agreement (net): +1
unfair protectionism


Maria Luisa Duarte
Local time: 08:08
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish, Native in PortuguesePortuguese
PRO pts in category: 8

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
neutral  writeaway: is the 'plus' sign your explanation for the solution you are so sure is correct?Asker already has this solution ready to go-but is asking for explanations. that's the actual question./yes :-) you back with 100% confidence again too?/ditto :-)
16 mins
  -> You again? and again and again and again!!!!!

agree  Linda Tyrer: this wording fits the context
21 hrs
  -> Thanks!MLD
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

2 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5
bureaucratic sclerosis

The additional text was very helpful. I do not believe that the term "titulaire" in the third alternative is improper. The person suggesting the three alternatives appears to be defending the position of the "titulaire".

In short, there exist bureaucratic (structural) impediments that prevent the "titulaire" from providing the "intérimaire" with everything he/she needs to perform his/her work properly. As a result the person suggest that employing the intérimaire may be a bad idea, or alternatively, that the exisiting structural impediments be removed so that the intérimaire can perform his/her tasks.

By the way, my suggested gloss gets over 950 Google hits! Surely there must be a better term, but I think you get the hint.

R. A. Stegemann
Saudi Arabia
Local time: 16:08
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 8
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

14 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 2/5Answerer confidence 2/5

Seems to me that either "titulaire" in the problem sentence should be "intérimaire" or it should be understood as "titulaire du poste en intérim", which amounts to the same thing!

IOW, because the prerogatives of permanent staff are protected (temps don't benefit from them), temps cannot do their job efficiently (not as efficiently as permanent staff).

For example, if only permanent staff are entitled to make international phone calls (it has happened!), temps will spend what would otherwise be productive working time running around explaining matters to a permanent member of staff so that person can make the phone call ....

In which case the "protectionism" is either financial protectionism or protection of permanent staff by (deliberately) making temps less efficient.

Note added at 3 hrs (2006-08-13 13:55:10 GMT)

NB - You might care to remove the email address in your added comments before it is brought to the attention of the interested party, assuming it is indeed the name of the company involved.

I think my if instead of "par" you read "de par" (as a result of, because of), things will fall into place. It is a common enough "streamlining" [euphemism!] of the language ...

Local time: 08:08
Native speaker of: Native in EnglishEnglish
PRO pts in category: 377
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

1 day 9 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 2/5Answerer confidence 2/5
complaisant and excessive protection

Permanent staff are obviously given preferential treatment by the hierarchy : this is what the expression "protectionnisme" means in my view.

Local time: 08:08
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: French
PRO pts in category: 12
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

Return to KudoZ list

KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.

See also:

Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search