Please explain the term to "leapfrog pay claims"


I can’t find any explanation to the following term: to “leapfrog pay claims”. I look forward to your feedback.

“Benchmarking is meant to put an end to damaging leapfrog pay claims. What we have said is that changed economic circumstances mean it should be phased in over a longer period.”

Is it a preemption of pay claims? Benchmarking a pay award now so that it is fixed for the future against runaway pay claims. That is what it sounds like to me.

It is a metaphor.

Leapfrog is a traditional children’s game. One child crouches down and another jumps over them. Then the child who jumped crouches (at the point they have reached) and the child who originally crouched, jumps over the original jumper. Thus, the pair moves forward, with first one child in front, then the other. (Actually, the game can involve more than two children: see link.)

Leapfrogging pay claims would involve a situation where one group of workers (group A) demands, and gets, a pay rise, then a second group (B), probably one that used to be paid more than the first, also demands a rise, at least partly on the grounds that they deserve to be (and traditionally have been) paid more than the first. Then, perhaps a third group © demands a rise on the grounds that they deserve more than group B, and so on. Furthermore, all these pay raises may drive up price inflation, eventually leading group A’s rise to become effectively worthless, leading them to ask for a further rise, thus setting off the whole process anew.

You know, there is a potentially infinite number of metaphors that English speakers (or, indeed, speakers of any other language) might use. Are you going to ask us to explain every one you come across? A fluent, or even a moderately competent, speaker or reader of a language ought to be able to work out most of them for themselves. It is true that English (perhaps more than most languages) does contain a lot of odd idioms, that cannot really be figured out, but that you just have to know. It is not unreasonable to ask native speakers to explain those. But this example, like some of the other things you have asked about recently, really is not one of them. It is just a regular metaphor, which. like other metaphors, someone ought to be able to work out by applying just a bit of imagination to a knowledge of the literal meanings of the words (which, if you don’t know them, you can find in a dictionary). Native speakers of a language have to deal with metaphors in this way too. Generally (unless the metaphor is inept, or deliberately obscure) it is not too hard to do.

I’m a native English speaker (not to mention writer, editor and publisher…), I’m completely familiar with “leapfrog,” I have quite a bit of business experience, and I had no idea what the term meant in this context.

Just sayin’, there, Mr. Snarky…

Here! Here!

Me either. But then, the whole article was pretty much gibberish to me. I took away from it a concern about rising costs, but that’s about it. Is it about salary or damages? It sounded like damages, but that wouldn’t make sense with leapfrog because there’s no reason a taxi driver getting a higher settlement after a lawsuit would mean daycare workers would too.

Is that addressed to me? If so I resent it. I put quite a lot of effort into trying to be helpful there, but, as I said, there is a potential infinity of metaphors in any language. davidmich has a long history of questions of this sort (and a Pit thread to go with it). The way things are going, this could be a never-ending task.

I did not find this one too hard to figure out, and actually gave an answer (unlike you). The trouble is that it took about about 20 times as much effort to explain the metaphor as to understand it, and, frankly I think davidmich could probably have quite easily figured it out for himself if he has just considered it as a normal metaphor instead of some mysterious English idiom. Sometimes it is more helpful to say “You should be able to work stuff like this for yourself. It is not really very hard, or very alien to how things work in your own language,” than to keep on spoonfeeding.

I think we should calculate this whole thing under the carpet.

And, not to be pedantic but it’s actually “Hear, hear!”

Good that you gave an answer. Just a little too much of an answer, even considering the OP’s history.

Now, snarking me for not giving an answer when (1) I said I didn’t know it and (2) you’d already given it… glad you got to that page in your word-a-day calendar ahead of us all.

So given that you did not have any knowledge to contribute and you’d already seen someone add some information that might be helpful, why am I reading your words for the second time in this thread. Just sayin’ I want a contribution or please don’t clutter the discussion, especially with insults about snarkiness or whatever your buzzword of the moment is – keep working that word a day calendar maybe sometime you will string together something I’d be amused at reading, but please don’t waste time with this kind of stuff.

Thank you.

Thank you all. I appreciate your effort njtt.

Whatever it is you’re trying to sleep-type here, I should point out that junior modding in GQ is even more frowned on.

This is GQ, not Crap All Over an OP Because They’re Dumber Than You. If **njtt **had the answer, he could give it in a sentence or two. Then continuing for three long paragraphs about how irritating the OP is for asking these language-related questions was, IMVHO, completely out of line here.

I was pointing out that as someone who has none of the OP’s supposed limitations, I didn’t know the term, either - and the OP indicated he had done some searching before posting here, indicating it’s not some universal knowledge (I still find it fairly obscure even now understanding the usage) - pointing out that whatever njtt thinks the OP’s propensity for asking simple questions in irritating ways, this was not a textbook case to lecture him about.

It was a legitimate question, posted in entirely legitimate manner (after attempting to look it up elsewhere, as I read the OP) and deserved a civil reply. It didn’t get one. Dumping all over me for pointing that out is… telling.

One issue I’ve seen here is it seems our OP reads a lot of things which are not US English. And has a real habit of posting a tiny snippet with no context rather than the whole enclosing paragraph.

“pay claims” made no obvious sense to this American, until I noticed the url was a reference to a Irish periodical. Then I switched on my “Reading the Economist’s British English” filter and immediately recognized “pay claim” as British English shorthand equivalent to the US English “union demand for wage increase”.

Which I then guessed would probably also be used in Irish English. Then it was obvious, as was the connection with “leapfrogging”.

I do wonder where our OP lives and what language(s) he speaks natively. Clearly the most blinkered US-centric amongst us don’t have much to contribute to his questions.

Nor those who are unwilling to follow his links to read the whole context. Which I generally am not.

Friendly suggestion to OP: Include more context with your questions. e.g. like this

In other words, help us help you.

Well, I have to admit I can sleep type an answer to these words of yours. NJTT gave a solid answer. If you think that it is long, hey, stick to TV it will fit your attention span – it works for lots of people and there is nothing wrong with it. Be who you are!

I’m sorry for you that you were not able to follow njtt’s post. It was not three long paragraphs, it was one very short intro, a second lengthier paragraph that did a helluva a lot to explain what was going on, and only the third paragraph offered the advice that you found negative. Never mind that the 3rd paragraph contained some useful tips on using the web to suss out idiomatic language. In fact, the 3rd paragraph is of some importance here. Your point that someone like you has trouble interpreting the use of ‘leap frog’ leaves me generally unmoved as I am inclined to think that you could relieve yourself of your ignorance as easily as anyone by following njtt’s advice in his third paragraph.

Anyway you want to complain about junior modding? Any modding, junior or otherwise, legitimate or illegitimate, is not helped by playing the white knight. There is no cliche as tired as an internet cliche, so please don’t be one.

What’s a White Night?

Ducks and runs for cover :slight_smile:

Let me Ask Jeeves that for you.

Thanks Bozuit. Very helpful

Oh, that’s quite evident.

His answer to the question was two sentences, well within even a Fox News viewer’s attention span. Or, clearly, your sleep-deprived one.

His abuse of the OP, however politely couched, was much longer and I’m surprised it was tolerated by the mods.

His post was not dissimilar to yours. If you can’t take it, why dish it out?

Yes, there was a pit thread, and in that thread, the conclusion was that what the guy was doing was okay. The mods came in and said his types of questions were what GQ is for. Even the OP got over it. The only thing some people wanted was for him to explain his context a little more.

Yes, he will probably have a lot of questions. As long as there are people here who want to answer them, that is a good thing. Those of you who are annoyed by it can simply not read the threads, let alone answer them.

If answering him makes you feel so put out you feel the need to lecture him for asking, then why bother answering at all?

For the love of Og, that’s not what white knighting is. White knighting is defending a woman in an attempt to get laid. That’s the point of the allusion to chivalry.

It is also sometimes extended to mean defending anyone who doesn’t want to be defended. But note the OP said “here, here,” meaning he agreed. So that doesn’t apply either.

Merely defending someone is not white-knighting anywhere online except on troll boards like 4chan, where people think it’s okay to be an asshole and no one can call you on it.

Everywhere else, you say something shitty to someone, someone else will come in and tell you how shitty it is.

Under your definition, you are also white knighting njtt.