Helena Chavarria (asker) Nov 3, 2014:

Thank you everyone for your help.

Helena Chavarria (asker) Nov 3, 2014:

@TravellingTrans Thanks for your input. It would definitely make my life easier if I left it as 'shorts' ;-)

TravellingTrans Nov 3, 2014:

@everybody to bring it back to the matter at hand it's about helping Helena and whether she should change "shorts". The simple answer is no she doesn't have to but she could if she wanted to and "missing items" (her alternative) or the newly added "shortages" (which is what "shorts" and its opposite "overs" comes from, shorts being an abbreviation of exactly this) would also do.

Shrinkage is simply not a good idea or even acceptable translation since it is the overall concept of loss and in the vast majority is used to refer to the concept of loss through theft. As someone who worked in the US doing EXACTLY this kind of thing I can say with fair certainty that the same thing will pop into the mind of others as popped into mine if "shrinkage" is used which is the idea of theft.

Helena is best sticking with the original term "shorts" but "missing items" and "shortages" are in no way wrong, though "shorts" would be more normal in this sense.

Good luck Helena! ;)

Helena Chavarria (asker) Nov 2, 2014:

Shorts, shrinkage, shortages? So far one person agrees with 'shortages' and I have to admit that I'm relying on your opinions. Before I posted my question I had researched 'shorts' but it seems to relate to cash, rather than items.

When I accepted the job I had been told the original text was from Peru but no one had thought to tell me it had been translated into US English. I didn't realise until I had done a few pages.

Andy Watkinson Nov 2, 2014:

I obviously underestimated the percentage of shrinkage accounted for by stolen goods (probably because I generally come across the term in Supply Chain mgmt.), but still think it's the umbrella term for missing items. It may well not be the individualized US term

Charles Davis Nov 2, 2014:

@TravellingTrans If employee theft and shoplifting accounted for 79%, it follows that 21% was due to something else. The text you've just quoted, which refers to "this type of shrinkage", implies that there are other types.

TravellingTrans Nov 2, 2014:

not to belabor the point but... An estimated 44% of shrinkage in 2008 was due to employee theft, totaling over $15.9 billion. Another 35% was due to shoplifting, totaling over $12.7 billion.[1] The prevention of this type of shrinkage is one reason for security guards, cameras and security tags.

(US specific)

TravellingTrans Nov 2, 2014:

@Andy could be, just going off how we used the term when I was actually doing things like taking inventory back in the day, it was the "technical" way to refer to shoplifting and stealing, but that doesn't mean it hasn't evolved or can't cover more concepts.

Never the less I don't think it would fit here in the context as shrinkage is the overall concept of LOSS as opposed to what is being listed here in the inventory or accounting sheet as individual units or items unaccounted for, where "short" or missing would be better.

Andy Watkinson Nov 2, 2014:

I don't think it means only, or even chiefly, stolen items; rather, stolen items are one component of shrinkage. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shrinkage.asp

TravellingTrans Nov 2, 2014:

when I worked in warehouses/retail... shrinkage was used to mean STOLEN items, basically shrinkage is the jargon for shoplifted or stolen items, and while it would factor into loss and short items, it wouldn't be the right meaning here

Helena Chavarria (asker) Nov 2, 2014:

@Andy Hi! Thanks for your suggestion and interest. I said 'missing items', though I haven't really thought about which term to use ('shortages' and 'lack' also occured to me) but first I need to know whether or not 'shorts' is right :-(

Andy Watkinson Nov 2, 2014:

Hi Helena, I think this is usually referred to as "Shrinkage" though I can't vouch for the US.