number of labour

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "number of labour" is not correct in standard written English.
The correct expression would typically be "number of workers" or "amount of labor." Example: "The number of labour available for the project is insufficient to meet the deadline."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

News & Media

Encyclopedias

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

THE largest number of Labour MPs ever elected: 419.

The Economist

Anguilla has a small number of labour unions.

Encyclopedia Britannica

The number of Labour MPs fell to under 100, its worst performance since the 1930s.

The Guardian - Business

However, a number of Labour MPs supported his position against Livingstone.

The Guardian

Beecham, interestingly, is backed by a growing number of Labour MPs.

The Guardian - Opinion

This followed a number of "Labour listens" events we held where this issue was frequently raised.

The Guardian

On these figures, the total number of Labour and Conservative MPs would be 560.

The Guardian - Opinion

This article was amended on 6 September 2015 to correct the number of Labour mayoral candidates.

The Guardian

Even so, reports suggest a downward trend in the number of labour migrants.

The Guardian

It is understood a number of Labour MPs have received similar messages.

The Guardian

Wales Vote share up significantly; claim a number of Labour seats on significant swings.

The Guardian

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

In formal documents, consider alternatives like "workforce size" or "employee headcount" for a professional tone.

Common error

Avoid using "labour" to refer to a specific number of people. "Labour" is generally an uncountable noun referring to work or effort. Instead, use "workers" or "employees" when referring to individuals.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "number of labour" functions as a noun phrase aiming to quantify the workforce. However, as flagged by Ludwig AI, the grammatically correct phrasing is "number of workers" or "amount of labor".

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

48%

Encyclopedias

13%

Science

12%

Less common in

Formal & Business

11%

Reference

0%

Social Media

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

While the phrase "number of labour" appears frequently across various sources, Ludwig AI flags it as grammatically incorrect. The intended meaning is to quantify the workforce, but the proper phrasing should be "number of workers" or "amount of labor". Using grammatically correct alternatives like "workforce size" or "employee headcount" ensures clarity and professionalism, especially in formal contexts. Always prioritize accuracy to maintain the credibility of your communication. While "number of labour" might be understood, it's best avoided in favor of its grammatically sound counterparts.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

quantity of workers

Substitutes "number" with "quantity" and "labour" with "workers", providing a more grammatically sound alternative.

amount of labor

Uses "amount" to emphasize the extent of work available or required, shifting the focus from a simple count.

workforce size

Replaces "number of labour" with a more formal term referring to the total number of workers.

workforce numbers

Replaces "number of labour" with "workforce numbers", indicating statistics related to the working population.

labor force count

Uses "labor force" as a substitute for "number of labour", indicating the total available workers.

personnel numbers

Focuses on personnel as the employees, offering a formal alternative to express the total workers available.

worker population

Replaces "number of labour" with "worker population", to refer the total count of working individuals.

employee headcount

Emphasizes the number of employees as a substitute for "number of labour", useful in business contexts.

labor supply

Offers a more economic-focused perspective, where "labor supply" considers the available workers in a given market.

staffing level

Refers to the level of staffing as a substitute for "number of labour", focusing on the current employment status.

FAQs

What's the correct way to refer to the count of workers?

Instead of "number of labour", use "number of workers", "workforce size", or "employee headcount". These alternatives are grammatically correct and widely accepted.

Can I use "number of labour" in a formal context?

It's best to avoid "number of labour" in formal contexts. Opt for alternatives like "amount of labor", "workforce size", or "employee headcount" to maintain a professional tone and ensure grammatical correctness.

Is "number of labour" grammatically correct?

No, "number of labour" is not considered grammatically correct in standard English. "Labour" is typically used as an uncountable noun. Use "number of workers" instead.

When should I use "amount of labor" instead of "number of labour"?

"Amount of labor" is more suitable when discussing the volume or extent of work, rather than counting individual workers. Use "number of workers" when you need to specify the quantity of people involved.