As this site is related to Longman's, perhaps you know the answer.

Someone asked in a different place:
------
The manager had us over a barrel - either we worked on a Saturday or we lost our jobs. (Longman)

In the new version, they have changed "worked - lost" to "work - lose". I wonder why.

References:
printed dictionary 1995 edition, also
the latest one
http://pewebdic2.cw.idm.fr/
headword: barrel (n)
------

To my mind, they both work.

This is interesting, Jerry. To my way of thinking, this is how I'm most comfortable with these sentences:

The manager had us over a barrel -- either we worked on a Saturday or we lost our jobs.

The manager has us over a barrel -- either we work on a Saturday or we lose our jobs.

If that sentence you've cited is in the new version, I'm quite surprised. Saying that the manager had them over a barrel shows that this situation was in the past, so the rest of the idea should stay in the past, too.

If the speaker or writer wants to communicate that the situation is current and says "either we work on a Saturday or we lose our jobs," then the beginning part should be in the present with "The manager has us over a barrel."

Well, that's my take on this. Could the new version just contain a couple of typo's? Hmm . . .

Richard

Thank you, Richard.

This is the text that appears both in our online LDOCE and in the latest print copy of the Third edition of 1995.

This edition was published in 2003.

The manager had us over a barrel - either we work on a Saturday or we lose our jobs.
_______

Maybe you are looking at a different edition, Jerry, and in that case it certainly would be interesting to know about the different wording.

Rachel

I think it's very possible to say that "the manager had us over a barrel" (say, last week). The truth, which was true at the time he said it and holds true now and forever is: "either we work or a Saturday or we lose our jobs."

Of course, the sentence works well, too, with either all past or all present tense verbs, too.

Rachel

My extra two cents:

If we say he had us over a barrel, that means he doesn't now. That's the whole point of using the past. If this situation is ongoing -- and it seems as if it is -- it works better to say he has us over a barrel, meaning all the time.

Richard

The sentence might be clearer with some explicit time references:

By the end of our meeting yesterday, the manager had us over a barrel: either we work on a Saturday every month from now on or we lose our jobs.

If the working conditions are an ongoing situation, or a situation in the future, the present tense is fine, and, actually, feels less remote, as it should.

Don't you think?

Rachel

Yes, for sure, Rachel, if the working conditions are an ongoing situation, but that wasn't the issue. I like very much the extra context that you put in your example. In that context, had works fine since it's referring to that limited period during the meeting. Then, the use of the explanatory colon sets up the appropriate use of the simple present to convey the ongoing nature of the situation the workers find themselves in.

That's also why I feel comfortable using has. Having the workers over a barrel could also be an ongoing condition.

They both work very nicely now, yours with the extra information as a time reference, and mine with the ongoing nature of the condition the manager has created.

It can really be such fun to play around with language!

Richard