Euphemism for the sack

Yesterday I was editing an annual report for a small company, and came across these sentences in the “People” section:

Some business restructuring also occurred across [the organization] to manage costs in response to the economic recession leading to an increased proportion of non-voluntary turnover on previous years. Management is closely monitoring turnover in line with our objective to maximise commitment and retention of our people.

Um, hello? Isn’t ‘non-voluntary turnover’ a euphemism for the sack?? And if management forced some people to lose their jobs (i.e. sacked them), surely they have a hide to state that their objective is to ‘maximise commitment and retention of our people.’

There’s nothing like a few ‘non-voluntary turnovers’ to make those that remain more committed and more likely to be retained. NOT.

And that paragraph was then followed by this one, which is a nice gobbledegook, ‘weasel word’ one, if ever I saw one:

As [our] systems for capturing employment data improves so too will our ability to monitor and report on voluntary versus non-voluntary turnover and consequentially [sic] to improve management response strategies.

Huh?