Pluralizing "personnel"?

I came accross the following sentence:

There will be 110 personnel in the store on launch.

Is it better to phrase it like so:

There will be 110 persons in the store on launch.

Which of the two is correct?

Solution 1:

From Random House:

Some usage guides object to the use of personnel as a plural. However, this use is well established and standard in all varieties of speech and writing. The use of personnel with a preceding number is largely restricted to business and government communications: "Six personnel were transferred".

So, some people will be comfortable using personnel in the way you describe (particularly in business), but others might not be. However, the fact remains that the usage you describe in the question has a strong precedent.

(This is, of course, assuming you are using "personnel" to refer to people who work at the store, and not just any people in the store including customers.)

Solution 2:

Be careful:

Personnel is not a synonym of "people" or "person".

While person is a general noun that indicates a human being, the personnel is "people employed in an organization or engaged in an organized undertaking such as military service".

And being a plural noun the sentence you saw is perfectly correct.

If instead it refers to people in general being there, you'd want to use "people".

Solution 3:

The use of "personnel" as a plural is perfectly common in business speak. So whether it's appropriate depends on your context. If you're addressing a recruitment company/human resources department, it's perfectly appropriate. Outside of such contexts, it will sound a bit "business jargony" to many people.

It's easy to find ordinary-sounding words ("people", "employees"), so if you're unsure, you can always just use one of these. Saying "110 personnel" rather than "110 staff members" really doesn't buy you very much, as far as I can see. I don't think a human resources department employee will find it jarring if you use the word "employees", but the converse might be true: somebody not used to the HR "lingo" might find "110 personnel" sounds slightly odd.