It's not really possible to answer this question as asked without polling the general population and seeing what the word brings to mind.
Here are some facts:
- The word almost surely originated as a racist stereotype
- At least some people are aware of #1
- Because of #2, the risk of offense is non-zero
- There are plenty of synonyms out there (cheated, conned, scammed, duped, et al.)
Therefore, it's easy to avoid the word, and it's advisable unless you aren't really concerned about being seen as an insensitive person.
Also: "political correctness" isn't a studied linguistic concept with a clear-cut definition. It is itself a politically loaded term, in that what many cynically label "political correctness", others would simply call "common decency" or "being inclusive to groups of people unlike oneself".
It's true that OED's first definition for so-called is just called or designated by that name, but the most recent citation for that "neutral" sense is 1863. So even though OED don't explicitly identify it as dated/out-of-fashion, that's what I would say. The "current" definition is...
Called or designated by this name or term, but not properly entitled to it or correctly described by it. Also loosely or catachrestically as a term of abuse.
It's particularly worth noting their most recent citation for that sense...
1980 W. Safire in N.Y. Times Mag. 13 Jan. 6/1
Examples of sneer words are ‘self-proclaimed’, ‘would-be’, ‘purported’ and that Soviet favorite, ‘so-called’.
If William Safire says it's a sneer word, that's good enough for me.
Turning to OP's first example, I would say that the "translation" is inherently flawed, since no negative connotations are intended. Depending on context (primarily, the target readership), it might be better rendered as...
1: The government approved exceptions for "non-pedagogical" (non-teaching) workers.
2: The government approved exceptions for workers classified as "non-pedagogical".
Or you could simply omit so-called and leave it at that, for a "neutral" reference. The use of "scare quotes" doesn't necessarily carry negative connotations, so it's a credible way of simply introducing an unfamiliar technical term or usage without it being value-laden.
EDIT: In light of the many respondents supporting so-called inaffectionate 1 use of the expression, I think it's only fair to point out that Google Books claims 1650 instances of "so-called quanta". It's simply not conceivable any of them would be denigrating either the term itself, or its use in the context of some referent undeserving of the label.
In reality there are only 23 instances (of which barely a dozen are visible in context, and within that most are duplicates), and they tend to be older. But it can't be denied that some people still use the term neutrally. So we must be prepared to admit of that possibility if ever we come across a "perplexing" usage.
1 This is from subscriber-only OED - I can't find an online definition of the usage...
inaffectionate, adj. Obs. rare. Unbiased, unprejudiced.
Best Answer
Yes, it is offensive and you should probably avoid using it:
Midget:
(OLD) Fiera an I Midget:
Wikipedia
The following extact offers an interesting insight on the meaning and usage of midget vs dwarf:
POLITICALLY CORRECT OR JUST CORRECT
(www.udprogram.com)