Workers at one institution talked about the robust interaction of years gone by that has now been sanitized and scripted. They sense that their personal commitment, caring and investment must now be hidden behind an impersonal mask which purports to professionalism and quality care. Some feel the authenticity of their work being compromised (Waterhouse et al., 1999). The “loves” and “honeys” and “darlings” that were endowed spontaneously in the past have been replaced by “Mrs. B” or “Mr. A.” Terms of endearment and first names are now said to be disrespectful unless negotiated beforehand. And the kisses and hugs offered by some residents are now censored for their potential to be intrusive and violating, threatening the professional relationship between residents and carers. Aged care workers recognize that the “no-lift” policy is essential for their health but they struggle to reconcile this with the recommended lifting machines. One nurse bemoaned:

I can’t help thinking of those cranes at the port that pluck out the cargo from the hold and carry it dangling over to the wharf.

While risk managers seek out all points of possible vulnerability to legal suits, residents may perceive themselves reduced to noxious bundles of flesh.

There is no doubt that new measures have been important for the protection of residents and staff, but one wonders at the price and the alternatives. The government-endorsed readings of the accreditation texts have established such weight that employees are afraid to deviate in case they expose themselves as incompetent or threaten the accreditation of the institution. Of course when backs are turned and authorities are out of earshot, workers sometimes remove their enforced masks and break the rules. However there are few who do not believe that their interaction is mediated by a very big brother. The social consequences of this have been discussed by writers such as Sennett (1998), Wilmott (1993) and Saul (1995), who believe that the intrusion of controls into the personal interaction and belief systems of individuals invades personal autonomy and ethical identity.

The implications for this on casual workers with literacy needs is only marginally more interesting than its impact upon the industry, individual workers and residents. All workers need to develop a command of the literacies and the communication practices that the key texts call for, or rather their interpreters expect to see. We are still in the midst of data gathering and so far our venturing has not taken us outside the aged care industry. Conclusions are yet to be drawn. Let us see where the study leads us.