“Soz”

A sad case of abuse in a private care home made the news this morning. It’s quite upsetting so please don’t feel that you need to read about it but, essentially, the nursing and cleaning staff of a care facility were caught in the act of tormenting and physically assaulting one of their vulnerable charges.

This blog is obviously not a place to talk about such things but we do like to rail against the corporate machine, and what caught my attention in this respect was the corporate care home provider’s official response:

[our treatment of the patient] fell far short of the standards of care we provide our residents every day. We would like to again apologise to Mrs King and her family, and reassure our community that these actions were committed by rogue individuals.

As a learning organisation, in the wake of [hidden camera] footage being brought to us we have further strengthened our complaints process and our safeguarding policy.

We remain committed to doing everything we can to deliver the highest quality care, and to ensuring peace of mind for the residents who make their home with us, and their loved ones.

Fell short of standards of care? A learning organisation? Remain committed to delivering the highest quality care? How are they not ashamed to spout such mealy corporate drivel in such a grave context?

Even in more trivial circumstances, it’s insulting to be offered such an unfeeling, inhumane apology by the mouthpiece of a brand. It’s a technical apology as a matter of process, an output statement of quasi-legalese from an absent party, a false dial tone disconnected from emotion, contrition, or a desire to achieve anything useful in reality.

When a cancelled train leaves me stranded in the middle of the countryside with only an expensive vending machine for company or I’m on a flight that’s been sitting on the Dublin tarmac for two hours, a pre-recorded voice will sometimes come from a loudspeaker to say that “we apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.” I see red when that happens and it’s not even that important. “May cause” indeed.

I’ve sometimes wondered if corporations aren’t perfectly aware of how offensive a phoney apology can be and that it’s precisely why they do it: after all, the employees of a railway company or an airline feel insulted every day — underpaid, disrespected — and, since they have no meaningful interface with the company that makes their daily lives a misery, they take it out on customers in this passive-aggressive way. Saying “we apologise for any inconvenience this may cause” in the midst of a crisis will obviously infuriate. They might as well just say “Soz.”

In the harrowing case of the care home, it’s impossible to accept such a feeble public statement and I hope there are consequences.

How can the words “our shocking acts of brutality” not be part of their statement? Or “the Zimbardo effect clearly being experienced by our staff will be addressed by trained counselors immediately.” Or how about something along the lines of “naturally, we will reduce our nightmare factory to rubble like the Fred West house”?

Maybe I’m asking too much. But you can still sound professional in a sincere apology. And how could you not want to apologise sincerely in a case like this? How can you not want to make real amends for real betrayal and hurt instead of resorting to such skidmarked claptrap as “fell far short of the standards of care” and then pinning the blame on the “rogue individuals” who you formally recruited and trained and paid?

I’d say this is a good example of why care homes shouldn’t be under the control of market forces, but unfortunately they aren’t the only ones guilty of meekly peddling bullshit in the face of grave accusations. Look at the wording of the Care Commission inspection report according to the Guardian:

[they] cut its rating from “good” to “requires improvement”.

and:

[the] “leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.”

“Leaders” is obviously the first word that should make the vomit reach your tonsils, but didn’t it strike anyone that “requires improvement” and “did not always support the delivery of high-quality person-centred care” are brutally offensive euphemisms?

My dislike of corporate language is not a knee-jerk or a purely aesthetic one. I’ve come to accept that some businessy terms like “direction of travel” can be quite useful. It’s also possible that certain distancing techniques can keep the emotional heat out of a conversation where rational decisions need to be made. But it can also be used in a cowardly way to obfuscate and to resist responsibility: you can’t come out to the angry and grieving relatives of an abused dementia patient with simpering phrases like “requires improvement” when you should be grovelling to make up for grotesque malpractice.

According to the Guardian, most of the abusive staff have been fired or allowed to resign (shouldn’t they have been referred to the police?) except for one who was put on a training course. This particular staff member was described by the company as a “committed and values-driven leader”. Jesus fucking Christ.

*

For further railing against corporate double-speak, try The Good Life for Wage Slaves and Escape Everything! (now available in paperback as I’m Out).