Plight of Low Paid Cleaners to be Exposed

Equality investigation will expose the plight of low-paid cleaners
More than 400,000 people - mainly women - are vulnerable to exploitation and forced labour

Charlie Latimer and Jamie Doward
The Observer, Sunday 29 December 2013

There are reports of cleaners who have faced abuse or had their pay withheld. Photograph: Getty Images

Shocking examples of low pay, mistreatment and forced labour have been submitted to a major new investigation into the plight of workers in Britain's cleaning industry.

The examples have been given to the Equality and Human Rights Commission as part of an evidence-gathering exercise that concludes next month. It comes amid mounting concern about the pay and conditions of cleaners, which has led to high-profile employers such as Premier League football clubs and a retail chain being targeted by campaigners demanding that they ensure their contract staff are paid a living wage.

More than 400,000 people work in the cleaning industry, but it remains a "Cinderella" occupation, subject to little regulatory oversight and plagued by poor pay and conditions. Almost three-fifths of cleaners are women, nearly a quarter are over 54 and more than a third are migrants. The fact that many cleaners are migrants makes them vulnerable to exploitation, say employment experts.

Evidence suggests that the economic downturn has led to a worsening of conditions in recent years. Employment tribunals and Citizens Advice bureaux are recording an increasing number of cases where cleaners have had their pay withheld. One company had 37 complaints about withheld pay made against it. Instances of forced labour and abuse have been reported by charities and other voluntary organisations.

Worsening conditions for cleaners have been noted by the Latin American Women's Rights Service, which has submitted evidence to the commission's investigation. "This is a highly unregulated industry and a high proportion of people are being paid below the minimum wage," said the service's director, Carolina Gottardo. "We all know this happens all the time, but with cuts in funding and cuts in legal aid it's very hard for a person on the minimum wage to challenge this, so people are left with no access to justice. That's why the inquiry is really important – because some people are being really abused and this problem is totally invisible."

Cleaners have reported having a "fee" deducted from their wages by the person who hired them. Gottardo said people have become "very creative" in finding ways to exploit others.

The charity has heard of migrants being paid half the minimum wage or forced to work extra hours for no pay. It said that in many cases, cleaners did not complain because they felt threatened by their managers or scared that they would have to leave the country. Some women had reported being sexually harassed and raped by their managers. Gottardo said that in many cases, the women did not know their rights or how to challenge the abuse.

Alice Teague, the commission's policy head for employment and economy, said its investigation would shine a light on to a neglected industry: "The whole purpose of this is not to name and shame firms; it's to find out what is happening in the industry."

She added that the watchdog was hoping to work with cleaning firms to improve conditions, but would use its powers to demand information if they did not comply with requests. She said a number of firms had been "actively stonewalling" the commission and, as a result, it had had to extend its deadline for information to 17 January.

The investigation is focusing on cleaners working in offices, hospitals and shops, but there are also concerns about privately employed cleaners.

Visa changes introduced last year mean that domestic workers are now tied to their employers and unable to change jobs. Campaigners say this prevents people from leaving their employer, or speaking out if they experience abuse. "We have certainly noticed a deterioration in conditions for domestic workers since the changes to the overseas domestic worker visa in April 2012," said Catherine Kenny, community advocate at Kalayaan, a charity for migrant domestic workers. "In addition, greater numbers of people on this visa are earning less than the national minimum wage, get statutory time off or are allowed out of the employer's home unaccompanied." This month the Centre for London think-tank published a paper recommending that the government devolve powers for enforcing the minimum wage to local councils. "Here in London, cleaners are very often immigrant women, many of them overqualified and underpaid," said the paper's author, Andy Hull, a councillor in Islington, north London.

During his research, Hull interviewed cleaners who were working in hotels and earning well below the minimum wage. He said it was time for their employers to be held to account. "Exploitative hotel managers who pay their cleaners so little per room that they cannot earn the minimum wage should be investigated, forced to pay arrears and fines, then named and shamed," he added.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/29/equality-investigation-cleaners-low-pay


Bloody hell, and we call ourselves a civilised country!

And of course there is too much gloop being ladled for this injustice to be spoken about.

Interesting article that plays on vulnerability, but offers little to if many are, what is interesting is what qualifications do you need to be a cleaner?

Quite bloody right it should be exposed sassy, nobody in this country should be working hours which do not pay them enough to afford life's necessities ...and a bit more.

Fat cat bankers have been on staggering bonuses for failing banks and they have been afforded of many luxuries , so why should the ' common worker' not be able to afford the odd small treat at least?


The haters won't like this..good, it needs bloody exposing.

The same lot who stay quiet all the time, or chip in to write stuff they really do not mean.

Joy Division wrote:Quite bloody right it should be exposed sassy, nobody in this country should be working hours which do not pay them enough to afford life's necessities ...and a bit more.

Fat cat bankers have been on staggering bonuses for failing banks and they have been afforded of many luxuries , so why should the ' common worker' not be able to afford the odd small treat at least?


The haters won't like this..good, it needs bloody exposing.

The same lot who stay quiet all the time, or chip in to write stuff they really do not mean.

Again what qualifications does a person need to be  a cleaner.

How much should we pay people to clean, something I find very therapeutic when I do?

A serious question, what is a fair pay for people to clean

Nothing to do with any haters, again the left picking up on the guilt trip, provides little evidence an plays on the fact in which we all are is vunerable

Well my dad has a cleaner come in once a week.

£12 per hour we pay her.

Costa wrote:Well my dad has a cleaner come in once a week.

£12 per hour we pay her.

I would say that is a good wage, would you not agree Costa?

The point is Cleaners like any other employee's have the same rights and if they do not know their rights then who is to blame here when things go wrong?
The person who does not read their own terms and conditions of employment, before signing it ?

PhilDidge wrote:

Costa wrote:Well my dad has a cleaner come in once a week.

£12 per hour we pay her.

I would say that is a good wage, would you not agree Costa?

The point is Cleaners like any other employee's have the same rights and if they do not know their rights then who is to blame here when things go wrong?
The person who does not read their own terms and conditions of employment?

Oh it's an excellent wage and we shopped around beforehand, and it was much the going rate everywhere. It was originally £10 per hour she charged, but my dad put it up to £12, as she is a great help, does all his washing and ironing too.

I have said so many times the answer to this problem is to get rid of minimum wage and bring in maximum wage so that the highest paid cannot receive more than a set multiple of the lowest paid.

The whole point of the minimum wage was to try and reduce the gap between richest and poorest but not only has it failed to do this it has actually resulted in an increase because now bosses to do have to consider how much to increase the pay of the lowest employees when pay increases are thought of because the government sets the amount for them. Bring in a legal link then people will have to think of the lowest paid when deciding how much to pay the highest paid.

My, no comments about the total exploitation then, that has been proved.

- sorry JD, apart from you.

PhilDidge wrote:

Costa wrote:Well my dad has a cleaner come in once a week.

£12 per hour we pay her.

I would say that is a good wage, would you not agree Costa?

The point is Cleaners like any other employee's have the same rights and if they do not know their rights then who is to blame here when things go wrong?
The person who does not read their own terms and conditions of employment, before signing it ?

Even if that was only just for 1 hour per week under the figures released by this government that would count as a job and someone in employment

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

I would say that is a good wage, would you not agree Costa?

The point is Cleaners like any other employee's have the same rights and if they do not know their rights then who is to blame here when things go wrong?
The person who does not read their own terms and conditions of employment, before signing it ?

Even if that was only just for 1 hour per week under the figures released by this government that would count as a job and someone in employment

Read again what I said, only an idiot why a sign  contract that places them in an disadvantage.

So who is at fault here?

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Even if that was only just for 1 hour per week under the figures released by this government that would count as a job and someone in employment

Read again what I said, only an idiot why a sign  contract that places them in an disadvantage.

So who is at fault here?

I read it. That would count as a job wouldn't it?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Read again what I said, only an idiot why a sign  contract that places them in an disadvantage.

So who is at fault here?

I read it. That would count as a job wouldn't it?

Yes which means you are protected by law unless you sign to something which does not protect you.
Is that part sinking in yet?

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I read it. That would count as a job wouldn't it?

Yes which means you are protected by law unless you sign to something which does not protect you.
Is that part sinking in yet?

My point has obviously gone right over your head. That counts as a job so that person wouldn't be counted as unemployed even though they only earned £12 per week,,,,,correct?

zero hours contracts don't protect you, they do the opposite.

So those 400,000 on top of the zero hours contracts, at least 1.5 million, plus the 2.5 million counted as unemployed, means the governments unemployment figures are way off the mark.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Yes which means you are protected by law unless you sign to something which does not protect you.
Is that part sinking in yet?

My point has obviously gone right over your head. That counts as a job so that person wouldn't be counted as unemployed even though they only earned £12 per week,,,,,correct?

£12 per week? what county are you in?

Did that person sign the contract for that money?

Even an idiot such as yourself can answer that question?

I mean who would sign up to that little money?

And you are blaming who exactly?

That has just been exposed as what is happening. Care to read the OP?

Sassy wrote:That has just been exposed as what is happening.   Care to read the OP?

So who is the idiot here, the person that fools the person signing a contract, or the person who signs it?

Have you not understood any point here, are you now trying to excuse stupidity?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Yes which means you are protected by law unless you sign to something which does not protect you.
Is that part sinking in yet?

My point has obviously gone right over your head. That counts as a job so that person wouldn't be counted as unemployed even though they only earned £12 per week,,,,,correct?

If you work less than 16 hours a week, you still sign on for Jobseekers Allowance.

You do all realize that anyone on a zero hours contract can still sign on by declaring the number of hours worked and pay earned and if under 16 hours they receive JSA minus what they have earned and are still counted in the unemployed figures dont you?

So 1 hour £12 a week means they get the rest made up in JSA.

Costa wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

My point has obviously gone right over your head. That counts as a job so that person wouldn't be counted as unemployed even though they only earned £12 per week,,,,,correct?

If you work less than 16 hours a week, you still sign on for Jobseekers Allowance.

LOL great minds and all that

Yes again, you didn't read it. You know, the bit about their visa meaning they can't change, contracts that they thought were ok when then signed them, but with wages being with held etc, are not what they thought they had signed.

sphinx wrote:

Costa wrote:

If you work less than 16 hours a week, you still sign on for Jobseekers Allowance.

LOL great minds and all that

Yep, but you are not on the unemployed list.

Shhh sphinx and costa, you are destroying their only defense of stupdity

Read my last post, and the one before that, if you can understand of course.

Sassy wrote:

sphinx wrote:

LOL great minds and all that

Yep, but you are not on the unemployed list.

Seeing as the unemployed list is formed from people claiming JSA - yes you are.

You'd think there's never been poor people in the world...

Costa wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

My point has obviously gone right over your head. That counts as a job so that person wouldn't be counted as unemployed even though they only earned £12 per week,,,,,correct?

If you work less than 16 hours a week, you still sign on for Jobseekers Allowance.

Not for long as you get shifted to poundland, work for free or get sanctioned. This government have devised more ways to skin a cat to get people off the unemployment list

So there goes the cleaning job then. lol

Costa, can you show that £12 per hour is the nationwide average pay for a cleaner?...

Cos it's not.

Irn Bru wrote:

Costa wrote:

If you work less than 16 hours a week, you still sign on for Jobseekers Allowance.

Not for long as you get shifted to poundland, work for free or get sanctioned. This government have devised more ways to skin a cat to get people off the unemployment list

What a pathetic stereotype born from years of indoctrination.

When are you going to admit a person themselves signs a contract, are you trying to make people being stupid against the law?

I'll bet they don't pay any flipping tax either.

Just like most sole-traders.

Plumbers, electricians, hairdressers - they're all stealing from the rest of us.

And when you complain they'll say "if you can get away with it..."

Joy Division wrote:Costa, can you show that £12 per hour is the nationwide average pay for a cleaner?...

Cos it's not.

That's what my dad pays his cleaner, and the going rate around these parts is £10 - £12 per hour. We shopped around beforehand and that's what we found.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Not for long as you get shifted to poundland, work for free or get sanctioned. This government have devised more ways to skin a cat to get people off the unemployment list

What a pathetic stereotype born from years of indoctrination.

When are you going to admit a person themselves signs a contract, are you trying to make people being stupid against the law?    

I'm not talking about contracts. I'm talking about someone earning only £12 from just one job if they only work 1 hour.

Costa's dad pays a very good rate - no complaints about that

Costa wrote:

Joy Division wrote:Costa, can you show that £12 per hour is the nationwide average pay for a cleaner?...

Cos it's not.

That's what my dad pays his cleaner, and the going rate around these parts is £10 - £12 per hour. We shopped around beforehand and that's what we found.

Hi Costa x

I reckon you've got a good deal, I'd happily pay a reliable cleaner that kind of money and more besides. Perhaps commercial cleaners don't receive those kinds of hourly rates? I don't know   

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

What a pathetic stereotype born from years of indoctrination.

When are you going to admit a person themselves signs a contract, are you trying to make people being stupid against the law?    

I'm not talking about contracts. I'm talking about someone earning only £12 from just one job if they only work 1 hour.

Costa's dad pays a very good rate - no complaints about that

So you are talking about a person who gets twice the minimum wage correct?

They get £12 for one hours work, seems fair to me, what is your beef with that ????

Costa wrote:

Joy Division wrote:Costa, can you show that £12 per hour is the nationwide average pay for a cleaner?...

Cos it's not.

That's what my dad pays his cleaner, and the going rate around these parts is £10 - £12 per hour. We shopped around beforehand and that's what we found.

...' In these parts' , well that's alright if one works in ' these parts' Costa....I can assure you it's nowhere near the amount  paid for cleaners elsewhere.

Joy Division wrote:

Costa wrote:

That's what my dad pays his cleaner, and the going rate around these parts is £10 - £12 per hour. We shopped around beforehand and that's what we found.

...' In these parts' , well that's alright if one works in ' these parts' Costa....I can assure you it's nowhere near the amount  paid for cleaners elsewhere.

Okay Joy why do they take the job if it is so poorly paid?

Anyway Didge, the huge majority of cleaners in this country are paid the NMW, and that's only thanks to Labour, who,  remember the Tories were opposed to the NMW.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I'm not talking about contracts. I'm talking about someone earning only £12 from just one job if they only work 1 hour.

Costa's dad pays a very good rate - no complaints about that

So you are talking about a person who gets twice the minimum wage correct?

They get £12 for one hours work, seems fair to me, what is your beef with that ????  

I don't have a beef with it - I've highlighted it for you.

  

PhilDidge wrote:

Joy Division wrote:
...' In these parts' , well that's alright if one works in ' these parts' Costa....I can assure you it's nowhere near the amount  paid for cleaners elsewhere.

Okay Joy why do they take the job if it is so poorly paid?  

...because it's all their bloody is Didge, along with Mcdonalds...

And you would again be calling them bone idle if those positions were not filled.

That's why.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

What a pathetic stereotype born from years of indoctrination.

When are you going to admit a person themselves signs a contract, are you trying to make people being stupid against the law?    

I'm not talking about contracts. I'm talking about someone earning only £12 from just one job if they only work 1 hour.

Costa's dad pays a very good rate - no complaints about that

But all they have to do is declare the hours work and they would keep some of the £12 with the rest made up in JSA.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

So you are talking about a person who gets twice the minimum wage correct?

They get £12 for one hours work, seems fair to me, what is your beef with that ????  

I don't have a beef with it - I've highlighted it for you.

  

Great, so you had no point then.

  

Joy Division wrote:Anyway Didge, the huge majority of cleaners in this country are paid the NMW, and that's only thanks to Labour, who,  remember the Tories were opposed to the NMW.

As I have already said the NMW has had the opposite affect to that intended in that it has increased the gap between highest and lowest paid.

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:Anyway Didge, the huge majority of cleaners in this country are paid the NMW, and that's only thanks to Labour, who,  remember the Tories were opposed to the NMW.

As I have already said the NMW has had the opposite affect to that intended in that it has increased the gap between highest and lowest paid.

...oh right...so giving the poor less and the rich more then narrows the gap between rich and poor?


Eh right.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

As I have already said the NMW has had the opposite affect to that intended in that it has increased the gap between highest and lowest paid.

...oh right...so giving the poor less and the rich more then narrows the gap between rich and poor?


Eh right.

I said it had the opposite affect to the intended one because the results were counter intuitive. People thought it would ensure the poor had a set level of income keeping them closer to the rich but instead what happened was the rich increased their incomes at a much higher rate while the minimum wage increase was next to nothing so the gap got bigger.

Instead of a NMW we need a maximum wage which links highest paid to lowest paid so that all incomes increase or decrease by the same amount - the boss wants 10% then then cleaner gets 10% etc. At the moment the government decides the cleaner gets 1% while the boss can award himself 10% - ten years of this and the gap has become huge. Before the minimum wage came in whenever pay rises were decided companies had to look at everyone, and very few would award the boss 10% and the cleaner 1% - because it looked bad so they would award 8% and 3% - still unequal but not as bad - I mean there are plenty of recorded cases of upper levels getting pay increases over 40% while those on minimum wage got 1% and that certainly could not have happened before the NMW came in because the unions would have had a fit. The NMW has removed the lowest paid from the unions protection - it was not intended but that is what happened.

Costa wrote:Well my dad has a cleaner come in once a week.

£12 per hour we pay her.

...very generous Costa, but  I thought you meant a fleet of cleaners on£12 an hour!!

And it's only an hour or two a week after all, I doubt he would get a cleaner bothering for much less than that for the odd hour here and there.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I don't have a beef with it - I've highlighted it for you.

  

Great, so you had no point then.

  

There was and for the second time I've had to tell you that it went right over your head.

Joy Division wrote:

Costa wrote:Well my dad has a cleaner come in once a week.

£12 per hour we pay her.

...very generous Costa, but  I thought you meant a fleet of cleaners on£12 an hour!!

And it's only an hour or two a week after all, I doubt he would get a cleaner bothering for much less than that for the odd hour here and there.

Where did I say it was only an hour or two a week JD?

I didnt.