Plight of Low Paid Cleaners to be Exposed

First topic message reminder :


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!

But your Dad is not the type of cleaner talked about in this report is he?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

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.

You mean the second time you had no point, I know.

 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

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

You mean the second time you had no point, I know.

 :D 

Now I've bagged the hat-trick of someone not getting the point.

Too easy lol

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

You mean the second time you had no point, I know.

 :D 

Now I've bagged the hat-trick of someone not getting the point.

Too easy lol

Really? All I am seeing is complete waffle as per usual from a Commie

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Now I've bagged the hat-trick of someone not getting the point.

Too easy lol

Really? All I am seeing is complete waffle as per usual from a Commie

More petty name calling - game over

How is it game over when you cannot explain why a person signs a contract for low money, it was game over Irn Curtain when you failed to answer this

PhilDidge wrote:How is it game over when you cannot explain why a person signs a contract for low money, it was game over Irn Curtain when you failed to answer this

I never brought up signing contracts because that wasn't the point I was making.

See - game over

It was the point I was making which you answered the posts from and of course you avoided this as per usual, read back.

Hilarious, so its game over when you cannot answer, too right

PhilDidge wrote:It was the point I was making which you answered the posts from and of course you avoided this as per usual, read back.

Hilarious, so its game over when you cannot answer, too right

It wasn't my point. That was yours.

  

Yes which you answered ha ha but not the questions I asked, funny that

Can't you read. These women signed what they think are good contracts, they then have money stopped, are abused, have money taken off that should not be taken off, AND THEY CAN'T CHANGE BECAUSE OF THEIR VISAs. Read the OP, it helps you know.

Did you just say they thought they were good contracts?

 ://?roflmao?/: 

So basically you are excusing stupidity from people or if their contracts have been altered or there is a conflict then they can take them to a tribunal as they are protected by law, which seems to go above your head

Are you determined to make yourself look stupid.   The contracts, as laid out, have decent hours and wages.   However, when they get here, wages are withheld, they are told they have to work extra for no pay, they are abused and raped by their employers, AND THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE BECAUSE OF THEIR VISAS.

You are the one who thinks people are happy with zero hours contracts, you don't seem to think they are stupid.

Then all they have to do is go to the tribunal as they are protected by the law, it is quite simple really, which you seem to be failing to grasp

People are happy with zero hour contracts, considering I work for a big cooperation which uses them, I do have a fair idea on them thanks

Read the OP.   They can't.


re Zero Hours
A ban on  exclusive “zero hours” contracts, which prevent people working elsewhere even when they have no guarantee of work, is planned by the Government.

The move follows a review by Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Business Secretary,  after growing criticism of the controversial contracts, which do not ensure a minimum number of hours.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-plans-ban-on-exclusive-zero-hours-contracts--but-stops-short-of-outlawing-completely-9013714.html

://?roflmao?/: 

Hilarious

Zero-Hours 'Unfairly Demonised' As Workers Found To Be Happier

Zero-hours workers are more likely to be happy with their work-life balance than other employees, new research has found.

The study from the Chartered Institute for Personnel Development comes amid mounting controversy over the widespread use of these deals, which offer employees no fixed hours of work or benefits from one week to the next.

Just over half of the 456 zero hours workers questioned by CIPD said they did not want more hours, with 38% saying they would. Four out of five said they were never penalised if they were unavailable for work. Workers on zero-hours contracts said they were just as happy as the average worker, and are happier with their work-life balance.

CIPD chief executive Peter Cheese said: "The use of zero-hours contracts in the UK economy has been underestimated, oversimplified and in some cases, unfairly demonised. Our research shows that the majority of people employed on these contracts are satisfied with their jobs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/25/zero-hours_n_4337806.html

 :/pwn://: 

And yet AFTER THAT, the government is going to ban them because of all the complaints.   

But as seen he people are happy with them which means you were telling porkies

 :D 

If people were happy with them, the government wouldn't be banning them, would they?

Now can we get back to the OP.

These women can't get out of these contracts, they are being abused and raped and used as slave labour.

As seen people were happy with them, I suggest you read the article I posted, which makes your view point look daft again

If people were happy with them, the government wouldn't be banning them, would they?

Now can we get back to the OP.

These women can't get out of these contracts, they are being abused and raped and used as slave labour.


The government don't agree with you, because after the article you brought in, they are banning them, they obviously have different information.

But as seen people wer happy with them, are you now denying this?

You are also wrong

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25442506

PhilDidge wrote:You are also wrong

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25442506

I think you will find she is right. The government are planning to ban exclusive “zero hours” contracts, which prevent people working elsewhere even when they have no guarantee of work meaning they are no longer tied to the contracts they are in.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-plans-ban-on-exclusive-zero-hours-contracts--but-stops-short-of-outlawing-completely-9013714.html

I'm sure I heard a snippet of this last week or thereabouts on the news Irn, didge really should quit while he is behind.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:You are also wrong

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25442506

I think you will find she is right. The government are planning to ban exclusive “zero hours” contracts, which prevent people working elsewhere even when they have no guarantee of work meaning they are no longer tied to the contracts they are in.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-plans-ban-on-exclusive-zero-hours-contracts--but-stops-short-of-outlawing-completely-9013714.html

They are both right. Not all "zero-hours" contracts are being considered to be banned, only those which prevent people working elsewhere ie "exclusivity contracts".  It's only at consultation stage - see below from Didge's link. Isn't that great?!

BBC NEWS wrote:Business Secretary Vince Cable has ruled out a complete ban on zero-hours contracts, saying they offered employers "welcome flexibility".

Launching a consultation on their use, Mr Cable said the contracts had a place in the labour market even though there had been evidence of abuse of rights.

Companies could be barred from having "exclusivity contracts" that stop people working for another firm.

Zero-hours contracts do not guarantee regular work for employees.

The consultation will last 12 weeks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25442506]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25442506

Well, that shut them up ftl - well done.

feelthelove wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

I think you will find she is right. The government are planning to ban exclusive “zero hours” contracts, which prevent people working elsewhere even when they have no guarantee of work meaning they are no longer tied to the contracts they are in.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-plans-ban-on-exclusive-zero-hours-contracts--but-stops-short-of-outlawing-completely-9013714.html

They are both right.  Not all "zero-hours" contracts are being considered to be banned, only those which prevent people working elsewhere ie "exclusivity contracts".  It's only at consultation stage - see below from Didge's link. Isn't that great?!

BBC NEWS wrote:Business Secretary Vince Cable has ruled out a complete ban on zero-hours contracts, saying they offered employers "welcome flexibility".

Launching a consultation on their use, Mr Cable said the contracts had a place in the labour market even though there had been evidence of abuse of rights.

Companies could be barred from having "exclusivity contracts" that stop people working for another firm.

Zero-hours contracts do not guarantee regular work for employees.

The consultation will last 12 weeks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25442506]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25442506

Indeed FTL. Vince Cable’s statement is in line with my original view on this when I said the government are going to ban them. And I seriously doubt that they will not do so after making it quite clear that they are planning to do just that thereby seeing justice for all those locked in to these dreadful conditions. Surely no one would argue with that.


Now I wonder if anyone is going to show some sympathy for the ladies locked into contracts that are virtually slave labour and they are being abused and raped as well.

Sassy wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

They are both right.  Not all "zero-hours" contracts are being considered to be banned, only those which prevent people working elsewhere ie "exclusivity contracts".  It's only at consultation stage - see below from Didge's link. Isn't that great?!

Indeed FTL. Vince Cable’s statement is in line with my original view on this when I said the government are going to ban them. And I seriously doubt that they will not do so after making it quite clear that they are planning to do just that thereby seeing justice for all those locked in to these dreadful conditions. Surely no one would argue with that.


Now I wonder if anyone is going to show some sympathy for the ladies locked into contracts that are virtually slave labour and they are being abused and raped as well.

Well I'm glad that's cleared up  :D 

Hopefully the potential changes to prevent exclusivity contracts will be a step in the right direction to protect this group of very vulnerable women. Unbelievable something like this is happening in 2013 

So in the end FTL was right!    

feelthelove wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Indeed FTL. Vince Cable’s statement is in line with my original view on this when I said the government are going to ban them. And I seriously doubt that they will not do so after making it quite clear that they are planning to do just that thereby seeing justice for all those locked in to these dreadful conditions. Surely no one would argue with that.


Now I wonder if anyone is going to show some sympathy for the ladies locked into contracts that are virtually slave labour and they are being abused and raped as well.

Well I'm glad that's cleared up  :D 

Hopefully the potential changes to prevent exclusivity contracts will be a step in the right direction to protect this group of very vulnerable women. Unbelievable something like this is happening in 2013 

I'm afraid you appear have misunderstood. These women are not on zero hours contracts and any new legislation will not help them. They cannot change their contracts because of visa conditions.

And zero hours contracts are not being banned anyway.

What do their visas say that restrict them to these contracts?

Its in the OP. And zero hours contracts are being banned, with a few exceptions.

Seems to be the change in the visas is the problem. Also abuse of minimum wage is widespread

It is, plus the witholding of their wages and the abuse. Not a nice position to be in for any woman.

Sassy wrote:It is, plus the witholding of their wages and the abuse.   Not a nice position to be in for any woman.

Shame, they are so desperate to get in the country they are easy prey

They are indeed, shameful that people use that. They are legal immigrants after all.

Despite all the goings on there is definitely much in common with both sassy and Nems on a political point.

PhilDidge wrote: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?

....exploitation is just that Didge, and these greedy and seedy organisations who smuggle illegals to here and the companies who employ them for peanuts need brought to book.

If you were a poor person form a poorer country with no prospects at home , im sure you would wish to better yourself and your  family's  quality of life, it is not the point of not needing a qualification as that is totally irrelevant , amyway many job ads do state that people who apply for cleaning jobs need experience.


Exploitation is just not on, and the only way these ruthless and ruthless employers will learn is by way of hefty fines.

Wether or not a job requires a qualification has absolutely no relevance here and  that is a very poor statement you made.  

Blame those who smuggle them here and manipulate them and the greedy employers.

But they dont need to be smuggled here - the government welcomes them with open arms. Seeing as the wages are so low in their countries of origins wages lower than minimum wage seem like vast riches when they first get her and they rush into the exploitation with enthusiasm.

Unless and until our government (of whatever party or parties) gets control of our borders and is able to stick entry requirements on incoming people such as the need to show an understanding of the law of this land and being prepared to comply with that law then such exploitation is not going to stop.

sphinx wrote:But they dont need to be smuggled here - the government welcomes them with open arms.  Seeing as the wages are so low in their countries of origins wages lower than minimum wage seem like vast riches when they first get her and they rush into the exploitation with enthusiasm.

Unless and until our government (of whatever party or parties) gets control of our borders and is able to stick entry requirements on incoming people such as the need to show an understanding of the law of this land and being prepared to comply with that law then such exploitation is not going to stop.

...even full EU member states have their own nationalities working here Sphinx, but they can't all get legal and above board employment , and remember that not all EU countries have permits to work here full time etc.

And an understanding of our laws is much needed by employers here who choose to flout these laws in order to achieve cheap Labour which pays well below the NMW.

The employers understand the laws full well and simply carry on working to their own advantage. While there is a supply of plentiful labour willing and even eager to accept less than NMW (which I have explained elsewhere actually has the opposite effect to the one it is intended to anyway) these employers are going to use it because the fines are less than the money they are saving anyway.

sphinx wrote:The employers understand the laws full well and simply carry on working to their own advantage.  While there is a supply of plentiful labour willing and even eager to accept less than NMW (which I have explained elsewhere actually has the opposite effect to the one it is intended to anyway) these employers are going to use it because the fines are less than the money they are saving anyway.

...so do you agree that greedy employers play their part in this exploitation ?

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:The employers understand the laws full well and simply carry on working to their own advantage.  While there is a supply of plentiful labour willing and even eager to accept less than NMW (which I have explained elsewhere actually has the opposite effect to the one it is intended to anyway) these employers are going to use it because the fines are less than the money they are saving anyway.

...so do you agree that greedy employers play their part in this exploitation ?

Of course they do JD - the only reason some farmers, business groups, large corporations are spouting about how great the EU is and how we'll lose so much if we leave is because they save money on staff therefore the directors and shareholders get more in their own pockets.

Thanks for acknowledging that Andy

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:The employers understand the laws full well and simply carry on working to their own advantage.  While there is a supply of plentiful labour willing and even eager to accept less than NMW (which I have explained elsewhere actually has the opposite effect to the one it is intended to anyway) these employers are going to use it because the fines are less than the money they are saving anyway.

...so do you agree that greedy employers play their part in this exploitation ?

They play a part but not the only or even the main part.

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:
...so do you agree that greedy employers play their part in this exploitation ?

They play a part but not the only or even the main part.

All those in the report are LEGAL workers and ARE exploited by their employers.

But the employers are not the only or even main part of the problem.