A few years ago, before I became an MP, I attended a property services conference in Helsinki, run by the Global Union for Cleaners, UNI.
I was struck by a presentation from ISS, a global facilities service provider, who talked about how cleaning jobs could be revolutionised, particularly with the growing emphasis on green buildings.
At that stage, most cleaners (including NZ) were employed in the traditional way. As the office staff clocked out, the cleaners clocked in – out of sight, out of mind, working for low wages – working at multiple sites and for multiple employers, often wandering from site to site during the night.
ISS talked about this could change – how cleaning could take place during the day, with cleaners working alongside other staff and perhaps expanding their skills beyond cleaning to pick up other facilities work.
So I was interested to read in Saturday’s Dom Post “that there is office cleaning revolution gathering pace in NZ, where the days of mops and wringer buckets filled with unsafe chemicals and sloshed along office corridor floors and noisy vacuum cleanings trailing long chords are numbered.”
ISS NZ is changing the equipment issued to cleaners to lightweight adjustment aluminum mops, microfibre cloths and battery powered quiet vacuum cleaners. Beginning at Te Papa a couple of years ago, ISS, who employs around 4000 cleaners says that the new system has now been adopted by 25% of their clients.
And the biggest change : changing from nighttime cleaning to daytime cleaning, bringing savings for companies in electricity and security.
While ISS says the savings are great for companies, I think the changes can create a revolution for the traditional job of a cleaner, in a number of ways. Firstly, they are more integrated as part of the building staff, not a group of “fairies” who magically appear while we’re at home sleeping. The higher visibility of cleaning staff during the day should raise the overall awareness of the process and more respect towards cleaners, especially when they see them working to keep the building clean. Coming face to face with the cleaner means greater care is often taken by staff and visitors to keep the building clean.
Secondly, daytime work offers much more family friendly options for cleaners and could make the work much more desirable.
I’ve always said cleaners are undervalued. They are responsible for millions of dollars worth of equipment, and now they’re at the forefront of sustainablility in our downtown offices, our airports, schools and hospitals.
The big question is whether that means cleaners’ jobs become worth more (currently, the rate is set at $13.10 an hour), whether there can be decent, full time jobs created through upskilling to take on other work in the day to day life of an office.
NZ’s model of competitive tendering means that more often than not, cleaners are transferred to a new employer who expects them to do the same amount of work for fewer hours.
So, let’s have a revolution in office cleaning, but if it’s still work for vulnerable workers who have to work two or three jobs to make a living, it’s only a revolution for the better off.
Good post Darien.
You are right that cleaning jobs are changing, but the average cleaner has not yet discovered this massive move to daytime cleaning and not only are the pay rates abysmally low but where the union has been part of creating full-time jobs (eg Massey University) these are now being reduced back to part-time with client-initiated budget cuts.
Cleaners! The deciders of every election.
The life of cleaners Louis is symptomatic of what is happening in this country.
There is a small group of NZers with enormous incomes totally out of kilter to the rest of the population, there are those in the traditional economy whose incomes are reasonable but face uncertainty around whether their jobs will be there tomorrow, and lastly there is a massive group of workers who are paid very poorly, have part-time or insecure hours and have no hope of getting anywhere unless they take on more and more work and spend less and less time with their families.
Cleaners fall into the last group and the inequalities in income that now exist in New Zealand are surely an election issue.
Just as Darien has suggested there are solutions to these issues. As well as the macro measures around the level of the minimum wage and giving groups like cleaners more power to negotiate realistic industry rates of pay, there are also some micro measures that the property owners and cleaning companies could implement around decent work that could be a win-win for the tenants and the cleaners.
So Darien what do you propose?
Given that the cleaner gets $13.10 ph and the office junior gets $14.00 ph who is more productive?
Should the cleaner get $14.00 ph as well? For what?
The office junior will advance and provide service and profit for their employer and probably more employment opportunities as their employers business grows.
How does the cleaner provide those oppotunities?
A cleaner is just that – a cleaner, not a career opportunist!
Sounds to me like a perfect situation where market forces are coming to the aid of the environment (as often happens over time) and workers wages have been set at the skill level and value they supply…
So no wonder you want to get involved and mess it up…
Pentwig – you should tell that to the public hospital patient who picks up MRSA and other bugs from too many years of cuts in cleaning, to the teacher who gets sick of spending their time cleaning the school toilets rather than teaching because the school has decided to spend operational fund money on something else, to the airline passenger who is told that crumbs and yoghurt smeared over their seat is because the price of their ticket doesn’t include cleaning and to the property owner whose building loses its 5-star green building rating because the cleaner has never been trained in sustainable work practices.
Without the cleaners busting their guts every day for close to the minimum wage the contractors who employer them don’t have a contract, don’t provide a service and don’t make a profit. Without undermining the job of the office junior, it all seems pretty simple to me.
JR
But you are denying the fact that the cleaner is just that – the cleaner. Their onlr responsibility is to clean with a work ethic of the best they can do under any circumstance, assuming they have a work ethic.
If cleaning jobs are moved to the day alongside most normal workers, which is a great idea…will it not put pressure on the family, who needs jobs outside normal work hours so they do not have to spend so much money on after school care and the likes? Say goodbye to secondary jobs too, for those families need a second income?
I find it quite funny that you went all the way to Helsinki to attend, what? a cleaners conference?! Sounds like the biggest waste of time talk fest ever to have existed on this planet. Very funny nevertheless.
Don’t panic Matthew. The cleaners would have funded it from their Union Fees – one couldn’t expect a person as important as Darian to pay for it herself.
Pentwig – points well made.
Nobody is denying the cleaner is ‘just’ a cleaner.
I think the point is a cleaner does valued work, even if unrecognised, but much more importantly, they deserve the right to a living wage.
No, not many cleaners will go on like an office junior to become, well, an office senior, but see how productive they are when they’re rolling around in their own waste, or worse, forced to clean up after themselves.
@Matthew – that is such a snobby comment. Property Services is one of the biggest industries in the world and there are millions of workers employed in the industry and some of the largest global companies involved. And I went from an ILO conference in Geneva to Helsinki – so perhaps not so funny after all.
@pdm : nasty and wrong again.
Thanks for comments John. It’s always fascinating to see how some are willing to write cleaners off, yet wouldn’t like to have to clean the toilets themselves.
I think it is more prudent to first look at the reason why people are cleaners, then judge their value. I doubt you’ll find many degrees and diplomas amoungst the janitor community.
Of course, someone’s societal value is completely subjective. There’s always going to be a few professions that are generally held up above the others; doctors, policemen, soldiers; but the rest are pretty much a free-for-all.
Judging a professions “value” really does rely on your own individual beliefs. What value is a backbench politician when compared to say Graeme Hart? What value is a janitor when compared to garbage man? It’s purely up to the individual to decide. That’s why I don’t really buy into this wide ranging idea of applying subjective interpretation to an idea and claiming an objective truth.
@Louis : Have a read of this piece on the value of work. http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/bit-rich
“perhaps not so funny after all”
Actually its just as funny as it was yesterday. Did you get complimentary Janola wipes in your gift pack?
Oh man if only Paul Henry knew of this while he was on Breakfast.
@ Darien Fenton
That’s pay not value. Pay is dictated largely by the skills, qualifications, and intelligence needed. Anyone can be a cleaner, or work on a production line and child care is largely human nature.
Not everyone can deal with massive amounts of other people’s money (government included), not everyone can make it through med school, and not everyone can run a multinational company. Put the cleaner in the banker’s job and he’ll fail miserably, send the banker out to mop the floors and he’ll be able to do it.
It’s callous but it’s true,
I think the correct term is ‘the racist paul henry’
Loius
You are correct.
There is always a bottom rung of a ladder and cleaners are a group on the bottom rung.
How cleaners as a group can expect to rise above the bottom rung is beyond me. Who would replace them on the rung?
Individually a cleaner can and should aspire to gain a better position probably through more education and self determination.
To attempt promote the group collectively would have to an excercise in futility.
I think the correct term is ‘the racist paul henry
Do you say that about Hone?
To attempt promote the group collectively would have to an excercise in futility.
Mindless idealism and taking talking points from socialist “thinkers” of the 30s and the latest Michael Moore film is responsible for such futile ideas.
What? Call him the racing paul henry? No! I say the racist hone, though I fail to see why you should mention it.
Just making sure you’re not one of those hysterical Unite types who will protest questionable comments from a white guy, but let questionable comments from a Maori guy slide.
I assume you disapproved of Trevor Mallard calling Tau Henere a “chocolate covered banana” too?
I disapprove of you derailing a thread with your right wing nonsense, but as for tau henare, I would have called him much worse. I’m sure I would have worked loud mouth, arrogant, bullying and twat into the narrative.
Yeah, ‘cos the world needs another right wing policeman
Deleted belatedly. Jsut noticed this. Louis you are on a warning. Clare
I totally disagree with your assesment of Trevor. That’s an outrageous slur, and probably one you should retract.
Paul henry on the other hand, has been outed and disciplined for his racist rantings, so it’s only fair he wears the label he created for himself.
That’s not derailing, that’s telling it like it is.
outrageous slur
Is irony a concept you lefties understand?
probably one you should retract.
It’s been deleted, but I will never retract anything, politicians are fair game. Plus you’ve convinced me to be hysterical about anyone making any racial comments.
Do you forget how to type loius or louis?
Do take your double dipping blog identities and place them with your faux bravado.