Employing a non contract cleaner?

Steve_xx

TomsMom wrote: »

This thread wasn't discussing what I was paying, and if you read my reply that was 12 months ago and in an area of Wales described, I believe, as deprived. That amount was one of the higher wages in the area at the time and above the minimum wage .

And if you're criticising that, what are you comments on the £2.40 per hour mentioned in the OP's post?

If the area in Wales was deprived then you ought to be more ashamed to have paid your cleaner just £6 per hour. The question is, would you be happy cleaning for £6 per hour?

I don't think that the OP was saying that the cleaner was paid just £2.50 per hour. That would be illegal.

Good cleaning staff are extremely hard to come by and retain. The reason for this is simply due to them being paid £6 per hour.

EvilMonkey

TomsMom wrote: »

And if you're criticising that, what are you comments on the £2.40 per hour mentioned in the OP's post?

Sorry, have given you the wrong end of the stick, £6 per hour for 2.5 hours (IE £15 a week)

TomsMom

Steve_xx wrote: »

I don't think that the OP was saying that the cleaner was paid just £2.50 per hour. That would be illegal.

EvilMonkey wrote: »

The cleaner = £6 for 2.5hrs weekly (direct to cleaner)
Agency = Can't recall exact amount but roughly £112 quaterly which works back to £3.50(ish) per cleaner hour.

Looking around I think we had a bad deal as other agencies seem to charge only £2.50 per hour...

My reply

Surely the agency is breaking the law by only paying their cleaners that amount?

Did you miss those bits?

If the area in Wales was deprived then you ought to be more ashamed to have paid your cleaner just £6 per hour. The question is, would you be happy cleaning for £6 per hour?

Not being a charity, the income we received dictated what could be paid out, our wages bill came to the normal percentage of income for the type of business, all was above board. Our staff were paid more than the minimum wage, they had holiday pay and a share of the tips, some of them were with us for years so were obviously happy. Lots of businesses here paid much less than we did so don't lay a guilt trip on me. The biggest employers in this town, a supermarket and a chain discount store, only pay the minimum wage now. Go bleat to them rather than criticise a small independent family business who paid more.

And as I said before, this thread was not about what I was paying.

TomsMom

EvilMonkey wrote: »

Sorry, have given you the wrong end of the stick, £6 per hour for 2.5 hours (IE £15 a week)

Thanks for clearing that up.

Perhaps now Steve_xx you would like to criticise the agency for only paying their cleaners £6 per hour now, bearing in mind I've been criticised for paying £6 per hour 12 months ago!

mchale

In terms of security checks, I would advise noting the NI number as well

Steve_xx

TomsMom wrote: »

My reply

Did you miss those bits?




Not being a charity, the income we received dictated what could be paid out, our wages bill came to the normal percentage of income for the type of business, all was above board. Our staff were paid more than the minimum wage, they had holiday pay and a share of the tips, some of them were with us for years so were obviously happy. Lots of businesses here paid much less than we did so don't lay a guilt trip on me. The biggest employers in this town, a supermarket and a chain discount store, only pay the minimum wage now. Go bleat to them rather than criticise a small independent family business who paid more.

And as I said before, this thread was not about what I was paying.

Yes, I'm sure, like most employers, that you can always justify the minimal amounts you chose to pay your staff. My question was: would you be happy to work for £6 per hour?

It doesn't matter whether you're a small independent or a large chain. You are still taking advantage by paying staff poorly. I understand that you feel that your staff may have been happy because they stayed with you for years. But consider this, they may have had little choice in the matter if they were trapped in a one-stop town area.

Yes, as you say , this thread was not about what you were paying your staff. However, you chose to almost swank about how generous you were at paying your staff £6 per hour. I'm saying that this is a lowly amount, and again I put it to you that you yourself may not be quite so happy at cleaning toilets etc for £6 an hour.

TomsMom

Steve_xx wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure, like most employers, that you can always justify the minimal amounts you chose to pay your staff. My question was: would you be happy to work for £6 per hour?

At the time I would have been very happy to be paid £6 per hour as it was one of the higher rates of pay round here. I would have taken a job at the minimum wage to be employed if that's all there was.

It doesn't matter whether you're a small independent or a large chain. You are still taking advantage by paying staff poorly. I understand that you feel that your staff may have been happy because they stayed with you for years. But consider this, they may have had little choice in the matter if they were trapped in a one-stop town area.

How could I have been taking advantage when I was paying more than most people here? The employers taking advantage were/are the ones who pay less than the minimum wage and put it through their books as casuals and tweak the hours, as happened to one of my family last year.

Yes, as you say , this thread was not about what you were paying your staff. However, you chose to almost swank about how generous you were at paying your staff £6 per hour. I'm saying that this is a lowly amount, and again I put it to you that you yourself may not be quite so happy at cleaning toilets etc for £6 an hour.

No way did I swank about what I was paying, just making a comparison about a rate of pay 12 months ago to what the OP originally led us to believe was £2.40 per hour today. And for your information, the toilets were cleaned twice daily by myself or OH after the last customer left, they weren't done by the cleaner as she came in first thing in the morning and the toilets hadn't been used since the previous night's clean.

From my previous post:

Perhaps now Steve_xx you would like to criticise the agency for only paying their cleaners £6 per hour now, bearing in mind I've been criticised for paying £6 per hour 12 months ago!

Perhaps now you'd like to comment on the agency's current pay. And I expect there are many employers, large and small, only paying the minimum wage.

Whatever problem you have with me, I suggest you get over it. This stupid bickering hasn't helped the OP in any way.

EvilMonkey

Cor blimey I want to close this thread down!

A simple typo leading to the moral rights of low paid jobs...

Steve_xx

TomsMom wrote: »

At the time I would have been very happy to be paid £6 per hour as it was one of the higher rates of pay round here. I would have taken a job at the minimum wage to be employed if that's all there was.



How could I have been taking advantage when I was paying more than most people here? The employers taking advantage were/are the ones who pay less than the minimum wage and put it through their books as casuals and tweak the hours, as happened to one of my family last year.



No way did I swank about what I was paying, just making a comparison about a rate of pay 12 months ago to what the OP originally led us to believe was £2.40 per hour today. And for your information, the toilets were cleaned twice daily by myself or OH after the last customer left, they weren't done by the cleaner as she came in first thing in the morning and the toilets hadn't been used since the previous night's clean.

From my previous post:

Perhaps now you'd like to comment on the agency's current pay. And I expect there are many employers, large and small, only paying the minimum wage.

Whatever problem you have with me, I suggest you get over it. This stupid bickering hasn't helped the OP in any way.

As you say, you'd be happy to accept £6 if there was nothing better on offer. Your staff would have felt the same, no doubt.

You were taking advantage of these people and well you know it. So don't try and lull us all into thinking you were a considerate employer. You were a user of people at the minimal possible cost. Not dissimilar to how most businesses operate, but that doesn't make it right.

Yes I would like to comment on agency pay. They make a bad situation even worse for the cleaners since they want a cut of their already pitiful salaries.

RealGem

It's not the OP's fault what rate the cleaner is paid. The cleaner is getting more than minimum wage and cleaning is not classed as a skilled job (though I know only too well, they vary vastly in quality). The OP is willing to pay the full amount (agency's cut) to the cleaner and their reason for posting has little to do with the cleaner's rate. The issue is whether to go with an agency or a freelancer.

So staying on topic:

The main advantage for using an agency is that they are insured if they break anything valuable. But they can also provide replacements when your regular cleaner is ill.

So it's swings and roundabouts. I have used both agencies and freelancers and had good and bad experiences with both.

PS: Never upset your cleaner. They have access to your toothbrush AND your toilet.