[page 15]
A REVIEW OF THE P.I.B. REPORT ON THE CONTRACT CLEANING TRADE. HMSO PIB. Report No. 168 45p.
The P.I.B. report makes very interesting reading, not only for those who have been involved in the Nighteleaners Campaign, but also for those who have not; because it shows the way faulty reasoning and invalid interpretation of statistics is used in Government White Papers for the purposes of white-washing and misrepresentation. The statistics collected by the P.J.B. from a sample of firms, women cleaners, and office building occupiers are very useful and completely support the basic analysis of the structure, pay and conditions in the industry presented in the Nighteleaners Campaign pamphlet. It might be useful to quote some of the statistics here.
As we noted in our study the industry has grown enormously in the last two decades, especially since '65, in fact the rate has doubled from 5% to 10%. There are large numbers of small firms, because of the low amount of capital needed to start, but eleven firms employ 60% of the workers. The industry employs 90,000 cleaners, 2,000 of whom are nighteleaners, and 4,000 staff. The turnover is £54 million. Office cleaning is largely centred in London where 75% of the offices are contract cleaned. The reason why companies get their buildings cleaned by contractors is for administrative convenience.
The faulty reasoning of the report is first made evident in its analysis of the functions and role of the 'Contract Cleaning and Maintenance Association', CCMA.
The PIB maintains that concentration in the industry is diminishing because the larger companies now employ a smaller percentage of the work-foree than previously. This is certainly no proof; surely a more accurate criterion of concentration is the mumber and size of the contracts avarded to the bigger firms, and their percentage financial stake in the industry. The CCMA, set up by its own admission to "act as a forum for its members to discuss matters of common interest and to make representations to other bodies on behalf of the trade", in reality acts as a price fixing syndicate, a role not mentioned by the PIB! The PIB further blandly points out that the profits of the larger firms are bigger than the smaller firms, and also that because contract cleaning costs are 30% lower than direct cleaning costs, the government offices have, over the last 10 years, changed from employing their own direct labour to being two-thirds contract cleaned.
The Civil Service Union report on the contract cleaning industry, quoted by the PIB, says that "The main reason for the difference in costs between direct cleaning and contract cleaning ... is that contractors pay lower wages and give poorer conditions than the government." The CSL also noted that while government cleaners clean 1,000 sq ft per hour, contract cleaners elean 1,500 sq ft. The PIB note with surprise that the return on capital in the industry is 40%, a nuch higher rate than in productive industry.
What they then fail to see is the obvious, what even their own statistics confirm - that the rate of exploitation amongst contract cleaners is higher than for directly employed cleaners, and that the larger the firm, the higher the rate of exploitation per worker. The PIB statistics on the work-force and their pay and conditions are 885 of the work-force are women, 75% of whom have dependents and most of whom are part-timers. Wage rates vary between regions and also within them; in London they are from 22.50p to 60p perhour. Male and female workers' part-time rates are roughly equal, but the male fulltime workers earn double the female full-time workers' rate, (male: C20. 98, female: £9. 62). Female full-time workere in this field are almost exclusively nighteleaners. 78% of women, when asked why they worked, said it was for the money. 64% have to do cleaning work in order to supplement their family's income. 25% of the cleaners were their family's sole source of income at the time of the survey. 405 thought they were poorly The PIB calmly notes that "with wages forming such a large part of the total costs, those responsible for hiring labour tend to set rates at levels just adequate to
[page 16]
attract the necessary labour."
However, the PIB, incredibly, goes on to reject the notion that these workers are low paid, and it is worth quoting the relevant section at length in order to reveal the general attitude of the report.
"Overall, while contract cleaners are not among the well paid groups, they are not, trary to what has been suggested ... particularly low paid except to the extent that THE PAY OF WOMEN IN GENEZAL IS LOW." (our emphasis) Nevertheless, they do say that sick pay, holiday pay and pensions are virtually non-existent, redundancy pay nil, and cover money inadequate. "Night workers in particular are poorly paid." For those who have been involved with the negotiations with the T&G undertaken by the Cleaners Action Group, the PIB comments on the unions are of particular interest.
The PIB, in its recommendations, urges the unions to take up the case of the cleaners; it estimates anionisation at being only 3%, the unions involved being the T&G, GEM, NUPE, and CSU. As the report notes -"Generally unions do not appear to have made much effort to recruit on a large scale in the trade." They also state that the contractors are not in general against their workers joining unions. In our experience the first statement is true, while the second a complete lie. The Hecommendations Although the employere recommend to the PIB that a wages council should be set up for the industry the PIB rejects this as unsuitable, since wages couneils have not in the past improved the position of low paid workers. The PIB says that since "the most pressing inmediate problem concerns full time women nighteleaners...at least one union should now make a determined effort to organise them - preferably appointing a full time female organiser specifically for the purpose." We hope that the T&G will take note of this point. The PIB also rejects the TUC idea that there should be a joint council of employers and unions supported by the proposals of the TUC for the amendment to the "FAIR WAGES RESOLUTION". It is worth quoting their reasons for rejecting the union proposal in full.
"We understand that the government has taken the ing cleaners. It is interesting to see that in its last paragraph the report calls for higher productivity and improved quality of cleaning and says that the CCMA has made a useful start in this area!!!
I recommend that everyone interested in this subject read this report for the useful statisties, and because it is an excellent illustration of how they can be misused and misinterpreted.
Joanna Griffiths
----- pull-quotes -----
*b!! то THE P.I.B , REPORT!