The Cleaners of London

[Sheilbh]

The media giant, the cleaners and the £40,000 lost wages
The case of 35 unpaid cleaning staff at Saatchi & Saatchi's Soho office highlights the plight of low-income workers
Yvonne Roberts
The Observer, Sunday 7 December 2014

For weeks, the 35 low-paid and mostly Spanish-speaking cleaners who tend the grand offices of global advertising giant Saatchi & Saatchi have been locked in a bitter dispute to secure what most working people take for granted. They wanted to be paid for the work they had done.

Last Friday, they made a breakthrough when a donor was found to help initiate employment tribunal proceedings – but their campaign for payment of seven weeks' unpaid wages and holiday money totalling £40,000 has illustrated the vulnerability of millions of workers in a low-wage economy.

Consolidated Office Cleaning Limited (COC) won the tender for cleaning the Saatchi offices in London's Soho five years ago, competing against four other companies. In September, HM Revenue & Customs initiated court action because the company owed more than £760,000 in unpaid tax and VAT. COC continued to invoice Saatchi for cleaning and when cleaners' wages weren't paid in October for the previous four weeks, COC told the cleaners this was a temporary situation caused by moving from one bank to another.

In November, COC began the process of voluntary liquidation – without informing the cleaners, who continued to do their jobs, still without payment. Some were forced to walk miles from home to work because they could no longer afford fares. One woman had to pay £5 a day on fees for a £700 overdraft. On 11 November, the cleaners organised a protest at Saatchi. "The staff organise to raise money for Africa, but for them we are invisible," one cleaner says.

Saatchi says it had received repeated assurances from COC that the wages would be paid, even as the company was beginning the process of voluntary liquidation. Kellie Stevens, who signs herself in correspondence as a director of COC, declined to comment. Saatchi says once it understood the situation, Cheshunt-Group Cleaning Services took on the role of subcontractors on 13 November and began to pay the cleaners weekly. However, neither Saatchi not Cheshunt accepted liability for the £40,000 of unpaid wages.

The same week, the cleaners, mostly Spanish-speaking and earning on average less than £1,000 a month, attended a free legal advice clinic in south London that barrister Maria Gonzalez-Merello, herself once a cleaner, has held every Thursday for nine years in St George's Cathedral, Southwark.

Since then, Gonzalez-Merello and her fellow barrister John Samson, working pro bono, have been guiding the Saatchi cleaners through the minefield of employment legislation. "The cleaners have no resources, no understanding of the system and without money and help, they can do nothing," says Gonzalez-Merello. "New government procedures mean that getting a claim off the ground is almost impossible, particularly for foreign nationals with little or no English. The fees for starting a claim are huge, the process is almost impenetrable, even for experts, and the law is complicated. It's exploitation of the very weakest. This happens again and again. In many instances, cleaners walk away with nothing because what else can they do?"

Samson adds: "Contracting out at murderously sacrificial rates, zero hours and the minimum wage is a triple combination that has a disastrous impact on those who already have nothing while the law does little to help."

This week, and in case the emerging deal falls through, Gonzalez-Merello and Samson will protect the Saatchi cleaners after the donor came forward to help launch legal proceedings. They will also represent the Saatchi cleaners at a series of hearings and meetings concerning COC's insolvency.

Gonzalez-Merello at the free law clinic also handles issues such as parents having children taken into care because they are forced to leave them at dawn to go to work, and a sharp rise in solvent subcontractors who refuse to pay wages legitimately owed to cleaners, adding up to hundreds of pounds. "It is unlawful, but many employers do it because they can," she says. "Only when we intervene is the money forthcoming – but not always. And most of the low paid have no access to legal representation."

Francisco Javer Horedia, 37, from the Dominican Republic, has cleaned for 15 hours a week at Saatchi & Saatchi for two and a half years. He works another 12.5 hours at Victoria's Secret in London's West End. He cannot find full-time employment. His total wage is £800 a month, and £520 immediately goes on rent for a bedsit. A lack of wages has left a huge hole. Liana Florian Gonzalez, 26, has three children under 10. Her unpaid wages are more than £1,000, Christmas is coming and she has been forced to borrow from a friend and her father.

On 13 November, Saatchi paid each cleaner 30% of what they were owed and described this as a gift. The company subsequently said it was an interest-free loan. For weeks, Gonzalez-Merello and Samson have fought to persuade Saatchi to accept liability for the lost wages. As a result of their efforts, last Friday, a deal began to take shape.

The Saatchi 35 will have their contracts taken over by Cheshunt-Group Cleaning Services. Saatchi has agreed to indemnify the unpaid wages. In addition, under employment law, continuity of employment will be maintained that keeps redundancy rights for the cleaners intact. Saatchi has also "written off" the 30% payment. Magnus Djaba, CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi London, says: "Though there is no legal reason for us to pay the wages owed to these cleaners, we felt a moral responsibility towards these people, many of whom have been contracted to clean our offices for many years."

More than 100 cleaners are employed on COC contracts for Publicis, owner of Saatchi & Saatchi. It is hoped, following the intervention of Gonzalez-Merello and Samson, that Publicis will agree to treat all cleaners in the same way as the Saatchi 35.

"Of course people are looking for value for money, but our belief is that staff come first," says Keith Grosse, a director of Cheshunt. "We will be paying on a weekly not a monthly basis to help the [Saatchi] cleaners catch up. Cleaners are getting up at three and four in the morning for £70 or £80 a week and their bread and milk doesn't come any cheaper than ours. Then, they get firms that knock them back. That isn't right."

On the up side there's an independent trade union that's organising. They succeeded in their Tres Cosas campaign for the cleaners of London University. And are now starting to work with various private sector contractors too and security guards.

[Martinus]

This is a part of a broader problem, that is quite widespread in Poland as well - i.e. companies outsourcing what used to be internal employees to external service providers. In the days past, Saatchi & Saatchi would have employed its own cleaners as employees and, obviously, would have to pay them (and it would be quite a hit to their reputation if they didn't). Now, they just enter into a contract with a cleaning company (whereas, frequently, the same cleaners just work for them every day, being an employee of Saatchi & Saatchi in all but name) and don't have to care what happens to the people thus employed.

[Martinus]

Other than outright banning the use of "temp work" agencies for work that is effectively permanent (if you have the same people coming to your offices every day or night to do the same work for several hours, they are not "temp workers" - they are your employees in all but name), a simple solution would be to create some sort of subsidiary protection regime by giving the employees a direct claim against a company like Saatchi in this case (e.g. through joint and several liability of the company hiring a temp work agency and the agency).

Of course, the company would then have a regress claim against the agency - if it had to pay the employees wages - but two professionals in this case have much better means of doing that (and managing to go on for a number of months with an unsettled claim) than individuals do, especially if they are not earning a lot.

A similar solution exists in many countries in construction regulations (where subcontractors may have a direct claim against the investor) so could also be used here.

[Admiral Yi]

Since the problem seems to be that the process to initiate a claim is cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive, I don't see how making Greta Saatchi liable would change anything.

Shelf, do y'all have small claims courts in the UK?

[Sheilbh]

Shelf, do y'all have small claims courts in the UK?

Yep. Still costs money to make a claim and the government's more or less eliminated legal aid for non-discrimination employment cases. The only way they could make a claim is through someone working pro bono, and they probably need more help accessing their rights as they're not necessarily English speaking. And the liquidation's still a big issue as my understanding is there's not many firms that work on a no-win no-fee basis (the normal route for individuals) against an insolvent company.

[Admiral Yi]

Do you have to bring a wig to small claims?  In the US you typically handle it by yourself.

[Martinus]

Since the problem seems to be that the process to initiate a claim is cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive, I don't see how making Greta Saatchi liable would change anything.

Shelf, do y'all have small claims courts in the UK?

It's the question of who should take the risk of the agency going bust - there are all kinds of arguments why it should be Saatchi rather than employees.

[Sheilbh]

Do you have to bring a wig to small claims?  In the US you typically handle it by yourself.

You don't have to but you still have to write out a claim form and all the rest. And there'll still be court fees (again increased by the government). The court's tend to be helpful with litigants in person and it's common for small claims.

But truth is I suspect 35 cleaners who've not been paid with little or no English would find it expensive and very difficult. I've no idea how employment law works but I don't think it's simple and I don't think it'd be easy for them to press their claim in a liquidation either. I imagine the liquidator may take it more seriously if they had lawyers.

It may not be but I wouldn't be surprised if this company's a slightly unscrupulous phoenix company that'll return in a few weeks.

[Admiral Yi]

It's the question of who should take the risk of the agency going bust - there are all kinds of arguments why it should be Saatchi rather than employees.

I got that, and it's a reasonable point.  I'm saying pressing a claim against Saatchi wouldn't necessarily be any easier, quicker, or cheaper.

[Warspite]

It's about time that we ditched the old-fashioned notion that labour should be exchanged for wages. 

[Sheilbh]

I got that, and it's a reasonable point.  I'm saying pressing a claim against Saatchi wouldn't necessarily be any easier, quicker, or cheaper.

It would be more likely to result in a discomforted company facing bad PR who'll make a settlement so the story goes away. Which from the cleaners' perspective, is probably the best.

Ultimately if you press a claim against the insolvent company, they're still insolvent.

[Martinus]

There is also an indirect benefit. With the current set up I imagine the only thing Saatchi is interested in is price - which puts pressure on cleaner agencies to cut costs and increases the risk of them going bust (as the article clearly demonstrates, the cleaners themselves have no market power to put any countervailing pressure on agencies - and have really no means of assessing financial soundness of agencies they apply to).

By making Saatchi co-liable you induce them to prioritise financial and operational stability of the agencies they choose - and induce them to run a prior limited due diligence on an agency they pick to make sure it is financially sound. And since they have market power vis-a-vis agencies, they can cause them to conduct their business in a less risky way.

Thus everyone benefits in the long run.

[The Brain]

Didn't read but seems to me that throwing shit on the customer isn't necessarily awesome. "I have a problem with my employer - I'm gonna blame the customer!" sorry just no.

[Sheilbh]

It's about time that we ditched the old-fashioned notion that labour should be exchanged for wages. 

They are gaining valuable experience in this sector at a very prestigious location...

[Martinus]

Didn't read but seems to me that throwing shit on the customer isn't necessarily awesome. "I have a problem with my employer - I'm gonna blame the customer!" sorry just no.

It is more complex but they engage in purely rational economic behaviour.

The cleaners have no market power vs Saatchi or their agency; and their agency has very little market power vs Saatchi. The only actor(s) that can have some market power vs Saatchi in this set up are customers. So putting pressure on them is the only sensible solution in this situation.

This is free market in action.