QuoteThe 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.
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.
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.
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2014, 04:25:15 AM
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.
Do you have to bring a wig to small claims? In the US you typically handle it by yourself.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2014, 04:25:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2014, 04:54:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 05:01:46 AM
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.
It's about time that we ditched the old-fashioned notion that labour should be exchanged for wages. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2014, 05:14:32 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Warspite on December 07, 2014, 05:17:03 AM
It's about time that we ditched the old-fashioned notion that labour should be exchanged for wages. :rolleyes:
They are gaining valuable experience in this sector at a very prestigious location...:mellow:
Quote from: The Brain on December 07, 2014, 05:30:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 07, 2014, 05:31:31 AM
Quote from: Warspite on December 07, 2014, 05:17:03 AM
It's about time that we ditched the old-fashioned notion that labour should be exchanged for wages. :rolleyes:
They are gaining valuable experience in this sector at a very prestigious location...:mellow:
This is going to look great on their cvs. :contract:
Speaking of working for no wages, has the plague of unpaid "work experience" for young employees reached the UK yet?
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 05:33:21 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 07, 2014, 05:30:32 AM
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.
You protect your customers as much as legally possible, and you definitely do it in B2B.
Please read the article and the thread. Not interested in discussing this with someone who has no idea about the issue.
OK I've read it, I stand by everything I've said (except the didn't read part). I once worked for years at a customer, and there's just NO WAY IN HELL that I would have brought the customer into any conflict between me and my employer over wages. You don't let internal shit spill onto the customer. EVER. But I guess customer focus isn't a thing in the cleaning sector.
[Now, a lawyer may step in here and call part of the following "Bollocks". I can only speak from my experience with a voluntary liquidation and from information freely available online.]
So we're supposed to cheer them for blackmailing Saatchi into paying money and making guarantees they had no legal obligation to make. And then publicising the fact.
The article is so slanted it stinks.
COC, of course, are certainly shits for lying to the Cleaners.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2014, 10:07:05 PM
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.
Of course not - Saatchi have already paid COC (or will be paying the insolvency specialist) for the services of the cleaners. Cheshunt's owes nothing if there's no continuity of employment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2014, 10:07:05 PMSince 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?"
So, making a phone call (if the insolvency specialist hasn't done his job) and helping them fill in a form is "guiding them through the minefield". Right...
It's trivially simple to find out who the insolvency specialists are (it only took me 10 minutes this morning because although the Government advises you to contact Companies House that bit of information is not available on their website; a google search for "Consolidated Office Cleaning insolvency specialist" brought up the Gazette notice and solved that.)
Incidentally, the Insolvency Specialists are B & C Associates, the creditors meeting is on the 10th December, COC has never filed a full set of accounts with Companies House (they missed the deadline of 30th March 2014 for their first) and they're also late with the Return to Companies House that was due in July 2014.
Employees owed wages are on the preferred creditors list in an insolvency but going through the process of attending meetings and making claims is long winded and expensive - which is why the government pays your wages up to a certain limit and takes over your claim against the company (the government also being a preferred creditor and thus most likely to get its money back.)
Should you be owed more money than the weekly limit then you still have to claim against the company. But the weekly limit is set at around 50 hours of minimum wage work so the cleaners are most likely to get all or the majority of their money that way.
The method for starting a claim for unpaid wages from the government has not changed since I went through the process in 2006 (I checked this morning.) In fact, if an official insolvency specialist has been retained the process should be automatic (it's one of the Specialist's duties, to send out the form to all relevant parties.)
The form itself may, of course, have changed and the cleaners will certainly need help completing it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 06, 2014, 10:07:05 PMOn 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."
So if the deal includes continuity of employment Saatchi again has no responsibility for the wages; continuity of employment means that the liability for unpaid wages passes to the new employer. Cheshunt pays and (presumably) can make a claim against the assets of COC for the money in question. I don't know what level of creditor (preferred, secured or unsecured) they'd be in this case.
Saatchi pays Cheshunt the contracted amount from the 13th November.
Now, the situation should have been resolved more quickly. If COC had been honest with their employees and clients Cheshunt could have made an interest free loan against future wages before the situation spiralled out of control. But again, that's COCs fault, not Saatchi's or Cheshunt's. Saatchi, in fact, seem to have done all that can be reasonably expected about the situation. Yet, of course, it's their name that "sells" the article...
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 05:36:23 AM
Speaking of working for no wages, has the plague of unpaid "work experience" for young employees reached the UK yet?
Years and years ago...it really got going under Blair's Labour.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 05:36:23 AM
Speaking of working for no wages, has the plague of unpaid "work experience" for young employees reached the UK yet?
Yes, 'internships'. I was lucky - mine turned into a job and was in a city where I could live at home.
Quote from: Warspite on December 07, 2014, 06:37:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 05:36:23 AM
Speaking of working for no wages, has the plague of unpaid "work experience" for young employees reached the UK yet?
Yes, 'internships'. I was lucky - mine turned into a job and was in a city where I could live at home.
My eldest has also just gone through this process and now has a "proper" job. Similarly a niece went through the process a few years back and now has a slightly glittery career.
I think that is the standard result if one is lucky enough to have a supportive family, but for those without that it is very problematic.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 07, 2014, 06:54:44 AM
Quote from: Warspite on December 07, 2014, 06:37:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 05:36:23 AM
Speaking of working for no wages, has the plague of unpaid "work experience" for young employees reached the UK yet?
Yes, 'internships'. I was lucky - mine turned into a job and was in a city where I could live at home.
My eldest has also just gone through this process and now has a "proper" job. Similarly a niece went through the process a few years back and now has a slightly glittery career.
I think that is the standard result if one is lucky enough to have a supportive family, but for those without that it is very problematic.
It's hugely problematic, and what shocks me is how quickly supposedly 'progressive' types are to use internships for their own ends - more than once I've been the only person complaining about my firm's overreliance on unpaid 21-year-olds to a management board stuffed with 50 year olds who got a paying job straight out of university and have paid off the mortgages on their homes. It is literally impossible for them to relate to the plight of a youngster out of education paying £800 a month for rent plus bills and not even being recompensed for their labour as anything other than an 'opportunity'.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 05:36:23 AM
Speaking of working for no wages, has the plague of unpaid "work experience" for young employees reached the UK yet?
Its been in Britain for years.
Its a way the system keeps the lower classes in their place- it lets them go to university and get a degree but due to a lack of money, bars most of them from doing the necessary internships to buy a job.
Inability to afford to do such a thing is what kept me unemployed for a year.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 03:22:31 AM
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.
Hey, worked for my company.
But now I get plenty of quality time with Mom, and you just can't put a share price on that. :yeah: :bleeding:
You can make Tater Tot casserole together.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 07, 2014, 06:54:44 AM
Quote from: Warspite on December 07, 2014, 06:37:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 05:36:23 AM
Speaking of working for no wages, has the plague of unpaid "work experience" for young employees reached the UK yet?
Yes, 'internships'. I was lucky - mine turned into a job and was in a city where I could live at home.
My eldest has also just gone through this process and now has a "proper" job. Similarly a niece went through the process a few years back and now has a slightly glittery career.
I think that is the standard result if one is lucky enough to have a supportive family, but for those without that it is very problematic.
Yes, or in other words, it perpetuates class divisions and stiffles social mobility like hell.
My firm has been pretty decent with it, with our Warsaw office paying a decent living wage to trainees and even getting a small studio flat for those who live too far from Warsaw to be able to commute (in fact, I'm renting my old flat on that basis to my firm - I charge them less than a market rate, but at least I don't need to worry about something going wrong with it).
But there are many law firms (and corporations) which do not pay anything for trainees and "job experience". Which is pretty shitty.
I hope you cleaned it before you rented it out. Bet it's all sticky. Towels probably don't even need racks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2014, 04:44:13 PM
I hope you cleaned it before you rented it out. Bet it's all sticky. Towels probably don't even need racks.
I had it repainted.
It all seems pretty counter-productive to me. The best cleaners are motivated cleaners, why not pay them a decent rate and demand high standards.
I've been an employer myself at various times in the past few years and have paid £10 per hour for what is essentially minimum wage work, I don't think I've lost anything from doing so, despite any apparent altruism.
My cleaning lady misses me dearly. And I miss her back. :(
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 07, 2014, 04:46:50 PM
It all seems pretty counter-productive to me. The best cleaners are motivated cleaners, why not pay them a decent rate and demand high standards.
I've been an employer myself at various times in the past few years and have paid £10 per hour for what is essentially minimum wage work, I don't think I've lost anything from doing so, despite any apparent altruism.
I blame outsourcing and tendering process. It ends up making price the only criterion.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2014, 04:48:27 PM
My cleaning lady misses me dearly. And I miss her back. :(
My cleaning lady just demanded a raise.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 04:49:35 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 07, 2014, 04:46:50 PM
It all seems pretty counter-productive to me. The best cleaners are motivated cleaners, why not pay them a decent rate and demand high standards.
I've been an employer myself at various times in the past few years and have paid £10 per hour for what is essentially minimum wage work, I don't think I've lost anything from doing so, despite any apparent altruism.
I blame outsourcing and tendering process. It ends up making price the only criterion.
Yes.
I think that one way round this conundrum would be some sort of sticker or label that qualifying firms could boast about and put on their websites.
The "we pay all our staff at least the living wage and only sub-contract to other firms that do the same" sticker.
It is not as if Saatchi need to exploit Latin American cleaners to make a profit, it is more or less a mere accident.
The death-knell of the northern European manual labourer is part of all this. Very few want to do manual labour, so we import it, pay them less, and all the while rather untalented youngsters try to become pop stars, lawyers or "something in the media business" and simultaneously get a huge reserve of dropouts and morons on benefits. People who could, you know, be cleaning stuff.
Incidentally, 10 quid per hour would be pretty sweet by Polish standards. I pay my cleaning lady about half of that, and it is still over twice the minimum wage rate in Poland. No wonder Poles emigrate to the UK. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 04:50:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2014, 04:48:27 PM
My cleaning lady misses me dearly. And I miss her back. :(
My cleaning lady just demanded a raise.
Give it to her. She's cleaning your toilets, for Christ's sake. And don't forget the fucking Christmas tip, you cheap bastard.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 04:57:07 PM
Incidentally, 10 quid per hour would be pretty sweet by Polish standards. I pay my cleaning lady about half of that, and it is still over twice the minimum wage rate in Poland. No wonder Poles emigrate to the UK. :P
In Lancashire too :lol:
I had some work done on the house a while back, the bulk of the actual grafting was done by a couple of Polish guys. I quizzed them about whether it was worth their while to go back to Poland, what with England being expensive and so on. I'd visited Krakow a bit earlier so may have had an inflated idea about how well Poland was doing. They insisted that prices were roughly double here but their wages were quadruple. Turns out they came from some one-horse town in Eastern Poland near the frontiers with Russia and Belarus.
Poor guys.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 04:57:07 PM
Incidentally, 10 quid per hour would be pretty sweet by Polish standards. I pay my cleaning lady about half of that, and it is still over twice the minimum wage rate in Poland. No wonder Poles emigrate to the UK. :P
Poles are, according to official data, the biggest group of immigrants in Norway. Yet no-one is talking about creeping catholification. :pope: :uffda:
Have you guys watched Black Mirror?
Is it good?
Watching episode 1 right now.
Best British tv I have seen since Sherlock.
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 04:50:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2014, 04:48:27 PM
My cleaning lady misses me dearly. And I miss her back. :(
My cleaning lady just demanded a raise.
She found your porn stash?
His collection of severed feet
Where do Poles even import cleaning ladies from anyway?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2014, 07:40:08 PM
Where do Poles even import cleaning ladies from anyway?
Hungary.
Danm, failed to hijack this thread.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 07, 2014, 07:41:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2014, 07:40:08 PM
Where do Poles even import cleaning ladies from anyway?
Hungary.
No, Ukraine. I wouldn't let a Hungarian near my things. They are all gypsies.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2014, 05:03:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2014, 04:50:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2014, 04:48:27 PM
My cleaning lady misses me dearly. And I miss her back. :(
My cleaning lady just demanded a raise.
Give it to her. She's cleaning your toilets, for Christ's sake. And don't forget the fucking Christmas tip, you cheap bastard.
I didn't say I didn't give it to her. I am notoriously bad when negotiating about money. The conversation went like this:
Her: "We need to talk".
Me: "Uh oh" :unsure:
Her: "I need a [25% raise]."
Me: "Oh, ok. Sure." (relieved she is not quitting) :sleep:
Btw, a Christmas bonus is not really a thing here but if it were, what would be appropriate? Weekly wages? Two-weeks'? And when do I give it to her? My Christmas or her Christmas? :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 07, 2014, 04:53:15 PM
I think that one way round this conundrum would be some sort of sticker or label that qualifying firms could boast about and put on their websites.
The "we pay all our staff at least the living wage and only sub-contract to other firms that do the same" sticker.
It is not as if Saatchi need to exploit Latin American cleaners to make a profit, it is more or less a mere accident.
A lot of customers don't give a shit how a company treats its (cleaning) staff. Many people will privately make a concious decision for a more expensive product based criteria like local or organic or fair production standards, but even that's usually limited to certain commodities. It certainly doesn't matter in a B2B scenario where you only stop working with your business partner if doing business with them somehow tarnishes your own reputation or hurts your bottom line.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2014, 03:30:12 AM
Btw, a Christmas bonus is not really a thing here but if it were, what would be appropriate? Weekly wages? Two-weeks'? And when do I give it to her? My Christmas or her Christmas? :P
If it's not a thing, then no amount is appropriate.
Give her 50 bucks equivalent.
Do you guys tip the postman at Christmas?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2014, 04:45:15 AM
Do you guys tip the postman at Christmas?
Now you've suggested it I'm tempted to; our current postman is the best we've had in years and I want him to stay!
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2014, 04:45:15 AM
Do you guys tip the postman at Christmas?
After New Year, more like tipping the
concierge with 5 to 10% of your rent (landlords may give more) if you're happy with his work.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2014, 04:45:15 AM
Do you guys tip the postman at Christmas?
He's a civil servant. :mellow:
How much should I tip the concierge? There are 4 in total, on four shifts. Should I tip all of them???
This tipping culture is madness!!! :wacko:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2014, 05:44:12 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2014, 04:45:15 AM
Do you guys tip the postman at Christmas?
He's a civil servant. :mellow:
Privatised in the UK. But they wouldn't be considered civil servants anyway.
I don't, I'm in London so I never see him and when I do it's not always the same guy. But my parents tip (not much, but a bottle of scotch every few years) and also tip the bin men (again not much) and more or less anyone near the house will be offered mince pies :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2014, 07:17:03 AM
How much should I tip the concierge? There are 4 in total, on four shifts. Should I tip all of them???
This tipping culture is madness!!! :wacko:
These are not concierges.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2014, 05:44:12 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2014, 04:45:15 AM
Do you guys tip the postman at Christmas?
He's a civil servant. :mellow:
Who your preferred elected officials and economic model are actively attempting to eliminate. Give him a fucking box of cookies, for fuck's sake.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on December 08, 2014, 08:49:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2014, 07:17:03 AM
How much should I tip the concierge? There are 4 in total, on four shifts. Should I tip all of them???
This tipping culture is madness!!! :wacko:
These are not concierges.
Well, they are receptionists in my residential building.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2014, 07:33:19 AM
I don't, I'm in London so I never see him and when I do it's not always the same guy. But my parents tip (not much, but a bottle of scotch every few years) and also tip the bin men (again not much) and more or less anyone near the house will be offered mince pies :lol:
We always gave gift boxes of yummies (bread, cookies, etc) to the mailman, the garbage men and the school bus driver. Because it's the fucking holiday season.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2014, 07:33:19 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2014, 05:44:12 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2014, 04:45:15 AM
Do you guys tip the postman at Christmas?
He's a civil servant. :mellow:
Privatised in the UK. But they wouldn't be considered civil servants anyway.
I don't, I'm in London so I never see him and when I do it's not always the same guy. But my parents tip (not much, but a bottle of scotch every few years) and also tip the bin men (again not much) and more or less anyone near the house will be offered mince pies :lol:
My dad received hopeful Christmas cards from his postman, bin man and milkman. I had to drop him off at the cashpoint the other weekend because they'd cleaned him out of all his cash :lol:
Traditionallyyou are meant to tip the postman.
But... Yes... In light of privatization.... Should it still be done?
I don't think I've ever seen my postman.
Their terms and conditions have deteriorated a lot over the past 20 years or so, they deserve a tip, especially if you have a regular postman of course.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 09:18:52 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2014, 05:44:12 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2014, 04:45:15 AM
Do you guys tip the postman at Christmas?
He's a civil servant. :mellow:
Who your preferred elected officials and economic model are actively attempting to eliminate. Give him a fucking box of cookies, for fuck's sake.
Given how dreadful many of them are...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 09:18:52 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2014, 05:44:12 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2014, 04:45:15 AM
Do you guys tip the postman at Christmas?
He's a civil servant. :mellow:
Who your preferred elected officials and economic model are actively attempting to eliminate. Give him a fucking box of cookies, for fuck's sake.
:lol:
Quote from: Brazen on December 08, 2014, 09:54:11 AM
My dad received hopeful Christmas cards from his postman, bin man and milkman. I had to drop him off at the cashpoint the other weekend because they'd cleaned him out of all his cash :lol:
We only get them from the dude who delivers our newspaper. And I still get one from the Governor of West Virginia. Not sure what he wants.
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2014, 01:39:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 09:18:52 AM
Who your preferred elected officials and economic model are actively attempting to eliminate. Give him a fucking box of cookies, for fuck's sake.
:lol:
It's Christmas. :mad:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 01:49:38 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2014, 01:39:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 08, 2014, 09:18:52 AM
Who your preferred elected officials and economic model are actively attempting to eliminate. Give him a fucking box of cookies, for fuck's sake.
:lol:
It's Christmas. :mad:
Christ did not die for cookies!
Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2014, 01:50:56 PM
Christ did not die for cookies!
Sure he did. Matthew 26.
"...And Jesus took the Santa-shaped sugar cookie, and blessed it. He broke off Santa's head and said, 'Take this cookie, the one with the good hard frosting, not that crappy soft stuff, and eat it. This is my body.'"
Sounds pretty steamy!
My cleaning lady will get a Christmas thank you (even though she's employed through a company). I have no idea who my mail man is and I understand they change pretty frequently. Not to mention the garbage truck crews.