
At the Uber for home cleaning, workers pay a price for convenience - jellicle
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/10/at-the-uber-for-home-cleaning-workers-pay-a-price-for-convenience/
======
timr
_“THE COMPANY DOES NOT PROVIDE CLEANING SERVICES, AND THE COMPANY IS NOT A
CLEANING SERVICE PROVIDER. . . . THE COMPANY OFFERS INFORMATION AND A METHOD
TO OBTAIN SUCH THIRD PARTY CLEANING SERVICES, BUT DOES NOT AND DOES NOT INTEND
TO PROVIDE CLEANING SERVICES OR ACT IN ANY WAY AS A CLEANING SERVICE PROVIDER,
AND HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY FOR ANY CLEANING SERVICES PROVIDED TO
YOU BY SUCH THIRD PARTIES.”_

There was a court case recently concerning FedEx's declaration that many of
their drivers in California and Oregon are "private contractors", even though
the drivers drive FedEx trucks, wear FedEx uniforms, follow FedEx schedules,
etc.

The 9th circuit court of appeals ruled that the drivers are actually
employees:

[http://www.leonardcarder.com/news/75-1%20Opinion%20and%20Ord...](http://www.leonardcarder.com/news/75-1%20Opinion%20and%20Order.pdf)

~~~
toomuchtodo
If you tell someone the job to get done, independent contractor.

If you tell them the job AND direct them how to do it, employee.

[http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-
Employ...](http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-
Employed/Independent-Contractor-Self-Employed-or-Employee)

"Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the
worker does and how the worker does his or her job?

Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the
payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are
reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)

Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits
(i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship
continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?"

~~~
anigbrowl
That's a good rule of thumb, but the IRS itself points out there's no hard and
fast rule and that it takes them at least 6 months to make a determination in
any individual case.

------
ChuckMcM
Did it strike anyone else that this piece was specifically written to
discourage people from working with Homejoy? Not clients, but folks who do the
cleaning? It seems a number of these articles all have the same touch points
which come out of the union organizing handbook, "you deserve paid time off",
"you deserve workmans comp", "you deserve a retirement plan" (all things
unions have arranged for workers and things which services such as Homejoy
don't provide)

The article never seems to go to the question of "Gee there are Janitorial
Service companies that offer all of those things, the workers who feel they
deserve those things should seek them out at those companies." Except those
same companies are losing business to the Homejoys of the world.

That suggests to me that there is a structural imbalance in the availability
of labor and a wage floor which prevents that labor from being engaged. That
we're getting more people working, is that a bad thing? That more people can
get rides in the city is that some how evil? I get that it is a challenge if
you're organization is competing with another that isn't similarly
constrained, but is the right answer to constrain the competition, or is it to
loosen those constraints? Are we trying to keep existing businesses in
business or get more people employed?

~~~
aroden
If you'd like to argue for a pure market system then please direct the poor to
starve on your door step. Personally, I prefer having this social safety net
but it comes with the responsibility of keeping employers from abusing the
system as well with things like minwage. That is why how this is evil (read:
unfair to other employers).

As the article states this guy gets DC bus rides for free. That annoys me.
Homejoy users should pay the full cost of getting their home cleaned. It does
not make sense for tax payers (including myself) to be providing a subsidy for
home cleaning service.

Is this really the a wage floor or just indirectly abuse of the a social-
safety net for cheaper services by the wealthy?

~~~
arebop
Private companies such as traditional unionized(?) maid service organizations
shouldn't be trusted to provide a social safety net either.

------
richsinn
"What’s more, to maintain its relationship with employees as independent
contractors, the company can’t train them or provide much in the way of
material assistance."

My wife and I have been using Homejoy for the past several months now, and I'm
never satisfied with the results. After every cleaning, I tell myself that I'm
going to look for a real cleaning service company next time. But then the low
prices keep me coming back to Homejoy.

I've found the quality of service from the Homejoy cleaners to be
insufficient. Every time it's always a different problem (I try to schedule
cleanings when I'm home). One cleaner spent a disproportionate amount of time
cleaning the toilet, and then didn't have time to clean the bathtub (I ended
up scrubbing the bathtub myself after the cleaner left). Another time, the
cleaners forget to dust off the TV stand, and I had to do it myself. I've had
to clean or re-clean something myself about 80% of the time I've used Homejoy.

My complaints may sound insensitive, and fall under the category of "first-
world problems", but when both my spouse and I are working long hours, hiring
cleaning services can become very helpful (it's a common anecdote that hiring
a housekeeper can save your marriage).

As the article states, my suspicion is that in this "independent contractor"
model, Homejoy does not adequately train its contractors in cleaning, nor are
the contractors they hire experienced in the cleaning industry. I remember
reading that Homejoy used to put their contractors through an
orientation/training program, but it's obviously not enough.

I've used other housekeeping services from real cleaning companies before, and
they've always done an amazing job, especially compared to Homejoy. They're
just usually two to three times more expensive. But maybe next time I'll
really switch back to a real cleaning service (or at least try to find a city-
single independent on craigslist).

~~~
osi
alternate experience:

I've been a Homejoy customer for over a year. My wife and I have had the same
cleaner for nearly all the appointments. We are very happy with the work she
does.

For me, the killer application of Homejoy is in the scheduling and billing.
Other local cleaning companies that had staff did not have the same web-based
scheduling and payment tools.

~~~
esMazer
Since you already now this person for more than a year, why keep using
Homejoy? You could make a deal with her that benefits both parties (she'd get
100% of the profits and you'd pay less since Homejoy is not in the middle) \-
just curious how Homejoy manage to keep clients coming back to them.

~~~
dragonwriter
I would expect that, the same way staffing services do (staffing services also
offer an out for this, with a fee to the employer in the contract), their
agreement with both the customer and the contractor/employee prohibits either
from contracting with the other outside of Homejoy once they've been matched
through Homejoy.

Not sure how they enforce it, though.

------
bio4m
As with Uber & AirBnb this seems to be trend of moving the people providing
the actual service from employees to independent contractors. Its a situation
where both the consumer and the contractors are less protected and taken care
of.

I find this a step backwards; but it remains to be seen if this is just a
harbinger of change or just a passing fad.

~~~
slykat
I have to agree. I think the "independent contractor" model has massive risk
to the future of the US. Some of the biggest startups (Uber, Lyft, Airbnb,
Homejoy, etc.) are building huge business models built on huge workforces of
"independent workforces".

If the trend continues, this could mean a massive shift in the US's labor
force from salaried jobs to independent contractors. A lot of folks in the
Valley view this as a positive innovation, but I think this is a clear case
where the free market is not going to work out what's best for our society.

Imagine a future world where companies like Uber are the norm. A majority of
the workforce will face issues like: * No regulation on working hours (i.e.
the industrial revolution v2) * Massive healthcare costs born on the taxpayer
due to lack of employer provided healthcare (i.e. going past what we already
see with corporations like Walmart) * Lack of retirement benefits for the
workforce as they age (401k, pension, social security). People may argue that
the government shouldn't force people to save, but what is likely to happen is
that the taxpayer will bear the burden of supporting a lot of this population.
* Lack of unemployment insurance which means that our labor force will largely
be unprepared for the normal boom & bust cycle of our economy * Lack of
worker's comp which means that employee's won't be shield from low probability
high risk events

The scenario feels like a deja vu; during the Industrial revolution, we hit a
point where technology progress was leading to inhumane working conditions for
manufacturing workers. Eventually regulation caught up, but this was
definitely not something that the free market sorted out on its own.

Are we really prepared to live in a society where independent contractors are
the majority of our workforce and lack basic labor protections?

~~~
arebop
* working hours: but this time around, the market for piecework is much more competitive; just look at the lyft/uber drivers for example. * health care: realistically, health care costs for poor people are born by society in any case. The questions are about whether we should do it in a simple, centralized way (socialized medicine) or in more complex ways (employer-purchased insurance companies and laws that require hospitals to provide emergency care) * retirement: Pensions are already dead except for government workers. And it's the government that binds 401(k) plans to corporate employment; that can easily be changed. * insurance: the government already insures the population against risks such as disability and unemployment. We can do more of this or less...

No, our society is not prepared to handle this new way of coordinating labor.
I'm sure the political process of agreeing about how to change will be pretty
rocky. But the industrial revolution didn't wait for societies to prepare, and
I don't see any fundamental reason to think we can't handle this.

------
johnnyg
This article looks at supply side but ignores the demand side benefits to the
sharing economy model. It works from an assumption that someone else other
than the business offering a service and the contractor willing to work it
knows best.

Boiled down - full time jobs good, contract jobs bad. Reasoning? We talked to
this guy who has a cute kid he is struggling to protect. We also talked to a
regulator who gets ink for saying it is awful, just awful.

If contract is undesirable then apply for work at a traditional cleaning
service. He now has the experience through HomeJoy, seems doable.

Should he be making what the coders and web devs who built HomeJoy make? No.
He doesn't have those skills yet.

Society owes him:

1\. The opportunity to learn the skills to compete in our economy. (With our
education system, I fear he's not received what he is owed here...and if so,
injustice.)

2\. A free market to "find your wage" or "start your own" based on the extent
to which you can build things others want.

This guy is a hard worker. Software is eating the world and changing the
rules. When that happens, many opportunities and new niches are created. I
hope that the regulators realize this and let it continue. I hope that this
guy finds a profitable place in the changes.

~~~
scarmig
Hope is nice, but it doesn't get the guy housing or food or health insurance.

As a society, we're moving toward a new economic model. One that's superior in
terms of creating output and wealth, but strikingly materially inferior for
lots of people: it requires a different and much less broad-based skill set
than the old economy required. It's possible for an individual to find the odd
piecemeal job that requires those old-style skills, but extremely difficult to
make a real living off of it.

Short of turning people into soylent green or magically educating everyone to
above the current median skill level, I see the only real solution to this
problem to be a basic income or a job guarantee. (I don't, however, see any
way for US political institutions to create those solutions.)

~~~
seanflyon
> educating everyone to above the current median skill level

I see improving education as the best solution here. There is plenty of room
for innovation and improvement.

~~~
scarmig
The issue is that we've been pointing to education as the solution for
decades. Despite that, we still have no real clue as to how to improve
education, and this is particularly true for the bottom 20% of performers--
throwing more teachers or different curriculum at them has resolutely failed,
experimentation by charter and independent schools hasn't given us any
plausibly paradigm-changing leads, and initiatives like Khan Academy and
Coursera are focused on self-directed learners, who that bottom 20% definitely
are not.

Obviously better education would be the dream solution for taxpayers, society,
and students, but so far as I can tell it's just a dream that never translates
to reality.

~~~
edgyswingset
Education also finds itself on the chopping block before anything else in this
country. This leads to things like Universities hiring researchers over
instructors so they can somehow justify themselves before the politicians who
want to remove funding whenever they can.

We point at education, but we don't exactly supply it with the capability to
perform what we want it to.

------
jack-r-abbit
As much as I'm not really interested in having _lengthy_ conversations with my
cleaning person (she's there to clean, not hang out), I do interact with her.
I don't mind the interaction. I "know" her. Our kids attend the same school
even. If we're not going to be around, we leave a key where she knows it will
be. Even if we are there when she arrives, we usually take off at some point
(as it is distracting to be working while they're trying to vacuum, etc). I
would be very uneasy about having an unknown person coming into my house when
I'm not there. I would not just order a cleaner online like this.

------
lpolovets
For an anecdotal counterpoint, I started using Homejoy about 2 months ago.
I've had 5-6 different cleaners at this point. I asked the last 3 cleaners
what they think of working for Homejoy and they unanimously replied that they
love it. The pay is pretty good and all three said that they love how Homejoy
gives them jobs and then gets out of the way.

I wonder if the worker in the article is representative of most Homejoy
cleaners. He takes the bus to get across town, which turns a 2.5-hour cleaning
into a 5-hour task. I think all of the cleaners I've had so far have cars, so
in those cases, they're making $50 for 2.5 hours of work and maybe 15-60
minutes of commuting, instead of 150 minutes of commuting. The economics are
much better in that scenario.

My anecdotes do not address the issues of workers comp or unemployment
insurance, but the people I've met through Homejoy so far seem very happy to
work there.

~~~
discardorama
> they unanimously replied that they love it

If I were an employee, I'd say that too. Especially given that they are rated
by the clients. If you were badmouthing your own employer, the chances of you
getting a 5-star rating are significantly lower.

~~~
lpolovets
That's a great observation. I agree, though I felt like the people I talked to
were more effusive than they would have been out of obligation. (That is, they
could've said, "It's nice." instead of gushing for 5 minutes.)

------
dpeck
I really couldn't imagine using one of these services and dealing with an
independent contractor. Too many things can go wrong in a house.

The cleaning service I used tried to move a dresser to clean behind it better
and in the process scratched the hell out of the wood floors. I appreciated
the over eagerness to clean, but it was still a big screw up. The company
handled it, we got estimates from a few refinishers and they cut us a check
for the highest one.

I know that this is possible with an independent contractor, but I know its
highly unlikely that that would happen.

I pay a premium for the service because of that, and because they treat their
employees well and pay a good wage with benefits, the employees in turn work
their asses off for it and the owner has a waiting list of new employees every
time he has expanded his team.

Service economy is great for people in our line of work who can command a high
rate and have something to lose if we screw up. I'm not convinced that it
works well pushed down to this level with people who already have so little.

------
AndrewKemendo
As someone who has used similar services (not Homejoy) the hardest part is
quality control and consistency. For this type of service you typically give a
rundown to the first crew for what you need, places to avoid etc... they also
do tend to be late or not on the time they say they will be at the place of
employment.

With rotating crews this process has to be repeated each time, and the results
are always very different.

I would much prefer a more personalized service that is a bit more expensive,
but keeps the crew consistent and gives better benefits. Sadly these are very
hard to find.

------
lordnacho
Suppose I find a good cleaner. Without an ordinary job contract, they lose
nothing from striking a deal to do my house again, without the middleman. Has
this issue arisen?

~~~
jbigelow76
This, like the inability to take Homejoy to court (yeah right), is probably
against the <Booming-Voice-Of-God>TERMS OF SERVICE</Booming-Voice-Of-God>!!

------
jack-r-abbit
After looking at the numbers a little closer, it doesn't seem that Homejoy
would be any cheaper (for me at least). It seems they charge $25-$35 an hour.
It is not clear if that is per cleaner or not. I get the impression it is "per
hour per cleaner" if more than one arrived. I started a booking at Homejoy and
put in my bedroom/bathroom count and it recommended 7 hours. Even at their low
end, 7 hours is $175.

I currently use a person that has a small team so usually 2-3 people come to
my house. And they usually spend 2-3 hours cleaning. So we've got 6-8 person-
hours (which fits with Homejoy's estimate if 1 person came). I pay a flat fee
of $180 for them to clean my house... so roughly $25-30 an hour.

I don't know what my person pays her employees (it seems mostly a family
business) but I have to believe that NOT paying for Homejoy's cut puts more
money in all their pockets. Maybe I should just be thankful I found a good
cleaner for a good price.

~~~
judk
Your crew is probably not paying taxes, and maybe pays less per person than
homejoy.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
She is a company. She pays taxes. Like I said, I don't know what she pays her
people.

------
sputknick
Can someone who uses this service answer a question: If this guy, who is in
the top 30% of cleaners in DC builds a reputation, can his bill rate, and
thereby his income go up? If this is the case it sounds like a great way for
someone who is a hard worker, but lacks skills to make a fair living.

------
drivingmenuts
A more sensible solution to me would be that the booking agency takes a 10-15%
cut for handling booking, billing, etc., because they're not the ones doing
the work.

------
wehadfun
Homejoy in Dallas charges $35 hour unless you agree to 2 or more cleanings a
month then it is $25.

They give you the option to rebook the same cleaner but it is weird. We
changed it to clean every week and our person did not show up. then we change
it to like clean once a month and they did.

The receipt gives you the cleaners address and name

------
jellicle
Just as a historical note, despite getting some 58 upvotes and having
perfectly good discussion, this story was flagged off the front page within an
hour or so.

There's nothing that Hacker News hates more than any suggestion that the world
we live in is less than perfectly fair and equitable.

------
pkaye
The best thing you as a customer can do in these cases is if you find a good
cleaner, work with them directly instead of through Homejoy. Then you don't
have to pay for the middle man.

~~~
esMazer
you could use Homejoy to find a good cleaner and then talk to them directly,
they are a contractor and are free to make a contract with anyone they wish.

~~~
anigbrowl
I would be quite interested to read the contract that cleaners have to sign
with HomeJoy to see how it addresses this situation.

~~~
pkaye
They are not employees of HomeJoy.

~~~
anigbrowl
What does that have to do with the discussion above, which is about
contractual arrangements?

~~~
pkaye
Because the more contractual arrangements they have the more the start looking
like employees. FedEx is dealing with this right now with their contract
workers.

~~~
anigbrowl
I still don't see your point. Are you saying HomeJoy's cleaners don't have a
contractual relationship with the company? That seems highly unlikely. I just
expressed an interest in reading the terms of the contract that I assumet hey
have, given that they're described as independent _contractors_.

~~~
pkaye
They are independent contractors so whatever they do on their own time is
their own business.

~~~
anigbrowl
Is this your opinion or are you referencing a copy of the contract? It sounds
like the former.

------
stefan_kendall3
Uber drivers make a lot more and most aren't full-time. I workout with a guy
that loves it. For him it's just extra cash, and it's extra serious cash.

