Flexibility bites back?
Jill Rubery, Damian
Grimshaw, Arjan Keizer –
University of Manchester
SASE Conference
July 2-4
Different concepts of ‘flexibility’
• Flexibility as associated with the divergence from standard open-ended
contracts with full-time working hours (thus not considering internal
flexibility-multi-skilling)
Two important dimensions to current flexibility:
• Opposing drivers for flexibility:
– employer-oriented flexibility to match labour to demand: D flexibility
– employee-oriented flexibility to meet work-life balance needs: L flexibility
– Standard hours and open ended contracts ‘in the middle’
• The use of flexibility to reduce wages and social costs (either employer or
state mandated): C flexibility
– In decommodified form: through long-term employment relations
– In commodified form: through contingent employment arrangements
Flexibility as a dynamic process
• not only negatively affects the conditions of non-standard workers but
also puts pressure on standard forms of employment.
Employeroriented
Commodification
Decommodification
Wage and/or duration penalties,
lower overheads/social
contributions: e.g. zero hours
contracts, agency, bogus selfemployed, short part-time,
Without wage/duration penalties
but irregular and long hours: e.g.
higher level managerial/professional
jobs, result-oriented jobs
T flexibility
C+T flexibility
SER
Hollowed out SER among noncollectively regulated jobs with
wage penalties but regular hours:
e.g. subcontracted work
Regulated wages, hours and
duration
e.g. core employees on regular
open-ended contracts
C flexibility
Employeeoriented
Preferred hours with wage
penalties and lower employer
overheads/ social contributions:
e.g. some part-time within school
hours, term-time jobs etc.
Without wage/duration penalties
but lower employer
overheads/social contributions: e.g.
Reduced hours part-time ,Voluntary
and high paid agency work
E + C flexibility
E flexibility blue
Trends in the UK
• Flexible employment widely interpreted presented by
government as employee-oriented flexibility
• Strong evidence to the contrary: growth of zero hours contracts, rise of low paid self-employment, rise of
involuntary part-time and temporary work, overall rise of low
wage employment, continuation of long hours working (often
unpaid)
• Limited regulation of employer behaviour except for national
minimum wage, incentives use/choose short hours/low paid
employment (e.g. in-work benefits, thresholds for national
insurance) and opt out of the working time directive on long
hours
Flexibility as a sustainable agenda?
Government policy agenda
1. Increase long-term
competitiveness in global
markets
2. Reduce social exclusion
3. Reduce welfare dependency
4. Reduce public sector deficit
5. Adjust to new social
arrangements – dual
earners/single parents etc.
Potential contradictions
1. Flexibility versus SER platform
for cooperation and investment
in employment
2. Flexibility as a solution or cause
of social exclusion
3. Flexibility as source of
additional welfare support
needs
4. Potentially negative Impact of
flexibility on fiscal capacity
5. Potentially negative Impact of
flexibility on capacity to care
Further contradictions of flexibility
Insider /
Outsider
Status
Ability to
provide care
D&C
flexibility’
Public
finances
Welfare
dependence
Flexibility and insider/outsider status:
standard argument
• Greater overall flexibility will reduce outsider and insider
divisions
• The apparent protection for workers has opposite effects by
increasing employment dualism
• Flexibility thus promotes social equity, reduces social welfare
costs as it allows greater access to the labour market (e.g. for
the unemployed) and improves efficiency
• But: be wary of ‘rhetoric of perversity’ (Hirschman).
Flexibility and insider/outsider status:
contradictions
Social equity:
• Greater overall flexibility may not necessary provide greater
chances to outsiders as they often face discrimination in hiring and
more frequent competition for jobs may actually lead to more
exclusion
Social welfare:
• Welfare costs may increase if older workers are displaced by
younger as they are more likely to be excluded in spite of the need
people working longer due to ageing society Efficiency
• Short-term cost benefits of using flexible labour during downturns
may turn to long-term costs of higher turnover/lower productivity
during upturns as employers struggle to control turnover rates
Work programme job outcome rates by age and gender
Source: Age UK 2014
Flexibility and welfare dependency:
standard argument
Flexible labour markets allow for more and faster
transitions out of unemployment/welfare dependency
into employment due to:
• More vacancies or churn in the labour market
• More variable contract offers, thereby increasing
access
Flexibility and welfare
dependency:contradictions
Employer flexibility in what constitutes a job (wages and hours) is a
problem for the state in providing benefits linked to subsistence needs:
• In-work benefits needed to make work pay Reinventing the notion
of full-time standard job under universal credit ( need to earn 35x
nmw) or else have to search for more work- but holding more than
one flexible job may be difficult as not constantly available
• Employers may increasingly pass costs to state so that flexible jobs
may increase welfare costs as more frequent full layoffs and
shorter hours to adjust to demand.
Employers in flexible labour markets under limited obligations to
employees- hire/fire at will and less likely to invest in employment
relationship- less likely to update skills or adjust jobs to meet varied
needs
• More people with limited capacities, with caring needs or with skill
change/updating needs coming into the labour market
Numbers of families receiving different kinds of tax credits
Flexibility and care: standard
argument
• Flexible employment provides more choice
room for care responsibilities
• Flexible employment offers families new
opportunities to share work and care duties
(e.g. one-and-half breadwinner, shared
parenting). Case for flexibility based on choice
plus opportunities for new combinations of
work and care for one or both parents
Flexibility and care: contradictions
• Focus on choice through worker-oriented flexibility hides the
increasing employer-oriented flexibility which is reducing choice
(Fleetwood 2007)
• Choice is restricted for those out of employment as they have to
wait 26 weeks to request flexible work options. Those who took a
break from the labour market may thus be still confined to low
quality jobs.
• Women now need to seek work if their partner is unemployed and
if their child is over 5. A full joint adult worker/carer model
therefore not supported as only one parent can seek work to fit
with care. This indicates limited rights to worker-oriented flexibility
and to dual parenting.
• Universal credit to increase conditionality on both partners (dual
earner model) but maintains notion of main carer and increases
deduction rate for main carer (male breadwinner model)
The persistence of long working hours
‘People in this workplace who
want to progress usually have
to put in long hours’
Managers: ‘It is up to
individual employees to
balance work and family
responsibilities’ (%)
Source: WERS 2011
Flexibility and public finances:
standard argument
• Flexibility contribute to a dynamic economy and
creates employment
• Flexibility reduces unemployment and dependency
on state welfare
Flexibility and public finances:
contradictions
• Employers pass costs of short-term demand
fluctuations onto the state
• Cost arising from the ‘subsidised’ character of much
flexible employment (e.g. exemption from social
contributions)
• Flexible employment thus may undermine universal
protection as those paying for benefits constitute a
ever smaller group.
Tax and national insurance exemptions low-wage
employment
Source: Corlett, Whittaker, Kelly (2014)
Conclusions
• Flexibility is freeing employers from
– Responsibilities for decommodification through wages, social contributions,
duration of employment and volume of hours
– Responsibilities for work-life compatibility
• This is consistent with neoliberal perspective on employer freedom but not
with even residual state responsibility for social reproduction:
– Risk of greater social exclusion as disadvantaged groups are exposed to more
frequent competition
– The need to ‘reinvent’ the full time working week for claimants to minimize
welfare costs but few full-time jobs
– Extension of the range of people (capacities/responsibilities) seeking work but
minimising employer responsibilities to adjust employment, reinforcing gender
and other divisions of labour
– Undermining the long-term funding for welfare as many are not expected to
contribute
• The current drive towards flexibility is not sustainable as its indirect outcomes
‘bite back’
‘Flexibility’
The creation of a flexible and disposable workforce which allows employers to minimise
overheads, respond to changes in demand and reduce labour costs. E.g.
•
Labour with flexible deployment and/or reduced fixed costs through intermediaries: e.g. TWA
•
Labour with flexible deployment and/or reduced fixed costs through distant employment: e.g.
bogus self-employed, outsourcing contracts with fees varying by demand
•
Labour deployed at unsocial hours and/or for additional hours without higher costs: e.g. zerohour contracts
•
Labour with reduced social contributions: e.g. part-time
•
Labour with limited entitlements to mandated employer benefits: e.g. bogus self-employment
•
Labour willing to accept non-standard employment forms due to specific labour supply
conditions: e.g. migrants
•
Labour willing to accept non-standard employment forms due to ability to draw on family
support or welfare: e.g. young people, pensioners
•
Labour without organised voice and customary employment rights developed through
collective bargaining
The ‘standard’ criticism:
Flexibility and productivity
• The management of employment shifts from a dominant focus on
extracting greater value out of labour - through investments in training,
in organisational processes, increased motivation etc. - to (short-term)
cost reductions.
• It removes various advantages that the standard employment
relationship offers in terms of motivation through aspects such as quasi
rents, efficiency wages and income security for more risk-adverse
workers, the development of productive firm-specific skills, and the
ability to assess workers' contribution to long term goals (e.g. Milgrom
and Roberts 1992).
• Flexibility thus may increase entrepreneurial dynamism but it remains
to be seen whether this dynamism provides ‘more of the same’ or
concerns long-term growth in productivity, innovation and competitive
advantage
Precarious Work and social dialogue: the case of
Germany
4th RDW-Conference, Geneva, 10th July 2015
Gerhard Bosch
Ines Wagner
Claudia Weinkopf
Outline
•
•
•
Meaning and forms of precarious work
Employment trends
Policy reforms closing/opening regulatory gaps
– Minimum wages
– TAW-regulation
– Mini-jobs
•
Summary and conclusions
Meaning of “precarious work” in Germany
• “precarious” work mostly understood as subset of “atypical”
work
– deviating from “standard employment relationship” (full-time, openended, fully covered by social security)
 not every atypical employment is precarious
– Depending on job characteristics
– Controversial: household context?
• standard employment may be also precarious
– low pay, discontinuous employment
Forms of “precarious work”
Standard
employment
Precarious
Low-wage work work
Atypical employment
Mini-jobs
Temp agency work
Fixed-term
Part-time
Contracted out work
Solo self-employment: 2.1 million
Ambiguous success story
• Strong increase in number of employees since 2004
– But partly due to re-distribution of working hours
– and accompanied by Incresing rates of precarious work
• Share of low-paid employees raised to ¼ of all employees
• Temp agency work (TAW) more than doubled over the last
decade (800,000)
• Solo self-employment increased after 2002, not least due to
labour market programmes (Ich-AG) (2.1 millions)
• raising number of mini-jobs (7.3 millions), particularly as a second
job
• Strong increase of regular part-time jobs
Employment trends, 1991-2013
1991
2013
Total
34,680
All self employed
Change
in 1,000
in %
35,631
+951
+2.7
2,859
3,810
+951
+33.3
1,284
2,091
+807
+62.9
31,386
31,701
+315
+1,0
Full-time
27,080
23,859
-3,221
-11.9
Part-time ≤ 20 h
2,555
4,969
+2,414
+94.5
Part-time > 20 h
1,751
2,873
+1,112
+64.1
Fixed-term
1,968
2,524
+556
+28.3
Atypical*
4,437
7,638
+3,201
+72.1
Solo
Employees
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt 2015 (* without part-time > 20 hours per week)
Atypical employment by gender, 2013
(in % of employees)
120
100
13.6
80
35.3
atypical
60
SER
86.4
40
64.7
20
0
women
men
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt 2015 (SER includes part-time with more than 20 hours per week)
Part-time with more than 20 hours per week = SER?
• Underestimation of changes in employment relationships
• Problematical differentiation because monthly earnings are not
taken into account
– 21 hours per week for an hourly wage of 8.50 € = monthly gross earnings of
773.50 €
• Independent living with part-time job requires high hourly wage
and/or working hours close to full-time
• Many part-time employees would prefer more working hours
Policy reforms closing/opening regulatory gaps
• Minimum wages
• TAW-regulation
• Mini-jobs
Minimum wages (1)
• 1997: First industry minimum wage in construction industry
implemented – based on Posted Workers Directive
• 2007: Law on the Posting of Workers opened for other
industries (2012: MW in 12 industries)
– Based on collective agreements
– overall impact too low to reduce share and numbers of low-wage
workers
• Increasing demand for statutory MW of 8.50 € per hour
– Agreed in coalition contract after the federal elections in 2013
• with some exceptions and delayed implementation in several
industries (if negotiated lower rates are extended)
– Implemented in January 2015
Minimum wages (2)
• MW-introduction embedded in a more comprehensive law to
strengthen collective bargaining
– Higher industry MW can be negotiated in all industries
– lower requirements for extensions
• First impressions after 6 months with statutory MW
– Unemployment decreased by 7.1% (compared to June 2014)
– Number of employees (covered by social insurance) increased by 517,000
(compared to April 2014) (+1.7%)
– Number of mini-jobs dropped by 206,000 or 5.4% (compared to December
2014)
– Increasing number of insurable jobs in industries with high share of minijobs
• Hospitality: +50,000; retail and business services: +60,000 each
– Over-average increase of wages for low-skilled, women and mini-jobbers
De- and re-regulation of TAW (1)
• Legal since 1972, but comprehensive regulation (except wages)
• Step by step relaxation following pressure from employers (e.g.
duration of TAW spell at same company)
• 2003: Comprehensive de-regulation through Hartz-reforms
– In return: Equal Pay Principle
– but little effect in practice due to possibility to conclude lower
sectoral collective agreements
• Changes in recent years based on social dialogue
– industry MW since 1/2012
– supplements for longer spells in certain industries
De- and re-regulation of TAW (2)
• Since 2011 increase of TAW slowed down and usage of subcontractors (Werkverträge) went up
• Current plans for TAW (coalition agreement 2013)
– Duration max 18 months in the same company
– Equal Pay after 9 months
– But most TAW spells and contracts are still very short
 Strong lobbying against these plans by TAW-associations
• More comprehensive proposals aim at an integrated approach
to restrict the increasing usage of sub-contractors, too
Mini-jobs
• Jobs with up to 450 € monthly earnings
– No deductions for income tax and social insurance
• Higher contributions for employers but in practice frequently
compensated
– By lower hourly pay and other discriminative practices (e.g. no pay for
holidays + sickness)
• Illegal but no enforcement of equal pay entitlements in recent
years
• Change by Minimum wage introduction
– No exception for mini-jobs (at least 8.50 € per hour)
– Employers in all industries are obliged to document the working time of
mini-jobbers
Summary and conclusions (1)
• Employment growth since 2004 accompanied by increasing number
and share of atypical employees
– Hartz reforms affected mainly mini-jobs and TAW
– Other drivers:
• companies seeking to reduce labour costs
• requirement for unemployed to take up almost each job (regardless of
earnings) etc.
• Slight steps for re-regulation of TAW in recent years
– Further restrictions agreed but not yet implemented
• No changes for mini-jobs
– But first indicators that the new MW may have an impact
Summary and conclusions (2)
• The minimum wage is one of the most important social reforms in
recent decades
– Particularly if strengthening the collective bargaining system will be successful,
too
• Shortages of skilled workers might also be a driver for improving
employment conditions – e.g.
– Higher wages
– Reducing the gaps between actual and preferred working hours
– Etc.
The employment effects of market
exposure: Can contract cleaners escape
commodification?
Damian Grimshaw, Jo Cartwright, Arjan Keizer and Jill Rubery
July 2015, ILO Regulating for Decent Work Conference, Geneva
Outsourcing and problems of
inequality of employment experience
• Compared with vertically integrated,
hierarchically structured organisations,
international research suggests a low-wage
labour market of subcontracted workforces is:
– More exposed to market pressures of cost
competition
– Less bound by customary work/employment practices
– Less likely to benefit from encompassing workplace
collective agreements (societal effect)
– At greater risk of unilateral employer prerogative
(eg. Cunningham and James 2009, Doellgast 2012, Flecker and Meil 2010, Holst 2013, Houseman
The meaning of market exposure in
low-wage business service sectors?
Subcontracting of labour-intensive services exposes
workers to more price-based market pressures
associated with product and labour markets (Greer &
Doellgast 2013):
• Ties workers’ conditions more strongly to a market
price for standardised work unit (e.g. units of time for care
work; unit of floor space for cleaning)
Several factors conspire to push the price
downwards:
• Procurement conditions – e.g. contract length, risk of
contract loss, unit fee level
• Contracting conditions – shaped by client and employer
The meaning of market exposure in
low-wage business service sectors?
Weak regulatory constraints –e.g. national minimum
wage, TUPE (protections for outsourced workers) and
collective agreements
But clients/subcontractors may seek ‘exit
options’ (Doellgast et al. 2009; Jaerhling & Mehaut 2013) even
when regulatory impact is limited
So commodification … but outsourced low-wage
services still embody a complex labour process:
suggests indeterminate outcomes
The boundaries of the employment relationship are blurred by
inter-organisational relations and overlaps of workplace/work
organisation (Marchington et al 2005, Rubery et al 2002)
The client and subcontractor are parties to the contract
(‘market-makers’), but are also indirect and direct employers:
– possible alliance around continuous cost-reducing contract deals that
degrades employment conditions
– but organisations may also face pressures to sustain quality of
employment relationship (operational needs, reputation,
regulatory/IR context)
– tensions of a fragmented versus consistent HR strategy
Escape from commodification?
It is likely client (as indirect employer) and subcontractor
(employer) will respond to varying degrees to labour
process factors that may soften or slow down
commodification:
1. Client need for operational integration
2. Subcontractor need for labour availability/
commitment
3. Client & subcontractor reputation effects
4. Valuing the organisational knowhow of TUPEd staff
Framework for research and analysis
Business strategy
& employment
relations in Client
organisation
Business strategy &
employment
relations in
Outsourcing firm
UK & EU labour market
rules – employment
protection (eg TUPE),
minimum wage, working
time, agency work
• Tendering process
• Contract type
(duration, fees)
• Staff transfer
• Relationship with
supplier
•‘Obliged job
quality’ (eg. living
wage clause)
Employment
conditions
Procurement
practices
Trade
unions
UK and EU procurement
rules, Headquarters
corporate client strategy
Labour supply (by sex,
young/old, migrant,
ethnic minority,
disability, sexuality)
•Pay (basic rate,
premiums, etc)
•Working time
practices (eg.
zero-hour
contracts)
•Job security
Research design
LARGE CLEANING
FIRM
CLIENT
ORGANISATION
• Senior procurement
manager
• On-site contract
manager
• HR manager
Research funded by the Equalities and
Human Rights Commission, UK and
Manchester Business School
Procurement &
contracting relations
• Senior procurement
manager
• On-site contract manager
• HR manager
• Cleaning supervisor or
union rep.
12 case studies –matched pairs by client sector
•
•
•
•
•
•
2 airport cases
2 higher education cases
2 hotel cases
2 NHS cases
2 local authority cases
2 banking cases
• Total number of interviews:
Characteristics of contracts
• Variation in contract length (3-5 years and 35
years); contract renewed in 6 cases; retendering a
recognised cause of business and employment instability
• Respecification of contracts in all case: leveraging up of
performance, cost-cutting, downsizing (hours and/or headcount)
• In 5 cases, consolidation with other business
services potentially enhances contract lock-in
• TUPE staff transfer in all cases (from 10 to 500 staff):
– protects right to employment but no right to refuse transfer and no
protection of work organisation, working time, etc
– for new employer, TUPE delivers a guaranteed local workforce with
experience and knowledge
Findings: Low pay
Basic rate varied – £6.31 (MW) to £8.80 (London Living
Wage);
x of 12 cases did not reward experience or qualifications –
despite experience often being required
x of 12 cases did not pay premiums for unsocial hours or
overtime
Evidence of gradual erosion of pay with recurrent
contracting:
‘And each time, [cleaners] had stories of their terms and conditions and
pay, which were supposed to be preserved and protected in some
way, but there were always examples of particular perks and
privileges that people had being whittled away’ (College2)
Piece rate pay in hotels linked directly to contract roomper-hour fee. After one month’s grace, workers at Hotel2 who did not
meet the target had two warnings then were fired.
Diverse working time, unstable hours
• Most cleaners are part-time, but some short, some long and two
cases mostly full-time (airports)
• Flexible hours a general practice – several cases use zero-hours
contracts (standard at Hotel1, for new recruits only at many others)
• ‘You come in as and when and you don’t know if you can pay the bills’
(Airport2–cleaner)
• ‘The young girl, she couldn’t get housing benefit and she weren’t
getting enough hours off her (the manager). She was getting
threatened to get kicked out of where she lived’ (Council2)
• Only 2? cases offer overtime to staff on guaranteed hours
• Only 1 case requires weekend working for all; 2 have dedicated
weekend shifts
• Evidence of staff wanting more hours:
• ‘Yeah, the most headaches I get … is the fact that everyone is looking
for extra work, you know, extra hours’ (College2).
Labour market rules & exit options
Rules
Exit options
Minimum wage
Fire staff whose productivity is
less than MW
TUPE protections for
unsocial hours pay
premiums
Zero hours contracts
Temp agency workers
Extended collectively
agreed pay and
conditions
New recruits on inferior
conditions
Flat pay rate (no additions for
experience; extended to higher
grades)
Not extended to workers on
other cleaning contracts
Living wage
Working-time
directive (paid
breaks)
College2
Short shifts to avoid paid breaks
Weak unions and workers’ fear of
complaining
• Unions present in x of 12 workplace sites
• Even where defending jointly agreed terms
and conditions, may be too weak to act
against non-compliance:
• ‘There is a lot of apathy here’, and people fear negative
repercussions. ‘I have got women who are cleaners
who are only getting time and a half for a Sunday and
you say “Why don’t you….?” And “Oh no, no, no, leave
it”…’ (Hospital2, Unison rep).
But several labour process factors can
soften or slow down commodification
1)
Operational integration
Clients may require cleaning to be integrated with their wider
operational needs and therefore willing to support/encourage better
quality HR practices:
• Airports: work closely with baggage handlers; host passport
biometric machines; customer-facing role ‘You could be asked
passenger information questions … So, even though it’s a cleaning role, it’s a
cleaning role and some’ (Airport2); Airport1 client extends its customer service
training to subcontracted cleaners –cleaners job title is ‘General Assistant’
• Hospitals: require tacit knowhow of daily ward routines and be
responsive to specific priorities of nursing team Hospital1 client
teaches a course on hygiene standards and use of chemicals to
subcontracted cleaners; cleaners also trained as ‘patient services
assistant’
• Hotels: clean and set up each room to fit hotel’s consistent image/
brand values
2) Labour availability (working hours)
The need for labour availability and a dependable supply of
workers may encourage clients/employers to address HR
problems:
• The problem of irregular hours: except Hotel1, cleaning firms
offered ZHC and TWA staff access to vacancies with
guaranteed hours as they arose
• Too-short shifts: many examples of managers seeking to offer
more hours to part-time cleaners or adapting work
organisation (e.g. mobile teams) -although cutting contract
costs sometimes reduced shifts (Hotel1 earlier finish time,
Bank1 reduced nightshift, etc)
• Inflexible holiday rules: College2 abolished 4-week holidays
but lost many migrant workers
3) Worker experience & commitment
• Employers & clients may prefer long-serving staff
– ‘(our staff) know how these wards work, they know the people
on those wards … so there is a consistency day in and day out’
(Hospital2)
– College2 client required a LW –’we are not just handing
(cleaning firm) money, we expect a very high grade of
employee’
– TUPEd staff are the glue holding together a cycle of short-term
contracts
• High staff turnover is costly to the employer
– ‘(the living wage) is a big plus because the costs of re-employing
somebody, finding somebody, training somebody, …(College2);
– retaining experienced staff cuts training costs (although may
also discourage training investment for new recruits –Council2)
• Higher pay attracts a better pool of job applicants
Discussion
• Market exposure characterised by:
– Generic nature of procurement and contracting for
low-wage services (price-led competition, short duration, frequent
re-specifications)
• Risks of a contract-led HRM approach for employer-worker relations, exerts
strong downward pressures on working conditions
– But also the strategic choices of clients and
employers:
• Client cost focus (eg. standard fee precludes pay premiums)
• Outsourcing firms exploit exit options– ability/willingness to
sidestep formal agreements and/or informal customary practices (especially
reduced/abolished pay premiums, zero-hour contracts, agency use)
 Outsourcing markets (and the fragmentation of workforces)
facilitate employer and client actions that degrade employment
conditions
Discussion
• Prospects for contract-focused modes of regulation?
1.
TUPE
•
•
•
Protects pay, including progression and enhancements
Provides a basis for upwards pay standardisation
Reduces instability by smoothing staff transfer
–
–
2.
But effects erode over time if employers do not build on improved
standards or clients refuse to cost for them
Also a catalyst for employer exit options
Union actions
•
•
•
Can target the reputational risk to clients (indirect employers)
Can diffuse employment standards from client sectors with strong
union role (although limited by public sector austerity)
But recurrent contracting undermines pressures on employers to
invest in training and skill development
Equality and Human Rights Commission research
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/publication/invisible-workforceemployment-practices-cleaning-sector