Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 1490 2022-07-14 06:50:14 |
2 update layout and references Meta information modification 1490 2022-07-14 07:37:47 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Dias, I.;  Lopes, A.;  Azevedo, J.;  Maia, A.S.;  Baptista, J.S. Cleaning in Times of Pandemic. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/25128 (accessed on 18 April 2024).
Dias I,  Lopes A,  Azevedo J,  Maia AS,  Baptista JS. Cleaning in Times of Pandemic. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/25128. Accessed April 18, 2024.
Dias, Isabel, Alexandra Lopes, José Azevedo, Ana Sofia Maia, João Santos Baptista. "Cleaning in Times of Pandemic" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/25128 (accessed April 18, 2024).
Dias, I.,  Lopes, A.,  Azevedo, J.,  Maia, A.S., & Baptista, J.S. (2022, July 14). Cleaning in Times of Pandemic. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/25128
Dias, Isabel, et al. "Cleaning in Times of Pandemic." Encyclopedia. Web. 14 July, 2022.
Cleaning in Times of Pandemic
Edit

Cleaning services are a transversal activity that guarantees the proper functioning and conditions of safety, hygiene, and health across all economic sectors. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the need for clean, sanitary spaces, particularly in health services and other areas with a large number of people. The workers in these services were often placed on the frontline without any specific training or information. 

cleaners cleaning services confinement Facility services

1. Introduction

Regardless of the industrial or service sector, whether public or private, all have some kind of cleaning activities in common. They guarantee basic hygiene and the quality of living and working conditions.
As an independent, specialised service, the cleaning sector began to grow at the end of the Second World War. However, the sector experienced significant expansion in the mid-1960s due to the abundant supply of labour and its low initial investment (Scandella 2010). Currently, according to the European Cleaning and Installation Services Industry (EFCI) Federation (EFCI 2020), the sector employs more than 4.2 million people in more than 297,000 companies in Europe (NACE code 81.2: “cleaning activities”). In Portugal, according to the INE (INE 2021), in 2020, this sector of activity housed 9393 companies, having experienced rapid growth; employed 90,103 workers; and had a turnover of more than 1.3 thousand million EUR. In Europe, the sector is dominated by companies with nine or fewer employees (EFCI 2020; INE 2021). However, this growth was accompanied by structural changes in the cleaning industry, such as increased competition, the disappearance of permanent jobs, privatisation, and segmentation, leading to different impacts on employers and workers in this sector (Ollus 2016).
The International Labor Organization (ILO) classifies these workers among the most vulnerable groups (ILO-Lisbon 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic aggravated this situation, increasing the cleaning workers’ direct exposure to harmful agents (Sun et al. 2020). The awareness of their exposure to risks and the danger to their close relatives significantly added to their level of stress (Pfefferbaum and North 2020). This situation was further aggravated by the social disqualification of this activity (Rodrigues et al. 2013).
Given the cleaning sector’s fast pace and excess workload, workers do not have time for adequate training (Suleiman and Svendsen 2015). In addition to low levels of schooling, this partly explains why there are so many work accidents and work-related illnesses in this sector (Parra-Tapia et al. 2019). Therefore, how little researchers know about the reality of cleaning workers is surprising, as well as the lack of academic interest in this professional category, which is largely neglected in scientific research (Luz et al. 2017).
In this sector, relations between workers and employers are more precarious than in most others. Outsourcing aggravates the precariousness of the cleaning companies concerning the enterprises for which they provide services. This means that the workers do not work on their employer’s premises, further legitimising precarious forms of employment (Bondy 2018). At the same time, there has been increased pressure on working conditions, heightening the profession’s socially disqualified image (Brugière 2017). A service that is provided before or after “regular” working hours, usually under subcontracting schemes, removes the “cleaning” factor from companies and makes hygiene and cleaning even more invisible (De Gasparo et al. 2018). Thus, if work is invisible, its value also becomes invisible from an economic point of view (Hughes 1997; Lhuilier 2005; De Gasparo et al. 2018).
In addition to chemical risks (Nan et al. 2021; Ruokolainen et al. 2022), these workers face other risks that cannot be ignored, particularly ergonomic risks (Naik and Khan 2020; Gonçalves and de Oliveira Sato 2020), health risks (Taş et al. 2021; Furuya et al. 2022), and psychosocial risks (Soo-Jeong et al. 2021; Unge et al. 2007).

2. Perceptions of COVID-19 Risks among Workers in Facility Services

The facility services industry, in particular, cleaning services, was one of the economic sectors in high demand during the pandemic to cope with the sanitary requirements. Due to its labour-intensive characteristics, it employs a large number of workers, mainly women.
The facility services sector increasingly provides a diverse range of services. However, its main activities are largely associated with cleaning activities inside buildings, building maintenance, gardening, sanitation, and pest control.
In terms of its main characteristics, the service is performed at the client’s premises; the allocated workforce has an employment contract associated with a workplace and not with an enterprise (Bondy 2018; Eurofund 2014). The workplace may be occasional, in which workers belong to different service teams, or it may be habitual, resulting in a fixed workplace at the customer’s premises (Larsen et al. 2019). The complexity of the cleaning service provided varies, ranging from domestic households to hospital surgical blocks (EFCI 2020; Marconato et al. 2017).
However, there is no professional recognition of this sector’s workers or their tasks’ importance (Brugière 2017). The majority earn minimum wage, and the working hours are generally outside the company’s business hours, which implies working at night and/or early morning, as well as maintaining services, even at minimal levels, on festive dates and holidays (Eurofund 2014; Larsen et al. 2019).
Labour dynamics and worker well-being have long raised the interest of the social sciences and other disciplinary areas, particularly occupational and public health. Facility services, more specifically, cleaning activities, are often addressed in studies dedicated to occupational diseases, i.e., diseases caused by work-related factors. These diseases are generally contracted when workers are exposed to chemical, physical, and biological agents above the legal limits without the appropriate protection (Castro et al. 2019; Gonçalves and de Oliveira Sato 2020; Taş et al. 2021).
Other risks arise from, for example, repetitive physical movements, extreme body postures, exposure to mechanical elements, intense work rhythms, physical violence, and moral harassment in the workplace (Castro et al. 2019), which also lead to occupational diseases and worsen the existing social vulnerabilities among cleaning workers (Marconato et al. 2017).
Despite a growing trend in studies focused on occupational diseases and surveys that measure the functional and psychosocial aspects of work (e.g., the Copenhagen Psychological Questionnaire—COPSOQ-II) (Gonçalves and de Oliveira Sato 2020), research on the cleaning sector raises other issues: the repercussions of outsourcing on working conditions, labour exploitation, and the workers’ risk exposure (Toffolutti et al. 2021). For example, studies show that outsourcing cleaning services in hospitals lead to low hiring, poorer working conditions, and lower availability of hygiene materials, which may increase the risk of contamination (Toffolutti et al. 2017). It also has the aggravating factor of exposing workers to living with pain, suffering, and death, even if they do not engage directly with patients. This contact with death is more frequent during pandemics (Marconato et al. 2017). In another sector, the agri-food industry, some authors even speak of corporate crime because poor regulatory oversight fosters the overuse of subcontractors as a form of outsourcing labour and social responsibilities (Davies and Ollus 2019; De Gasparo et al. 2018).
The literature review also shows that gender inequalities deeply mark the cleaning sector, reflecting the darkest dimensions of the social processes of disqualification and the precariousness of female labour. The sector emphasises how the domestic skills traditionally required of women are extended to the world of work, reproducing the segregation of social gender roles (Lefrançois et al. 2017; Young 2010; Holley and Rainnie 2012; Campbell and Price 2016).
Although a minority, men also work in this sector, sometimes in leadership positions, reflecting the rationale of male domination, and sometimes in cleaning activities that require strength and physical dexterity, thus reproducing biological determinism. In general, compared to men, women are more affected by precariousness, i.e., by greater insecurity and instability of employment, underemployment, lower wages, less social protection, and greater difficulties in reconciling work and family life, circumstances to which cleaning workers are particularly vulnerable. Consequently, substantial gender inequalities persist in this economic sector (Young 2010; McBride and Lucio 2021; Ollus 2016; Lefrançois et al. 2017). The workforce mainly involves lower-class women, ethnic minorities, migrants, low levels of schooling, part-time work, temporary work, and short-term contracts (Ollus 2016).
Recently, intersectional thinking has also gained prominence in labour and organisational studies. This approach was first used to analyse positions and experiences within the professional hierarchy and then to focus on the structural manifestations of workplace inequalities (Browne and Misra 2003). As a concept, intersectionality denotes the juxtaposition or meeting point of two or more social categories and axes or systems of power, domination or oppression (Crenshaw 2018). This framework offers theoretical explanations for how heterogeneous members of specific groups (such as cleaning women) may experience the workplace differently depending on their ethnicity, class, or other social locations (Browne and Misra 2003).
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, little is known about how the workers in such a critical sector dealt with the extra demands associated with the pandemic and the risks they faced. Cleaning workers have remained practically invisible in the public debate about responding to the COVID-19 crisis. However, it is reasonable to assume that exposure to environments where people circulate and the risk of transmission is perceived as high would leave some marks on how workers feel about their job and their general well-being, especially their mental well-being. That was the starting hypothesis for the research presented in this entry (Roig et al. 2022; Casquilho-Martins and Belchior-Rocha 2022).

References

  1. Scandella, Fabienne. 2010. The Hidden Face of a Booming Industry. HesaMag: European Trade Union Institute, pp. 12–15. Available online: https://www.etui.org/topics/health-safety-working-conditions/hesamag/cleaning-up-workers-under-pressure/the-hidden-face-of-a-booming-industry. (accessed on 23 March 2021).
  2. EFCI—European Cleaning and Facility Services Industry. 2020. About Us. Available online: https://www.efci.eu/about-us/ (accessed on 16 January 2022).
  3. INE—Instituto Nacional de Estatísticas. 2021. SÍNTESE ESTATÍSTICA SETORIAL—CAE 81—Actividades relacionadas com edifícios, plantação e manutenção de jardins. Available online: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjW8NLyyrb1AhWKmBQKHSCmBeIQFnoECAwQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gee.gov.pt%2Fen%2Fdocs%2Fdoc-o-gee-2%2Festatisticas-setoriais%2Fn-actividades-administrativas-e-dos-servicos-de-apoio%2F81-actividades-relacionadas-com-edificios-plantacao-e-manutencao-de-jardin%2F2426-813-actividades-de-plantacao-e-manutencao-de-jardins%2Ffile&usg=AOvVaw1AfGdONjqvqru4-wxjXLtn (accessed on 23 January 2021).
  4. Ollus, Natalia. 2016. Forced flexibility and exploitation: Experiences of migrant workers in the cleaning industry. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 6: 25–45.
  5. ILO-Lisbon. 2020. Preparar o Regresso ao Trabalho em Segurança. Obtido de Organização internacional do Trabalho. Available online: https://www.ilo.org/lisbon/sala-de-imprensa/WCMS_742989/lang--pt/index.htm (accessed on 23 March 2021).
  6. Sun, Pengfei, Xiaosheng Lu, Chao Xu, Wenjuan Sun, and Bo Pan. 2020. Understanding of COVID-19 based on current evidence. Journal of Medical Virology 92: 548–51.
  7. Pfefferbaum, Betty, and Carol S. North. 2020. Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic. New England Journal of Medicine 383: 510–12.
  8. Rodrigues, Alice, Ana Falcato, Antónia Baptista, Carlos Silva Santos, Helena Krippahl, João Paulo Moreira, Maria José Liberat, and Sandra Moreira. 2013. Documento de referência: Atuação dos Industriais no âmbito do SIR (Segurança e Saúde do Trabalho); Lisboa: ACT, (PDF). Available online: https://www.act.gov.pt/(pt-PT)/crc/PublicacoesElectronicas/Documents/ATUACAODOSINDUSTRIAISNOAMBITODOSISTEMADAINDUSTRIARESPONSAVEL_SIR.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2022).
  9. Suleiman, Abdulqadir M., and Kristin V. H. Svendsen. 2015. Effectuality of cleaning workers’ training and cleaning enterprises’ chemical health hazard risk profiling. Safety and Health at Work 6: 345–52.
  10. Parra-Tapia, Elena, Guillermo Perales-Ortiz, Amado D. Quezada, and Pilar Torres-Pereda. 2019. Salud y seguridad laboral: Intervención educativa en trabajadores de limpieza en áreas de investigación. Salud Pública de México 61: 657–61.
  11. Luz, Emanuelli Mancio Ferreira da, Tânia Solange Bosi de Souza Magnago, Patrícia Bitencourt Toscani Greco, Juliana Dal Ongaro, Tais Carpes Lanes, and Jadir Camargo Lemos. 2017. Prevalence and factors associated with musculoskeletal pain in hospital cleaning workers. Texto e Contexto Enfermagem 26: e00870016. Available online: https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/biblio-962892?src=similardocs (accessed on 30 May 2022).
  12. Bondy, Assaf S. 2018. The (dis) advantages of sector-level bargaining: Outsourcing of cleaning work and the segmentation of the Israeli industrial relations system. Journal of Industrial Relations 60: 691–710.
  13. Brugière, Fabien. 2017. La Sous-Traitance en Piste. Paris: Eres, Available online: https://www.editions-eres.com/ouvrage/4063/la-sous-traitance-en-piste (accessed on 3 January 2021).
  14. De Gasparo, Sandro, Pierre-Yves Le Dilosquer, François Hubault, and Laerte Idal Sznelwar. 2018. When Creativity Meets Value Creation. A Case Study on Daytime Cleaning. In Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. Cham: Springer, pp. 991–96.
  15. Hughes, Everett-C. 1997. Le Regard Sociologique. Revue Française de Sociologie. Available online: https://www.persee.fr/doc/rfsoc_0035-2969_1997_num_38_4_4670 (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  16. Lhuilier, Dominique. 2005. Le sale boulot. Travailler 14: 73–98. Available online: https://www.cairn.info/revue-travailler-2005-2-page-73.htm (accessed on 30 May 2022).
  17. Nan, Lin, Marie-Anne Rosemberg, Wei Li, Emily Meza-Wilson, Christopher Godwin, and Stuart Batterman. 2021. Occupational exposure and health risks of volatile organic compounds of hotel housekeepers: Field measurements of exposure and health risks. Indoor Air 31: 26–39.
  18. Ruokolainen, Joonas, Marko Hyttinen, Jouni Sorvari, and Pertti Pasanen. 2022. Exposure of cleaning workers to chemical agents and physical conditions in swimming pools and spas. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 15: 521–40.
  19. Naik, Gouri, and Mohammed Rajik Khan. 2020. Prevalence of MSDs and Postural Risk Assessment in Floor Mopping Activity Through Subjective and Objective Measures. Safety and Health at Work 11: 80–87.
  20. Gonçalves, Josiane Sotrate, and Tatiana de Oliveira Sato. 2020. Factors associated with musculoskeletal symptoms and heart rate variability among cleaners—Cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 20: 774.
  21. Taş, Tuncay Aydin, Nalan Akiş, and Hayriye Saricaoğlu. 2021. Occupational Contact Dermatitis in Hospital Cleaning Worker. Dermatitis 32: 388–96.
  22. Furuya, Yuko, Kota Fukai, Shoko Nakazawa, Noriko Kojimahara, Keika Hoshi, Akihiro Toyota, and Masayuki Tatemichi. 2022. Occupational physical activity differentially affects the risk for developing later-onset Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis among middle-aged and older populations. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 57: 206–13.
  23. Soo-Jeong, Lee, Minjung Kyung, Cherry Leung, and OiSaeng Hong. 2021. Gender differences in experience and reporting of acute symptoms among cleaning staff. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 64: 528–39.
  24. Unge, Jeannette, Kerstina Ohlsson, Catarina Nordander, Gert-Åke Hansson, StaVan Skerfving, and Istvan Balogh. 2007. Differences in physical workload, psychosocial factors and musculoskeletal disorders between two groups of female hospital cleaners with two diverse organizational models. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 81: 209–20.
  25. Eurofund. 2014. Industrial Cleaning: Working Conditions and Job Quality; Dublin: Eurofund. Available online: https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/information-sheet/2014/working-conditions/industrial-cleaning-working-conditions-and-job-quality (accessed on 30 May 2022).
  26. Larsen, Trine P., Mikkel Mailand, and Thorsten Schulten. 2019. Good intentions meet harsh realities: Social dialogue and precarious work in industrial cleaning. Economic and Industrial Democracy.
  27. Marconato, Cintia da Silva, Ana Carolina de Souza Magnago, Tânia Solange Bosi de Souza Magnago, Graziele de Lima Dalmolin, Rafaela Andolhe, and Juliana Petri Tavares. 2017. Prevalence and factors associated with minor psychiatric disorders in hospital housekeeping workers. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP 51: 1–8.
  28. Castro, Sabrina Alessandra, Laurindo Moacir Sassi, Cassius Carvalho Torres-Pereira, and Juliana Lucena Schussel. 2019. Occupations associated with head and neck cancer in a city in Southern Brazil, 1998 to 2012. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Trabalho 17: 1.
  29. Toffolutti, Veronica, David Stuckler, Martin McKee, Ineke Wolsey, Judith Chapman, Theo J Pimm, Joanne Ryder, Heather Salt, and David M Clark. 2021. The employment and mental health impact of integrated Improving Access to Psychological Therapies: Evidence on secondary health care utilization from a pragmatic trial in three English counties. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 26: 224–33.
  30. Toffolutti, Veronica, Martin McKee, and David Stuckler. 2017. Evidence points to ‘gaming’ at hospitals subject to National Health Service Cleanliness Inspections. Health Affairs 36: 355–61.
  31. Davies, Jon, and Natalia Ollus. 2019. Labour exploitation as corporate crime and harm: Outsourcing responsibility in food production and cleaning services supply chains. Crime, Law and Social Change 72: 87–106.
  32. Lefrançois, Melanie, Johanne Saint-Charles, and Jessica Riel. 2017. Work/Family Balancing and 24/7 Work Schedules: Network Analysis of Strategies in a Transport Company Cleaning Service: Concilier travail-famille et horaires 24/7: Analyse réseau des stratégies au sein du service de nettoyage d’une compagnie de transport. New Solutions: A Journal Of Environmental And Occupational Health Policy 27: 319–41.
  33. Young, Marisa. C. 2010. Gender differences in precarious work settings. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations 65: 74–97.
  34. Holley, Sasha, and Alistair Rainnie. 2012. Who cleans up? The declining earnings position of cleaners in Australia. The Economic and Labour Review 23: 143–60.
  35. Campbell, Iain, and Robin Price. 2016. Precarious work and precarious workers: Towards an improved conceptualisation. The Economic and Labour Relations Review 27: 314–32.
  36. McBride, Jo, and Miguel Martinez Lucio. 2021. Beyond work intensification: The contradictions and ironies of the changing nature of ‘unskilled’ work in a context of austerity and organisational change. Capital & Class 45: 145–64.
  37. Browne, Irene, and Joya Misra. 2003. The intersection of gender and race in the labor market. Annual Review of Sociology 29: 487–513.
  38. Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 2018. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics . London: Routledge, pp. 57–80. Available online: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8 (accessed on 16 January 2022).
  39. Roig, Rosa, Cristina Aybar, and Jose M. Pavía. 2022. COVID-19, Gender Housework Division and Municipality Size in Spain. Social Sciences 11: 37.
  40. Casquilho-Martins, Inês, and Helena Belchior-Rocha. 2022. Responses to COVID-19 Social and Economic Impacts: A Comparative Analysis in Southern European Countries. Social Sciences 11: 36.
More
Information
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : , , , ,
View Times: 488
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 14 Jul 2022
1000/1000