Is hiring a house cleaner too much like having servants?

iguana

The other day I had a leaflet shoved through my door by someone who wanted work as a cleaner. They were charging £7ph (about €10.15). Now this seems like very good value if you wanted to get someone in once a week to do general house cleaning and it's more than the minimum wage, and the person obviously wanted the work. Yet the thought of getting someone to come clean my house seems so wrong.

But people hire others to do things they don't want to do all the time. Most people are happy to get someone to fit their kitchen, do their painting, lay carpets or fix their car but would never consider getting someone to do their hoovering. Why exactly is this? Are people worried what other people will think of them? Does it seem stuck up or lazy? To me it feels almost as if I'd be treating that person as if they were less than me by asking them to do my housework. But at the end of they day isn't it just a service that someone wants to sell, like anything else.

Dades

There's nothing wrong with paying somebody for a service IMO. Even if it's something you could easily do yourself.

People work hard and don't want to constantly living in a messy house, putting off housework. If you're helping someone else earn a living then who cares?

As long as you're not lying on the couch lifting your feet while they hoover under them, there's no shame in having a cleaner.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a strange person in my house, but my house is "compact" so it's not a big issue.

Borzoi

iguana wrote:

The other day I had a leaflet shoved through my door by someone who wanted work as a cleaner. They were charging £7ph (about €10.15). Now this seems like very good value if you wanted to get someone in once a week to do general house cleaning and it's more than the minimum wage, and the person obviously wanted the work. Yet the thought of getting someone to come clean my house seems so wrong.
.

I must admit, when I was growing up, we'd a cleaner call every Thursday for a few hours. I think she still does, though these days it's mostly about sitting around drinking coffee. Rita, was a another parent in my life, still is for that matter.

Friends of mine now have cleaners who come around for a morning or afternoon, clean the place, bit of ironing etc. THey've got kids, both work, they're time poor, not so much cash poor, so it makes alot of sense to get someone in. And as you say, it's money quite a bit above min wage, so why not. Especailly as some seem to have limited English, so not all jobs would be open to them

Xterminator

I agree with Borzoi here.

The cleaner tends to appriciate the work, and its only a servant like relationship if you treat them that way.

In fact it is a business releationship, and can become a good friendship!

X

Neuro

iguana wrote:

Yet the thought of getting someone to come clean my house seems so wrong.

It sounds to me like your suffering from some sort of middle-class liberal guilt.
I can rid you of this malaise; I charge €10 for a one-hour session.

Dades

Neuro wrote:

It sounds to me like your suffering from some sort of middle-class liberal guilt.
I can rid you of this malaise; I charge €10 for a one-hour session.

Who needs to pay for sessions when you can have a whole message board community offer their advice.

Catsmokinpot

iguana wrote:

The other day I had a leaflet shoved through my door by someone who wanted work as a cleaner. They were charging £7ph (about €10.15). Now this seems like very good value if you wanted to get someone in once a week to do general house cleaning and it's more than the minimum wage, and the person obviously wanted the work. Yet the thought of getting someone to come clean my house seems so wrong.

But people hire others to do things they don't want to do all the time. Most people are happy to get someone to fit their kitchen, do their painting, lay carpets or fix their car but would never consider getting someone to do their hoovering. Why exactly is this? Are people worried what other people will think of them? Does it seem stuck up or lazy? To me it feels almost as if I'd be treating that person as if they were less than me by asking them to do my housework. But at the end of they day isn't it just a service that someone wants to sell, like anything else.

where do i sign! this cleaner earns a euro more than i do how is it like having a servant? they do a job.... if the cleaner lived with you got crappy wages... had to do ur shopping, and your dinner, and wipe ur arse then they would be a servant otherwise no

rubadub

It is fine. I wouldnt like a stranger going around my house though. I would get a guy to do tiling even though I could have a go at it myself he should be better, hopefully a cleaner would do a better job than the average person too. They should be equipped with all the equipment too, various polishes etc.
My da's mate does carpet cleaning which is pretty much the same thing as hoovering, just with proper equipment. Lives in a grand house, very well off.

A guy I know gets people in to do every little job, his argument is that it would take him twice as long to the job that would be done only half as well as a pro, he would rather work and hour overtime and be able to pay a guy to work for an hour with the money he earns,- makes sense, but we still all call him a lazy bastard!

simu

What's wrong with having servants? It's a job too...

DublinWriter

When I worked in Brussels, my cleaner was far richer than me. She was Polish, an illegal immigrant (pre Polish EU accession) and owned several properties around Belgium.

She admitted to me that the whole cleaner-thing was a front to give her a 'legit' reason for having so much money (from undeclared rental income).

So therefore, I could live with the moral dilemma.
.

Cake Fiend

A servant isn't a slave - noone's forcing them to do their work. Same for a house cleaner.

Illkillya

Theres still a big difference between a servant and a house cleaner. A servant is there to do what you tell him/her to do. A house cleaner comes in for a couple of hours to clean your house.

Its like hiring a guy to come in and fix your PC. He'll come in, do the job, take the money, then leave. He won't act subservient, and he won't shine your shoes. Cleaners are the same, in fact when I stayed for a few weeks by myself in my brother's house in California while he was on holidays, I left so much stuff pile up in the sink that the cleaner went mad and asked for more money.

U$ername

Whats wrong with having servants? They get paid like any other job. It isnt as if someone has Kunta Kinte chained up in their shed.

Anyway im not sure I would trust someone who wants to clean my house for €10 an hour, they may just "clean" out a large portion of my belongings

Gazza22

No it's a job, a job that those people choose to do and unless people like yourself give them work..they won't have any

mrwyoming

Just an alternative perspective sure to provoke: I grew up in 4 different african countries (born in ireland though - so irish in essence!): and in each country we had 2 maids, gardeners, security guards... and in Malawi we actually had a cook on top of all that.

And even today that's still entirely normal in africa - nothing to do with slavery; it's a job which is governed by law and those doing it are simply doing.. a.. job..

Ya dig?

Though I see little sense in having one in Ireland - in Africa the weather's a tad nicer, so more reason to be outside

Piste

Yeah my Uncleand cousins live in Africa and they have a cook, cleaner and security guards.

We alwaus have had a cleaner, my parents are very busy and work quite hard so the house falls into a state when we dont have one. Only thing is my mum gets stressed out tidying up the house before the cleaners come, kinda defeats the purpose.

simu

Illkillya wrote:

Theres still a big difference between a servant and a house cleaner. A servant is there to do what you tell him/her to do. A house cleaner comes in for a couple of hours to clean your house.

Its like hiring a guy to come in and fix your PC. He'll come in, do the job, take the money, then leave. He won't act subservient, and he won't shine your shoes. Cleaners are the same, in fact when I stayed for a few weeks by myself in my brother's house in California while he was on holidays, I left so much stuff pile up in the sink that the cleaner went mad and asked for more money.

Who said a servant has to act in a subservient manner? They have to carry out various household tasks but nothing demeaning or dangerous and they're getting paid for it like any other work. And you can't ask them to do just anything. Anyone who sees them as being inferior because they're being paid to do chores etc is quite the ársehole imo.

AdMMM

There is nothing wrong with getting a cleaner into your house. It's just a service after all. It's a job that they're paid and willing to do and there isn't any correlation between that and a servant.

However, the idea of having a cleaner who would initially be in the house as a stranger doesnt appeal to me. Always the risk of them finding stuff you don't want them to etc!

Illkillya

simu wrote:

Who said a servant has to act in a subservient manner? They have to carry out various household tasks but nothing demeaning or dangerous and they're getting paid for it like any other work. And you can't ask them to do just anything. Anyone who sees them as being inferior because they're being paid to do chores etc is quite the ársehole imo.

I never said that servants had to act in a subservient manner; you misread my post. I said that a house cleaner will not act in a subservient manner, there is a difference.

However, assume for the sake of it that I had said servants are subservient, it would be quite reasonable. Serve and subserve are essentially synonyms as far as I can see. I never mentioned words like "demeaning" or "dangerous", I took shining shoes as an example. Believe it or not, servants do shine shoes. House cleaners do not.

simu, you jumped on the defensive without cause, and I cannot see where in this thread the nerve was struck. Are you a servant yourself? That would explain it to me, since I would expect in daily life a servant would meet such assumptions as those you are unnecessarily defending here... but theres nobody who has posted here that needs your lectures.

nesf

Illkillya wrote:

A servant is there to do what you tell him/her to do.

From that logic, anyone I hire to do anything is a servant. Since, I would pay them to do what I tell them to do.

simu

Illkillya wrote:

I never said that servants had to act in a subservient manner; you misread my post. I said that a house cleaner will not act in a subservient manner, there is a difference.

Well, when you mention that a house cleaner does not act in a subservient manner, it would seem to imply that a general servant does. Otherwise why mention it at all? But anyway, we seem to have had a bit of a break-down in communication there.

However, assume for the sake of it that I had said servants are subservient, it would be quite reasonable. Serve and subserve are essentially synonyms as far as I can see. I never mentioned words like "demeaning" or "dangerous", I took shining shoes as an example. Believe it or not, servants do shine shoes. House cleaners do not.

Nothing wrong with cleaning shoes. However, you might like to look at the definition of the word "subservient":

#1. Subordinate in capacity or function.
#2. Obsequious; servile.
#3. Useful as a means or an instrument; serving to promote an end (from dictionary.com)

It's generally seen as a negative word.

simu, you jumped on the defensive without cause, and I cannot see where in this thread the nerve was struck. Are you a servant yourself? That would explain it to me, since I would expect in daily life a servant would meet such assumptions as those you are unnecessarily defending here... but theres nobody who has posted here that needs your lectures.

Ha rofl! I'm not nor have I ever been a servant. However, I do despise people who look down on others because of how they earn their living. You don't have to be a member of a group to care about the welfare of members of that group, you know.

I seem to have hit a bit of a nerve with you too, actually but I have no wish to speculate why that might be so tbh.

Illkillya

nesf wrote:

From that logic, anyone I hire to do anything is a servant. Since, I would pay them to do what I tell them to do.

Thats not true... for a guy who did physics your logic is not very good

When I said "A servant is there to do what you tell him/her to do." I did not define what a servant is, I merely gave a function.

For example, if I had said "an apple is there to be eaten", does that imply that anything you eat is an apple?

simu - don't worry you didn't strike any nerve with me, I just wanted to make sure you weren't misunderstanding anyone here. There was no hostility in my post, no mentions of árseholes or anything like that. Again, you chose to take a negative view of my last post; when I mentioned shining shoes as an example, your response this time was "nothing wrong with shining shoes". I never said there was anything wrong with shining shoes, in fact the whole purpose of my last post was to illuminate the fact that nobody on this thread said that the work done by servants is degrading or that there is anything wrong with it, but you seemed to have missed that as you hopped on the defensive here again.

I have seen the dictionary definition of subservient, and it doesn't change anything for me. Servile? Serving to promote an end? These words are hardly any more degrading than the word servant itself. Nobody mentioned anything about inferior until you came along. While it is seen as a negative word more than half the time, in my experience, so is the word servant. However, the colloquial vibe of a word does not invalidate its literal meaning. For example, on boards.ie I would say that the word 'gay' is used in a negative context more than half the time. This does not mean that each use of the word has a negative implication.

I'm glad that you despise people who look down on others because of how they earn their living. I'm sure most people on this thread feel the same way. It is funny that you roll on the floor laughing at the suggestion that YOU are a servant though. Surely a chuckle or maybe even a lol would suffice?

simu

Illkillya wrote:

I have seen the dictionary definition of subservient, and it doesn't change anything for me. Servile? Serving to promote an end? These words are hardly any more degrading than the word servant itself. Nobody mentioned anything about inferior until you came along. While it is seen as a negative word more than half the time, in my experience, so is the word servant. However, the colloquial vibe of a word does not invalidate its literal meaning. For example, on boards.ie I would say that the word 'gay' is used in a negative context more than half the time. This does not mean that each use of the word has a negative implication.

Dude, go learn English. The word servile has negative connotations too. Ask any good English speaker whether being called servile or subservient is good or bad - they will reply that it is the latter. When these words are applied to people they're always negative. The word servant can be negative or neutral depending on the context which is perhaps why this thread came into existence in the first place.

It is funny that you roll on the floor laughing at the suggestion that YOU are a servant though. Surely a chuckle or maybe even a lol would suffice?

Oh yeah, I really like my rolls on the floor though - such good exercise. :rolleyes:

nesf

Illkillya wrote:

Thats not true... for a guy who did physics your logic is not very good

When I said "A servant is there to do what you tell him/her to do." I did not define what a servant is, I merely gave a function.

For example, if I had said "an apple is there to be eaten", does that imply that anything you eat is an apple?

Read what you posted:

Illkillya wrote:

Theres still a big difference between a servant and a house cleaner. A servant is there to do what you tell him/her to do. A house cleaner comes in for a couple of hours to clean your house.

You didn't merely give a function you stated the difference between a cleaner and a servant to be that a servant is there to do what you tell him/her to do. versus a cleaner who comes in for a couple of hours to clean your house, ie doing what you tell them to do. In your example of how they are different you describe how they are the same. Can you not see that?


On a side note you don't seem to know that "By that logic" is a phrase.

Illkillya

simu wrote:

Dude, go learn English. The word servile has negative connotations too. Ask any good English speaker whether being called servile or subservient is good or bad - they will reply that it is the latter. When these words are applied to people they're always negative. The word servant can be negative or neutral depending on the context which is perhaps why this thread came into existence in the first place.

Firstly, I do speak English, it is my first language and it is the language that I have been typing in throughout this thread. I can see that you are frustrated but there is no need to resort to petty insults, especially when they stem from your own lack of understanding of the post.

Your attempted insult is based on the grounds that the words "servile" and "subservient" have negative connotations. In fact, in my post I explicitly state that this IS usually the case: "it is seen as a negative word more than half the time". So why would I "ask any good English speaker whether being called servile or subservient is good or bad"? Even if I were to devalue the word to "good" or "bad", why would I ask this question when it would merely confirm what I said in my last post? That is, unless you want to argue there can be no possible scenario where the word "subservient" could be used without negative connotations; in which case you should stand back, and count to ten. You are resorting to insults over the question of whether the word "subservient" is negative 100% of the time or merely most of the time. If you want to continue arguing this point then let me know and I will reply to you.



nesf:
I did read what I posted, in fact I wrote it and read it as I was writing it, and then I read it again after it was posted. I realise that you are posting here to show solidarity to your buddy... I can understand that, and I would probably do the same myself if I were in your place, but you could have chosen something better to zone in on.

You didn't merely give a function you stated the difference between a cleaner and a servant to be that a servant is there to do what you tell him/her to do. versus a cleaner who comes in for a couple of hours to clean your house, ie doing what you tell them to do. In your example of how they are different you describe how they are the same. Can you not see that?

This is not true; I did not define anything, and I did not state the difference between a cleaner and a servant. I can see how you came to that conclusion and it is my fault for allowing for ambiguity, but I didn't expect my offhand words to undergo such scrutiny. As it happens, I very rarely post absolute definitions on these boards, since it is far too easy for somebody with no interest in the thread to try finding flaws in the definition.

It was an attempt at contrast, in the same way I might say "an apple is there to be eaten. Spaghetti is eaten with a fork". Admittedly it was not well said, and if I had known the words would be so closely examined then I would have made it clearer.

On a side note you don't seem to know that "By that logic" is a phrase.

Is this a return to simu's jab? "uhhh uhh go learn English, D00D". At least I can thank you for returning the token smiley

simu

Well, what on earth were you trying to say with your first post on this thread then? You claim there is some big difference between a cleaner and a servant but you fail to point out how this is so.

You're very paranoid seeing insults everywhere where there are none.

nesf

Illkillya wrote:

nesf:
I did read what I posted, in fact I wrote it and read it as I was writing it, and then I read it again after it was posted. I realise that you are posting here to show solidarity to your buddy... I can understand that, and I would probably do the same myself if I were in your place, but you could have chosen something better to zone in on.

Tbh, I posting because I disagree with what you said and thought you were incorrect in what you posted. I'm not helping simu in this case, I'm disagreeing with you all on my own.

Illkillya wrote:

This is not true; I did not define anything, and I did not state the difference between a cleaner and a servant. I can see how you came to that conclusion and it is my fault for allowing for ambiguity, but I didn't expect my offhand words to undergo such scrutiny. As it happens, I very rarely post absolute definitions on these boards, since it is far too easy for somebody with no interest in the thread to try finding flaws in the definition.

I didn't say you defined anything. I merely pointed out that the examples you gave of the two being different showed the simularities.

Illkillya wrote:

It was an attempt at contrast, in the same way I might say "an apple is there to be eaten. Spaghetti is eaten with a fork". Admittedly it was not well said, and if I had known the words would be so closely examined then I would have made it clearer.

As I said already, that is what I commented on. Your contrast only pointed out simularities not differences. Servants is a word that's shunned in the workplace. We have cleaners, nannys, PAs not servants anymore. There are connotations of superiority when one calls a person a servant nowadays. It's just something associated with the word. Servants themselves did the same work as cleaners/nannys/whatever. It's just got a new PC-friendly name now.

There is little difference in that in both cases, a person was in the employment for another to provide a specific service. It still happens where I'm from, where a local woman might be hired by another local woman to clean up the house and keep an eye on the kids. It's not called being a servant anymore but it is equivilant to what some servants did. It's just a PC thing that the word servant isn't used now.


I agree with you about absolute definitions btw.

Illkillya wrote:

Is this a return to simu's jab? "uhhh uhh go learn English, D00D". At least I can thank you for returning the token smiley

No, I hadn't read simu's post when I was writing mine, just an observation on your responce to my post. I wasn't trying to say you were using formal logic in your post, I was commenting on the invalidity of the statement. Nothing more.

Illkillya

simu wrote:

Well, what on earth were you trying to say with your first post on this thread then? You claim there is some big difference between a cleaner and a servant but you fail to point out how this is so.

You're very paranoid seeing insults everywhere where there are none.

Firstly, this is a different issue altogether. What was I trying to say with my first post? The obvious answer to what is a fairly pointless thread to begin with. I'm sure when iguana first posted this he wasn't in serious commando mode looking for a big debate, its just a light thread and its obvious that everyone is going to say the same thing. My original post was fairly obvious; I don't know why you need me to explain it. What on earth was I trying to say?? Its hardly Thomas Aquinas. You jumped on some perceived ambiguity, and now that that has been cleared up I don't see exactly what is left to explain?

And I think its funny that you are calling me paranoid, when the reason I replied to you to begin with was to highlight YOUR paranoia as you unnecessarily launched a crusade to protect the working man against bigotry which didn't actually exist to begin with.

What exactly did you intend by saying "Dude, go learn English." if it wasn't meant to be insulting? I will admit that ambiguity is the cause of 90% of arguments on bulletin boards, but I don't see how that can be anything but an insult.


nesf:
I love you. Are/were you Skorzeny's friend? I think I met you in UCC about 4 years ago.

nesf

Illkillya wrote:

nesf:
I love you. Are/were you Skorzeny's friend? I think I met you in UCC about 4 years ago.

Yeah we were friends, I used to live with him when myself and himself were in first year. I lost touch with him a while back when he left Cork to study outdoor stuff. He's happy and doing well for himself last time I heard

I do vaguely remember meeting you but I really can't put a name or face to you. My memory is really crap.

simu

Illkillya wrote:

Firstly, this is a different issue altogether. What was I trying to say with my first post? The obvious answer to what is a fairly pointless thread to begin with. I'm sure when iguana first posted this he wasn't in serious commando mode looking for a big debate, its just a light thread and its obvious that everyone is going to say the same thing. My original post was fairly obvious; I don't know why you need me to explain it. What on earth was I trying to say?? Its hardly Thomas Aquinas. You jumped on some perceived ambiguity, and now that that has been cleared up I don't see exactly what is left to explain?

The only purpose I could see behind your post was that you were implying that servants were considered inferior to house cleaners. You have now admitted that you had no purpose behind what you said but this is actually supposed to be a serious discussion forum so I tend to assume people who post on here aren't just trying to increase their post count.

And I think its funny that you are calling me paranoid, when the reason I replied to you to begin with was to highlight YOUR paranoia as you unnecessarily launched a crusade to protect the working man against bigotry which didn't actually exist to begin with.

Uh, sure.

What exactly did you intend by saying "Dude, go learn English." if it wasn't meant to be insulting? I will admit that ambiguity is the cause of 90% of arguments on bulletin boards, but I don't see how that can be anything but an insult.

It seemed to me you didn't quite grasp the meaning of some of the words you were using. You've argued you did understand them although I still think you were being a bit obscure, to say the least. Anyway, who cares at this stage - as you said, you're not really interested in the topic. All I was saying was that you should check out what those words meant.

Pointless arguments - what else would keep bored people occuppied into the small hours of the day? :cool:

Dades

I find this a curious end(?) to an amusing discussion.

Apparantly the decision as to whether there is a difference between a servant and a cleaner is moot, as the word "servant" doesn't exist anymore in our PC society. :rolleyes:

There's a great bit of news for Civil Servants everywhere.

Illkillya

simu wrote:

It seemed to me you didn't quite grasp the meaning of some of the words you were using. You've argued you did understand them although I still think you were being a bit obscure, to say the least.

This is arrogance. And you make far too many assumptions. If I was being obscure, that is irrelevant. The word in question is "subservient", so you are returning to whether I know the meaning of that word or not? I read the dictionary definition that you kindly pasted, I asked in a prior post that you let me know if you are going to return to this topic since theres plenty more that could be said, although it would be a very dull conversation, perhaps you feel the need to go there. I never used the word servant in a negative context, but you assumed that I did and promptly mounted your high horse.

However, the Atheist is dead right, and as it happens, on another day I WOULD take the word servant to be a negative thing, and I even wrote earlier that the word "servant" does have negative connotations more than half the time. But that is a different matter entirely, as my opinion on the subject was never in contest here - it was always your incorrect interpretations of what I wrote, simu, your assumptions, and your insults.

Anyway, who cares at this stage - as you said, you're not really interested in the topic. All I was saying was that you should check out what those words meant.

Pointless arguments - what else would keep bored people occuppied into the small hours of the day?

I never cared to begin with; as I said initially, a nerve was never struck with me. You can see that I did not stoop to personal insults on this thread.

I never mentioned pointless arguments - I said this thread, i.e. the original topic was pointless. No offence to original poster, however, as I never said there was anything wrong with pointless arguments. While the word "pointless" might have a negative meaning more than half the time, I had no such intention.

simu

o_O

Report my posts if you're insulted. If you want to continue the discussion, take a stance on the original question. That is all.

Illkillya

Why would I report your posts? I was merely pointing out the fact that what you said was an insult, never said it bothered me. In fact, I usually prefer discussions which are enhanced by personal insults. I realise they are illegal on this board, but if you think I would go running to a moderator over something as tame as this then I am very insulted. In 6 years reading these boards I have only reported one post that I can recall, and that was when somebody attached an image of horse pr0n.

My stance on the original question is fairly clear, since I mentioned in a prior post that the whole thread is pointless since everybody here, including the original poster, knows the answer. "No Jim, a house cleaner is not too much like having servants. As long as you treat him well, take him for walks regularly, and never EVER feed him after midnight."

simu

Illkillya wrote:

Why would I report your posts? I was merely pointing out the fact that what you said was an insult, never said it bothered me. In fact, I usually prefer discussions which are enhanced by personal insults. I realise they are illegal on this board, but if you think I would go running to a moderator over something as tame as this then I am very insulted. In 6 years reading these boards I have only reported one post that I can recall, and that was when somebody attached an image of horse pr0n.

You'd get insulted at anything!

My stance on the original question is fairly clear, since I mentioned in a prior post that the whole thread is pointless since everybody here, including the original poster, knows the answer. "No Jim, a house cleaner is not too much like having servants. As long as you treat him well, take him for walks regularly, and never EVER feed him after midnight."

Well, I agree with you then. Wayhay.

Illkillya

Actually... come to think of it, I change my mind.

AARRRGH

To get back on topic -

A friend of mine is a cleaner (illegal immigrant.)

The job for her is NOT degrading. She would never see it like that. It is a chance for her to make some money doing something which she is good at.

If anything, hiring a cleaner is doing the cleaner a favor (i.e. giving her a job.)

It is not degrading.

And if you can afford it, I don't see a problem in hiring a cleaner. Yes, maybe it's a little bit lazy, but that's hardly something to get angry/bothered about.

nesf

The Atheist wrote:

I find this a curious end(?) to an amusing discussion.

Apparantly the decision as to whether there is a difference between a servant and a cleaner is moot, as the word "servant" doesn't exist anymore in our PC society. :rolleyes:

There's a great bit of news for Civil Servants everywhere.

I was only referring to it's use in that form of work.

I wasn't trying to claim that the word servant is no longer used anywhere. Then again I was sleep deprived so maybe I didn't come across clearly.