The Janitors' Closet

Steve Jobs's advice for Obama

Great Gordon Crovitz editorial in this morning's Wall Street Journal.

" 'You're headed for a one-term presidency, Steve Jobs told President Obama at the beginning of a one-on-one session the president requested earlier this year.  As described in the authorized biography by Walter Isaacson, Apple's founder said regulations had created too many burdens on the economy."

"Jobs told Mr. Obama that Apple employs 700,000 factory workers in China because it can't find the 30,000 engineers in the U. S. that it needs on-site at its plants."

Jobs "stressed the need for more trained engineers and suggested that any foreign students who earned an engineering degree in the U. S. should be given a visa to stay in the country..."  Folks from MItt Romney to New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer to Arizona's Jeff Flake agree.  Congressman Flake has proposed the "Staple Act", to "staple" a work visa to any such diploma.

70% of doctorates in electrical engineering awarded in America, for instance, go to foreigners - most of whom we deport when they graduate.  Quite a gift to the economies of India and China.  You'd think those most productive folks - scientists, mathematicians, engineers - we'd want to keep here, to grow our economy, create jobs, even buy houses.  It's not rocket science.  Even folks in businesses like janitorial service, dealing with another range of immigration issues, can figure that out.

Seven filthy things you shouldn't touch on your way to work

Ran across an evocative study by Kimberly-Clark, "Seven filthy things you shouldn't touch on your way to work".  The study utilized swab tests on common surfaces and, in order of filthiness, lists: gas pump handles, mailbox handles, escalator rails, ATM buttons, parking meters, cross walk buttons and vending machine buttons.  Hard to avoid these on your way in to work.

They do sound similar to the touch points around your office: door push bars, elevator buttons, counters, light switches, door jambs, and the door you push when leaving the restroom.  That's why we stress touch point sanitation.

It's pretty simple.  We start with a microfiber cloth.  Microfiber scrubs better than cotton or paper, and absorbs more - both dirt and germs.  We apply Alpha-HP, a Diversey hydrogen peroxide based cleaner/sanitizer, to the cloth (to minimize both over-wetting or surfaces and over-spray) and wipe the touch-point with the moistened cloth.

The Alpha-HP is a quite effective cleaner, as is a moistened microfiber cloth; combined, they're hard to beat.  Similarly, most pathogens are removed along with the dirt (thanks to the microfiber); what's left is killed by the Alpha-HP - it gives us 30 to 60 second sanitation, depending on the particular germ, which is achievable with a quick wipe.  30 to 60 seconds is feasible on a touch-point; the 10 minutes required with a disinfectant is impractical, except in restrooms where one has a bit more freedom to apply solution liberally.  (Think trying to keep a door jam wet for 10 minutes, let alone a light switch.)  Finally, the germs picked up by the cloth promptly die, thanks to the cloth being loaded up with the sanitizer - so cross contamination is minimized.

We change out the microfiber cloths frequently (and avoid using the same cloth in critical areas, like restrooms) and launder them often, and one has an effective system; further, a system that takes no longer to use than the traditional damp-wipe to "clean" the touch-point.

Might want to see if your janitor service is "cleaning for health".

Low moisture carpet cleaning

Cleanlink just featured an article by BJ Mandelstam on the benefits of low moisture carpet cleaning.

We're quite sold on the benefits, having used the "low moisture soil encapsulation" process for years.  "Soil encapsulation" refers to the carpet cleaning chemical's ability to enclose, or encapsulate, the soil on drying, so that it can be vacuumed out.  Most soil is removed prior to drying by absorption into the machine's pad, while still wet, so the process delivers a "one-two punch".

The article covers various advantages to low moisture processes over hot water extraction (commonly called "steam cleaning"): less moisture introduced into the carpet, thus limiting the chance of over-wetting and speeding up dry-time; less water (by 95%) and chemical used; less water introduced into the carpet backing, to potentially separate the backing, leading to shrinkage or tearing of fibers, and to bleeding and discoloration; and better worker productivity, so we can clean the carpet more often at a similar annual cost.

It's nice seeing the benefits of low moisture carpet cleaning laid out so clearly, to help educate the occasional client who believes in the benefits of "steam cleaning".

Soap’s Contribution To Proper Hand Washing In Schools

Good article in Cleanlink, from Contracting Profits, by Ronnie Garrett.  I could take the story a bit further - what prevents the spread of disease among school children also prevents the spread of disease among most everybody else.

"The CDC recommends wetting hands with clean running water, then applying soap and rubbing hands together for 20 seconds, being sure to get between fingers and underneath fingernails, and finally rinsing the hands under running water and drying them with a clean towel or a hand dryer."

Good details in the article.  For instance, it notes "hand washing combined with hand sanitizing has been proven to reduce gastrointestinal illnesses and respiratory problems among student populations by as much as 30 percent"; it also points out the ineffectiveness of anti-bacterial soap, and the problem of added fragrances.

With flu season approaching, anything that helps keep ones employees healthy, and working efficiently, is all to the good.  So we educate our own people, and encourage our clients to do the same with theirs.  A cleaning program like ours, emphasizing health through sanitation and indoor air quality improvement, and safety through careful chemical selection, doesn't do our clients much good if their employees are infecting one another.

This does bring to mind a study performed a few years back.  The researcher positioned himself in the men's room at a convention of epidemiologists (the folks who study epidemics) and found that close to half failed to wash up after using the facilities....   Go figure.   But maybe it will work to train the children.

The smell of disinfectant in the morning

Every once and a while, I run across a client who who's firmly convinced that the restrooms could not have been thoroughly cleaned because she cannot smell the disinfectant.

Usually a quick explanation that most commercial disinfectants have little or no odor;  that fragrances, if present, have usually been added to convince the consumer of the strength of the chemical; that adding a fragrence (whether of a "medicine" or a floral "hide the foul odors" type) is not good for the occasional sensitive individual - backs her off.  Or I let her smell our quat-based, hospital grade disinfectant.  Which has no odor I can detect.

Should none of that avail, we give in and squirt a bit of a strong smelling chemical behind the toilet, every night. 

Generally, though, if one can smell the "disinfectant" in the morning, it's a good bet that something other than a modern disinfectant is being used.  Health becomes an issue.

Incidentally, we don't have our bookkeeper enter the "strong smelling, behind the toilet" chemical in the column for "janitorial chemicals".  We use the "child psychology" one.

A nice new wetmop on the market

Got a call several months ago from a Todd Williams of CT Development, asking us to field test a new wet-mop he'd just designed.  As he offered several free mops for the test, I figured I had nothing to lose.

He calls his mop the "Maximizer".  Here's my response to him, after a few weeks in the field with several of my crews, including both janitorial and floor techs.

"We appreciated the opportunity to “field test” your new Maximizer wet-mop.  Compared to a conventional mop, it lays much flatter on the floor, thus giving much wider coverage for its weight.  Our crews, particular our women and lighter men, appreciate the ease of use.  It also rinses well, fits better into a standard wringer, and as a consequence seems to streak the floor less than a conventional mop.  Finally, it seems to hold up well under heavy use and high soil loads.  We’ll continue to use, and appreciate, the Maximizer."

(I should note that, for both quality and health reasons, we use flat microfiber mops for "damp-mopping"; a wet-mop, like the ones we tested, is used to lay more solution on the floor, let the solution dwell for a bit, and then pick it up; damp-mopping involves a dryer mop and just one pass over the floor.  Wet mopping is used for heavy soil build-up, damp-mopping for lighter work on a cleaner floor.  The Maximizer thus fills a niche for us.)

One interesting side light:  our initial response to Todd mentioned that the mop was producing a bit of lint.  A couple of weeks later, a few more mops arrived in my mail.  Todd had tweaked the manufacturing process; the new mops worked fine, with no lint.  An impressively quick fix.  And a neat product.

Police officer died after inhaling noxious fumes...

...is the headline in a 9/20 Chicago Tribune article by Jeremy Gorner.

"Harmful fumes caused the death of a Chicago police officer in April after he was exposed weeks earlier to a cleaning substance...He told another officer he was coughing and having trouble breathing after inhaling a cleaning substance that a maintenance worker sprayed from an aerosol can on a desk at the district  station, according to a police report."

No indication in the article as to exactly what the "cleaning substance" was, or why it had to be delivered via aerosol; I cannot imagine what a conventional cleaning kit might contain that would cause such, save for an unusual allergic reaction.

Many "ma & pa" janitorial services have little chemical or safety knowledge; many firms (such as some of the franchising operations) employee "ma & pa" outfits, and do little to supervise, train or require proper chemical safety.  So the part of industry that uses other than "conventional cleaning kits" has lots of opportunity for foul-ups, including serious ones.

We're careful about such issues; we've carefully selected a safe chemical kit; keep to a small number of chemicals, so as to reduce confusion (our standard janitorial kit includes just five chemicals); follow OSHA mandates and labeling; train and re-train our people; and monitor compliance, partly through unannounced inspections.  We also stress squirting chemical on the cleaning cloth, not spraying on the surface, and we never use aerosols:  less chemical in the air means less to be inhaled.  Providing safety - for both our workers and the client - is not difficult, but does require planning and ongoing monitoring.  Thank goodness, we've never had a chemical-related injury.