NY Times, Sept. 13 2015
At WeWork, an Idealistic Start-Up Clashes With Its Cleaners
By DAVID GELLES

Adam Neumann bounded through the downtown Manhattan headquarters of 
WeWork, beaming as he pointed out the amenities of the open floor plan.

Over in the communal area, entrepreneurs mingled. Here was the shared 
kitchen, with cold-brew coffee and organic snacks. How cool is that? 
Over there was the quiet room, with mood lighting and hammocks. Wasn’t 
it awesome? Mr. Neumann pulled out his iPhone and checked WeWork’s app, 
where members — as WeWork calls its customers — can find jobs and team 
up with one another on new socially responsible ventures. Talk about 
disrupting business as usual.

In just five years, Mr. Neumann and WeWork’s other co-founder, Miguel 
McKelvey, have built their start-up into an office-space rental empire, 
with 52 locations in 16 cities around the globe. An office utopia 
designed for millennials — at first mostly freelancers trying to escape 
their apartments, but now also small businesses and corporations trying 
to lure the creative class — WeWork was, until recently, valued at $5 
billion. Then in June, it sought another round of financing, getting 
huge investments from Fidelity Management and others. Its new valuation: 
$10 billion.

Mr. Neumann grew up on a kibbutz in Israel; Mr. McKelvey grew up in a 
collective in Oregon. They frequently cite their origin stories in 
explaining their belief that office space should emphasize community and 
serendipitous connection — and that the company is a force for good. 
They call their customers the We Generation.

“If you understand that being part of something greater than yourself is 
meaningful,” Mr. Neumann said, “and if you’re not driven just by 
material goods, then you’re part of the We Generation.”

So Mr. Neumann seems more than a little perplexed to find himself 
defending WeWork against charges that it is a callous, anti-labor 
corporation, less concerned with people than profits.

WeWork’s headaches stem from a complicated dispute with a group of men 
and women who once cleaned WeWork locations. With its aspirations to be 
an office-rental paradise, it couldn’t have sticky floors by the free 
craft beer keg, or trash collecting under the Ping-Pong tables.

It needed cleaners — lots of them — to keep its locations tidy. Looking 
for help, it turned to contractors to provide cleaning services. In 
Boston and Washington, as well as New York, the contractor was 
Commercial Building Maintenance Corporation, or CBM, which provided 
hundreds of janitors to those locations.

But that routine decision came back to haunt WeWork. When the New York 
City cleaners — who made about $10 an hour and received no benefits or 
paid time off — tried to unionize in June, CBM terminated its contract 
with WeWork and eliminated the jobs. WeWork decided to hire its own 
in-house cleaning staff but will not hire all the former CBM workers, 
leaving about 100 people jobless.

The result has been a showdown between new economy and old. All summer, 
the cleaners protested outside WeWork offices around New York, blowing 
whistles and chanting: “WeWork, shame on you! WeWork, shame on you!”

On a humid night in late August, a few days before Mr. Neumann gave his 
office tour, the protesters were outside company headquarters on West 
18th Street. After months of avoiding direct confrontation, Mr. Neumann 
decided to try to convince his antagonists that he was a good guy who 
had done nothing wrong.

At first he cited the letter of the law. “WeWork was not hiring any of 
you. It was all done through CBM,” Mr. Neumann pleaded. “They were your 
employers, not me.”

That didn’t work. The cleaners said they had worn WeWork T-shirts, 
gotten to know the company’s staff and customers, and believed WeWork 
had a responsibility to them.

Next, Mr. Neumann tried empathy. “When I was a little kid, me and all my 
family lived in a house the size of my daughter’s room,” he said.

The cleaners were not impressed.

Finally, Mr. Neumann explained that WeWork was now hiring its own 
cleaners, paying them $15 to $18 an hour, and offering health care along 
with equity in the company. “This company is going very far,” he said. 
“The stock, God willing, is very valuable.”

Mr. Neumann seemed to believe his logic and magnanimity would make the 
problem go away: If only the cleaners had all the facts, they wouldn’t 
be so upset. But to the now unemployed janitors who had toiled for low 
wages and with no benefits, all while wearing WeWork uniforms, the 
company’s wonderful new terms felt like a slap in the face.

When one protester reminded Mr. Neumann that his company was worth $10 
billion, he waved the thought away, his hand swatting the air. “That has 
nothing to do with this,” he said, turning to the next question.

Perhaps they are separate issues for Mr. Neumann. But to many onlookers, 
it’s hard to understand why a company with so much money won’t help the 
unemployed men and women who once cleaned its floors.

Who’s the Boss?

WeWork may be a fast-growing darling of the so-called sharing economy, 
but it is also one that leases lots of conventional real estate — about 
two million square feet. And by simply doing business as usual and 
hiring a contractor to provide cleaning services, it inadvertently 
stumbled into a fight that exposes the paradoxes of today’s lopsided 
labor market.

In recent decades, outsourcing cheap labor for tasks like security, mail 
sorting and food services has become routine for American corporations.

“Many parts of what used to be integrated businesses are now handled 
through subcontracting,” said Jennifer Gordon, a professor at the 
Fordham University School of Law specializing in immigration and employment.

Subcontracting makes plenty of economic sense. Companies can keep the 
head count down and avoid health care and benefit obligations. 
Contractors can do what they do best — provide specialized services at 
competitive rates. But by striving to win assignments, contractors often 
pay employees as little as possible.

For workers, this dynamic can be maddening. Ivan Castelan began cleaning 
WeWork spaces three years ago. He started out tidying kitchen areas and 
keeping the coffee fresh; over time his responsibilities expanded to 
include managing inventory and placing orders for supplies. Yet when he 
wanted to negotiate a raise, Mr. Castelan was stymied at every turn.

“When I asked WeWork for more money, they told me to talk to CBM,” he 
said. “When I asked CBM for more money, CBM said WeWork had to approve 
the raise. It was frustrating.”

Such situations are typical in subcontracting situations. WeWork may not 
have been Mr. Castelan’s direct employer, but it was the one with the 
ability to improve conditions for him — and other cleaners. It could 
have paid CBM more and then insisted CBM pay its workers higher wages, 
or it could have hired a new contractor that paid better. CBM, 
meanwhile, had little incentive to push WeWork, a powerful client, to 
raise salaries.

“The law says CBM is the employer, but if you look at the reality of how 
wages are set, it’s the firms higher up the chain that really control 
what the wages will be,” Ms. Gordon said. “WeWork has all the power. It 
has the money, and it has the control.”

Companies, workers and contractors have been wrestling with these issues 
for decades. During the 1980s and 1990s, the Justice for Janitors 
movement fought to improve wages and benefits for cleaners after 
competition eroded their salaries and benefits. Today, fast-food workers 
— who most often work for franchisees — are campaigning for a new 
minimum wage of $15 an hour. And in a decision that could have 
far-reaching implications, the National Labor Relations Board ruled last 
month that more companies could be considered “joint employers” of 
workers not directly on their payroll.

But for now, a company like WeWork has no obligations to look out for 
the employees of a contractor like CBM. “Morally, I would argue that 
they absolutely have a responsibility,” Ms. Gordon said. “But legally 
it’s much more complicated.”

Idealism Meets Mops

Mr. Neumann is a tall, exuberant 36-year-old Israeli who wears his dark 
hair to his shoulders. He came to the United States in 2001, “chasing 
the American dream,” he told the protesters during their showdown in the 
street last month. “I came wanting to change the world.”

He founded a baby clothing company but walked away from it after his 
wife observed that he wasn’t passionate about apparel. Next, he started 
an eco-friendly co-working space in Brooklyn with his friend Mr. 
McKelvey and other investors. Wanting more control of the product, he 
sold his stake in that company and founded WeWork with Mr. McKelvey, a 
former store designer for American Apparel.

The official mission of WeWork is “to create a world where people work 
to make a life, not just a living.” And as a spokesman for the 
altruistic We Generation, Mr. Neumann is dismayed that the union is 
demonizing him. “We care about this topic so much,” he said.

The cleaners, however, say that Mr. Neumann passed up a critical 
opportunity to demonstrate his concern. When they began organizing this 
summer, CBM asked WeWork to change its contract in order to pay the 
cleaners higher wages and allow them to join a union — though a union of 
CBM’s choosing. But WeWork declined to renegotiate, saying the CBM 
proposal was “sketchy.” CBM terminated its contract with WeWork.

CBM did not respond to numerous emails and phone calls.

Mr. Neumann said CBM’s action only accelerated the inevitable: Even 
before the protests began, WeWork had been planning to make the cleaning 
jobs in-house.

CBM was hired years ago as WeWork was quickly growing throughout New 
York, its home base. “It was one of a thousand decisions we were making 
at the time,” Mr. Neumann said. “It was about who can supply us a 
service and what can we afford.”

But this year, Arthur Minson, who had been the chief financial officer 
of Time Warner Cable, joined WeWork as chief operating officer. Mr. 
Minson quickly soured on CBM and determined that WeWork should hire its 
own staff. “We were a five-star brand with one-star cleaning,” he said.

Though hiring in-house cleaners would fly in the face of decades of 
conventional business wisdom, Mr. Minson said it was a necessary move 
for WeWork. Janitors interact with WeWork members constantly and need to 
be steeped in its corporate culture. Mr. Minson also wanted to give 
cleaners expanded responsibilities, like preparing offices for new 
tenants and delivering food to conference rooms.

“I’m a big believer in in-sourcing member-facing functions,” Mr. Minson 
said. “If you want to build a powerful brand in the services industry, 
you have to.”

After CBM terminated its contract, WeWork began hiring about 100 
so-called community service associates to clean its New York offices. It 
offers $15 to $18 an hour, as well as benefits, sick days and a small 
amount of stock. Over all, the cost per employee is about twice as much 
as what WeWork was paying CBM. Mr. Minson said WeWork would expand the 
model to other cities. (WeWork still uses CBM in Boston and Washington.)

As the new positions were filled, WeWork refrained from hiring CBM 
workers because of a no-hire clause in its contract. WeWork said that it 
asked CBM to waive that restriction, but that CBM initially declined. 
When CBM finally did waive it, WeWork had already hired many new 
cleaners, leaving few open jobs.

The local Service Employees International Union chapter, which has been 
working with the former WeWork cleaners, contends that WeWork 
intentionally avoided hiring former CBM workers so it could prevent 
pro-union cleaners from joining the company and trying to organize. The 
S.E.I.U. filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board alleging 
as much, but the board has not yet taken any action. WeWork denies the 
claim.

In recent weeks, after CBM waived the no-hire clause, WeWork hired about 
20 of the laid off cleaners. But it appears unlikely that all, or even 
the majority, will ever be part of the WeWork family.

Nathalie Torralba, who had cleaned in WeWork’s offices for 18 months, 
said she had interviewed for one of the new positions weeks ago but had 
not heard back. Mr. Castelan has also applied, but has not been hired.

“They decided to hire new employees and give them what we were asking 
for,” Mr. Castelan said. “That’s not fair.”

A $10 Billion Target

The very attributes that have made WeWork so successful have also 
exposed it to this bruising labor brawl. As Mr. Neumann is finding out, 
the We Generation cares about janitors, too.

Jane Barratt, who runs an investment platform called GoldBean and has 
worked out of a WeWork space in New York’s SoHo neighborhood for 18 
months, canceled her membership after mounting frustrations with the 
company, including over what she said was poor customer service and the 
labor dispute. “The treatment of the cleaners was the last straw,” she said.

More than 500 WeWork members signed a petition demanding that the 
company hire the former CBM cleaners as community service associates. 
Julie Sygiel, the founder of an underwear company called Dear Kate that 
is operated from a WeWork space in New York, recently delivered the 
petition to Mr. Minson, accompanied by two former cleaners.

“I believe WeWork has a responsibility to commit to rehire all qualified 
former cleaners who have applied for a new position,” Ms. Sygiel said 
after the meeting.

Unlike many start-ups in the digital age, WeWork seems to be making 
money. The company would not disclose its financial performance. But 
according to internal documents obtained by The Information, a 
technology news website, WeWork had $75 million in revenue last year, 
with $4.2 million in profits.

By any conventional measure, those figures do not support a $10 billion 
valuation. Like other start-ups, including Uber and Airbnb, WeWork is 
part of what many critics are describing as a new technology bubble. Yet 
WeWork is anticipating huge growth as it expands rapidly and gains 
corporate clients renting hundreds of desks each. It forecasts nearly $1 
billion in profit on sales of $3 billion by 2018, according to the 
documents.

The number that matters most to the cleaners who were fired, however, is 
not revenue or profit. It’s that $10 billion valuation. That number made 
WeWork’s behavior that much harder to understand. If any company can 
afford to pay janitors a living wage, they figured, it is WeWork.

“It was clear to everyone including the workers that this is a company 
that is doing very well,” said Rachel Cohen, an S.E.I.U. organizer. “Why 
would they be using a cleaning contractor that is paying substandard wages?”

Other fast-growing tech companies are encountering similar criticism as 
they grow. Uber, the on-demand car service, is appealing a ruling by the 
California Labor Commissioner’s Office that required the company to 
classify a driver not as an independent contractor but as an employee.

Facebook recently faced its own version of WeWork’s conundrum when the 
bus drivers who ferried its workers from San Francisco to Silicon 
Valley, and worked for a subcontractor, demanded better pay. Facebook 
responded by announcing that all employees of its major contractors 
would receive at least $15 an hour, paid vacation and sick time, and 
parental benefits.

Whether WeWork brings all cleaning jobs in house or continues to use 
contractors, its growing footprint means it will have to be more attuned 
to the people who clean and maintain those spaces.

Cristian Diaz, 25, moved to Queens from Colombia in 2012 and quickly 
began cleaning at WeWork spaces around the city. But despite long hours 
and no vacations, Mr. Diaz said his $10 hourly wage left him with almost 
nothing to send home to his parents in Medellín. “We were just getting 
by,” he said. He supported joining the union, hoping it would mean 
better pay and benefits.

Mr. Diaz, who has been out of work for a month, applied for a new job 
with WeWork, but has not been offered one.

The Last Word

On the sweltering night in August when Mr. Neumann squared off with the 
cleaners on West 18th Street, he called for calm after some heated 
exchanges, and delivered a soliloquy that would be the final word for 
the evening.

“There’s a saying, ‘God truly helps those who help themselves,’ ” he 
said. “I understand your heart. I know everybody here is trying to help. 
You keep pursuing a job at WeWork. If you’re the right fit, you will get 
a job, because we’re interested in the right people. We’re going to keep 
growing. But we’re very comfortable with our position. We will 
definitely not be blackmailed, pushed or aggressively moved into 
anything. That will not happen. Not in this country, because this is a 
great country where freedom comes first.”

“I feel you, I understand,” Mr. Neumann continued. “I do not think you 
have all the facts. I don’t think you know everything that happened, but 
I know life is tough that way. So I will keep doing my best to make the 
most difference I can — first in your lives and my employees’ lives, and 
in the world.”

With that, Mr. Neumann turned and walked into the office of his $10 
billion start-up. It was as if he had been speaking in a foreign tongue. 
The front door had not shut when the chanting resumed: “WeWork, shame on 
you! WeWork, shame on you!”
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to