The Janitors' Closet

Forgotten history

My ruminations yesterday on check cashing firms, and banking (and its history), and the day-to-day impact on a lot of the contractors who provide janitorial service to our clients, got me to thinking about a recent conversation.

CBN Building Maintenance's office is a 1914 prairie style house in Phoenix's oldest historic district (the Roosevelt neighborhood).  The fellow who built it was the president of an early local bank, and of the building and loan firm that constructed the house for him. Several years ago, we did a quite thorough restoration of the building, taking it close to its original layout and appearance.   We spent much effort in researching early ownership, trying to locate descendants who might have photos of the building as it was in its youth.  No luck at all; we found a grandson of the original owner (L L Steward), but he had no idea that his grandfather had ever lived here, and certainly no early photos.  And he assured us that he was the only surviving descendant.

So I was a bit surprised to have a granddaughter (cousin of the above) call out of the blue, saying that she'd run across our restoration project on our website, and would much enjoy a tour of the home.

I did the tour; she gave me a photo of her grandfather sitting in his bank, with staff and stockholders (at a guess) clustered around.  Neat shot; I added it to our site.  I'd known, from local history, that grandfather had lost everything during the depression.  Granddaughter explained that he'd tapped his personal assets to pay off his bank's depositors, and it wiped him out.  Quite the stand-up thing to do.

But there is a bit more to the story.  Though we've mostly forgotten it (and I've seen economist,s who study banking, unaware of it), up until the law change during the Depression, America had "double liability for bank stockholders".  Stockholders in any corporation could only lose the amount they'd invested in the corporation (that is, paid for the stock); even if the corporation failed, owing more than it had assets, the stockholders were off the hook.  Except for banks.  Bank shareholders could be tapped again for as much as they had originally invested.  The idea was that a bank could be capitalized with less cash in the vault than might seem safe, because it had stockholders' assets as a fallback.  It allowed productive use of those assets, while protecting the bank.

So, a bank shareholder - as the president of a local bank surely was - could lose the rest of his fortune.

To me, it's not a bad system.  We currently depend on regulators to insure the safety, and conservative behavior, or banks.  And those regulators always seem to lag a bit behind their targets (see the recent financial crisis).  Stockholders carrying a big chunk of liability would likely focus their minds on the solidity of the bank, and the behavior of its directors and officers.  Might work better than regulators.

 

Check cashing firms

I run a janitorial firm in the Phoenix area. For better than 30 years, we've been based on small, usually owner-operated independent contractors for much of our small client work. They're straight, down to earth hard working folks, often immigrants or their children, trying to make a decent living for their families. Good people.
      I've noticed that quite a number of them use check cashing firms to cash their monthly payments; it's seemed to me, repeatedly, that the couple of points charged, plus the time to visit the check cashing shop, has (from my perspective) got to be a drag on time and wealth. Not wanting to pry, or embarrass, my folks, I've never asked - just assumed that they've had some sort of problem dealing with banks, and are shut out of the system.
     The Unbanking of America, by Lisa Servon explores the positive aspects of check cashing firms - transparent fees, immediate cash (no holds until the deposit clears), fees and policies posted in clear language, convenient locations and hours, personalized service. If one also factors in an occasional bounced check charge from a bank, and how often we're really ticked off at lack of service and responsiveness from our own banks, the check cashing firm seems a not irrational choice.
     That perspective is what I'd seen in a review of the book, and why I picked it up.
     BUT: the author has a heck of a chip on her shoulder against the conventional banking system, and a remarkable lack of knowledge of its history. And quite a bias in favor of the regulators. And she's sloppy with her stats.
     Couple examples, the last point first:
     "In a study of US financial health, CFSI found that 57% of Americans - 138 million people - are struggling financially..." p.166. That would indicate a much smaller population of people in this country than the census sees to find.
     "Once banks started making loans in the 1920s, they dealt with only the well-to-do and the well-connected." p.65. Not to mention lots of small farmers, and so on...
     On interest caps: "Interest caps are more than numbers: they are reflections of society's collective judgment about moral and ethical behavior..." p.65...Or maybe a reflection of what the folks in the Legislature thought would get them re-elected.
     "Historically they (African Americans) have faced discrimination when attempting to use their charge cards..." p.66 Never seen this in practice, or referenced anywhere else. Servon sites no source.
     "...unskilled jobs with wages dependent on the business cycle..." p.70 It is the high end paychecks, heavily dependent on commissions, bonuses, and so on, that fluctuate with the business cycle.
     "We've seen that alternative and informal financial services have emerged and grown to fill needs unmet by the market, but check cashers and payday lenders aren't the best options for improving financial health." p.170 But check cashers and payday lenders ARE part of the market, meeting said needs, and for many a good option, as she demonstrates earlier in the book.
     "The big banks have demonstrated a lack of interest in providing the financial products and services we need at a price we can afford....The only way to guarantee that all of us will have the ability to achieve financial health is for the government to intervene...." p.171 There is a good deal of competition among "alternative" service providers, and (as the author stresses) they post their prices clearly, in big letters. Robust competition, and posted prices, everywhere else drives prices down to about the lowest level consistent with covering costs. What any good or service costs, at a minimum, has to do with the cost necessary to provide it. Should government subsidize such services, we'll pay it in taxes.
     "...nearly all states restricted branching in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to protect consumers from monopolies." p.27 Until the Depression, banks were generally not allowed to have more than one location (no branches). So, a small town had but one bank; an urban neighborhood had but one bank. Without the internet and credit reporting agencies, one could only borrow from someone who knew you, or your landlord or your employer - that is, your hometown or neighborhood banker. There was NO competition - by law. States created banking monopolies. Branch banking, and interstate banking (prohibited until the Depression) give us the robust competition we see today.
     On the Depression, in 1929: "Risky investment had led to the crash, and the (new) law was designed to minimize banks ability to take such risks." p.26 The thousands of banks that failed during the Depression, were virtually all single branch banks, general in farming areas. Farms failed, in mass, due to the collapse of exports, due to the effects of the tariff act. Farmers could not pay their mortgages, so banks failed. A mortgage is generally considered to be one of the soundest investments. There was little risky investment by banks.
     A quick reading of a history of banking, and a leavening of logic, would have greatly informed the work.

 

 

 

It occurred to us a good many years ago that, in vetting our staff, a thorough back-grounding (criminal and civil, national in scope, plus driving record and so on) made little sense without a formal program for confirming the identity of the applicant.  And back-grounding of entire staff is crucial - we have key access, after office hours, to a great many client facilities, many with sensitive documents on site, as well as the obvious pilferage targets.

We require and verify a current Arizona drivers license (hard to fake, and easy to teach my screening folks to spot a fake); run an address search based on Social Security number (to confirm that number fitting the applicant, and to see if he's the primary user of that number); check year and state in which the number was issued against what the applicant can tell us; check for aliases;  and so on.  Simply relying on E-Verify doesn't answer - as long as the applicant has acquired an name and number that match, the Feds are happy with it.

All of which we long had in place before being introduced to Homeland Security's IMAGE program.  It's a public/private partnership; we agree to confirm identity on anyone we put on (and ask the same of any subcontractors we use) and open our records to ICE's scrutiny; in return, we received three-plus hours of staff training in spotting fake ID (particularly Social Security cards).  At no cost to us.  And, we got a neat plaque to hang on the wall, and are listed on IMAGE's website.  We're one of the Charter Members.

You'd think, what with client concerns about integrity, background and screening of those folks who will get access to client offices, that more janitorial firms (at least, the ones trying to be legit) would join the program.  But we are still one of only two in the country.

Go figure.

Bedbugs revisited

Working on yesterday's article on UV lights, and bedbugs, an article from some months ago came to mind, and I could not help but re-post it.  So here it is:

Bedbugs seem to be making a comeback; in a recent survey, Chicago tops the list of cities with infestations.  Phoenix did not make the top ten, but we cannot be far behind.  So, I'm dusting off an old plan. I caught an article some years ago in our Arizona Republic about a New York retailer hiring a specially trained beagle to sniff out potential bedbugs in the establishment.

Central to our 30-plus year commitment to "cleaning for health", we include tight sanitation and indoor air quality in our Phoenix janitorial services package, monitor our clients' indoor air quality (airborne particle count in the size range of most allergens), and do a bit of consulting in those areas (we're a long-time member of the American Indoor Air Quality Association), it might make sense to add bedbug detection to our arsenal.  Particularly since the article mentions Victoria's Secret as having reported bedbug cases.

I have three (large, hungry) dogs at home.  Training them as bedbug detectors would get them out of the house from time to time, and I'll bet I could deduct the cost of their food and maintenance as a business expense.  Not that that would be my primary motivation.  I shall consult my accountant....

Here; admire Rufus and Naomi in my music room.  The piano is a 1921 Knabe parlor grand.  Floor needs refinishing, though.

 

Bedbugs seem to be making a comeback; in a recent survey, Chicago tops the list of cities with infestations.  Phoenix did not make the top ten, but we cannot be far behind.  So, I'm dusting off an old plan. I caught an article some years ago in our Arizona Republic about a New York retailer hiring a specially trained beagle to sniff out potential bedbugs in the establishment.

Central to our 30-plus year commitment to "cleaning for health", we include tight sanitation and indoor air quality in our Phoenix janitorial services package, monitor our clients' indoor air quality (airborne particle count in the size range of most allergens), and do a bit of consulting in those areas (we're a long-time member of the American Indoor Air Quality Association), it might make sense to add bedbug detection to our arsenal.  Particularly since the article mentions Victoria's Secret as having reported bedbug cases.

I have three (large, hungry) dogs at home.  Training them as bedbug detectors would get them out of the house from time to time, and I'll bet I could deduct the cost of their food and maintenance as a business expense.  Not that that would be my primary motivation.  I shall consult my accountant....

Here; admire Rufus and Naomi in my music room.  The piano is a 1921 Knabe parlor grand.  Floor needs refinishing, though.

Bedbugs seem to be making a comeback; in a recent survey, Chicago tops the list of cities with infestations.  Phoenix did not make the top ten, but we cannot be far behind.  So, I'm dusting off an old plan. I caught an article some years ago in our Arizona Republic about a New York retailer hiring a specially trained beagle to sniff out potential bedbugs in the establishment.

Central to our 30-plus year commitment to "cleaning for health", we include tight sanitation and indoor air quality in our Phoenix janitorial services package, monitor our clients' indoor air quality (airborne particle count in the size range of most allergens), and do a bit of consulting in those areas (we're a long-time member of the American Indoor Air Quality Association), it might make sense to add bedbug detection to our arsenal.  Particularly since the article mentions Victoria's Secret as having reported bedbug cases.

I have three (large, hungry) dogs at home.  Training them as bedbug detectors would get them out of the house from time to time, and I'll bet I could deduct the cost of their food and maintenance as a business expense.  Not that that would be my primary motivation.  I shall consult my accountant....

Here; admire Rufus and Naomi in my music room.  The piano is a 1921 Knabe parlor grand.  Floor needs refinishing, though.

Shedding light on blacklights

Black lights are used to help you locate the hidden sources of odor regular cleaning might miss. When everything else is dark, a black light makes certain objects glow in the dark. This is because certain objects "fluoresce" under ultraviolet (UV) light, which is what a black light emits. Black lights are required to observe fluorescence, since other types of ultraviolet lamps emit visible light which drowns out the dim fluorescent glow. A black light looks dark purple, but most of the light it emits is in the ultraviolet (UV) range of the spectrum, which is invisible to the human eye.

Many natural substances glow under UV: saliva, semen, urine, mineral oil, earwax, perspiration. Law enforcement and forensic specialists use black light at crime scenes because certain narcotics will fluoresce as will bone and teeth fragments.

In janitorial, cleaning staff and inspectors use black light flashlights on floors and in restrooms to detect mold or particulate contamination, feces, semen and urine. You can also use black light to detect bedbugs and scorpions.

For best results, look for your evidence in a darkened room or area.

• Pass the UV light over the suspected area slowly.
• Start your scan about 2 inches away from the fabric or suspected area.
• Finish approximately 12 inches away, since different types of stains react differently.

The above from Celeste, my longtime marketing guru; one of the many steps in her bewildering diverse career was as a hotel manager, so she knows of bedbugs and stains.  And, given that the hotel was here in Phoenix, she also knows of scorpions.

At CBN, we've used UV lights for years (not just supervisors, but our line janitors), in inspecting client restrooms and particularly health care facilities.  Just picked up a line of lights that produce visible florescence in moderately low room light conditions; used to be you needed a totally dark room for the UV to work (ambient light overwhelms the florescence you're looking for).  They also have the advantage of producing in a narrow band, from 285 to 295 nanometers (nm), exactly what you need for detecting bodily fluids.

And the new lights are compact, inexpensive, and come with a charger.  Can't complain.

OSHA fire extinguisher mandate

Take a look at the little card wired to your office fire extinguisher - those little boxes on the back. They let you date and initial each time you do the monthly visual inspection of the unit.  Didn't know that you need to do a monthly inspection?  Neither did I, once upon a time.

We're in a restored 1914 two story house, less than a mile from the center of Phoenix.  Old wood, untreated, doubtless very dry; wiring's been updated and fooled with, from time to time (all up to code, but who knows?).  I've got a half dozen fire extinguishers scattered around the building, where by OSHA and insurance regulations I probably need but one.  Paranoia can be a good thing.

I've known for decades about the regulations requiring an annual professional inspection and (if needed) the recharging of the units, and do so religiously (at least more religiously than I do religion).  But nobody ever told me that OSHA, and probably my insurance company, require a monthly visual inspection.  Simple stuff; a technician is not required.  You confirm that the extinguisher is where it's supposed to be (duh!), check that the little arrow on the dial is in the green field, insure that the little pull-pin is in place (it locks the unit, so insures that nobody has used it - I'll tell that story later - and maybe left the nozzle clogged), and that no ugly fluid or powder is leaking out.  Then sign and initial, so you know (and can demonstrate to the interested regulator) that you check it regularly.  Simple stuff, and obvious.  A fire extinguisher that is not there, or not working, doesn't do much good in a fire.

A bit after I checked (and initialed) my units, I got to thinking.  If I was not aware of the requirements, given all the trade literature and safety stuff I read, some of my Phoenix area janitorial clients might be unaware as well.  They are mostly small to medium sized facilities, generally too small to have a full-time safety coordinator on site.  So we did a quick, surreptitious survey during our regular monthly daytime customer service visits.  Looked at extinguishers in about 50 client facilities.  Found 4 in compliance.

After a quick bit of training, some programming of our client inspection database, and confirming that the folks who do the annual on our units would be available for any of our clients who might need them, we're set to add monthly fire extinguisher inspections to the Safety check (security lighting, battery back-up on "exit" signs, janitor closet and chemical storage issues) we already do for our clients.  Minimal time is involved, so we don't charge extra for the service.

It's just another "value added" item.

Take a look at the little card wired to your office fire extinguisher - those little boxes on the back. They let you date and initial each time you do the monthly visual inspection of the unit.  Didn't know that you need to do a monthly inspection?  Neither did I, once upon a time.

We're in a restored 1914 two story house, less than a mile from the center of Phoenix.  Old wood, untreated, doubtless very dry; wiring's been updated and fooled with, from time to time (all up to code, but who knows?).  I've got a half dozen fire extinguishers scattered around the building, where by OSHA and insurance regulations I probably need but one.  Paranoia can be a good thing.

I've known for decades about the regulations requiring an annual professional inspection and (if needed) the recharging of the units, and do so religiously (at least more religiously than I do religion).  But nobody ever told me that OSHA, and probably my insurance company, require a monthly visual inspection.  Simple stuff; a technician is not required.  You confirm that the extinguisher is where it's supposed to be (duh!), check that the little arrow on the dial is in the green field, insure that the little pull-pin is in place (it locks the unit, so insures that nobody has used it - I'll tell that story later - and maybe left the nozzle clogged), and that no ugly fluid or powder is leaking out.  Then sign and initial, so you know (and can demonstrate to the interested regulator) that you check it regularly.  Simple stuff, and obvious.  A fire extinguisher that is not there, or not working, doesn't do much good in a fire.

A bit after I checked (and initialed) my units, I got to thinking.  If I was not aware of the requirements, given all the trade literature and safety stuff I read, some of my Phoenix area janitorial clients might be unaware as well.  They are mostly small to medium sized facilities, generally too small to have a full-time safety coordinator on site.  So we did a quick, surreptitious survey during our regular monthly daytime customer service visits.  Looked at extinguishers in about 50 client facilities.  Found 4 in compliance.

After a quick bit of training, some programming of our client inspection database, and confirming that the folks who do the annual on our units would be available for any of our clients who might need them, we're set to add monthly fire extinguisher inspections to the Safety check (security lighting, battery back-up on "exit" signs, janitor closet and chemical storage issues) we already do for our clients.  Minimal time is involved, so we don't charge extra for the service.

It's just another "value added" item.