The conversation about labor shortages in cleaning and facility solutions tends to sound the same: nobody wants to work anymore, and turnover is at an all-time high. The real problem, though, may be something else. Cleaning companies and facilities are competing for the same workers as far larger, far more powerful industries, and too often they are losing.
Wells Ye of EmployJoy.ai works to provide solutions to what cleaning business owners and facility operations can do about it.
Who are cleaners really competing with?
Cleaning companies face two kinds of competition, Ye said. The first is the direct competitor: the other cleaning company across town, a rival every owner already knows well. The second is harder to see. Indirect competitors are the alternatives a worker considers if they do not take a cleaning job, and they sit in entirely different industries. Amazon, Walmart, Target, restaurants, retail, and gig platforms such as Uber and DoorDash all draw from the same labor pool. That is where the real challenge lies, Ye said, because cleaning companies are literally competing for the same people.
What makes big employers so attractive?
Pay and benefits top the list, Ye said. Many of these employers have moved to faster payment, including next-day pay, and their hourly rates often run higher. He shares a wage comparison to make the gap concrete. Janitorial and maid service wages average roughly $16.66 to $17.27 an hour nationwide. Amazon warehouse work, which competes directly with janitorial labor, averages around $22. Walmart sits near $18.25, still above janitorial, while some retailers such as Target sometimes start lower.
The advantages go beyond pay. These employers also innovate on benefits, Ye said, sometimes offering coverage the moment a worker begins training. They tend to provide schedule stability, fixed hours, and a single worksite with no travel between jobs. For a worker weighing options, that predictability carries real weight.
What edge do cleaning companies have?
The picture is daunting, but cleaning companies are not without leverage, Ye said. The first advantage is understanding the true cost of paying low, which reframes the whole comparison between a competitor’s $22 and a cleaning company’s $16 or $17.
The second is size. Large companies tend to be impersonal and rigid, because policies built to scale across thousands of locations leave little room to bend. A smaller firm, sometimes only a few hundred employees or fewer, can offer what the giants cannot: flexibility, visible and personal leadership that employees actually feel, and autonomy on the job. Big employers measure everything, Ye said, down to how long a worker spends in the restroom. A cleaning company that trusts its technicians with real autonomy can turn that contrast into an advantage.
What can owners do right now?
Ye points to several concrete moves. The first is a mindset shift: Owners cannot treat high turnover as simply the nature of cleaning work. Turnover, he said, is a “hidden tax,” and a heavy one.
He puts numbers to it. The direct cost of a single turnover, recruiting plus training, runs about $2,300. The indirect costs are far larger: lost productivity, the ramp-up time before a new hire reaches full output, the negative impact on customers, lost revenue, opportunity cost, and lost knowledge. Added together, even conservatively, the figure reaches roughly $14,550 per turnover. Once owners see that number, Ye said, the math on wages changes. Paying a little more can leave a company financially better off, because the hidden tax of low pay is so large.
The second move is to design pay smartly. A company that cannot match a high rate immediately can build a growth ladder instead, tying raises to performance. A trainee might start near $16, move to $17 after training, and climb toward $24, higher than Amazon, as the work is earned. That structure sells not just today’s wage but the hope of where pay can go, something the giants rarely design on purpose.
The third move plays to flexibility. Because smaller companies are not bound by rigid, one-size-fits-all rules, they can tailor the job to different applicants: students, working parents, career cleaners, and people who want physical work. Ye describes talking with applicants who came from rigid retailers that would not accommodate a two-week practicum required for a degree. A cleaning company can do the opposite, he said, celebrating that goal and supporting a temporary leave so the worker can finish it and return. Delivered gently but persistently, that message tells an applicant the company genuinely cares.
Tying it together, Ye said owners should advocate for the job at every step, from application through onboarding and management. Communicate a willingness to customize, to support, and to see each employee succeed, in their studies or otherwise, and keep making the case for the work itself.
The bottom line
Ye closes with what he frames as a bigger industry conversation: the courage to charge higher prices. To build a positive cycle, with the resources to attract and keep good people, do great work, and create value for clients, a company first has to charge a fair price. “We have to have the courage to charge,” he said. The competitive environment is real, and low bidders will always be there. Without the confidence to charge fairly, though, owners have no resources to do what the business needs to do.
Charging what the work is worth, Ye said, is what lets a company earn the profit it deserves and pay its employees what they deserve.
