Posts

Now Accepting: Nominations for Outstanding Cleaning Worker of the Year Award

[fbshare type=”button” float=”left”]

[linkedin_share style=”none” float=”left”]

[twitter style=”horizontal” float=”left”]

 

 

To nominate an Outstanding Cleaning Worker from your organization, please click here.

 

The time is fast approaching when we will be recognizing outstanding cleaning workers. Approximately two-and-a-half million people earn their living in the U.S. as janitors, custodians and housekeepers. Most toil through their shift, day after day with little notice of their contribution to the orderly operation of every business.

In 2009, The SIMON INSTITUTE decided to honor outstanding cleaning workers during the Simon Institute Symposium each year. They commissioned a beautiful medal to be designed for the occasion. George Dansie and Shu Yamamoto (ManageMen’s Cartoonist), created a special medal that is a work of art to honor the best of our best cleaners.

John Walker, ManageMen, Inc., presents an Outstanding Cleaning Worker Award at the 2011 (OS1) Users Symposium.

At the symposium in Deerborn, Michigan this year, we will honor the Outstanding Cleaning Workers in America for the fifth year in a row. Now is the time for your organization to fill out the application form for the recipient your organization wants to recognize. Organizations are invited to honor more than one medal recipient.

Medals will be presented during the Cleaning Industry Awards Banquet, Monday, July 15 at the Dearborn Inn – A Marriott Hotel.  Cleaning workers who attend the banquet will be presented the award in a special medal ceremony following the Pinnacle Award for Lifetime Achievement.

The cleaning worker’s “bio” will be read to the group, their photo will be displayed on the screen and Renae and John Walker of ManageMen will present the awards.

Among the criteria for selection employees must display a commitment to professional pride and care; be self motivated and accountable; demonstrate a positive; conscientious and considerate attitude toward customers, fellow employees and others; provide continual outstanding performance of any kind within the campus of facilities that build and support the assembly process; and excellence in the performance of job duties.

If you are unable to send outstanding cleaning worker’s that you wish to honor in your organization, you may conduct your own medal ceremony at your location. Many organizations are large, with hundreds, even thousands of cleaning workers, the SIMON INSTITUTE decided not to limit the number of medals for which an organization may apply.

(OS1) Green Certified and Green Programs of Excellence Announced

[linkedin_share style=”none” float=”left”]

[fbshare type=”button” float=”left”]

[twitter style=”horizontal” float=”left”]

 

 

We are thrilled to announce the organizations who have earned their (OS1) Green Certified Program Awards and/or the (OS1) Green Program of Excellence Awards for the 2011/2012 Audit Season. Winners will be presented their official award plaque at the 11th Annual Simon Institute Symposium in New Orleans, LA next week. To see a complete list of who earned these prestigious awards, please click on a link below:

 

Green Certified Program recipients showing their awards at the Simon Institute Symposium - 2011

About the Awards…

(OS1) organizational certification is determined by our (OS1) Audit criteria, on a building-to-building basis, within a cleaning organization. Currently, there are approximately 340 different factors we look at that cause any building to be clean.  We audit what is going on at the actual site, as well as, the management of that site.

(OS1) Green Certifed Awards are presented to facilities that have submitted to the (OS1) Progress Audit and earned at least an 80% score or higher. Programs that earn a 90% or higher score, earn the (OS1) Green Certified – Program of Excellence Award. A facility that achieves this certification is successfully managing their (OS1) Program. At this level, an (OS1) organization is reducing environmental risk and the probability of unwanted effects. Specifically, (OS1) Green Certified Programs and (OS1) Green Programs of Excellence can demonstrate the following:

  • Cleaning for Health first and then for appearance
  • Disposing of cleaning wastes in a environmentally responsible manner
  • Increased worker safety and awareness
  • Increased level of sanitation of building surfaces
  • Responsible and proper removal of pollutants from the facility
  • Reduction of chemical, particle and moisture residue
  • Minimization of human exposure to pollutants

And the 2012 Best in the Cleaning Industry Nominees are…

[linkedin_share style=”none” float=”left”]

[twitter style=”horizontal” float=”left”]

[fblike style=”standard” float=”left” showfaces=”false” width=”450″ verb=”like” font=”arial”]

 

 

Winners will be announced at the 11th Annual Simon Institute Symposium during the Awards Ceremony August 6th 2012. For more information please visit: www.simoninstitute.org 

Best Cleaning Program Award

  • Michigan State University
  • Mt. San Antonio College
  • Sandia National Laboratories
  • University of Michigan
  • Wake Forrest University

Best (OS1) Audit Award

  • Michigan State University
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst – Murray D. Lincoln Campus Center and UMASS Hotel
  • Sandia National Laboratories
  • The University of Texas at Austin
  • Wake Forest University

Pioneer Award

  • Rappahannock Goodwill Industries – Cleaning with workers with disabilities at Marine Base Quantico
  • University of Massachusetts at Amherst – Murray D. Lincoln Campus Center – (OS1) Cleaning in a multi-use building
  • University of Michigan – Cost justification for improving results while cutting costs
  • The University of Texas at Austin – Job Card Development and Implementation
  • Wake Forest University – Hiring Utilizing the ManageMen Job Fair

Innovation Award

  • KBM Facility Solutions – (OS1) Distributor Certification Program Development
  • KBM Facility Solutions – (OS1) Floor Care Program Development
  • Los Angeles Habilitation House – Using (OS1) to Create Job Opportunities for Disabled Veterans
  • Sandia National Laboratories – Disaster Response During the 2011 Freeze
  • Wake Forest University – (OS1) Distributor Certification

Peer Influence Award

  • Mt. San Antonio College
  • University of Michigan
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – Housing
  • The University of Texas at Austin
  • Service Point

Trainer of the Year Award

  • Marcela Bernal – GMI Building Services
  • Mary Clark – Michigan State University
  • Joseph Garcia –  Mt. San Antonio College
  • Jewel Golson-Roberts – University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • Chris Wallace – Service Point

Communications Award

  • KBM Facility Solutions
  • Los Angeles Habilitation House
  • University of Michigan
  • The University of Texas at Austin
  • Wake Forest University

Safety and Health Award

  • Michigan State University
  • University of Massachusetts at Amherst – Disaster Clean-up
  • Sandia National Laboratories
  • The University of Texas at Austin

Environmental Program Award

  • KBM Facility Solutions
  • Mt. San Antonio College
  • Provo City School District
  • University of Michigan
  • The University of Texas at Austin

Training Program Award

  • Michigan State University
  • Mt. San Antonio College
  • Sandia National Laboratories
  • University of Texas at Austin
  • Wake Forest University

Cleaning Quality Improvement Award

  • KBM Facility Solutions at The Boeing Company, St. Louis, MO.
  • Michigan State University
  • Mt. San Antonio College
  • University of Michigan
  • Wake Forest University

Certification Program Award

  • KBM Facility Solutions
  • Los Angeles Habilitation House
  • Michigan State University
  • Sandia National Laboratories
  • Wake Forest University

Workloading Award

  • Michigan State University
  • Provo City School District
  • Service Point
  • The University of Texas at Austin
  • Wake Forest University

Cleaning for Health at The University of Texas at Austin

A control cabinet at The University of Texas of Austin holds approximately three months of chemicals used to clean the buildings on campus.

[linkedin_share style=”none”][fbshare type=”button”][twitter style=”horizontal” float=”left”]

 

 

By Bobby Moddrell – Custodial Services Division
The University of Texas at Austin

 

For the past decade, the Custodial Services Division of The University of Texas at Austin has maintained over 12 million square feet of the campus using our (OS1) process. (OS1) promotes the standardization of the custodial operation through the use of environmentally friendly products, ergonomic tools, worker safety, strategically assigned workloads for each Full Time Equivalent Employee (FTE), and a robust training program. With this process, Custodial Services has maintained a consistent cleaning program across campus despite the size of the operation and the varying demands of each building.

The (OS1) process has also ushered in a sustainable approach to cleaning, that is easily reflected in our chemical program, water usage, paper and plastic products inventory, team cleaning system and indoor air quality. Prior to (OS1), UT Austin’s Custodial Services’ chemical program consisted of over 200 different chemicals which is fairly standard for most cleaning operations of this size. Since the implementation of (OS1), that number has been reduced almost 88%, a grand total of 25 chemicals. This reduction is due in large part to PortionPac, a company that provides environmentally responsible chemical concentrates which are packaged in individual pacs that are pre-measured for a specific container. By using one pac per bucket, bottle or tank of water [known in (OS1) as “the rule of one“], we realize a safer, more accurate use of chemicals, thus eliminating unnecessary waste and environmental pollution. Of our four daily use chemicals, three are Green Seal Certified and the daily germicide used to reduce pathogenic microorganisms is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Subscribing to the (OS1) process has also decreased Custodial Services’ annual water usage by roughly 70%. While the effective measurement and use of chemicals contributes to this figure, it is the use of two-sided mop buckets and microfiber cloths that has had the greatest impact on water usage. Traditional mop buckets hold five gallons of water, but the two-side restroom and utility buckets used in our program hold 1.25 and 2 gallons of water respectively. Additionally, a two-sided mop bucket system keeps clean solution and contaminated water separate, thus ensuring the longevity of the cleaning solution and reducing cross contamination. The coordinated use of microfiber flat mops also helps conserve water.

Traditional string mops transfer more water than necessary to hard floor surfaces, making it difficult to clean and absorb the dirtied water effectively. Moreover, the fibers of a traditional string mop are incapable of trapping the microorganisms targeted in common cleaning procedures. Microfiber mops, however, absorb up to six times their own weight in liquid pick up and retention and their unique fibers have been shown to reduce bacteria up to 96%. The use of two-side mop buckets and microfiber mops have been instrumental in our decreased water usage. The switch alone has brought our estimated water usage from 863,340 gallons annually to 262,302 gallons for a savings of 601,038 gallons of water each year.

Custodial Services’ commitment to sustainability is reflected in the choice of paper and plastic products used across campus. Both our toilet paper and hand towels contain high percentages of recycled fiber and post-consumer content. Custodial Services has also made the switch to a more sustainable trash liner. These new liners are made from linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) and meet the EPA’s Comprehensive Procurement guidelines. This means the liners’ post-consumer content can range from 10%-100%. All liners contain 100% post-consumer recycled resin. The liners have reduced our annual liner waste to landfills by an estimated 36%. Our previous liners contributed 220,459 pounds of waste annually, but the new liners will only contribute an estimated 141,847 pounds for a reduction of 78,612 pounds per year.

Through the daily maintenance of campus buildings, Custodial Services is doing its part to sustain the built environment. This effort not only prolongs the life of buildings and materials therein, but also improves the quality of life inside these buildings by all occupants. The Environmental Protect Agency (EPA) posits that individuals spend nearly 90% of their time indoors, whether at work, home or in transit. As such, it has become increasingly important to maintain an indoor environment free of pollutants. A recent study measured the indoor air quality of a building maintained with an average upright vacuum and found the level of pollutants equal to roughly twenty times what the EPA allows Americans to pollute from their cars. This is not surprising considering cloth filter bags on traditional upright vacuums only remove 30% of pollutants from the air. In an effort to improve indoor air quality, Custodial Services elected to use Super CoachVac backpack vacuums manufactured by ProTeam. These vacuums provide four-level filtration, removing 99.9% of lung-damaging particles.

Additionally, these vacuums help protect carpet, extending the life of carpet and reducing the need for replacement. It is this high level of carpet care and air purification that has earned the Pro Team Vacuum the Carpet Research Institute’s (CRI) green label certification.

Are Dirty Schools Making Kids Sick?

[fbshare type=”button”]

[twitter style=”horizontal” float=”left”]

[linkedin_share style=”none”]

 

Two seemingly unrelated events were the subject of news stories in the early weeks of 2012. The first occurred on January 12, when the Vermont Senate gave final approval to Senate bill #92, a bill that requires public schools and “approved independent schools” to ensure that only environmentally preferable cleaning products are used to clean the schools. The bill will now make its way to the Governor’s desk for his signature which will transform the bill into law. Vermont’s state owned and leased buildings have already transitioned to “green” cleaning products as a result of the Clean State Program created by an executive order signed by Governor Douglas in 2004.

Banning Germ Killers in Schools

But the perhaps, unintended consequence of this legislation action goes further. It bans disinfectants and sanitizers in public schools. Is this really the lengths Vermont want to go to be “green”? If so it joins the states like California, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Neveda, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington. It is relevant to note that this legislation has been driven not by the medical community and public health experts but by state procurement officers and purchasing agents in league with the janitorial supply industry.

The Vermont bill allows for the use of disinfectants only when:

  1. Blood, body fluids or fecal soiling is present on any surface; (ignoring that most diseases are spread by invisible germs called pathogenic microorganisms and not visible accumulations listed in the Vermont legislation).
  2.  The State makes a case specific determination that failure to use a disinfectant would create a risk to public health and safety (like MRSA, Avian Flu, SARS, Whooping cough, measles, and the common cold).

Two days later, on Saturday January 14, Dr. Sanjay Gupta CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, aired a report in his series on Toxic America about the sorry, environmental health of schools in the United States. More schools than ever are making kids and school staff sick. While it’s tough to estimate how many toxic schools are in America, most research shows that at least a third or more of U.S. Schools have issues like mold, dust and other indoor air problems serious enough to cause respiratory illnesses like asthma in students and staff. Healthy Schools Network reports that as many as 55 million U.S. children may be attending public and private K-12 schools where poor air quality, hazardous chemicals and other unhealthy conditions can make everyone sick.

The U.S. EPA estimates that at least half of all schools in this country have indoor air quality problems caused by toxic chemical and pesticide use, chemical spills, mold infestations, asbestos, radon, lead in paint and drinking water, heavy metals and persistent toxics, such as mercury, CCA and PCBs.

Other highlights of Dr. Gupta’s story included:

  • A story about a woman who claims school air sickened her son for 53 days last school year
  • New York study finds correlation between building maintenance and illness
  • Studies estimate one-third of U.S. schools have mold, dust and other indoor air problems
  • Connecticut school so plagued with mold officials decided to tear it down

Now the Rest of the Story

Missing from both the Vermont and Dr. Gupta’s story was the recognition of the importance of cleaning and sanitation. There was no recognition that a proven process of cleaning and disinfections leads to improved health, comfort and educational performance.

In 2007, Michael Berry, PhD, wrote a booklet Healthy Schools are Clean, Dry and Productive. Largely ignored, this essay provides leadership for both the “school is making my kids sick” and the “green cleaning” groups. Berry points out that the “importance of a healthy school environment in enhancing the learning process is described in many studies. There is a direct connection between environmental quality, comfort, health and well-being, positive attitudes and behavior, and higher levels of education performance. The quality of the school environment shapes attitudes of students, teachers and staff. Attitudes affect teaching and learning behavior. Behavior affects performance. Educational performance determines future outcomes of individuals and society as a whole.”

Berry wrote:

We need to recognize that the main causes of environmentally related illness in schools are water, food sources for the various bio-pollutants, non-existent or ineffective cleaning, and poor ventilation. We should guard against becoming myopic when it comes to assessing environmental risk in school environments. Too often, we spend a large amount of time looking at air quality alone, especially in recent times with regard to mold. This narrow focus is necessary but by no means sufficient to protect the health of our children and their teachers and the quality of our school environments.

Should the states be banning disinfectants and sanitizers?

To protect health in schools, we need to take a close look at total exposure, and not solely focus on the air route of exposure. Bacteria that come from direct contact with other humans and surfaces cause over 80% of environmentally related illness. The main routes of exposure are dermal and ingestion, not air. Even air poses its most serious threats by delivering bacteria and viruses to sensitive receptors. Sufficiently concentrated airborne mold spore and other airborne allergens, such as cockroach antigen, frequently trigger allergic reactions in sensitized individuals, particularly asthmatics.

Disinfectant and sanitizers are by definition toxic. We use them to “kill” pathogens before they make humans sick. The purchasing agents and cleaning chemical supply marketing organizations who promote the complete ban on poisons and toxins in schools don’t understand what Paracelsus, the father of toxicology, declared in the 14th century “The dose makes the poison.” Using sanitizers are fundamental to food preparation, dishwashing and serving meals. Disinfection of potential cross-contamination points in lavatories, and other common touch points in schools are basic to proper cleaning and school hygiene.

Trainers should expect and be prepared to discuss the risk/benefit analysis of proper cleaning and sanitation. (OS1) has an unequalled dedication to environmental issues. But it also values the benefits associated with properly killing pathogenic microorganisms in the public facilities entrusted to us. The State of Vermont and Dr. Gupta should know about the following scientific studies on the importance of cleaning:

  • Frank Porter Graham Study
  • Alexander Krilov Study

They should also be promoting the benefits and the reported results by workers and patrons in (OS1) facilities like Dixon Middle School and University of Michigan. In 2012, the (OS1) user group will be focusing on three areas to “Protect Yourself” in facilities. They are:

  1. The reduction of asthma-type symptoms due to the performance level of (OS1) that provides negligible dust following the UNC cleaning protocol.
  2. Focus on proper use and application of germicidal chemicals.
  3. The opportunity to dramatically reduce humidity in schools by strategically using portable air drying equipment.

These three strategies are a messaging opportunity for the (OS1) trainers, (OS1) support manufacturers (particularly ProTeam, PortionPac & Dri-Eaz) and the Simon Institute.