In-house vs contract cleaning: the real comparison.
Employing a cleaner directly looks cheaper on the hourly rate and usually isn't. Base wage is roughly 60 to 65 percent of true cost once superannuation, WorkCover, leave loading, leave cover, equipment, chemicals and management time are counted. In-house tends to win only above about 40 hours a week on a single site — below that, contracting is both cheaper and lower risk.
Written scope and a fixed monthly price within 48 hours — useful even if you're only benchmarking.
Get a free quoteWhat an employed cleaner actually costs
The comparison most businesses run is award rate against contractor rate, which is not a comparison at all. Here is what sits on top of the wage before anyone has bought a mop.
Applied to a cleaner on a $30 base rate, the loaded cost lands close to $46 to $50 an hour before equipment and consumables — which is at or above the contract rate for the same work.
The risk you take on with employment
Cost is the visible half. The other half is that you become the employer of record for a higher-risk work category, and every obligation that comes with it sits with you rather than a contractor.
For a business whose core activity is not cleaning, that is a meaningful amount of compliance surface for a function that could be bought as a service.
When in-house genuinely wins
There are real cases for employing directly, and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. If any of these describe your site, in-house deserves serious consideration.
The hybrid most people should consider first
The option that gets overlooked: keep a part-time employed cleaner for daytime presence and contract the periodic and specialist work — floors, glass, deep cleans, disinfection. You keep the responsiveness of someone on site, without buying machinery you'll use twice a year or training staff in chemical competency for tasks they'll rarely perform.
This is what our maintenance programs are built for. They sit alongside an in-house team and cover only the work that needs equipment and certification.
Base wage is about 60–65% of a cleaner's true cost. A $30 rate loads to roughly $46–$50 before equipment.
In-house generally only wins above ~40 hours a week on a single site, or where the role is blended with other duties.
Employment moves WHS duty, chemical compliance and continuity risk onto you for a non-core function.
The hybrid — a part-time employee plus a contracted periodic program — beats both options for many mid-sized sites.
Is it cheaper to employ your own cleaners?
Rarely, once the full cost is counted. A cleaner's base wage is roughly 60 to 65 percent of what they actually cost after superannuation, WorkCover, leave loading, leave cover, equipment, chemicals and the management time to roster and supervise them. In-house usually only wins above about 40 hours of cleaning per week on a single site.
When does in-house cleaning make sense?
When the site needs more than roughly 40 hours a week in one place, when cleaners perform non-cleaning duties such as reception or stock handling, or where security clearance requirements make an employment relationship simpler than a contract.
What is the hidden cost of employing cleaners?
Leave cover and management time. Someone must cover four weeks of annual leave plus sick days, and someone must roster, supervise, order consumables, maintain equipment and handle the WHS paperwork. That management burden typically consumes two to four hours of a manager's week and is almost never costed.
Can we keep our cleaner and contract only the periodic work?
Yes, and for many mid-sized sites that's the best answer. A maintenance program covers floors, glass, deep cleans and disinfection — the work needing machinery and certification — while your employee handles the daily service.