That's a very good idea also mentioned by someone in a comment. I'll probably be going down that route.

I would think that the concern and worry would be that someone who has no problem lying to get more hours (essentially stealing money) probably can't be trusted in general.

Is the time sheet academic if the job is done? Cleaner could just sit around scratching with nothing to do. Would that be sufficient?

Why worry? Because the cleaner is literally stealing money from them. How is this an upvoted answer? Anyone with hands and legs can clean, why not hire one that wont steal from you? If they're stealing money from you I would be very anxious allowing this person in my home. What else are they going to steal? They clearly have no moral issue with theft and fraud.

Indeed, I'll second the massive trust issue that really shouldn't be overlooked, especially for a person who has a unattended access to your house.

@Josh the word "literally" literally means the literal complete opposite to the way you used it. No money has literally been stolen. Money may have been metaphorically or figuratively stolen, if you indulge in the required mental gymnastics, but not literally. I imagine it's an upvoted answer because it, quite reasonably, suggests that when you employ someone it's because you want them to do a job, and not because you want someone to be physically present in your house for a set number of hours. It also points out that when you hire someone it's best to tell them what you expect from them.

I would probably add that since the housekeeper does log longer hours, she possibly expects to be paid more (than she would for the actual hours her job takes her now) and the OP would probably not reduce the average amount paid.

Why are people obsessed about the hours? Job is done to the satisfaction to the customer and the payer is happy with the price. What is the problem? *It is a stupid contract in the first place - consider the cleaner hoovering the carpet and the clock ran out - just drop the hoover and leave?) It runs both ways

@AaronF most dictionaries these days show that usage has won out over traditional meaning, and have include the use of “literally” in an emphasis-based or figurative sense where the action is not literally accurate, so the use you have issue with is actually correct.

@user2357112supportsMonica It is my impression that there are a lot more people who would misrepresent their worked hours than would physically steal valuable objects from their employer. I could be wrong but if not, it does make a difference.

@Josh Some employers may want you to work a set amount of hours, but some just want you to get the job done and do whatever the heck you want with the remaining time. I'm working at one such place and I come and go as I please so long as I join the required meetings and do whatever tasks required of me. The cleaner may just be a shy or introverted person or may have lived through some bad interactions when they asked for more. We shouldn't jump to conclusions. I think this answer makes discussion with the cleaner possible, which could become a win-win.

No @Josh you literally used "literally" as a replacent figuratively. And as everyone I am fine with language evolving, but we shouldn't have a gradual replacement of one word to mean it's literal opposite, that is figuratively insane. I am also of the opinion that people that can afford having a cleaner (I count myself among them) should be more lenient towards the hardships that involves having to work as one, and I agree completely with this answer. You don't have to be religious to see that stealing is not necessarily the trait of an dishonest person, it could just be a troubled one.

My point of view with my cleaner is that I just want my flat to be cleaned once a week. I list of chores to be done is given. Sometimes that may just take 1/2 hr sometimes more (usually less than 2 hrs in my case). Agreed price is fixed. I have a fixed budget for it. Cleaner has a constant income. You also need to factor in "is it worth the while to commute to my flat for 1/2 hrs work". In addition, what is the point of my cleaner just filling up time?

@Josh you have hands and legs, you hire cleaner to clean but you no clean, so you hire cleaner who clean, now is clean. Bit rude.

@AaronF "Literally" has been permissively used in this sense for about 300 years, so you don't need to get het up about it.

@StianYttervik You should read that article as well. As long as Charles Dickens can get away with it, I think we can leave Josh alone.

@eps but desperate people do desperate things. Who knows the motivation?

@LightnessRaceswithMonica I reserve my right to hold completely absurd opinions on indefinable matters, thankyouverymuch. What would the internet become?

@EdHeal - There are pros and cons to both approaches; but if the agreement was for N hours of work, then working less than N hours will not meet the satisfaction of the customer. In your example, workers are still expected to have some basic level of time management and not leave a time sensitive job half complete. The biggest downside to fixed bid work, particularly for lower paid positions, is that the worker assumes the financial risk of underestimating a job. With an hourly worker it is the (presumably) more wealthy employer that risks paying more than expected for a job.

I am also of the opinion that people that can afford having a cleaner (I count myself among them) should be more lenient towards the hardships that involves having to work as one [...]. You don't have to be religious to see that stealing is not necessarily the trait of an dishonest person, it could just be a troubled one. Not going to voice an opinion[1] on how Dickensian the lingo or on who can or cannot 'get away with it'. But given the likely Dickensian discrepancy in wealth / social status between cleaner and employer, I deem your perspective commendable enough to deserve [next]

[cont'd] an acknowledging comment, @StianYttervik: Kudos - well put. Tip of the hat to you, sir. If such thinking was the norm, we'd be living in a far better place. You certainly have the right to reserve any opinion, it's just when it comes to the "absurd" qualifier that I'd like to disagree. Maybe it's the opposite, and the contrary notion - though held by far more - is the truly absurd (ildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate) one? Anyway, footnote: [0] Figuratively, I mean. Because literally, how would one voice anything via a text-only web platform? SCNR.