Hyatt suddenly lays off housekeepers

[ron_newman]

Some of the staff we all love at the Hyatt were suddenly laid off last month -- after being asked to train their replacements:

Housekeepers lose Hyatt jobs to outsourcing

When the housekeepers at the three Hyatt hotels in the Boston area were asked to train some new workers, they said they were told the trainees would be filling in during vacations.

On Aug. 31, staffers learned the full story: None of them would be making the beds and cleaning the showers any longer. All of them were losing their jobs. The trainees, it turns out, were employees of a Georgia company, Hospitality Staffing Solutions, who were replacing them that day.

Comments

[grymdragon.livejournal.com]

The layoffs and outsourcing, while handled in a manner that gives little consideration to veteran employees, could be rationalized as an unfortunate necessity in the current economic climate.

However, deceiving the outgoing staff so that they'll train their replacements as a way of saving a few bucks on a training program is utterly indefensible. If they were in danger of losing their jobs, the staff deserved to know as soon as possible so they could start looking for a new job, which is difficult enough under normal circumstances.

[dda.livejournal.com]

The layoffs and outsourcing, while handled in a manner that gives little consideration to veteran employees...

From the article referenced by the OP: The dismissed workers received two weeks of pay when they were let go, plus one week of pay for every year they worked at the Hyatt up to five or 10 years, depending on the hotel.

Since the entire group (minus one or two people) were laid off, I'd say there was plenty of consideration to veteran employees.

However, deceiving the outgoing staff so that they'll train their replacements as a way of saving a few bucks on a training program is utterly indefensible.

That does sound quite less than optimal which is why I originally asked what ron_newman which part he found indefensible.

[grymdragon.livejournal.com]

I think consideration to senior employees, particularly those who have been there for 20 years such as the housekeeper interviewed in the article, would have been to make some sort of accomodation, even if it was limited to allowing them to retain their position at a lower rate of pay.

Sure, two or three months of pay is great, but once that money runs out, it's going to be much harder for older employees to find jobs in this market than younger employees.

[vibrantabyss.livejournal.com]

Compare to other companies that have done the same, like AT&T wireless (hello iPhone users) and to places like BoA that are up front about training replacements but will [threaten to] withhold all severance pay should the employee refuse.

And the severance the Hyatt folks were give (if the below is correct) is about twice what companies give on average (as days-of-pay).

Not that extra cash excuses such behavior, mind you.

[ron_newman]

This practice is evil no matter who is doing it. If the Hyatt incident leads to a general public backlash against such practices, that's all the better.

[vibrantabyss.livejournal.com]

This way of doing business is status quo. The companies that do it make better margins, do better in the market, and in tough times... survive. This is Spart.. no, wait, this is capitalism, at its coldest. But that is the system this country embraces.

If you have not been aware that business has functioned and thrived like this for more than the last 20 years, then you haven't been paying attention.