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

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

Taking one or two of those $20s, which might not even be missed by the guest, can be hard to resist.

It's still a choice.

Hyatt sure as hell has fucked their employees over, and they are sure as hell paying a craptastic wage to the new employees.

But not one of the new housekeeping staff is being told "steal or you don't work here anymore".

which might not even be missed by the guest
Does that matter?

I mean, we're bitching about a hotel chain fucking the employee over, and, essentially, stealing money from them on a macro basis - but stealing on a micro basis does no damage?

[ron_newman]

Let's not derail this discussion from its original topic -- an indefensible action by Hyatt management.

[dda.livejournal.com]

...an indefensible action by Hyatt management.

Um, how is this action (and which action? The laying off? The outsourcing? The training?) indefensible? While you may not accept their defense, "We'd prefer not to go out of business" seems pretty reasonable to me.

Now I'm sure that there might well be ways to save money at these hotels that don't involve laying off housekeeping people but given that I (and I'm willing to wager, you) don't know their entire finances, it seems unlikely I can pass judgement on this action. Or do you know differently?

Edited better phrase things.

[ron_newman]

Surely top management could have cut their own pay (or everyone's pay) by a tiny amount to save an equivalent amount of money. Laying people off may be 'defensible', but doing so in order to replace the laid-off people with lower-wage workers doing the same work? That's just low. And the lying makes it even worse.

[dda.livejournal.com]

Surely top management could have cut their own pay (or everyone's pay) by a tiny amount to save an equivalent amount of money.

Perhaps so (again, I don't have access to their financial data so I can't say for sure) but I can imagine how I would feel if I was told I was getting a pay cut because Hyatt's in another city weren't profitable.

Laying people off may be 'defensible', but doing so in order to replace the laid-off people with lower-wage workers doing the same work?

I see. I can only assume you are similarly outraged about every company that has done this with either software developers or customer support people (or both). Pretty much every phone company and most computer companies (Apple being an exception) that I've dealt with have their first-line tech support in another country; I am guessing they laid off people here in order to do that.

Has this not been your experience?

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I can only assume you are similarly outraged about every company that has done this with either software developers or customer support people (or both).

He very well might be outraged about that.

However, this comment "Well, are you pissed about this OTHER outrage" is classic derailing.

Mind you, I heard nothing complaining about my company outsourcing my entire department after a merger.

[dda.livejournal.com]

However, this comment "Well, are you pissed about this OTHER outrage" is classic derailing.

No, it is asking if he is being consistent; if he's not upset about the same thing happening elsewhere then there is more to this an the stated objections. If he boycotts the Hyatt but doesn't boycott other companies that have done the same thing then he's being inconsistent. He claims the action is indefensible which says to me that it is similarly indefensible when Dell or Sprint or Comcast does it; since it cannot be defended there, either, the same actions should be taken to counter it.

If, as one poster suggested, this outsourcing results in a higher incident of theft by housekeeping staff, it could be suggested that supporting the former employees, and a union supporting them, supports the safety of Arisia's membership.

If there is a higher incidence of theft at Arisia '10 then I strong agree that the Hyatt should be contacted and, if one desires, one can support the former employees and/or a union. But if there is only the suggestion that it might do so, I can just as easily make the suggestion that it will make the new workers that much more eager to keep their jobs and so will lower theft and so Arisia should support this.

Both are just suggestions, after all.

[ron_newman]

I'm not a customer of Dell or Sprint or Comcast. I am a customer of Hyatt, by way of being an Arisia attendee. And this is the Arisia LJ community, which is why I brought the topic up here.

[gravitrue.livejournal.com]

I doubt exec pay adds up to anywhere near that amount of cost savings. But the lying puts them over the edge.

[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.