Local

[Print]  [Email]        

Hotel workers take to picket line

By: Mike Aldax
November 6, 2009

Up in arms: Hilton Hotel chef Silveriano Pagtanac, center, chants with fellow hotel workers as they march in front of the Grand Hyatt Union Square hotel Thursday. (Cindy Chew/The Examiner)

SAN FRANCISCO — Hotel walkouts such as the one at the Grand Hyatt Union Square on Thursday will be occurring regularly in coming weeks as union workers move to pressure 61 San Francisco hotels to approve a contract.

The six major hotel chains are trying to hammer out deals with their workers to avoid a strike, which could cripple The City’s tourism industry. The contract between the hotels and their employees expired Aug. 14.

The unexpected, three-day strike at the Grand Hyatt — which was called “irresponsible and stunning” by hotel management — is the first action against a business since the 9,000-member Unite Here! Local 2 union approved a strike two weeks ago.

Rather than start out with a massive strike involving all members, the union said it’s planning several days-long walkouts until management agrees to its contract terms.

“The strategy right now is to ... go after certain companies, and one by one launch boycotts against them,” said Mike Casey, president of Local 2.

“But [we will] take some time to do it so it escalates and gives [the hotels] time to contemplate whether this is the future they want in the next 10 months.”

Only 31 “luxury properties” employing less than 8,500 union members could face walkouts as part of the authorization vote, the union said.

If that strategy doesn’t earn the desired contract, the union may stage a walkout at all 31 hotels at once, Casey said.

The tactic is a shift from 2004, when there was a widespread union strike followed by a lockout by employers. That shutdown, plus a two-year boycott, severely affected San Francisco’s tourism industry, which is one of the largest tax-
revenue generators for city coffers.

“We found the action by Local 2 to be irresponsible and stunning,” said David Nadelman, general manager of the Grand Hyatt.

Some guests at the hotel were equally shocked and dismayed.

“It is such a horrendous racket,” said guest Alice Westbie, 68, of Sonora, whose husband is attending a medical convention in The City.

Health care is the main sticking point in contract talks, though wages and the length of the contract are also at issue.

Caddie Lin, a single mother and 13-year hotel employee, said the hotel’s proposal would ruin her 16-year-old son’s desire to become a doctor.

“I can’t afford it,” she said. “It hurts.”

Management is currently paying the full cost of workers’ health care, but charges an additional $10 a month for all dependents.

That’s no longer sustainable, Nadelman said. Health care costs have risen from roughly $300 monthly per employee to $1,080 during the past decade, he said.

Employees need to pick up at least some of that cost, Nadelman said.

Proposals from two major hotel chains would increase monthly payments per employee by $35 in the first contract year, $115 in the second year and more than $200 the third, Casey said. The average union housekeeper makes $30,000 a year, the union said.

Workers are proposing a one-year contract that they say increases overall labor costs by less than 2 percent.

maldax@sfexaminer.com

Hyatt shares hit market running

NEW YORK — Shares of Hyatt Hotels Corp. jumped 12 percent in their first day on the New York Stock Exchange, as markets appeared to dismiss concerns about infighting among its founder’s heirs and tepid hotel reservations around the world.

Shares in Chicago-based Hyatt priced late Wednesday at $25 apiece, near the top end of the $23 to $26 range, raising $950 million. The iconic hotel chain’s shares stayed above that price Thursday, trading between $25.75 and $28.26. The stock closed $3 higher, or 12 percent, at $28.

David Menlow, president of IPOfinancial.com, said he sees Hyatt’s successful debut as a “mini-turning point,” but not necessarily an indication that the entire IPO market is rebounding.

— AP
 



To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Joan

Nov 5, 2009

What is wrong with the Examiner? Hyatt owners just pulled in almost a billion dollars today, and yet they want dump health care costs onto their housekeepers? And the San Francisco Examiner has the gall to frame these workers as "unreasonable"???? Mind boggling. Please note readers: Look at the statement that Hyatt Corp. just sent out on the wires about the strike. It bears a shocking resemblance to this article. Objective reporting? You tell me.

 

Alex Edelstein

Nov 5, 2009

All of the money raised in the IPO is going to selling shareholders, and the company isn't getting any of it.

Meanwhile, it's laughable that the unions would think they're entitled to free healthcare when the rest of us pay 100's of dollars a month.

 

Over Local 2

Nov 5, 2009

The Hotels should lock the picketing employees out. Let them sit without a pay-check. Hotel local 2 employees are paying nothing for insurance...they've been livin a dream. Welcome to the real world!!!

 

Don Mateo

Nov 5, 2009

Thank goodness SOMEONE is standing up so that working families can continue to have affordable health care. Despite the economy, Hyatt has PLENTYof money to sustain medical benefits for their employees! Why should they get richer while their employees suffer? Shame on all of you who are placing the blame on the union instead of where it belongs: squarely on Hyatt's shoulders.

 

Rev. Israel Alvaran

Nov 5, 2009

The Grand Hyatt general manager says workers are being irresponsible, but look who’s talking?! Check this out, there is something wrong here: Today, the Pritzker family which owns Hyatt sold 10% of their holdings in an IPO for over $900 million. In the last 5 years they amassed over $100 billion in profits. In a supposedly "down" year, their CEO was paid over $6 million. Now, the workers are asking for retaining their healthcare and benefits with modest wage increases which will cost Hyatt a measly 1.5% increase from the previous contract - just $250,000 for 300 workers and their families for a one year contract! Some who complain about paying too much for healthcare are probably not in a union because Local 2 protects its workers’ benefits.

 

Victoria

Nov 5, 2009

Re: Over Local 2, a family trying to live on $30,000 dollars year is "a dream"? People can't decently live on those kind of wages in the Bay Area. As someone who is from a working class immigrant family who has seen and gone through the stress of trying to make it on an extremely low income, $30,000 is barely enough. Just because people aren't from this country and don't have US college education does not mean they should be forced to be economically insecure while middle and upper class benefits from their labor.
Its horrible for a wealthy corporation try to further exploit people who came to this country for a better life for themselves and their kids. The healthcare benefits these workers have is one of the few positives they have working for these hotels and its wrong that the already rich corporate executives think they need to take that away so they can have more money.

 

XIU MIN LI

Nov 5, 2009

I agree that right now the "real world" is where many working family struggles to pay for healthcare and while CEO and management pockets billions. Just look at the bank bailout.

But what it means is the real world is messed up and needs to be fixed. what should happen is we say "enough, I deserve quality and affordable healthcare like those workers at Grand Hyatt and I will fight to get it for myself too, just like what they are doing by going on strike.

Instead of being sour and saying things that basically mean "my life sucks more than you, so you should suck it up cos that's the real world".

 

SEUISUX

Nov 5, 2009

SEUI SUX

Let them twist in the wind for awhile. Unions can no longer hold us hostage to unreasonable demands that those of us in the regular workforce could never expect.

Public Employee unions are bankrupting the state and do not have any concern about the impact of their demands.

It's time to involve the judiciary in arbitration efforts to determine when employers offers are deficient or whether union demands are unreasonable.

Labor strikes only serve to increase the costs to the public and are, if anything, a form of extortion.

 

Xiu

Nov 5, 2009

The banks and the rich people that use legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes are the ones bankrupting the state. offshore tax shelter, i know people that are not even super rich and they know all sorts of ways to not pay a dime in taxes. hardworking law abiding citizens are paying taxes, just like these workers who go on strike.

It's funny that working people who are trying to get there fair share from multinational corporations are labeled as against the public. How irrational is that?

Union is made up of workers, who ARE THE PUBLIC!

Labor actions is a legal right in a democracy.

you want to outlaw freedom of assembly and associations and free speech, move to China or North Korea!

 

truthtopower

Nov 5, 2009

Who paid the Examiner to write this article? Why does anyone in SF care what officials from the Chicago based Hyatt think about the actions of our own residents in our own city? These workers are fighting to stay afloat in one of the most expensive areas in the country, in the worst economy in 80 years. Hyatt, by contrast, is sitting pretty, with $1 billion in cash in the bank, another billion in cash from their ipo, and almost a billion in profits over the last few years. And the Examiner's headline is that the UNION is irresponsible??? Irresponsible better describes this multinational corporation that's forcing workers to strike because of outrageously greedy and unnecessary takebacks. What does the Examiner think working people should do as they get poorer and the extremely rich get richer? Just twiddle their thumbs and watch Seinfeld reruns? Sorry! We're not domesticated animals ... we do fight back! Si se puede!

 

Nov 6, 2009

Test

 

Whatever

Nov 9, 2009

I have friends in both management side and union. I see my friends on the union side driving better cars than the friends on the management side. My union friends kids go to nice universities and my friends on the management side struggle to put their kids through community college. My union friends do nothing but brag about how little they have to do because of past practice rules and how they can get away with murder because the union will protect them. On the management side, they do nothing but work long hours and worry if they can make the next round of lay offs.

This is real world stuff that I see. I am an accountant so I choose no side, but this is what I see.

 

Jess

Dec 30, 2009

ha ... my mother was one of those workers on strike ya management doesn't have union but THEY GET PAID WAY MORE .... my mother has worked with hyatt for over 29 years and gets paid about $20 an hour while management gets paid ALOT more struggling ya they struggle cause they cheap and stingy

 

mytiffany

Jan 25, 2010

Colin Mathers tiffanys was the lead author of the study. tiffany co He is the W.H.O.'s coordinator for epidemiology tiffany rings and burden of disease tiffany jewellery. He says the research points to major differences around the world.

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Your Name:

Comment:




World

Fortune tellers: Year of Tiger isn't Tiger's year, but Obama to shine

It's the Year of the Tiger, but Chinese fortune tellers say it'll be a rough patch for the world's most famous one: disgraced golfer Tiger Woods. Full story

Local

Notorious penguin Harry survives infection

Fans of The City’s most famous penguins can... Full story

Local

Jackson doctor back in court in April to find out date for next major step in case

Michael Jackson's doctor returns to court in April to find out the date for the next major step in the case — a proceeding that will reveal for the first time the evidence the prosecution believes will show his "gross negligence" was the direct cause of the pop star's death. Full story