Mark Hoplamazian
President and CEO
Hyatt Hotels Corporation
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606Dear Mr. Hoplamazian:
Thank you for speaking with me again yesterday and for your letter of yesterday afternoon. I appreciate the thoughtful tone of both, and your efforts to extend further benefits to the displaced workers.
However, as I said when we spoke, I am disappointed by your company’s unwillingness to reconsider the decision to replace the housekeeping staff with an “outsourced” firm, and give the jobs back to the people who were displaced. You tell me that there are sound financial reasons for the company’s decision, and I accept that. But the manner in which these workers were discharged is so inconsistent with both the expressed values of the Hyatt organization and basic fairness, that I do not believe any other remedy than full reinstatement is adequate.
You indicated that some of the facts reported on the methods and circumstances of the discharge were not correct. Because I appreciate that there are two sides to every story, I have spoken to a couple of affected workers personally, and will meet with a group of them later this week to take my own measure of their stories. So far, I am no less troubled than I was upon reading early media accounts.
We want to work with you. We value the presence of Hyatt in Boston and the Commonwealth, and will work with you to smoothly transition these workers, if there is no other choice. But you must understand that what has been imposed on these workers — most of whom have worked hard, played by the rules, and invested their time and energy in your company’s success — is both upsetting in its own right, and also the worst nightmare of every worker in today’s weak economy.
I understand first hand how difficult it is to manage through the current economic challenges without compounding the disruptions the times have caused. In this economy, no business (or government, for that matter) is immune from these kinds of choices. But surely there is some way to retain the jobs for your housekeeping staff, as other hotels in the area have done, and to work with them to help the company meet its current challenges, rather than tossing them out unceremoniously to fend for themselves while the people they trained take their jobs at barely livable wages.
Again, I ask Hyatt to reconsider the decision to replace these workers. Barring that, I will direct all state employees not to use Hyatt when traveling or for other purposes for the foreseeable future. This is not how I like to operate. But the treatment of these workers appears to be so substandard that it leaves me no choice.
Sincerely,
Deval Patrick
Classy move Governor.
but isn’t Hyatt a high end hotel? Why are MA employees staying there in the first place by and large? I could see an exception for professional conferences held in a Hyatt hotel, but short of that… why the Hyatt and not a Holiday Inn Express or somesuch?
Why doesn’t the state of Massachusetts have a travel policy of preferred rates and approved chains rather than the Governor “directing” employees not to stay at Hyatt?
<
p>Why are the lives of the incoming workers any less valued than those of the ones on the way out?
<
p>Why is lower-cost for housekeeping not better when lower-cost for health care is?
before asking state workers to give up their junkets. That’s like the last thing to cut, silly.
<
p>The incoming workers don’t have the same health insurance. Apparently the new luxurious beds are a lot heavier, and the old women housekeepers were too small to lift them safely without getting back problems and needing sick time off. The new workers are presumably younger and bigger and can lift the beds, and they will probably only work for a year or two before changing jobs, instead of working their whole life like housekeepers of yore did.
<
p>They don’t want lower cost for health care, they want more money to go to health care, by increasing taxes and by getting rid of insurance companies.
Only Hyatt properties around Boston aren’t exactly cheap. Hopefully this is an academic move.
<
p>BTW, one thing the Gov should really do is direct employees to look at the Web and whatever they do DON’T accept the government rate. Was staying at a low budget hotel recently around here (late night server upgrade) and found the rack rate to be $70, AAA rate to be 62, and the Government/Military rate to be $90. Such a deal…
The Boston area has both a Hyatt Place in Medford (~130 a night) and a couple of Hyatt Summerfield Suites extended stay places (~170 a night). while not Motel 6’s, they’re definitely competitively priced for the area. Hyatt Regencies, not so much.
Places like the Hyatt are frequently used for large events as well as for out of town guests.
…that we voted for. Thank you for taking this stand on behalf of working people. Nationally and locally the Democratic Party could learn a thing or two from the conversation and action by the Governor.
But I applaud his doing the right thing. For once.
I wish he was as quick to get tough on his own people as others, but this is a good start.
I can understand if a company has broken a law or a state “rule/regulation” but barring that, isn’t this open for abuse (campaign contributions/favors/friends…)? The Obama administration is trying to take the Student loan program “in-house” and will cause the loss of ~30,000 commercial jobs. Various government agencies (including he state) farms out “contractors” instead of full time employees for costs savings… so should the Governor “direct” the state employees away from the Federal government (silly)? The Governor should keep his nose out of private businesses unless laws are broken.
If state employees are traveling on state business, they are using state money to stay in hotels. It is entirely the business of the Governor to get involved in how that money is spent — that, after all, is his job. He’s obviously not talking about where state employees stay on their vacations.
appreciated that clarification.
The Governor’s e-mail was clear on “directing” employees on official business. But the text of JohnD’s e-mail questions the appropriateness of choosing a vendor based on what John is characterizing as regular, legal business practices.
Can he “direct” employees not to stay at hotels or do business with companies who have not contributed to his campaign? Do not support his agenda? Do not support his “green energy” initiative? Contribute money to causes he is against (like abortion or anti-abortion)? I just don’t think the governor should be directing or prohibiting the state from doing business with companies based on his whim… JMO.
You rail against government waste then complain when the Obama Admin does something great to make a program more efficient (student loans) so more people get a higher education.
My remark about Obama’s take over of the student loan process was not a critique. I think it has some merit if it goes through. What I am saying is the Hyatt is doing a similar thing by saving money on getting their rooms cleaned by outside contractors… but somehow it is bad and “mean spirited”. In both cases people will be losing their jobs so how are they different?
In one case, those employed for more than two decades innocently trained their replacements and then were discarded while executives continued to gobble down million dollar salaries [Hyatt].
<
p>In the change of program terms, there is tons of notice, the banks involved can absorb their employees, and this change is but a small fragment of the business done as opposed to the wholesale abandonment of loyal employees by their callous employer while the elite continue to batten at their expense.
There is – or once was – a direct relationship between an employer and an employee, especially after 20 years.
<
p>I don’t see that kind of responsibility from the government, to provide safe profit to banks at the expense of students.
I used to think that way as a child but not anymore. I even try to persuade my kids from thinking this way as they plaster their walls with Johnny Damon posters because “he loves Boston” that is until he can make more money elsewhere. The loyalty thing is overblown.
<
p>Business is business and if Hyatt believes they need to remain competitive by doing this then I have no problem with it. If more American companies believed this way instead of giving the keys to the vault away (Detroit car companies) then maybe they would have remained solvent. I worked in a manufacturing company where my job was automating the process and machines replaced manual labor and yes in many cases those workers helped me actually replace their jobs. The alternative was we would go out of business or simply outsource he work abroad.
<
p>It’s not personal, it’s business.
If more American companies believed in not being sucked dry by paying $600 million [or as in the case of Merrill Lynch, 6.5 billion] to their elite autocrats and focused on customer loyalty, competent employees fairly paid…American business would be in better shape. Hint – for business to flourish, consumers have to be able to consume.
<
p>Every degradation of employment – such as that done by the Hyatt – while upper management battens like ticks sucking a victim’s artery – means fewer consumers and a weaker American economy.
<
p>Outsourcing? Second class or fourth class service
like the call centers with scripts with workers who barely speak English I have experiencedwhich mean I take my business elsewhere lead to lower profits and sometimes failed businesses.<
p>Quality workers and quality products and services are good business – and customer loyalty requires getting quality at a fair price. Therefore, the retention of good employees matters more than saving a buck or two when the big bucks go not to the workers but to the millionaire owners and CEOs and executives. Lay one of those unproductive pseudo-aristocrats off and none of the housekeepers would need to be laid off to save a hell of a lot more than canning loyal employees saved. Nope. I am done using the Hyatt unless they rehire those folks. The Hyatt has lost every meeting, every seminar [etc.] whose location I influence. I have plenty of sites to choose from who are at least fair to their employees.
<
p>So once again, John, I think your ideology leads to you making statements that I find totally unconvincing. In fact, I think your conclusions totally inaccurate – even bogus.
I know of two companies who have canceled events at the Cambridge Hyatt Regency as a result of this. I’m guessing there are more. People don’t want to be associated with Hyatt at the moment.
<
p>Have you seen any “hiring” signs on banks lately? These people will be let go and probably not hired for a long time.
<
p>
<
p>Maybe my comparison was wrong but in the opposite direction. Are you equating 30,000 losing their jobs as being acceptable since the 30,000 is a small fragment of the banking sector but the Hyatt layoff effects 100% of the 100 housekeeping staff so it’s an outrage?
<
p>
<
p>Call Sallie Mae and advice them to simply “absorb” the 2,550 employees they have no work for!
<
p>PS When will the government take over all the mortgage lending since they might be able to save more money? How about starting to build our own tanks, ships and planes since we could save even more money and forget single payer, just take over all the hospitals…
John – you cannot have it both ways.
that’s what Patrick needs to do, get out there and be himself.
Otherwise, his direction is meaningless.
<
p>And I concur with the thought that such travel should be at a bare minumum, and at a Motel 6.
than we could ever hope to achieve. Awesome!
Vendors who provide services to the Commonwealth do so under contracts that, I would imagine, reimburse the vendor for reasonable and agreed expenses (including hotel stays). Many major players provide lists of preferred suppliers, and will only reimburse expenses incurred in connection with a preferred supplier.
<
p>I believe the Governor is well within his authority to exclude Hyatt (or any other supplier) from the state’s “preferred supplier” list.
<
p>I applaud this action by the Governor.
I just received a statement via email from Hyatt HQ in Chicago. For some reason I can’t cut and paste the text, and I don’t have time to retype the whole thing, so you’ll have to download the PDF to read it. Basically, they’re “very disappointed” in the Governor’s decision, and they say they’re reaching out to the affected former employees.
Nope, Hyatt, you remain on my s#@@! list. What you are offering is not even a lifeline….you must do better and proper would have been absorbing these dedicated employees into other positions – or a 50% executive paycut with no layoffs.
Is this Hyatt issue specifically about its Boston location or is the problem nationwide?
It is still up on the side: http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/d…
<
p>Mind, the Gov directs a lot more folk on what they can and cannot do then Deb the Paw.
<
p>I have taken the steps I promised then – and the Hyatt is a convenient place for all sorts of meetings and forums; it can be mid range or lower Stormv, depending.
<
p>But I am done with it. Ick. Their treatment of their own most vulnerable employees is totally unacceptable.
Why would Deval risk the other 600 Hyatt employees jobs with his PR campaign? Are the other 600 workers not entitled to a job? If the Hyatt left Mass would other hotels raise or lower their rates? Amazing people in govt dont understand business at all.
Hyatt is not going anywhere, and they are not going to lay off their entire MA workforce. Hyatt has a bunch of profitable properties in MA, and the loss of state business is an embarrassment, not a financial hardship. They’re just blowing smoke, and everyone (including them) knows it.
then it was clearly being propped up the Government and does not deserve to be in business. š
<
p>In a way Hyatt is saying “don’t say anything about the workers we already fired or else we will fire some more”.
<
p>To me the way that Hyatt is handling this matter indicates that they are an extremely poorly managed hotel chain. First they rather publicly lower the quality of their cleaning services, then rather than maintaining their positive PR spin on the matter, some idiot decides to feed the flames by whining about the Governor’s action.
<
p>I don’t want to stay at a hotel just to help out the workers union or not, nor to help out the Hotel chain’s bottom line. I just want a nice clean room, good service, and a reasonable price. Hyatt has just convinced me that they want to be a second class hotel with first class prices. I think I will stay elsewhere even if they end up rehiring the affected workers.
I go out of my way when travelling to NEVER stay at a chain motel. There are plenty of fine, independent motels out there, and I try to support them the same way I do independent bookstores.
the 600 employees’ jobs by treating these workers so shabbily. If we still had a union-friendly environment and htose workers were, as they shouold have been, unionized, this very well might not have happened.
<
p>By the way, if Deval thinks this small pro-union pr blitz will get public employee unions to forget the anti-union initiatives, he’s wrong.
I have GOT to proof-read better!