Wednesday, February 22, 2012
UPDATE: Fundraiser for Fired Hilton Housekeepers Draws Crowd, Raises Hundreds
by Allison Jean Eaton | Archive | 06.16.11 | 
| Text Size:
+


Maria Medina, 40, a former housekeeper at the Hilton Long Beach, speaks during a Wednesday, April 27, news conference, detailing how she was fired, along with four other housekeepers, earlier this month after several of them complained about working conditions to hotel management. Photo courtesy of Unite Here
ADVERTISEMENT
Local 11.

UPDATE Thursday, June 16, 3:45pm | A fundraiser for the "Hilton 5" held Wednesday night at Pizza Pi by the restaurant and the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and a Healthy Community raised more than $550 through the sale of raffle tickets and hundreds of dollars more in food and beverage sales, according to the union assisting the five fired Hilton housekeepers.

About 100 people turned out to the event, where local musicians entertained patrons and items donated by local businesses, including gift certificates to Portfolio Coffeehouse and Fingerprints Music Store, were raffled off between music sets.
 
The total amount raised thanks to Pizza Pi's offer to donate to the women 15 percent of all food and beverage sales made June 15 between the hours of 6 and 9 p.m. will be announced Friday, said Leigh Shelton of Unite Here Local 11.

Editor's note: A previous version of the above post incorrectly stated that the union represents the workers. The union is actually only assisting them.

UPDATE Thursday, May 19, 1:01pm | The union representing five women who claim they were fired from their housekeeping jobs at the Hilton Long Beach & Executive Meeting Center after complaining about unfair working conditions has filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board on their behalf, a union spokeswoman said.

Leigh Shelton of Unite Here Local 11 said that the unfair labor practices charges against HEI Hotels and Resorts, the hotel's parent company, were filed with the NLRB Thursday morning.

"The housekeepers are asking a regional office of the NLRB to investigate their unfair labor practice charge, and if the allegations are determined to have merit, to issue a complaint," Shelton said.

The union alleges that the hotel fired the five housekeepers two days after three of them had confronted hotel management regarding what they perceived to be unfair working conditions. Some of the women had also recently cooperated with state investigators who are conducting an ongoing probe into the fired housekeepers' employment arrangement.

"Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees for speaking up about working conditions to hotel management or a state agency," Shelton said.

The hotel's human resources director said in late April that the hotel had not recently fired any workers. He said the five women worked for a company the hotel had subcontracted with and that the hotel had recently ceased subcontracting with that agency. He also said the hotel had offered the women to apply with the hotel directly for similar positions.

The fired workers said they were interviewed and hired at the hotel and were not aware of any type of arrangement with a subcontractor until they were later told they would be paid by a subcontractor.

“After four years of hard work for less pay than most Hilton housekeepers, we finally spoke up about the unjust conditions,” said Veronica Flores, one of the fired housekeepers, in a statement.  “And in response the hotel management thinks they can just throw us out like garbage. HEI cannot do this. We are human. We have rights.”

Aril 27, 5:01pm | Five hotel workers formerly employed by the Hilton Long Beach & Executive Meeting Center in downtown Long Beach said Wednesday that they were recently terminated after three of them complained to hotel management about unfair working conditions.

Maria Medina, 40, said that she and two other housekeepers met with a human resources manager at the hotel in early April to discuss what she described as "erratic scheduling" and other unfair employment practices. A "mere two days later," she said, the three, along with two others, were fired. 

All five were told they worked for a subcontractor, she said.

Medina, who worked at the hotel for four years, said that although she was interviewed and hired at the hotel, she was later told that she would be paid by a subcontractor. She said that payroll taxes were never deducted from her paychecks and that she was never offered any of the benefits, such as health insurance and paid time off, that were enjoyed by housekeepers who worked for the hotel directly. 

"There needs to be some kind of reform. Housekeeping work is taxing. It slowly weighs on your body," Medina said. "If there are going to be [subcontracting] agencies, they should at least be fair. They should at least be watched closely by the government."

Medina and the four other fired housekeepers gathered in front of the 701 E. Ocean Blvd. hotel Wednesday morning and shared their story during a news conference before demanding that they be rehired as permanent employees.

According to information provided by Leigh Shelton of Unite Here Local 11, a union that has been working to organize housekeepers at the hotel since 2009, each of the fired housekeepers had worked at the hotel for anywhere from two to four years, but the hotel considered them “temporary agency” employees.  

Shelton, a spokeswoman for the union, said that even though they worked alongside permanent housekeepers, the women were paid under the table from a "rarely-seen individual who, in theory, runs a temporary employment agency." The checks, however, were distributed by hotel managers, she said. 

"I do the same work, wear the same uniform and take orders from the same managers," Medina said during the conference. "Why am I an 'agency' worker? Clearly, so I can be paid less and be treated as a lower class employee. 

"As I was getting fired last week, it became clear to me that this hotel keeps unfair positions like mine to save money," Medina continued.

The Rev. Jerry Stinson, pastor at First Congregational Church of Long Beach, attended the conference to show his support for the hotel workers. 

"If there's one word you cannot link to this Hilton hotel, it's the word 'compassion'," Stinson said.

Representatives from the offices of Councilmen Patrick O'Donnell and Steven Neal were on hand, as were staffers from Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal's office. Each of the elected officials were said to have sent letters of support for the workers to the Hilton requesting that the hotel immediately rehire the women as permanent employees. 

Ken Melinie, the human resources director at Hilton Long Beach, told L.A Now on Wednesday afternoon that the housekeepers were employed by an outside agency. The hotel has not terminated any employees, he said, though it did cease contracting with an agency it had been working with.

He said the hotel ensures that all workers are paid properly regardless of whether they are permanent employees or work for an agency.

Melinie said the five housekeepers were "outstanding, hardworking individuals" and that he met with them as a courtesy even though they did not work directly for the hotel. All were told they'd be welcome to apply for open positions with the hotel once their agency's contract ended, he reportedly added.

"I'm kind of disappointed that none of them applied," he told the Times. "But that offer certainly still stands."

Shelton said that since their termination, several of the fired housekeepers have met with state investigators who are conducting an ongoing probe into the legality of their employment arrangement at the Hilton. 

According to the union, which represents more than 20,000 hotel and food service workers in Los Angeles and Orange counties, both the California Employment Development Department and the California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement are investigating tax and employment practices at the Hilton Long Beach and nearby Embassy Suites Irvine. 

The Hilton Long Beach is owned and operated by HEI Hotels and Resorts, as were the Embassy Suites up until last November. The privately held company has come under fire in recent years for allegedly mistreating employees and stymying staffers' efforts to unionize.

HEI sold the the 293-bed Embassy Suites for an undisclosed price just a couple of months after that hotel's staff filed complaints with the state demanding backpay for legally-mandated breaks the hotel allegedly denied them. HEI at the time said the sale of the hotel had nothing to do with the complaint and subsequent employee-urged boycott of the Orange County hotel. 

Shelton, the union spokeswoman, told the Long Beach Post Wednesday evening that a group of community members who support the housekeepers entered the hotel following the news conference Wednesday morning to deliver a letter and speak to management. Their efforts were unsuccessful.
 
"After about 10 minutes and no manager to be found, everybody was kicked out," Shelton said. 

Editor's note: A previous version of this story failed to directly quote the phrase "mere two days" in the second paragraph.


Five housekeepers who say they were fired by the Hilton Long Beach after complaining about working conditions are joined by some of their supporters who attended a news conference staged outside the hotel Wednesday, April 27, to call attention to the situation. Photo courtesy of Unite Here Local 11.


Comments
Click Here to Join the Discussion on this Story

48 Comments so far.
Henry
I worked in this hotel over 16 years ago. After I complained twice about the working conditions and the working schedules, my supervisor FIRED me arguing that I did never do my job as requested. I worked at the Long Beach Hilton only for less than 3 months. The worst job experience I ever have in all my working life. Nothing has change for good but for the contrary. If you're willing to apply for employment at this hotel you better be prepared to work under the same slavery conditions from the 19th Century. You don't have the right to question the management for their wrong decisions. My supervisor got a fatter bonus check for every employee that he fired and not replacing him/her and the work load was absorbed by the rest of the employees. Since then, I have been more and more involved in civil rights working with different civil rights associations to help people with this kind of conditions.

Michael
I don't understand why the overwhelming majority of the media insists on using the term "unfair labor practices."

They're not unfair.

They're illegal.

RW Crum
"A mere two days later"? Is a "mere" two days different than "two days"? Somebody's opinion creep into what should have been a straight news article?

Margo C
It sort of depends on "how" you present your recommendations (complaints) about schedules and other working conditions. If a contract employee came to me....possibly in anger...with an accusatory style of presentation, I would take steps also that those workers (who were not employees)might not like. Of course I wasn't in that meeting so don't know the facts but, as a manager, I'd rather have happy employees, grateful to have a job in these tough unemployment times. Managing content workers is so much easier and less time-consuming than managing angry workers. So a contract was terminated and they are welcome to apply to become an employee. If they apply and are hired, I would guess they made a civil request; if not hired, I would guess they didn't present well. I do believe that all employers are open to suggestions for improvement but, in the end, the decision rests with the employer. Not all education takes place in schools; there is much to learn in a work environment as well.

John B. Greet
If the investigation currently in progress reveals that any LB Hilton employees, temp or otherwise, were terminated unlawfully, I hope the state imposes severe sanctions. At wht point, though, does an employee assume some personally responsibility for the choices they freely make in who to work for and under what conditions? Let's not confuse at least one aspect of this "protest" for what it really is, however; yet another in a long string of blatant attempts to unionize these hotel workers. In this day and age of literally thousands and thousands of laws that protect *all* employees, in *all* sectors, labor unions are no longer needed to protect employee rights. This is but one reason union membership in the private sector is at an all time low in the U.S. and continuing to decline. The two main reasons private sector labor unions still exist today are: 1. To enrich the employees and officers of the labor unions themselves, and 2. To help unionized employees facilitate their right to bargain for the best wages and working conditions they can receive from their employers.

jhm
"A mere two days later" was a quote from the terminated worker. The reporter would have been remiss to quote her saying only "two days later".

Theo
Why are elected city officials getting involved in this dispute? employees have issues with their employers every day. Are we going to see them running from employer to employer and always taking the side of the employee? Did they even bother to ask the Hilton their side of the story? Last time I checked, there are always two sides.

a person who can read
CRUM: It's a direct quote. But of course, you always shoot first, ask questions never, so I'm not surprised you found something totally invalid to whine about.

aria Medina, 40, said that she and two other housekeepers met with a human resources manager at the hotel in early April to discuss what she described as "erratic scheduling" and other unfair employment practices. A "mere two days later," she said, the three, along with two others, were fired.

John Andrews
I have stayed there twice. Both times finding hair in the wash basin and on the bathroom counters. The water glass looked as if it had been cleaned with only a rag.. I have not stayed there since. If they wanted to keep their jobs, maybe they should have done a better job.. Now Hilton will have to deal with SEIU's thug tactics.

Johnny Utah
oh cry me a river...call the waaammmbulance
Find a new job and quit your whining!

90814
New headline: Dissatisfied Employees Should Seek New Job With Better Pay and Hours

Proud 2B American
I am totally disappointed in the Long Beach City Council & Bonnie because they put their nose where it does not belong. Those employees had a choice starting two- to four-years ago to change their employment status by applying at the Hilton. They knew they were temp-employees and not employed by the Hilton. Furthermore, if any of the present/current workers are dissatisfied working for the Hilton, trust me there are plenty of unemployed persons that would love to receive an income to save their homes and keep up with credit payments. It disgusts me when they threaten to picket and walk-out on the Hilton. Same on Shelton for harassing the business establishment of the Hilton Hotel! I would kick you out, ALSO!! As for the tax investigations that are alleged herein, I can bet anyone that those employees claim 13-tax exemptions to pay little, to nothing, in taxes and claim the Earned Income Credit and still complain about having taxes taken out. If it is found factual that those five employees did not have any taxes deducted from their payroll, that, AGAIN, has absolutely nothing to do with the Hilton Hotel, that is a tax matter for the agency for which those five workers were contracted with for employment. No haters, please. Just the facts and a remedy to having all companies in Long Beach become Unionized. In closing, the Hilton Hotel should be commended for even considering to hire those five employees, saying "...offer still stands." I wonder whey they stood with the temp agency - and my curiosity says they are undocumented persons?!? 'Nuf Said!

memyself&I
I wonder if they thought to question this arrangement when they were hired. Or did it conveniently become an issue when they were fired?

Bruce
It's a terrible thing when someone loses a job. My question is...where does Maria's responsiblity come into play to find out what terms and conditions she was working under? Based on some of the information in this story...the whole story isn't being told.

Bob
Another start for the further Unuionization of Long Beach. If successful we will hopefully end up like Detrit and Cleveland. Go Union and you city council syncophants

Rich C
OK, let's re-read this story; without the boo-hoo's as put forth by the union, and inflamed by this reporter. 'According to information provided by Leigh Shelton of Unite Here Local 11' (Isn't this the same union that organized the daily 6AM disturbance of banging pots & pans to wake up the Hilton guests?) And NO! I am not employed by any hotel, nor do I have any personal or financial connection or involvement with the hotel industry. I am self-employed.

'Medina, who worked at the hotel for four years, said that although she was interviewed and hired at the hotel, she was later told that she would be paid by a subcontractor. ('Later told'? When is 'later'? Was it a problem then?)
She said that payroll taxes were never deducted from her paychecks and that she was never offered any of the benefits, such as health insurance and paid time off, that were enjoyed by housekeepers who worked for the hotel directly.' She worked there FOUR YEARS with NO taxes taken out???? And only now she is bringing that 'fact(?)' up? I really don't believe she would not have said something before now about that and the benefits unless she thought she was getting a 'little something extra'.

"There needs to be some kind of reform. Housekeeping work is taxing. It slowly weighs on your body,…"
So are a lot of jobs. You do what you are able to do. If that's not enough for you, learn a different skill. Reform yourself. Nobody is stopping you!

'Erratic scheduling' and other unfair labor practices…. Union Speak! A lot of shuffling is often required due to conventions, etc. It's been a part of the hotel business forever. If this was brought to the Hilton management, and they considered it 'unfair', maybe that's why the 'contractor' lost the business. It wasn't necessarily the Hilton, but the now fired contractor.

Ken Melinie, the human resources director at Hilton Long Beach, told L.A Now on Wednesday afternoon that the housekeepers were employed by an outside agency. The hotel has not terminated any employees, he said, though it did cease contracting with an agency it had been working with.

He said the hotel ensures that all workers are paid properly regardless of whether they are permanent employees or work for an agency.

Melinie said the five housekeepers were "outstanding, hardworking individuals" and that he met with them as a courtesy even though they did not work directly for the hotel. All were told they'd be welcome to apply for open positions with the hotel once their agency's contract ended, he reportedly added.

"I'm kind of disappointed that none of them applied," he told the Times. "But that offer certainly still stands."

OK folks, what is wrong with you??? If this isn't just a union exploitation of a business transaction, with a bunch of lies and innuendos thrown in?
Of course we have the union controlled politicos offering support. They want to make sure they get their money from the unions for their campaigns.
So sad!

Paul
Rich C said,"Of course we have the union controlled politicos offering support. They want to make sure they get their money from the unions for their campaigns." So true. The public already pays a huge over the top salary and benefits for some public employees, but on the lower end, the same people on the Councl push for a, "Living Wage" for hotel workers. Years ago one could graduate from high school, get a job at a factory, buy a house, new car, etc. Those days are over. How does giving hotel maids this type of benfit square with today's reality? If these people were treated unfairly by their employer, there are may laws on the books to protect them. The courts in California have almost aways given the worker the advantage in cases before them. This is a bogus Wisconsin type of protest, that the local lefties can get out and scream about. If these ladies have a case, it can be heard in court.

labor supporter
Amazing how clueless some of these commenters are.

CRum complains that the reporter wrote "mere two days". CRUM: It's a direct quote!

Greet says since unions accomplished their goals, they arent needed. Then he says they exist to bargain for better wages. Huh? Anyone really believe that employees of corporate hotels have all the protection they need, and government inspectors are closely watching to ensure they arent overworked and underpaid? If you do believe it, you are living under a rock.

Why is that investors are allowed to come together for their common interest - increased profit - in a limited liability corporation, and no one is bothered by that, no one says "individual responsibility" or complains about limited liability which reduces risk. But when employees come together for a common interest - not increased profit, but just a living wage! - they are greedy and unAmerican? Sounds like everyone here has bought the propaganda of the wealthy class hook, line and sinker.

This is the poorest of the poor coming together to just try have a living wage, that's all. How that is threatening to all of you, I cannot understand. I think you should all join unions, too.

Greet points out union membership is at an alltime low. Yes, and real wages have decreased steadily with that trend. How come no one says the corporations who move overseas and abandon their American workers are "unpatrioitic".

Go get another job? Yeah, great strategy. So the working poor of America can compete for scraps, and if they try to stand up for themselves...we attack them, because someone even poorer is willing to work for that wage. So a person supporting a family shouldnt try to get a better life, they should just suffer, since a person with no family is waiting to take their job at a lower wage. Maybe we should all just beg for minimum wage jobs and be happy? What a bunch of slave-mentality suckers on here!

Let me add that taxes are not taken out of a contract workers' paycheck, but not every worker is educated on tax law.

Everyone should reread the very first comment, and keep this quote in mind:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.


Finally, a reminder: It is illegal to fire someone for asking for a higher wage or organizing a union. It is illegal to use contract work as an excuse to do this.

RW Crum
I'd have to agree that none of the electeds should be anywhere near this story. This is a labor matter. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the responsibility of the offices of Garcia, O'Donnell or Lowenthal. Really bad form.

Rickatsea

I know a gentleman who has been with Hilton for many years and he tells me of the problems with his fellow workers who are told by the union to create issues. My daughter visited me four years ago during her business travels and stayed at this Hilton. While she was at a business meeting her computer was stolen from her room obviously by 'housekeeping'. Who else would have had entry access?
Keep the politics out of this as everyone should know they are there for more votes. Have a news release, a few cameras and they show every time. As to the writer, get a life and tell things the way they are, not the way YOU would like to see things. I can do my own thinking.

Allison E., editor
Regarding the "mere two days" direct quote--the phrase was not initially directly quoted, but paraphrased.

I did not notice the oversight (I'm not used to having readers call a writer out for trivial misunderstandings of paraphrased quotes) until Mr. Crum commented. I added the quotes this morning and failed to include an Editor's note identifying my augmentation. Once has since been added. I apologize for any misunderstandings and/or misconceptions this might have caused our readers.

Thanks, and have a beautiful day =]

hello i can read
Mr Crum: Not sure why you mentioned garcia.

"Representatives from the offices of Councilmen Patrick O'Donnell and Steven Neal were on hand, as were staffers from Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal's office. "

However, I disagree this is not appropriate for elected officials to be involved. They are sticking up for their constituents. That's their job.

Allison E., editor
@Rickatsea: I regret that you feel I have some sort of agenda in covering this news story. I simply reported the facts as they were presented to me and as they were obtained via research.

If you re-read the story, you will see that all of the information is properly attributed. I do not have an opinion in this matter, as I am neither pro- nor anti-union.

Advising me to "get a life" demonstrates nothing more than your agenda, which is to disparage me in order to cast the facts in the story in a particular light.

I would prefer to let the readers decide how they feel about the story rather than asserting that either side is right or wrong, especially when such an assertion is based upon a personal experience (i.e. bias), as yours is as per your comment.

Thank you for participating in the discussion, and please have a pleasant afternoon.

RW Crum
Over time Ms. Eaton, you'll learn in journalism that there is no such thing as a "trivial misunderstanding" when quoting someone, especially if it is a paraphrased quote, because when you start paraphrasing you're using your own words, not the subject's, and therefore are injecting yourself into the narrative and taking them out. Hardly a trivial thing.

Hardy
To hello i can read: How do you know any of the workers are constituents? Do they even live in Long Beach? Nothing in the article suggests that they do. Many people communte into Long Beach every day from other cities to work. I think you are making a huge assumption there. More than likely, the representatives of LB City Council are there to support those who $upport them....the UNIONS!!!!

Shock
"Representatives from the offices of Councilmen Patrick O'Donnell and Steven Neal were on hand, as were staffers from Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal's office. Each of the elected officials were said to have sent letters of support for the workers to the Hilton requesting that the hotel immediately rehire the women as permanent employees." Oh really? Good use of city resources. Now I know who NOT to support when they come up for re-election.


get real
I will not be staying at the Hilton Hotel any time soon. The Hilton Hotel needs to hire their own employees and not put the blame on an agency they hired. This was a way for them to save money by not giving THEIR employees benefits. The point here is that when the employees complained they got fired. "Just get another job" is a ludicrous comment.

Allison E., editor
With all due respect, Mr. Crum, I've been working as a journalist for seven years professionally and hold a degree in print journalism. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm doing...

May I inquire as to the credentials upon which you base your expertise?

Bill of Rights
@hello I can read: Do you have independent knowledge the former workers live in the 4th and 9th council districts and 54th assembly district? The article contains no information about where the complaining former workers live. Consequently, you should not state that they are constituents of these particular elected officials.

Regarding the elected officials *sticking up for* the former workers, do you honestly believe these politicians would be involved in an insignificant dispute other than wanting to publicly side with their union allies?

RW Crum
Wow, Ms. Eaton, are you really this sensitive to criticism? I've stated on other forums I'm an attorney. Been one for a very long time now. There you go.

Allison E. , editor
Why, Mr. Crum--I'm not being sensitive. I was only curious!

But thank you for being gracious enough to respond. I certainly hope that you did not interpret any inkling of animosity or sensitivity in my comments, as I intended nothing of the sort.

Have a wonderful evening, sir.

reader&thinker
Bill of rights: I'm interested how you chose your moniker. Are these unions somehow infrigining the constotutional rights of a multinational corporation? Please explain.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constituents

Constituent loosely defined can include people who work, but dont live, in a poltical district. But regardless, many of the workers are residents, and standing up for these five is in the interest of all the hotel workers, as well as the residents of long beach, who are overwhelmingly wage-earners (not investors) and further, who benefit from the taxes the hotel pays, and would lose revenue they are entitled to if the hotel is illegally avoiding taxpayments, which is one of the issues at stake. So for all those reasons, taking a stand with these very vulnerable and historically underpresented workers is completely appropriate.

As far as supporting the Unions that supported them: So? It's called democracy. You support the positions of those who elected you to represent them. And what - you dont think the other side does the same thing - advocating the issues for the corporate lobbyists that paid them? At least with unions, they are speaking for many, many people, and those people are, like the vast majority of Americans and human beings, wage earners; on the other hand, politicians who represent management/corporate/investor.owner/lobbyist interests represent a very tiny minority that just happens to be rich.

Which is more democratic, mr Bill of Rights?


John B. Greet
"labor supporter" has mischaracterized what I said, and blatantly so, just as union leaders sometimes mischaracterize to their own members the primary purpose of their organizations.

I did *not* say, for example, that "since unions accomplished their goals, they arent needed." What I *did* say was that unions are no longer necessary to protect employee rights. This is a fact.

No employee requires a "government inspector closely watching" to file his or her own complaints with either state or federal authorities. This, too, is fact.

I have said this elsewhere, several times, but I will repeat it here: All employees, public or private sector, should be able to collectively bargain for the best wages and working conditions they can negotiate from their employers *if it is their free and voluntary choice to do so.* Some unions, however, do not want that choice to be free and voluntary. This, too, is fact.

When a company makes the business decision to move offshore, it has nothing to do with "patriotism" and everything to do with the bottom line. The Boards of those companies have a *fiduciary responsibility* to their stockholders to minimize risk and maximize profits. This, to, is fact.

From that perspective, then, unions often prove to be their own worst enemies because they drive the cost of domestic labor up beyond that which is reasonable or, in some cases surviveable for the company. In such circumstances their only reasonable alternative is sometimes to move off-shore to keep the company solvent.

Meanwhile the unions that have been holding firm for 70-80% of something end up leaving their membership with 100% of nothing. This, too, is fact.

We have minimum wage laws in this state and nation. These have always and only been intended as entry level compensation for a single worker, yet some employees persist in trying to house, feed and clothe entire and, sometimes, extended families on such incomes. This is just not reasonable.

Concerning wage and union membership trends, correlation is not the same as causation. There are many reasons that "real wages" have been trending downward in the past decade, not the least of which has been overall economic contraction on a global scale. But perhaps "labor supporter" has, himself,been "living under a rock."

By contrast their is only one reason private sector union membership is decreasing...many of these unions have become entirely unnecesary to the average employee, who can receive a decent wage and good working conditions *without* remitting a significant percentage of their salaries to unions in the form of dues. Unions have become big businesses in their own right, and their officers and employees have become quite accustomed to the considerable salaries and benefits paid for *entirely* by the dues their members remit and the investments the unions make. The more members, the more dues, and the more the union bosses salaries and benefits can increase. THAT is the primary goal of many modern day private sector union bosses.

AVR
@Allison Thank you for giving this story the attention it deserves. Like the exploited workers who had the courage to stand up for themselves, you too have shown the same strength and backbone to stand up to these commenters who would sooner just not hear the truth about how this we as a city treat our working poor.

labor supporter
greet: My characterization and your quote are synonyms. Yes, corporations have a fiduciary responsibility, and working people have a need to feed their families, so why do you only criticize working people when they organize to do so, but never corporations? It is certainly not a "Fact" that unions are not necessary to protect worker rights; that is your OPINION. Many believe otherwise, and I think an honest assessment of the state of labor rights in this country makes it clear unions remain very necessary. Correlation does not prove causation, but in this case they are one and the same. NO one is talking about last decade - the damage was done long before that. Union membership and real wages have declined in the US, despite global econommic EXPANSION, since 1964. It's the EXACT SAME TIME PERIOD as the decline in union membership. Coincidence, right? And you're right (finally) - minimum wage jobs arent meant for supporting a family. And yet, they are often the only thing available. You seem to overlook the FACT that there are more people than jobs, more family heads than there are living wage jobs, more costs out there in total than there is available earning potential for the 90% of people who earn a wage to live. The name of this pyramid is capitalism, and that's how it works - many at the bottom, a few at the top. In our system, crappy wages is what's out there, and that's not the workers' fault or the unions' fault, but our own fault as a nation for HELPING corporations move overseas by fighting wars to prevent protectionism (which we used to our heart's content in our early days) labor protections, environmental protections, etc abroad, making it a no-brainer for capital to leave the US. If instead we;d supported democracy in other nations, those nations could have organized unions, too, keeping their wages competitive and preventing the race to the bottom that you suggest should be fully embraced. Work ahrder slaves, or daddy will find new slaves and we'll starve! Capital owns everything because god intended it that way, so just be glad you get crumbs! SLAVE MENTALITY ! GO UNIONS!!!!!!

Henry
I heard in the past that City Council is subsidizing this Hotel and the Hyatt among other business. Therefore a portion of our taxes somehow are use to bring up this kind of business to our city. If City council is economically supporting this company to do business in Long beach, I applaud the City Council to step up in pro of a fair employment treatment. The no discriminatory rule shall apply. Men have the same privileges that women and vise versa. My point is that regardless if they are hired directly or thru any kind of agency, if they do the same kind of job they shall receive the same compensation. If I adopt a kid, I will try to treat him as closest as possible in the way I treat a kid on my own otherwise I better have only kids on my own. All I heard from city officials is for the employers to have a fair treatment and compensation policy. If the Hilton hotel makes a difference because those peoples are not their 'own' they better hire only direct people to avoid this kind of conflicts. If city officials find out that there is a gap on the described above, my recommendation would be to cut off all kind of subsidize to those companies until they adopt a fair non-discriminatory program. Equal work load = equal compensations and benefits. Thanks

Bill of Rights
@reader &thinker: Thank you for your thought-provoking post.

My moniker has no connection to either this article or this thread. I've used it on LBPost.com for a long time.

The Merriam-Webster's definition of constituents omits one that most other online dictionaries use. Specifically, *residents of a district or members of a group represented by an elected official.* This is what I meant and what I believe the other poster meant. Indeed, in this context, I contend it is what most people would mean.

Before publicly taking sides, these politicians would best serve all their constituents by waiting for the results of the investigations. (Remember Obama and the Cambridge police?) Besides, the local Unite Here has historically been much heat, no light. For all the publicized complaints it has lodged over the past years, I have yet to read of this union announcing any adjudicated/sustained complaints against LB Hilton.

Rich
ReaderThinker.
According to your offered definition "Constituent loosely defined can include people who work, but dont live, in a poltical district." This would also include other hardworking employees AND management employees of the hotel as well.
Perhaps our council members are ignoring a much larger group of constituents that do not support their union-favoring position.
I agree with Bill of Rights, and others. This is not an issue our city council members should be wasting time on. How about balancing the budget, and making Long Beach a more business-friendly city.

thinker reader
Rich, as I already wrote: Majority = wage earner, minority = management. Isnt that much obvious? Given their triple digit salaries and high paid lobbyists, I'm thinking the hoteliers are fine. Working people need their elected reps to stand up for them, it's called democracy - another word you might look up.

Anonymous
Re-read this!
"But when employees come together for a common interest - not increased profit, but just a living wage! - they are greedy and unAmerican? Sounds like everyone here has bought the propaganda of the wealthy class hook, line and sinker.

This is the poorest of the poor coming together to just try have a living wage, that's all. How that is threatening to all of you, I cannot understand. I think you should all join unions, too. " - labor supporter

happy may day! these hotel workers are simply asking for a HUMAN RIGHT that will not affect the lives of the wealthy in the slightest way! And yes, it IS COST-EFFECTIVE and TIME-EFFECTIVE to have happy employees. Conservatives, please start thinking long-term instead of short-term.

Fox Wood
Maybe immigration services should look into the status of Maria Medina as well as that of the other four.
Legal?
I'd almost be willing to bet the answer is, no.
And for "thinker reader", here's another word that YOU might want to look up - it's called republic, which is what this country is. We are not a democracy, thank GOD!

John B. Greet
labor supporter persists in mischaracterizing what I have said, and then proceeding to argue from those false premises. I find it interesting -though not particularly surprising- that most commenters on boards like these who routinely employ such deceptive and misdirective rhetorical tactics, almost always post their silliness anonymously. What a pity that many of those who feign the most outrage and indignation on certain topics of discussion remain unwilling to demonstrate the alleged courage of their convictions and refrain from hiding behind pseudonyms.

John B. Greet
(5/20) Thanks for keeping us updated, LBPOST!

Chandler
I know I'm late in this conversation, but I also have an issue with Allison's "trivial misunderstandings" remark. Crum was making a valid statement regarding Allison's use of the subjective word "mere," (which has since been corrected).

John B. Greet
(6/17) Any update on the EDD inquiry into the dismissal of these workers?

Ryan P
The "Hilton 5"? Are you serious? You make it sound as if people were murdered or something.

Also, everyone has a choice where they work. No one forced any of these people to stay in a job in which they were discriminated and treated like crap. Here in America you can always QUIT and go somewhere else. I'm sorry you had terrible working conditions, but don't expect sympathy because you CHOSE to stay there.
Personal responsibility, folks.

John B. Greet
@ Ryan P: Yes, people have a right to choose to whom they will trade their labor for income. But there do exist various labor laws intended to protect employees from abusive employers. For these laws to have meaning they must be enforced. For these laws to be enforced, allegations that they have been violated must first be competently investigated. NRLB is supposedly doing an investigation and I will be interested to learn the results. Another question is begged, however: If these former employees are members of the hotel union "Unite Here" why isn't that organization offering monetary support to their members and, if it is, how much are these members receiving?

Bill of Rights
The fund raiser is yet another publicity stunt by this union. It's all based on unionizing this hotel. No one in Unite Here cares one bit for these women. Other than that, I'm not making any conclusions until the investigation into working conditions is completed. My prediction is that the hotel will be exonerated, at best, found responsible for trivial violations, at worst.

Archive



Allison's Community

Children Today
Friends Of Long Beach Animals
Allison's Archives

Show All Archives

About Us | Contact Us | Policies