Hyatt apologizes for heat lamps being turned on strikers

Hyatt Hotel workers on strike in sweltering Chicago were taken by surprise Thursday morning when 10 heat lamps hanging above their picket line flipped on and stayed on for nearly an hour. Hyatt says a manager was responsible for the move and "it was clearly a decision that was not in line with our values or with our corporate policies." (Chicago Tribune)

Comments

[twerp]

HAHA! As somebody who is fed up with unions and strikers, I find this manager's decision hilarious.

[CosbySweater]

So, they stayed under them for an hour?!?
Doesn't sound like the Hyatt's fault to me.

[Jim]

Typical union non thinkers. Idiots!
Lets just stand here and fry rather than move.
Union steward what do we do?

[KDP]

Have labor unions outlived their usefulness? I like the lamp stunt.

When I was still attending university there was a project to replace the campus bookstore where the local laborers had been on strike for more than a year, thus preventing the completion of the building and holding up traffic on the road along that side of the campus. Every time I drove by the line I'd shout out, "Where's Jimmy Hoffa?"

[stevenvictx]

Strike Strike!!!!

Hey, it beats working

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

I think it's funny.. a little gamemanship.

I'm not anti-union. I'm a federal worker and a union member. I don't use my membership to complain about every little thing at work, but I like to have the comfort to know they are there if I ever get treated unfairly.

I'm not sure why so many people have hatred towards unions. Why should a company have all the power? If a company has the right to fire 1,000 workers on the spot, why don't the workers have the right to refuse to work if they don't like the way they are being treated? The company has to decide what's in their best interest. I think some people think about things like the way the auto union used to be, but the car companies are just as much to blame. The management agreed to lofty pensions because they knew it wouldn't hurt the company short term. Then they took their big pay packages and laughed all the way to the bank knowing the companies would suffer later on.

[necosino]

@ HWSNBN
"Why don't the workers have the right to refuse to work if they don't like the way they are being treated?"

Unless under contract, every employee in the United States is an at-will employee. This means that if they don't like the way they're treated, they can leave and find another job. Simple as that.

[Bill]

Chances are these picketers weren't even union members. believe it or not, many picketers you see are temp workers who are making 8 ir9 bucks an hour and could care less about the issues they are picketing about.

[Me (the original)]

I have been a member of three different unions, at one time or another, and each time I was let go (not my fault) the (expletive deleted) unions did NOTHING for me.

[twerp]

@ necosino:

"every employee in the United States is an at-will employee"

This is SOOOOOO NOT true. You need to research that a bit more. Contract employees and employers who belong to collective bargining groups do not fall under "at will." ONLY 13 states in the US do not have the implied-contract exception.

[Steveinsd]

I agree about the contract employees, as they are usually paid to do something specific (i.e. excavate a foundation, write a certain section of code. But workers who belong to collective bargaining groups (unions)can quit whenever they want. Even contract workers can quit, they just may suffer some form of penalty for not finishing the job. Nobody can make anybody work if they don't want to, it just might cost the quitter some moola.

[twerp]

"But workers who belong to collective bargaining groups (unions)can quit whenever they want."

Not WORKERS, Steveninsd, EMPLOYERS. You need to re-read what I wrote. EMPLOYERS who belong to collective bargining groups do NOT fall under "at will."

[necosino]

@ Twerp

You may want to read up on it, too. The implied contract labor law is to protect employEEs from being hired for a short period and then fired without cause. EmployEEs can still quit without notice or reason. If an employER fires and employee without notice or cause, then THEY are possibly in breach of contract, but it is often hard to prove since the burden is on the employee to prove they were fired without cause or reason.

So basically the states that don't have an implied contract provision are putting employees at risk of working for 2 weeks and then being fired without reason.

Employees can still quit at any time unless under contract. And as Steve said, even under contract, they can still quit, but they will have a civil suit against them for breach of contract.

[Somebody]

What's with the anti-union attitude in this country? Corporate entities have an increasing grip on the reins of this country and unions are the problem? Workers today owe much to the efforts of unions. I think anyone who is anti-union and a member of the working class is a darn fool. Why is there so much cheerleading by the working class for policies that are detrimental to their interests? A crisis in critical thinking, but hey, as long as you can recite your rote learnings, you're a genius....

[305club]

I agree with you Somebody and He Who Shall Not Be Named
It seems like anymore we can't pay enough homage to corporate America while the rest of us get screwed. Lemme tell you corporate America and the "government" (which so many people hate) are in a neck and neck race for the most bureaucratic. Sure unions screwed themselves with job banks and too much division of labor, but anymore management gets perks and raises and we get nothing, I'm a shareholder too. They took my xmas turkey and gave me no raise this year while they get a 25% raise and free medical. What's worse is the middle class working people think they deserve it. Now they call the bastards "Job Creators" why don't they get on with it then? The country needs lots of jobs and profits are way up. I do the job that 4+ people used to do, I'm sick of it...so I'm retiring.

[sometimesilie]

I wrote and erased a somewhat ranty post about this but I'll summarize:

-Unlike many of the people I've encountered who're the most vociferously anti-union, I ACTUALLY HAVE experience working for multiple unions.

-My experience is very mixed.

-In one union, our local president was engaged in some shady (*cough*criminal*ahem*) behavior and the union had our local Fox affiliate sic their pitbull muckraking reporter do an expose, forcing him to resign.

-In another union I worked for an employer where some departments were unionized, others not, but we all did very similar work. In the un-unionized dept's there was (even greater) wage stagnation and *unpaid* "volunteer" work on the weekends. They did, however, provide pizza (<-sarcasm)

-Our union worked without a contract for several years because of differences with the employer. The Nat'l union prez called a rally and showed up in a motherflacking *limousine*. Out. Of. Touch.

-In all these jobs I've had no choice but to either join the union or pay 95% dues ("fair share") to be employed.

-PA is currently working on a bill that would allow workers- like me- to choose whether we want to be represented by a union. The unions are wholly against this. While I would (hold my nose and) choose union representation, I think it is completely fair and reasonable that employees be given a choice.

-Unions are neither the ignorant thieving thugs some of you (ignorantly) paint them as nor are they the savior of the American working class. This is mainly because of the corruption, graft, and general short sightedness that seems endemic in many unionized bodies.

Like many things, workers choosing a profession are left to choose the lesser of two evils: to union or not to union.

There. I have done my best to piss of everyone. I hope you will agree.

[David]

The thing is:

I want the people cleaning my hotel room to make a decent wage and have health benefits, including the ability to take off work when they are sick without fear of reprisal. And get medical treatment, be able to afford housing in the area they work and food and entertainment, because those are the things that help drive the economy.

I'd like them not to be overworked and underpaid, because overworked and underpaid people, especially when they are sick make mistakes and I'd rather not get sick because the maid has no medical benefits and can't afford to take off the time so they sneezed on my new water glasses.

[RockyMtnMac]

".. why don't the workers have the right to refuse to work if they don't like the way they are being treated?"
You have the right.
Go nuts.
Not the most intelligent thing to do in an economy and job market like this, but you sure have the right.
Just remember there are hundreds of thousands of out-of-work willing participants to take your place in a heartbeat. If you were the CEO of a large corporation, and your workers kept going on strike, would you cave in for $$$$$? Or would you sh*t -can them all and move to a foreign country where the labor is cheap and the employees don't strike?
I would cross a picket line in 1 second flat for a chance at ANY job right now.

[GodIsAnAsshole]

I totally agree with Twerp's 1st comment at the top of the page.

[kjg]

My union experience was this...at 19 worked at a national park cleaning rooms. The majority of these jobs were summer only, as that was the busiest season. Everyone had to join the union and pay dues. However, you could not start receiving benefits, like health insurance, until after you'd be a union member for 90 days. Huh...how interesting...the benefits of joining the union would not be given to me if I were a summer-only employee! Fancy that. Left me with a very bad taste in my mouth for unions...basically, they wanted to be able to take my money and use it for themselves, but give me NOTHING for it. How was this helping me? A lowly hourly-wage worker???? What a scam. Unions were a good thing once, but now are nothing more than a means to get at a worker's wages for nothing much in return.

[Charles]

Again taser the management