by Mark Carney
Workers and religios people protest against Hotel Hilton. (photo coutesy of Local 2)
Embroiled in a tense, seventeen month-long contract dispute, Local 2, the San Francisco hotel workers’ union, has this month increased the pressure on downtown hotels with a series of actions. In response, the hotels have enlisted the assistance of powerful business lobbies, such as the Chamber of Commerce and the US Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce.
On Tuesday, Jan. 18, hundreds of hotel workers protested in front of the Grand Hyatt hotel in Union Square. At issue, in addition to the Hyatt’s notoriously anti-union stance and one of the highest workplace injury rates in the industry, is a complaint the Hyatt has filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), claiming that Local 2 is unlawfully allocating money away from a child/elder care fund into a legal fund. Although allocations are strictly stipulated in the collective bargaining agreement, in practice a small measure of flexibility has historically been granted to the union.
Riddhi Mehta, Local 2 spokeswoman, questioned the sincerity and purpose of the complaint, saying, “Around eight years ago, the union switched over two cents an hour from the overfunded Legal Fund to the underfunded Child and Elder Care Fund. Nobody objected eight years ago: Why now?”.
In explaining the allocation, Mehta cited the increased cost that the federal government charges for immigration documents. “Of the 1,000 claims made in the last six months to the Legal Fund, 75 percent were related to immigration; Hyatt workers, ironically, are the second-highest benefi ciaries of the Fund,” said Mehta, hinting that the Hyatt may also have an anti-immigrant agenda.
Many observers noted that, in the press conference announcing the complaint, little mention was made of the complaint itself. Instead, Hyatt general manager David Nadelman and representatives of powerful business lobbies, both national and local, spoke of the detrimental economic impact of the stalled contract negotiations, which they asserted to be entirely the fault of Local
2. “A prolonged labor action has a negative impact on our economy where tourists contribute $8 billion annually, 70,000 jobs are directly involved and $500,000 in tax revenue is generated, argued Joe D’Alessandro, CEO of the San Francisco Travel Association.
Two weeks ago, on Jan. 7, Local 2, together with several prominent law professors, protested in front of the Hilton Union Square Hotel. The protest, consisting of a picket line and a rally, was in support of the national boycott of Hilton hotels undertaken by groups allied with labor unions.
The picket line, made boisterous by the indignation of the workers and the chanting of union songs to the accompaniment of a drummer and two saxophonists, lasted four hours.
The chants, fittingly, were short and catchy, such as this one: “We’re gonna pull the plug, We’re gonna shut them down, San Francisco is a union town.” Passersby, both in cars and on foot, showed support for the rally, although most likely those staying in the Hilton disapproved.
During the rally, several well-known law professors spoke in favor of a boycott which their own professional association, the American Association of Law Schools, had chosen not to honor. Karl Klare, a professor of Law at Northeastern University, urged on the workers, telling them that, “ In every generation workers have to devise new strategies… The conventional strike is no longer the weapon of choice for unions.”
