The Good, The Bad & The Ugly in SF Hotel Dispute

By Carl Finamore

Law professors making the case for SF Hilton Workers at the January 7 picket

For a few hours on Friday, January 7, San Francisco’s most contentious and longest-running labor dispute recalled scenes straight out of Hollywood, at least that’s how distinguished law professor Jack Getman saw it.

Speaking from a flat-bed truck parked in front of the city’s one-square block premier downtown Hilton hotel, the Earl E. Sheffield Regents Chair Professor at the University of Texas, fired away: “This is like an old western movie where there are good guys and bad guys, and,” pointing his finger toward the hotel doorway entrance, “here in San Francisco, clearly, Hilton management are the bad guys and hotel workers are the good guys.”

The sidewalk picket audience of around 100 laughed and cheered, including Getman’s numerous colleagues from the most prominent law schools in the nation.

The Association of American Law Schools (AALS), comprised of around 300 Law Schools, scheduled its annual convention of 3000 delegates at the Hilton, the largest hotel on the west coast with 1908 rooms and three enormously tall towers offering majestic panoramic views of the wondrous San Francisco skyline and bay waters.

Impressive indeed, but progressive law professors throughout the country like Jack Getman were more impressed with the down to earth street-level views of hotel workers who have been in difficult contract negotiations with management since August 2009.

According to the union, Hilton is demanding housekeepers increase their workload substantially from cleaning 14 rooms a day to 20 rooms, imposing bigger medical costs and freezing pensions.

Because of some hard work, and probably aided by the hotel’s rather disturbing publicized stance in negotiations, efforts were successful in convincing the AALS to shift most events away from the union-boycotted hotel.

Among these boycott advocates were the Society of Law Teachers (SALT), which moved all of its meetings out of the Hilton.

Salt had already released a September 1 statement urging AALS to support the boycott by pointing out that “the San Francisco Hilton Union Square (Blackstone Group) recently posted its fourth straight quarterly profit and increased the value of its private-equity holdings by 16%.”

In addition, the hotel union, Local 2, UNITE-HERE, reports that the Blackstone Group Hilton owners, the world’s largest private equity firm, announced earlier this year the availability of $28 billion for investment.

By comparison, union spokeswoman Riddhi Mehta explained to me that “The Union’s contract proposal would cost Blackstone $2.5 million each year of the contract, to cover 850 Hilton Union Square workers and their families.”

This total settlement is also less, Mehta emphasized, “than the nearly $3.5 million Blackstone reportedly set aside for each corporate employee in 2010. Clearly, Blackstone has the resources to settle this labor dispute.”

The extraordinary disparity between executive pay and bonuses with the wages and benefits of ordinary workers has become a national disgrace. The ugly truth of the Blackstone Group will, therefore, likely ignite some amount of moral outrage influencing more to support the boycott.

For example, echoing speeches by several law professors who spoke at the January 7 picket, a SALT written statement observed that “core educational values of justice and public service that law professors are supposed to instill in students will not be on display if AALS members have to weather the picket lines of low wage workers….”

The prestigious National Law Journal also took note of the controversy and reported on January 7 that “AALS scrambled to move most of the larger events…although a number of sessions are still being held at the Hilton.”

Local 2 estimates that ultimately two-thirds of the convention was actually relocated.

The list of boycotted city hotels now numbers 10 and has steadily grown in the 17 months since contracts expired with 61 hotels covering 9000 workers. AALS is only the latest success story.

According to Mehta, “Since the Hilton Union Square boycott was called in January 2010, we have moved over $6 million out of the hotel.”

With so many of the most prominent law professors in the nation calling out Hilton management for their mistreatment of workers, I figured enough evidence had been presented. The verdict was in, case closed.
But not so fast, Hilton management called me aside during the picket line and asked if I would like to hear their side of the story.

Hilton Responds

I interviewed very cordial and professional hotel spokesman Sam Singer who insisted that the boycott “has not impacted the hotel but it has hurt city tourism.” I did not pursue further what seemed to me like a contradiction.

In any case, Singer backed up his remarks by mentioning that Local 2 President Mike Casey “was actually thrown out of the San Francisco Visitors and Convention Bureau” because of the damage boycotts have caused to the city.”

A lively, enthusiastic picket at the main entrance was rockin' and rollin'

The hotel spokesman also dismissed the enthusiastic core of 100 picketers, by my count, at his hotel entrances as “25 people outside, a very small minority, while we have 3000 inside.”

Commenting on negotiations, he accused Casey of “walking away from negotiations” and “of doing a real disservice to his members” because the hotel medical benefits offer “is very good and pretty close to what the union wants.”

Finally, when asked about union claims that Hilton was seeking to impose far heavier workloads on employees, Singer responded by saying he “was not too familiar with that issue.”

Local 2 research director Ian Lewis did not look surprised when I told him of Mr. Singer’s comments. He shrugged his shoulders a little and told me that yes, Mike was kicked out of the Convention Bureau but it is an organization exclusively of hotel owners so “his feelings weren’t really hurt that bad.”

Regarding the “very good” Hilton medical offer, Lewis said the “actual current company proposal on the table would cost our members around $200 a month.”

So, there you have it. The case remains open, to be settled in the court of public opinion with workers averaging $30,000 a year standing up to some of the most powerful corporate investors in the world.

The conflict playing out in the streets of San Francisco may sometimes resemble a Hollywood movie but on most days it is not so very different from what real life looks like in virtually every working-class community in America today and that is what gives hope to hotel workers confident they will gain more and more allies.

Carl Finamore is a delegate to the San Francisco Labor Council, AFL-CIO. He can be contacted at local1781@yahoo.com and his writings viewed on Carl Finamore BLAHg

One Response

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Angela Cristiani. Angela Cristiani said: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly in SF Hotel Dispute http://dlvr.it/Czmm2 #Strikes_and_work_action #Association_of_American_Law_Schools #union […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: