Well, actually it doesn’t - since it seems your apology, Hyatt, isn’t actually linked to any action to correct the problem. It just looks like something that your PR department released after legal told them that you were looking at a major fiasco.
It appears that this week, the manager at the Park Hyatt Chicago decided that the appropriate way to deal with striking workers was to string up a series of ten heat lamps over the area they were going to be running their strike line, and turn them on on the striking workers in the current heat wave.
Hyatt corporate seems to be trying to present themselves as being properly horrified by this action, but while their press release on the subject does say that the actions of the manager in question were against corporate policy, there’s no mention of any consequences coming down on the idiot in question.
If Hyatt wants to present an apology that actually means something there has to be some mention that they’re going to be punishing the lone idiot that they’re placing all the blame on. If they don’t care to do that, or if as it’s been told to me by someone in the hotel industry that Hyatt doesn’t wash its dirty linens in public, they get to reap the consequences of appearing to allow such actions to happen.
No matter how prettily they may talk about respecting workers.
Just to clarify - those heat lamps were not strung up recently for just this purpose. It’s common for hotels in Chicago to have heat lamps under the permanent awnings so in the winter guests can stay reasonably warm while waiting for their car or for a cab. So while this was a dick move it’s not like it was calculated in advance and the lamps were installed for just this purpose. It could very well have been one asshole who decided to flip the switch and turn them on.
Well maybe because doing so might open the company up to additional lawsuits from the manager. Typically corporate HR discipline is not aired in the press, unless it’s the CEO or someone that’s considered a top leader whose departure, etc. may have concerns by the shareholders of a public company. The manager of one hotel certainly wouldn’t qualify.
That may be their choice and it’s certainly their privilege.
I see absolutely no reason to extend them any trust that the idiot in question has been disciplined in any manner, if that’s how they choose to handle things. Which is my privilege.
I’m not sure that Hyatt really cares whether you believe he’s been disciplined or not.
They have to balance the risk of facing additional legal consequences of airing a private employee disciplinary issue in the public media, vs. potentially losing a few customers such as yourself that weren’t satisfied with their public apology as a company.
Maybe corporate IS properly horrified. However, if this hadn’t blown up in their faces, I’m more inclined to believe that they’d be slapping the “lone manager” on the back, giving him/her a bonus, and generally praising his/her initiative.
Strikes always give turds the opportunity to do dick moves. This happens on both sides of the picket lines. I’ve seen sabotage and vandalism caused by striking workers as well as management going out of their way to piss off and demoralize the strikers.
Just think of it as a form of artistic expression for assholes.
I can see why the company didn’t want to lean on the manager though. As bad as he is he’s still on the companies side of the fight. If they start coming down on the people who are actually showing up to work they might as well give in to the strikers.
You’ve never worked non-union have you? Time to fight some ignorance. The 88% of the work force not in a union have a meeting with their management at precisely 10:05 AM everyday. We all line up and drop our pants as the management team take turns buggering each and every one of us and when they are done we say, “Thank you. I’ll see you tomorrow.”
Seriously, only about 12% of the work force is unionized. If the other 88% of us were getting fucked over by management all the time the economy and the country would have fallen apart a long time ago.
Why do you assume that unions automatically mean higher pay? A few years ago a union tried to get the workers at my company to turn. The workers found out that the union could not guarantee higher wages, we would have had to pay dues, and the company was already offering all of the same benefits and regulations that the union would require. The workers voted against the union. Management respected the workers and treated them fairly, and we are still not union today. Everyone is happy.
The company my husband works for is one of the few nonunion of its type in the city. It’s also the second highest paying.
Often the union is put in place because management is taking advantage. I am a union member but don’t automatically side with the union. IMHO power corrupts, sometimes the union holds the power and sometimes management.
Good point Drunky Smurf. Interestingly, something around 50% of US government employees belong to unions. I guess that means it’s more likely that the government will attempt to fuck you in the ass than corporate America. But we could have told you that anyway.