POLITICIANS, PRESS IGNORE WORKERS FIRED AFTER HELPING STATE PROBE HILTON
By Dave Wielenga
Not one Long Beach-elected representative from any level of government attended Wednesday’s midday press conference outside the Long Beach Hilton, where an organized labor group was hoping to spread the news and generate support for five experienced housekeepers who were suddenly fired last week under disturbing circumstances.
Hey, maybe next time, right? And there most certainly will be another press conference—or rally or protest or something—outside the Long Beach Hilton. The downtown hotel—and the HEI company that owns it—never seem to run out of ways to live up to their national reputation for mistreating workers, and labor groups and their supporters seem indefatiguable in the demonstrations of opposition that they bring to the Ocean Boulevard sidewalk.
But the incident that provoked Wednesday’s press conference was not typical. Although the five housekeepers who lost their jobs on April 20 were not thrilled by their placement in a compensation category that paid them worse than co-workers and provided no benefits or paid time off, they weren’t going anywhere. They’d been coming to work under these conditions for between two and four years.
The problem for the Long Beach Hilton is that two state agencies are investigating the hotel’s tax and employment practices. California’s Employment Development Department and the Department of Labor Standards are apparently suspicious of a the Long Beach Hilton’s system of categorizing some long-term workers as temporary-agency employees who are paid by a rather fuzzy outside business—and whose paychecks are rumored to slide under the table, without the deductions required by law.
After the state investigators contacted the five housekeepers—and two days after three of the women say they discussed their employment conditions with someone in the Long Beach Hilton’s human resources department—they were fired.
Seven days later, they were on the Ocean Boulevard sidewalk.
“These housekeepers are here today to tell you their stories,” said Ada Briceno of Unite HERE Local 11—the HERE stands for Hotel and Restaurant Employees—as a small group huddled a few feet from the loud, fast traffic. “They are going to expose Hilton Long Beach for its unfair and unjust employment practices.”
And they did, in voices that were firm and calm, with accounts that were free of histrionics and full of detail. Perhaps the only clue to their traumatic predicament was surrendered by the emotion in their faces—the realization that their sudden firings from hard and lowly compensated jobs had dropped them from the category of “working poor” into the deeper pit of poor and unemployed.
But the impact of their effort barely registered at nearby City Hall, where not one of Long Beach’s nine city council members could be shaken out of their 14th-floor offices.
Leading the list of no-shows was Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal, who represents the 2nd district where the Long Beach Hilton is located—and whose first election to the Long Beach City Council in an 11-candidate race in 2006 was likely secured by the roughly $30,000 spent on her campaign by Unite HERE. GreaterLongBeach.com called Lowenthal’s office to request a comment, but the staff member who took the message never called back.
Three council members—Patrick O’Donnell, Gerrie Schipske and Steve Neal—dispatched staff members to the press conference to read messages of support. Assembly member Bonnie Lowenthal sent a letter. But the closest the housekeepers got to a flesh-and-blood political representative was former city council member Tonia Reyes Uranga, who stood in silent support.
The press conference’s chances of spreading the news of the housekeepers’ plight and the investigation into the hotel’s tax and employment practices didn’t look any better—not when the news didn’t even make it across Ocean Boulevard to the offices of the Press-Telegram.
The P-T, Long Beach’s only daily paper, didn’t send a reporter. Neither did the Gazettes, which likes to call itself “Long Beach’s favorite community paper.” Maybe they didn’t realize that they could have gone Dutch on one, since the Press-Telegram and Gazettes are owned by the same Denver-based corporation, MediaNews Group.
No reporter from the LBPost.com—which publisher Shaun Lumachi predicts will be “Long Beach’s most-read media publication by Jan. 1, 2015”—attended the press conference, either, despite the inference of on-the-scene coverage that it created by placing a byline atop information that was mostly provided by Unite HERE.
But the housekeepers probably didn’t know all of that. Anyway, they continued earnestly telling their stories.
“I got my job after a friend brought me to the hotel and introduced me to the Hilton housekeeping manager—who hired me on the spot,” recounted Maria Medina, who worked at the Long Beach Hilton for four years. “I wore the same uniform and did the same work as everybody else, but when I got my paycheck, it looked different. It was issued by an agency. Also, I was paid less and there were no deductions for taxes or anything else.”
As an agency employee, Medina said she also worked without health benefits, holidays, sick days, vacation days or a set schedule.
“I was not happy about it,” she said, then added stoically, “but I have four children to support.”
Ironically, it may have been the state investigations into her plight that cost Medina her job.
“Recently I have answered some questions from state investigators wanting to know more about the situation, about how the hotel paid us,” Medina said. “I also complained to the human resources director about my mistreatment and my problem. Two days later, I was fired.”
The Long Beach Hilton shrugs off any connection among the ongoing state investigations, the housekeepers’ complaints to human resources on April 18 and their dismissal on April 20.
Human resources director Ken Melinie told the L.A. Now blog by staffers of the Los Angeles Times that the five housekeepers “are employed by an outside agency. We’ve not terminated any people here. We did end a contract with an agency we were working with.”
Meline explanation for meeting with the housekeepers, since he maintained they did not work directly for the Long Beach Hilton: his courtesy. He described the housekeepers in complimentary terms and said they are welcome to apply for open positions. He insisted that all workers, including those who work for contracted agencies, are paid properly.”
Medina maintained that she does not regret answering the questions of investigators or speaking up to the Long Beach Hilton’s human resources director.
“I am not afraid of the truth,” she insisted, no matter how much it seems that maybe she ought to be.
















15 Comments
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 upon Hilton.
At what point, though, does an employee assume some personally responsibility for the choices he or she freely makes 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; 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, unionized or not, labor unions are no longer necessary 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. Why pay a significant percentage of one’s salary to a labor union that cannot protect one to any greater degree than the law already does?
The two main purposes private sector labor unions still exist today are:
1. To enrich the employees and officers of the labor unions themselves, and,
2. To help facilitate the right of unionized employees to collectively bargain for the best wages and working conditions they can receive from their employers
Neither of these purposes is unlawful by any means, but unions would have their members (and the public) ignore the first and pretend the second is the union.s sole raison d’etre.
This just is not so.
What? The members of the City Council – a part-time body whose members, with a few exceptions, have fulltime jobs elsewhere – didnt drop EVERYTHING they were doing to attend a symbolic event!??! Where will they get the information??? Surely, there is no other way to get the information or show their support. Clearly, the Council should stop everything – forget budgets, redistricting, RDA’s survival, etc – and do whatever labor unions demand. Immediately. No matter what other matters may be before them.
What idoicy. Did the author of this story find out when this press conference was scheduled, or why the Councilmembers didnt go?
This just isnt that big a story,
Mr B Greet: Right, and the two purposes of a hotel business are:
1. enrich the stockholders (who may or not be American and surely in the majority are not californian)
2. Provide a nice service to the public and jobs to the downtrodden
Neither of these is illegal, but you would have us forget the first, and only think of the second.
And the funny thing is, only the first one is real! The second one is just a side-effect.
Sorry to bother you with the facts.
I agree with the first poster. One needs to be responsible for their own actions. No one forced these people to continue working at that hotel. They could have easily looked for a job elsewhere.
I’m sure there are thousands of out-of-work people who would love to have a job right about now.
You and the LBreport are a bunch of losers! Thanks for reading
Hi John, Just to clarify, the workers WERE choosing to work under the bad conditions. Some of them simply stopped by the human resources department to express their opinion that they would like it if some of the conditions were changed—like when they would come to work and then be told they weren’t needed, or when they would begin to enjoy a day off and then be told that they were needed. But it doesnt sound as though they were going to quit. The thing is, they got fired two days after expressing their hopes for better conditions—and after it was discovered that they answered the questions of state investigators who contacted them over suspicions that the Hilton may engaging in some illegal tax and employtment practices. That’s the point of the story. These people were fired for participating in an investigation that they did not start. I think the cops have witness protection programs for situations like this.
I just don’t see why any electeds needed to be there. However, other “news outlets” have said reps from various Council offices were there as well as state assembly. However, this story is possibly more of a state labor issue, or a newspaper expose. But local electeds? Frankly, I would hope they don’t show up.
That’s what we wrote, too: Three council members—Patrick O’Donnell, Gerrie Schipske and Steve Neal—dispatched staff members to the press conference to read messages of support. Assembly member Bonnie Lowenthal sent a letter.
Hi Dave, as mentioned, 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 upon Hilton.
And by “severe” I mean a big enough fine that even Blackstone itself will notice it. It should be big enough to be both punitive *and* preventative, *if* it is proven that the former employees were terminated unlawfully. I think that has yet to be proven, yes?
Hi johnny boy: The primary purpose of *any* for-profit enterprise is to, you know, earn a profit. Not to do so at all or any cost, of course, because there are only about 10,000 different laws, regulations and other rules they have to abide by while doing so and this is precisely as it should be.
But you seem to feel that enriching stockholders is somehow evil, unethical or otherwise improper. Do you or any of your family or friends own any stock? Do you expect a return on your investment? If you don’t, I think you may not have understood the whole buying stock thing.
I will admit that when this occurs in violation of any of those 10,000 different laws, regulations and other rules it certainly would be unethical and improper, but this has yet to be determined in this case. Correct?
As to Hilton’s stockholders, I do not think it has any. As far as I know it is a private corporation. But its parent company is publicly traded on the NYSE. I have no idea whether who or where the stockholders are but Blackstone is HQ’d on Park Avenue in New York.
Sorry to bother you with the facts…
You might want to tone down some things about this article.
Mr. Greet “got his” — benefitted from a public employee law enforcement union — but doesn’t believe other kinds of hard-working, blue collar workers should receive union benefits.
Hi LBer: All employees, public or private sector, should have the right to collectively bargain for the best wages and working conditions they can receive from their employers, if it is their free and voluntary choice to do so.
The disconnect, however, often comes when union organizers seek to convince employees that the joining a union is the *only* way to achieve these reasonable goals. It is not.
The disconnect often comes when unionized labor quite literally prices itself out of the market and a company moves offshore to remain solvent, leaving the unionized *former* employees -who were holding out for 75-80% of something- with 100% of nothing instead.
“The disconnect, however, often comes when union organizers seek to convince employees that the joining a union is the *only* way to achieve these reasonable goals”.
I wonder if Mr. Greet thinks the same way about politicians who are popularly perceived as “sell outs” to powerful public employee unions that collectively bargain on behalf of police, firefighters and teachers.
No need to wonder, LBer. All you need do is ask me, directly, whenever you are curious about what I think on a given matter. Unlike some others who post regularly here and elsewhere, if you approach me from a position of respect and courtesy, I will *always* answer you directly, respectfully, truthfully, and offer facts, rather than falsehoods, to support my positions.
As to your question, I think elected officials, at all levels of government, must represent a true majority of the people (as represented by a majority of the electorate) to the best of their ability at all times and on all matters and as properly constrained by the rule of law.
Whenever an elected official fails of that responsibility, it is incumbent upon the voters to remove him or her from public office and to replace that official with someone else who will not fail in that regard.
I am on record both here and elsewhere that I do *not* believe public employee unions (PEU’s) should be involved in political activities of any sort. I believe that in most cases such activities represent a clear and convincing conflict of interest between the desires of public employees (particularly in the area of compensation, which drive government costs up) and the preferences of the electorate, which in most cases are -or should be- to keep the size and scope of government small and the cost of government low.
I think PEU PAC funds and activities only serve to enable PEU’s to attempt to exert undue influence over elections and elected officials.
Does that sufficiently clarify my thinking for you in this area, LBer?
Ye, Mr. Greet. Thank you.