Massachusetts Boycotts Hyatt

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has instructed state employees to stop doing business with Hyatt hotels until it rehires 100 housekeepers it fired last month.

Posted by nmg_no at 08:31 PM | 69 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Edit Account
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

nmg_no

Private E-mail
Visit Home Page

Joined 2007/03/24
Visited 2009/11/17

Status: user

SNL Mocks Obama as a Do-Nothing (169 comments) ...

Massachusetts Boycotts Hyatt (69 comments) ...

There's no Free Health Care: And everyone knows it (9 comments) ...

Obama: Health Care Anger Not Motivated by Race (66 comments) ...

Top Chrysler Exec Can't Pay Bills (16 comments) ...

When Singers Can't Sing Their Songs Anymore (94 comments) ...

Time: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America? (113 comments) ...

Pelosi worried about angry healthcare comments (12 comments) ...

Carter: Racism Fuels Opposition to Obama (355 comments) ...

Obama Called Kanye West a 'Jackass' (137 comments) ...

Michael Jordan's induction speech.. attack everyone (3 comments) ...

Georgia woman on probation for manure pile (7 comments) ...

Laughing Gas.. Run for your life (24 comments) ...

Health Care Debate not based on logic (33 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

So the motel isn't getting a lot of business resulting in layoffs. This guys answer for that is take away even more business?

Very keen business sense.

#1 | Posted by wurster at 2009-09-24 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

I heard a program on NPR yesterday where two women were talking about how they were fired from Hyatt Hotels, then the hotel hired people to replace them at half the wage.

Ahhh, the American way.

"Fuck you, I need my million dollar bonus".

Bad Idea on the part of this gov though :(

#2 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-09-24 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is what circuit city did and they folded. I'd suggest the execs take pay cuts and rehire the house keepers.

#3 | Posted by jackass at 2009-09-24 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where do I sign up for the Hyatt frequent guest program?

#4 | Posted by Redman at 2009-09-24 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

There should be some good deals at the Hyatt, but who would want to go to Mass. unless they had to. I'm gonna check the Hyatt in Maui.

#5 | Posted by fwthom at 2009-09-24 09:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where do I sign up for the Hyatt frequent guest program?

#4 | Posted by Redman at 2009-09-24 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry, your moms basement doesn't count as a 'Hyatt'.

#6 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-09-24 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry, your moms basement doesn't count as a 'Hyatt'.

#6 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

Damn! And she was offering bonus points!

#7 | Posted by Redman at 2009-09-24 09:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kudos and Applause to the Mass.Governor!!!

F-U-C-K the Sleazy Hotel Business!!! Hotels like the Hyatt,Best Western etc have greedy,money sucking rates that are Sky High and Nobody but the Wealthy and those with government credit cards can stay there!!! The majority of Americans are wage earners and so how many of them could ever afford to stay at one of these "Big Fucking RIP-OFF" hotels???

#8 | Posted by AntiCadillac at 2009-09-24 10:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah! How dare they fire people! This is America, where we can force businesses to employ people via the executive!

#9 | Posted by JOE at 2009-09-24 10:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

So . . . why are state employees staying at the Hyatt in the first place?

#10 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-09-24 11:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Best Western ...."Big Fucking RIP-OFF"

Comparing Best Western to the Hyatt.Where do you stay? the Y?

#11 | Posted by bruceaz at 2009-09-24 11:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

So . . . why are state employees staying at the Hyatt in the first place?

#10 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-09-24 11:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because they too have lives outside of their jobs and sometimes they stay at Hotels when they travel on vacation.

#12 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-09-24 11:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Comparing Best Western to the Hyatt.Where do you stay? the Y?

#11 | Posted by bruceaz at 2009-09-24 11:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

You know, they say it's fun to stay at the YM.....nevermind.

#13 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-09-24 11:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

#10 "So . . . why are state employees staying at the Hyatt in the first place?"

Sometimes here on the DR, someone really gets the forest for the trees.

#14 | Posted by boojiboy at 2009-09-25 12:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

"In its statement, Hyatt said the governor's threatened boycott of the hotel would endanger the livelihoods of 600 other employees who live and work in Massachusetts."

Simple answer: Hire 600 from Georgia, at half the wage, unaware of the cost of living in Boston.

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-09-25 12:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

So . . . why are state employees staying at the Hyatt in the first place?

#10 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-09-24 11:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

These are public servants on a tax-supported expense account. You expect them to stay at the Hilton?

#16 | Posted by vernon at 2009-09-25 04:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

I heard a program on NPR yesterday where two women were talking about how they were fired from Hyatt Hotels, then the hotel hired people to replace them at half the wage.
Ahhh, the American way.
"Fuck you, I need my million dollar bonus".
Bad Idea on the part of this gov though :(
#2 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-09-24 04:17 PM

I wouldn't doubt this asshat is getting something from someone.. possibly a competitor or is this extortion?

#17 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-09-25 04:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah! How dare they fire people! This is America, where we can force businesses to employ people via the executive!

It's fine that they fired them, I understand that tough decisions have to be made during hard economic times.

The problem with that argument is while they are firing the people who do the work of making sure you have clean sheets, clean bathroom, vacuumed floors, towels, etc they're STILL paying themselves million dollar bonuses.

They're doing poorly, but they're still handing out huge bonuses to executives who oviously haven't done their part to increase business for the hotel chain.

So yeah. I guess the question is "How dare they fire people?"

I wouldn't doubt this asshat is getting something from someone.. possibly a competitor or is this extortion?

Shit if I know. A few days ago, I was told it wasn't really my business what the governor or senate of the state of Massachusetts did.

Simple answer: Hire 600 from Georgia, at half the wage, unaware of the cost of living in Boston.

Done!

#18 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-09-25 05:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

The company I work with engages in the same practice. They laid-off 5 people yesterday.

We have a very large multi-year project starting up. I asked one fellow, 'who is gonna do the work'? He told me that this is the practice depending on how the company feels about you as a worker.

1. Company likes you and your make low wages - you're good.

2) Company likes you and you make high wages - you are laid off and called back but at the aforementioned low wage after letting you get hungry enough to take it.

3) Company dislikes you - you're toast.

When only a handful of companies are hiring, this is what happens. It's an employers market right now.

How would you react if you were forced to buy that higher priced brand? There is a word for that. It's 'SOCIALISM' and it does not work. It is killing america just like it has killed every other country where it has been tried.

#19 | Posted by Lipzoidial at 2009-09-25 07:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Another politician doesn't understand the "Law of Unintended Consequences."

Is that a requirement for holding public office?

#20 | Posted by daprof at 2009-09-25 08:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

while they are firing the people who do the work of making sure you have clean sheets, clean bathroom, vacuumed floors, towels, etc they're STILL paying themselves million dollar bonuses.

They're doing poorly, but they're still handing out huge bonuses to executives who oviously haven't done their part to increase business for the hotel chain.

#18 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-09-25 05:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

If a hotel has a huge drop in guests, there is no need to change sheets, clean bathrooms, etc., because they have gone unused.

I'd be interested to know just how much these executives at Hyatt are paying themselves in bonuses? You got a link, or are you just spouting the bullshit you read on Huff-Kos?

#21 | Posted by vernon at 2009-09-25 08:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Good night, sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite.

#22 | Posted by CaptainNemo at 2009-09-25 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

#18 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-09-25 05:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'd be interested to know just how much these executives at Hyatt are paying themselves in bonuses? You got a link, or are you just spouting the bullshit you read on Huff-Kos?

#21 | Posted by vernon at 2009-09-25 08:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

As usual, hours later, Axiom is full of shit

#23 | Posted by vernon at 2009-09-25 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The problem with that argument is while they are firing the people who do the work of making sure you have clean sheets, clean bathroom, vacuumed floors, towels, etc they're STILL paying themselves million dollar bonuses."

So what?

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2009-09-25 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

Typical-Americans companies getting their work done by low skill, low wage third worlders.

As for why Mass. uses Hyatt-could be location-taxi rides can eat up a bunch of room rate differences and Hyatts often have better/more meeting room facilities. Assuming there is no drop in government travel/meeting room useage, somebody else will pick up whatever Hyatt loses and the work will go there.

Sounds like Hyatt is just cutting costs prior to going public.
stocks.investopedia.com

#25 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-09-25 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'd be interested to know just how much these executives at Hyatt are paying themselves in bonuses? You got a link, or are you just spouting the bullshit you read on Huff-Kos?

NPR. I don't read huffpo or kos unless someone here links to an article. You're as bad at arguing a point as doc sarvis and corky.

And no, I don't really have an amount, but experience in the past tells me that while the ship is sinking and burning at the waterline, executives will be tossing off the lowly workers while slapping themselves on the back with huge bonuses.

If the case is to be made that they don't need people to clean the rooms, it doesn't figure that they would fire the people making 16 bucks an hour then hire new people who have to be trained to work for 8 dollars an hour.

So what?

Well, let's see.

I don't the executives are going to come clean your sheets. So who's doing it?

Ah yes, the person making 8 dollars an hour, barely scrapping by that's just coming to terms with the fact that the company they're working for doesn't really care too much about its employees. Yeah, that's kind of quality, dedicated employee I want making sure your cum stains are bleached out of the sheets before I snuggle up in them.

Or maybe you were also fine with executives of failed banks paying huge bonuses to themselves then begging for government funds.

#26 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-09-25 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#26 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-09-25 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag: Name dropper

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2009-09-25 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is the job of a state's governor to stand up for the citizens of the state. When a big business screws over those residents by firing a bunch of them and replacing them with out of state people, then I think it is an appropriate response for him to say that the state isn't going to be doing business with that company.

It's not force; the company can do what they please. But for the state to keep giving business to a company screwing a bunch of low wage state residents would be supporting what they did.

I think Governor Patrick deserves kudos on this.

#28 | Posted by DCinMA at 2009-09-25 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Perhaps he could stay at the Hyatt in Mass?

Iranian President Ahmadinejad Booted From Third New York Hotel

abcnews.go.com

#29 | Posted by Bani at 2009-09-25 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not force; the company can do what they please. But for the state to keep giving business to a company screwing a bunch of low wage state residents would be supporting what they did.

I think Governor Patrick deserves kudos on this.
* * * * *

It's his prerogative to do just as you say. My question originally was, why are state employees using the Hyatt, one of the premier hotel brands? I would feel the same way were he to say no more state business would be awarded to the Four Seasons, NetJets, or Mercedes Benz. How many minimum-wage Bostonians are hired to turn down the sheets is secondary to the fact that it's one of the world's most pricey hotels, and taxpayers are ponying up the cash for it.

But whatever. If that's the kind of profligate spending Mass voters want, who am I to argue. If they want to zip their bureaucrats around first-class, then good for them.

#30 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-09-25 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"My question originally was, why are state employees using the Hyatt, one of the premier hotel brands? I would feel the same way were he to say no more state business would be awarded to the Four Seasons, NetJets, or Mercedes Benz. "

I don't know how much business the commonwealth gives Hyatt; I understand that they typical use is for employees travelling for conferences and other business, typically out of state. There is probably some local conference business as well.

I do know that when I was travelling frequently for my employer, a large financial services firm, Hyatt was on my approved list and I stayed there in various cities although I probably used Marriott more. I don't think that just because someone is a state employee they should have to stay at Motel 6 while on business...however, I am curious as to what limits there are on per diem travel expenditures. It might be that there isn't that much Hyatt business being done anyway.

#31 | Posted by DCinMA at 2009-09-25 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, checking rates around Boston, Hyatt is cheaper than Marriot.

#32 | Posted by DCinMA at 2009-09-25 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fair enough DC.
One could also say that it is preferable to stay at a Best Western. At least those are independently owned and operated, whereas the Hyatt's and the Hilton's are big, out-of-state companies.
Nothing wrong with a BW anyhow. I do a lot of travel too, and I'll take a mid-priced motel over one of the so-called business class hotels any day, for one reason: it's a pain in the ass to be a fifteen-minute walk to your car. When I want to go out for a drink or a sandwich, I have to go down the hall, wait on an elevator, stroll across a gigantic lobby, take another elevator to the garage, then go. If I'm staying at the Holiday Inn, I'm already there.

#33 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-09-25 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sometimes when you travel a lot for business, which I used to do, room service is the key to a good trip. Holiday Inn generally doesn't have it...

#34 | Posted by DCinMA at 2009-09-25 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Unless such a decision was based on race, gender,etc - a discrimation covered by statute, it is absolutely stupid for a Governor of state to tell a hotel who they can hire and fire. It is none of his business. All this bullshit started with that asshole Obama who fires the CEO of GM who runs the auto industry, insurance giants, the banks, and Wall Street. Now all these Democrat politicians think it is acceptable to tell companies how to conduct their business and who to hire and fire. It's crazy. The Democrats are evil powermongers. This same jerkoff Governor just led the way to change the laws to choose a U.S. Senator to benefit the Democrat Party and the Kennedy Klan.

I hope Georgia retaliates and tells its businesses not to hire or conduct business with companies from MA.

#35 | Posted by utastaff at 2009-09-25 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Or maybe you were also fine with executives of failed banks paying huge bonuses to themselves then begging for government funds."

Nice strawman. You're usually a lot more logical than that, and I'm sure you know my position on government bailouts.

I don't care what a hotel wants to pay its employees - if they are paid so low that they do a bad job, then nobody will go to the hotel. If they want to pay the executives $10B and the workers 5 cents, then that's their right. Just like you have the right not to go to that hotel. It's none of the governor's business.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2009-09-25 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

.. Sounds like Hyatt is just cutting costs prior to going public.
stocks.investopedia.com
#25 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-09-25 11:49 AM

DING! "The winner, it is you. Make your time."

I knew this was an unfair competition model, and we've seen this done in every sector during the last 8 years, particularly healthcare and technology. So, we also know that they thrive off lowest-income workers, particularly if they don't get reported as an expenditure, yet pay their income taxes.

So, if everyone paid the minimum wage that would be fine with you? Is that the purpose of minimum wage - to suggest a standard of living or to enforce one?

How many of you go to a store and search for a bargain? If you do, then you engage in the exact same practice as Hyatt is engaged in. When you buy a cheap generic brand of product, instead of the old standard but higher priced national brand, you are affecting the employees of both places.
How would you react if you were forced to buy that higher priced brand? There is a word for that. It's 'SOCIALISM' and it does not work. It is killing america just like it has killed every other country where it has been tried.
#19 | Posted by Lipzoidial at 2009-09-25 07:32 AM

But can you haggle for a lower price at Safeway? No. You are going to pay whatever they are priced at. No less. If food becomes too pricey, you mean for people to starve?

#37 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-09-25 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

One could also say that it is preferable to stay at a Best Western. At least those are independently owned and operated, whereas the Hyatt's and the Hilton's are big, out-of-state companies.

#33 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-09-25 04:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, most hotels are franchises, just like Best Western, McDonald's, etc. They are own and operate by a smaller local company that pays a fee for the 'Hyatt" name -- or whatever.

#38 | Posted by vernon at 2009-09-25 08:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

But can you haggle for a lower price at Safeway? No.

#37 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-09-25 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

You can haggle for a lower price at a hotel. And the topic here is hotels, not canned green beans.

Depending on the day and time, you can get it for 70 percent off.

BTW, if you go to the manager at Safeway and ask for a discount on 10 cases of beans, you will get it.

#39 | Posted by vernon at 2009-09-25 08:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Americans would be surprised at the power of haggling. I used to do it just about everywhere I shopped (admittedly not grocery stores) and saved a lot of money. I don't need to save quarters and dollars like I used to 25 years ago, but I still do it just because it's fun.

#40 | Posted by goatman at 2009-09-25 08:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

.. BTW, if you go to the manager at Safeway and ask for a discount on 10 cases of beans, you will get it.
#39 | Posted by vernon at 2009-09-25 08:08 PM

Good to know - I'll gently try it out. Dunno on what exactly yet, since I'm moving to an entirely raw diet, but the winter will obviously be the best time for canned goods.

Anyone with good raw food recipes to share, please do!

#41 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-09-25 08:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Anyone with good raw food recipes to share, please do!

Is this a trendy new age fad, or what? Only raw food?

Why? Aren't the eggs and chicken kind of gross? Where do you get raw milk, and is it even safe to drink?

I'd make sure certain recipes had 3 tablespoons of Kaopectate.

#42 | Posted by goatman at 2009-09-25 08:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Anyone with good raw food recipes to share, please do!"

1. Take a big ole Ribeye out of the package.

2. Put it on a plate.

3. Serve with salt and pepper.

Enjoy.

#43 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-09-25 08:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

1. Take a big ole Ribeye out of the package.

2. Put it on a plate.

3. Serve with salt and pepper.

Enjoy.

Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-09-25 08:37 PM | Reply

That's how I usually do it only I let it heat up for between 4 to 8 seconds per side and then eat. Yummmmm

Larry

#44 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-09-25 08:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

I love extra rare steaks, but I usually get the squirts afterwards.

#45 | Posted by goatman at 2009-09-25 08:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Steak Tartare is pretty damn good. You get the raw egg thing too. Google that one, robot.

#46 | Posted by goatman at 2009-09-25 08:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

4-8 seconds????

Oh, I have to have my steaks a little more done than that.

I marinade mine in worch and garlic. My husband loves lemon pepper on his.

Either way....they're good!

#47 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-09-25 08:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Where do you get raw milk, and is it even safe to drink?"

Fresh and warm right out of the cow (been a while since I milked a cow before breakfast), otherwise I want mine Pasteurized.

#48 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-09-25 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Take a big ole Ribeye out of the package."

Out of the PACKAGE?

Pathetic.

#49 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-09-25 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Take a big ole Ribeye out of the package."

Out of the PACKAGE?

Pathetic.

You prefer it in the package?

#50 | Posted by goatman at 2009-09-25 09:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

#49

Zat:

Some of us don't live where we can raise our own meat...lol

BESIDES, I couldn't have my dinner consisting of an animal that I fed, nurtured and cared for. Lol but hey....I can't bait my own hook because I am hurting the worm or minnow so, there ya have it!!

#51 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-09-25 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Welly, since I did ask nicely what else should I expect? Weak-willed non-adaptable "people" are simply starving for a better life. In my opinion raw food might be a stone too heavy for that ilk, so don't worry so much about not being there for your grandchildren's birthdays and such. They will simply have to adapt and get over such a great "loss", or more hopefully you simply don't breed at all.

In the meantime, I'm completely dedicated to this lifestyle and there is nothing you can honestly do or say that's indicative of intelligent discourse otherwise. I'll probably lose some weight, but for some of you weeble-wobbles I can see how such fat ass keeps your ego upright. Keep on chuggin'!:]

#52 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-09-26 05:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nice strawman

You're right, it is a strawman.

But I've been on the end of the cuts. I lost a really good job several years ago because the company I worked for decided to start opening call centers on foriegn soil because they could get away with paying the workers a dollar a day.

It would be one thing to argue that I didn't do my job effectively, but that's not the case. My record was stellar. Our centers statistics were ahead of any other contractor, and they were still climbing.

A few years later, the owners of the company sold their stakes to make a few million in profits to a company head quartered in France which resulted in more "layoffs".

I can understand both sides of the argument. People start businesses to make money, but when they do it at the expense of the people who actually do the work for them, it's unfair.

So now, instead of cutting back in other areas to keep as many people as possible gainfully employed, Hyatt has created more people dependant upon the state for assistance.

The workers who were fired need unemployment to get by.
The new workers who are being paid far below the the cost of living for the area need welfare.

A few dollars saved in labor results in a heavier burden on the tax payer.

#53 | Posted by Axiom at 2009-09-26 06:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes Lisa 4 to 8 seconds on each side. I am known also to take a 10 ounce steak once in a while and just put salt and pepper on it and eat it right out of the package. Raw Beef if GOOOD Beef. Yummmm. I just won't do raw pork or chicken that way.

Larry

#54 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-09-26 07:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Have you tried the steak Tartare, Larry? You would like it I think. Google it and see what you think. You'll see lots of recipes.

#55 | Posted by goatman at 2009-09-26 07:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

Never heard of it but will check it out. I LOVE Raw beef and raw Buffalo. I just love the down to mother nature taste that is not lost to cooking it.

Larry

#56 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-09-26 07:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh and Raw Milk is to die for YUMMMMMM. Best way to get it is either bend over and squirt it directly into Your mouth from the teat or take a coffee cup and squirt it in there first and THEN drink it. YUMMMMMY.

Larry

#57 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-09-26 07:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think there should be a minimum wage or maximum wage. It's not government's place to dictate what a business should pay its folks.

Housekeeping is unskilled labor. Most anyone can be trained to perform the required tasks.

If the pay is too low, the business owner won't obtain and retain workers at sufficient productivity levels... resulting in a drop off in quality as well as the increased expense of hiring/training due to constant turnover. Poorer quality leads to a lessening in perceived "value" for consumers... leading to a decrease in business volume.

One poster, I think it was LIP, earlier in this thread spoke about the choices a consumer makes when purchasing a product and drew the analogy with an employer's choice in paying wages. Should the consumer be compelled to purchase the same product at a higher price... or should they have the option of paying the lower price? Excellent point.

It comes down to a value proposition. I have a good friend - a guy in his 70's - who has run a security monitoring & private investigative business for a long time. He purposely pays his people more than he "has" to. He does this to retain good people. His turnover is nill, his company is known for quality service, and higher pay certainly helps morale.

But that is his choice... why should it be the government's?

#58 | Posted by OohRah at 2009-09-26 07:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

So OohRah would rather the poor get nothing for their labors instead of having the Government do it's job by protecting it's citizenry by mandating a Minimum Wage. He would rather see the sweat shops and lock ins of the early industrial Revolution. You know when there was no Minimum Wage and people were paid peanuts. Sorry but we must have a minimum wage or else those poor people wouldn't survive. I don't get the Right Winged Mentality anymore. I don't.

Larry

#59 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-09-26 08:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

More people work dead end jobs than people care to admit and without minimum wage laws these people would be trying to get by on 4.00 an hour still. Small business owners gripe about it the most but it is the right thing to do.

#60 | Posted by jackass at 2009-09-26 08:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

LAR-
You're serious and that's not only scary, but demonstrates a lack of understanding of how a business elects to pay its folks.

You present a false choice. I didn't say they're getting nothing.

Businesses compete with each other. It's a supply and demand issue. To compete they have to maintain a level of quality sufficient to generate "value" in the consumers' mind.

Let's say OOH's sweat shop pays $5.00 an hour. LAR's business down the street also has a sweat shop sort of business. If you decide to pay $5.50 an hour you're going to:
1. Not lose your people to my company.
2. Obtain people from my company - the best people, since you'll be their top choice.
3. Cause me to start paying more or settle for greater turnover and lower worker output. This becomes inflationary - not a bad thing.

So, in a competitive environment... companies necessarily compete for labor. By the government installing a minimum threshold, it has allowed businesses to be uniform at the bottom scale... why shouldn't a company be able to pay less?

#61 | Posted by OohRah at 2009-09-26 08:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

#47 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-09-25 08:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Being Filipino, my wife must marinade everything in soy sauce, vinegar and garlic. But here in Taiwan (with nothing but crappy Australia beef) it turns out kinda good.

(I actually hafta go to Manila for good American beef)

BTW, all soy sauce is not the same. Find the local Asian store and get SILVER SWAN. Combine it with DATU PUTI vinegar.

best in the world

#62 | Posted by vernon at 2009-09-26 08:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

why shouldn't a company be able to pay less?

Posted by OohRah at 2009-09-26 08:19 AM | Reply

Man's gotta eat don't they?? You can't eat if You aren't making enough money. Being on minimum wage doesn't offer high quality foods but You still can make it on Rice and beans and whatever else suits Your wallet's ability to finance's fancy. You would have employers paying 2 bucks an hour and getting by with it because people would become desperate for any wage whatsoever. It's the race to the bottom of the barrel so to speak.

Larry

#63 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-09-26 08:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Fire the rest of the employees and move the hotel away, leave them with nothing.

#64 | Posted by moneywar at 2009-09-26 08:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Take a big ole Ribeye out of the package."
Out of the PACKAGE?
Pathetic.

#49 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-09-25 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag: EATS COW DUNG PIES TOO

LOL. Yeah Zoot, we all have a cattle farm in the backyard. Moron.

#65 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-09-26 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Moron"

#65 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-09-26 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag: shiny mirror

I usually buy a fresh rib roast and cut my own steaks, Niceville.

#66 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-09-26 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Unless such a decision was based on race, gender,etc - a discrimation covered by statute, it is absolutely stupid for a Governor of state to tell a hotel who they can hire and fire. "

The Governor didn't tell them who they can hire or fire. He simply decided that the state won't use the services of a company that's screwing over a bunch of the residents of his state. They can do it if they want to, they just won't get business from the commonwealth.

Seems to me to be a free market based decision. And a good one in my opinion. Gonernment shouldn't be using private contractors who turn around and screw the people represented by that government. It's about time.

And note that there is nothing punitive being done to Hyatt...no laws passed, no fines, nothing of the sort. A simple business decision as to who to utilize for services.

You are making a kneejerk reaction to this decision without thinking it through.

#67 | Posted by DCinMA at 2009-09-26 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah Zoot,that's what I pay a butcher to do......

And then put it in a package. My Wusthof's need a break now and then.

#68 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-09-26 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think Governor Patrick deserves kudos on this.

~DCINMA

Agreed.

The increasing Third Worldification of the United States needs to be challenged from time to time.

So what

~Joe

Despite idiots who don't understand how dangerous and antithetical vast gulfs of wealth inequality are to a democracy.

Be Well.

#69 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-09-26 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag: