stand with Governor's action to Hyatt

Recently, the Governor of Massachusetts threatens a boycott to a privacy company. It is very rare in the United States previously and has caused huge social repercussions immediately. We can’t ignore the fact that there exists a fierce controversy over this issue. People from different ranks of society can hardly reach an absolute consensus on this.

For my part, my view will certainly identical with the Governor’s approach: direct employees to boycott Hyatt hotels unless they make an explicit explanation for replacing the former housekeepers with $8-an-hour employees from Hospitality Staffing Solutions. And my analysis will be well grounded with the following sound reasons.

First, no one can fail to take into account the fact that government action is an important tool for responding to harmful and unethical business practices. Although it should not be the primary means of protecting employees’ legal rights, it plays an important role under certain circumstances. For instance, in Hyatt event, almost 100 housekeepers have been treated unfairly and many of them sobbed to government their experiences of cheated. The government should take measures to probe deeply into the event, protecting housekeepers’ legitimate rights and interests.

Second, the core ideology for a business should be honesty. Dishonesty and unethical behaviors will bring a business to its knees, shattering the trust of its employees and ruining its reputation with public. Hyatt’s cheating action and statement ought to be strictly punished by law. And government should help those laid-off housekeepers retrieve their legitimate rights and interests.

Third, under the current economic challenges, government should discourage some negative business behaviors such as companies fail to envision the long-term implications of their behaviors for themselves. For example, in order to cut operating costs, the Hyatt replaces nearly 100 housekeepers with lower-wage worker from a Georgia staffing firm, failing to see future implications: the reduction of social trust, the strike of employees, the government sanctions and so on.

Undoubtedly, regardless of many benefits mentioned above, we cannot lose sight of some areas requiring attention in the process. One great thing is avoiding the questioning of show of support for the housekeepers. Governor should take some practical and effectual measures to help laid-off employees immediately. Another point worth mentioning is that government should control the extent of intervene, to avoid influencing company’s daily operations.

In my point of view, the Hyatt need to make an apology to public and fired workers, thereby saving the image of the company. Due to the fact 1,400 state positions have been eliminated since last October through layoffs, attrition, and other reductions, Hyatt have obligation to rehire the staff, reducing the burden for the government.

On the other hand, the government could further investigate the actual operation situation of Hyatt and fund the enterprise as the state revenue permits, finally figure out a rational balance between government and Hyatt.