IBJNews

Hotel worker 'blacklisting' ban approved by council

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis hotels could no longer ban contract workers from direct employment under an ordinance passed Monday night by the City-County Council.

It’s unclear whether the measure, which was supported by Democrats and passed 16-9 along party lines, will be signed by Mayor Greg Ballard, a Republican.

“Hotels and temporary employment services should not engage in blacklisting of employees,” councilman Brian Mahern said prior to the vote, drawing cheers from supporters.

Hotel housekeepers working for employment services allege hotels won’t hire them directly when better jobs become available at the hotel, per agreements between hotels and employment agencies.

Also, hotel workers who’ve resigned from temporary agencies and apply for employment directly with hotels have been told they’re ineligible for a period of time as long as one year, said Sarah Lyons of the hotel union-organizing group UniteHere!

Lyons said the practice has left about 1,000 workers trapped in minimum-wage hotel jobs with no health insurance or other benefits.

Hotel industry representatives told a council committee last week that local hotels have no contracts with employment services that prevent them from hiring workers directly.

Blacklisting allegations are part of a lawsuit filed in federal court here last January by 14 hotel workers against several downtown hotels and Hospitality Staffing Solutions. 

The suit, which is pending, also alleges wage and hour violations.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Pass this Law and one Like it for the Uninsured
    When a person comes to the ER don't charge them more because they don't have insurance. Chare them the same as an insured person....or less:)

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT