Walking the line: Hyatt and IML
A boycott of some Hyatt hotels has been called by laborers protesting the hotel's lack of respect for working conditions and job security. Laborers at Hyatt hotels suffer from higher workplace injury rates than other hotels, and, in Chicago, Hyatt hotels have been unwilling to accept labor contract terms accepted by all of the other major branded Chicago hotels. Gay Liberation Network has endorsed the boycott and participated in the picket line. We feel others in the LGBT community should be involved, too. Why?
First of all, the hospitality industry is a large employer of LGBT folk; these are our working conditions that need improvement.
Second, LGBT life historically has improved due to our ties with organized labor. Harvey Milk's solidarity with the Teamsters in the 1970s made anti-gay industrialists like the Coors' family sit up and take notice that business would suffer if LGBT demands were flouted. In addition, from the 1990s to the present, union workers have fought for and gained contracts that have included domestic-partnership benefits—making those benefits relatively commonplace—to the benefit of everyone in the LGBT community.
Yet, LGBT organizations and individuals are ignoring the current labor boycott. Specifically, in Chicago, International Mr. Leather (IML) held its event this spring at the boycotted Hyatt Regency Chicago and violated the picket line. This organization and its founder, Chuck Renslow, have shown the kind of disrespect to workplace issues that, were it shown to purely LGBT issues, would occasion howls of protest from these same people.
We urge the LGBT community to support the hotel workers' boycott and build LGBT community by learning more at www.sleepwiththerightpeople.org . Additionally, send IML the message to change its venue for 2012's event to a hotel where workers hold a contract (write them at: info@imrl.org ).
In solidarity,
Gay Liberation Network
www.gayliberation.net
Windy City Times asked IML
Founder/Executive
Director Chuck Renslow to respond to
this letter. His reply is as follows:
Intenational Mr. Leather (IML) is very much aware of the issues and challenges being faced by the local union members currently working without a contract with the Hyatt hotels here in Chicago. In as much as IML is genuinely sympathetic to the issues being raised by the Gay Liberation Network (GLN) as well as the management of Local 1, we are also bound by a contract signed with the Hyatt Regency more than five years ago. We have said all along this was not our fight; yet, we are hopeful that calmer heads prevail and the negotiating parties can find the necessary common ground to work out an agreement.
That said, a few points raised in the GLN letter to Windy City Times need to be addressed. While it is true that IML was held at the Hyatt this past May, there was NO picket line that was violated. Ever. It is true that there was a demonstration out on the sidewalk late Friday afternoon of IML weekend, but this ended inside of a few hours. At no time was there a strike of workers inside of the hotel. To call that a picket-line violation is a wild stretch by anyone's imagination.
To label IML as being disrespectful of workplace issues is beyond unfair and we've yet to hear any evidence regarding the truthfulness of this statement. The 15,000+ attendees of IML go out of their way to show their appreciation to the staff they encounter. Our guests are often quite generous with their gratuities. In addition, if you consider the $14 million-$18 million in tourist revenue to the city of Chicago, those gratuities are considerable.
What GLN and others won't ask you to consider is the lack of courtesy or respect shown to members of the leather community around the country. There are letters, emails and phone calls to titleholders' places of employment—without regard to their personal privacy (outing); vendors and other businesses being visited and sometimes uninvited; and on and on. We understand their desire to perform outreach and inform but the "what is acceptable and appropriate" line in the sand has been crossed more than once.
As we understand the issues as they stand now, the Hyatt had offered to match the identical contract package now in effect at the other major hotels in Chicago. The union refused this, as there are clearly other issues in play, perhaps on a more national level. This may be true but, at the same time, is something to consider. We will not get into the nuts and bolts as, again, this is not IML's fight. However, GLN should again stick to the things that are factual, not assumed. It is well known that Hyatt was one of the very first to offer insurance for domestic partnerships, something of which it should be proud. The inference made by GLN that this may be taken away or does not exist at the Hyatt is a bit of a red herring, if only to sway people to GLN's point of view.
The contract with the Hyatt was signed in 2006 and provides for severe penalties should we cancel the event. In as much as we have a good working relationship with the Hyatt Regency, the hotel has also made it clear it will hold us to that part of the contract. Does GLN or anyone else have in excess of $900,000 to pay this termination fee? IML doesn't.
More so, even if we were to be released from our agreement, where do people think IML will be held in 2012? The reason contracts are signed years in advance is due to the competitive nature of convention and hotel space in Chicago. No other property is available to us for any number of reasons—yes, we really looked into it. We cannot, as the representatives of Local 1 told us at a meeting in December 2010, move our event to multiple hotels out in the suburbs and break up the vendor market, the social hub of IML weekend, into several locations. Really?
At the end of the day, IML is planning its event at the Hyatt in 2012, the final year of our agreement. At the same time, not a meeting with Hyatt management passes without IML applying as much pressure as is possible to get this labor issue resolved, even though this is not our fight. We do this because we strongly believe it's the right thing we can do. However, at the same time, people should not forget we made this agreement more than five years ago and are legally bound to keep our word.
And isn't that precisely what the union is fighting for? A good and fair agreement that both sides will sign and agree to honor?
Chuck Renslow
Founder and Executive Producer
International Mr. Leather, Inc.
Oh, Father
Dear Ald. Tunney:
I write this letter to express my wholehearted support for keeping the proposed LGBT parade route on Belmont. As a member of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church for the past 18 years, I was greatly disappointed to hear Father Thomas Srenn speak at Mass, asking parishioners to sign a petition changing the route because "it was going to make it difficult for parishioners to attend mass and, after all, Catholics attend mass on Sunday." It is true that the parade may cause parishioners some inconvenience on this day. What I would like to address is not what he said during the two different masses that I attended (during which he advocated for this petition), but what he did not say.
I am profoundly disappointed that the only concern Fr. Srenn has expressed from the pulpit related to this issue is the inconvenience to parishioners and to himself. It is important to remember why there is a parade in the first place. The reason the LGBT community needed to, and still needs to, have this annual event is because of the profound and consistent discrimination this group experiences by society related to a whole host of equal-rights issues.
It was just a few years ago that Cardinal George said that "Illinois state legislators who voted for the Illinois same-sex marriage bill violated their faith before God (published in the Mt. Carmel and other church bulletins)." I remember this vividly because I spoke to Fr. Srenn at the time about the church's involvement in lobbying activities as a nonprofit organization.
If the parade celebrated and supported women and their contributions to society, would Fr. Srenn object that it was inconvenient? Or, if the parade was for African-Americans, Hispanics or any other group, would there be such a complaint? I wonder if there is not, in fact, a rank ordering by some related to whom it is acceptable to still discriminate against and who it is not.
I mention this because at no time during Fr. Srenn's address to the parish did he mention the importance of recognizing and supporting the LGBT community. I find it odd to lobby so strenuously against a parade that is designed to celebrate and support an oppressed group without once even mentioning the reason why the parade is being held.
He might mention that the church hosts the weekly AGLO (Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach) Mass—which is for the LGBT community—as evidence of his support. It is also important to mention that AGLO rents the space, and that the group is an income source. Apparently from the news reports, Fr. Srenn is not willing to consider moving some Masses to earlier or later times on this particular Sunday. It is not a problem to change the times of masses on holy days and feast days—many of which I have attended—and they typically are not on the regular mass schedule. Why the unwillingness to make some accommodations on this one Sunday?
In closing, I fully support keeping the parade route along Belmont. Celebrating our diversity as a society and working to secure equal rights for everyone is, unfortunately, occasionally "inconvenient." I would suggest to Fr. Srenn and my fellow parishioners that this is, in fact, a teachable moment. Questions from the pulpit that might stimulate meaningful reflection include: Why was the Pride Parade created in the first place? What were the conditions in society that precipitated this event? Why does it still have growing relevance for participants and supporters? What is the role and responsibility of a Christian community related to extending faith, hope, love and charity to the LGBT community? Unfortunately, this last question was not the first and most important consideration.
Thank you,
Gregory M. Hauser, Ph.D.
Chicago
