The Measure Would Include Hotels and Pier Hospitality Businesses
Some laid-off hotel and Pier restaurant workers may soon return to their jobs.
On Tuesday (Agenda, 10a. YouTube, 4:19:25) , the city council voted to adopt a measure that would, according to a staff report, “Require the operators of hotels on city-owned property and hospitality businesses on the Pier, with five or more workers, to offer positions that become available after the effective date of the ordinance to laid-off workers who:
- Performed at least two hours of work within the geographical boundaries of the city for an employer in a particular week
- Were employed by an employer for six months or more
- Had a separation date after September 9, 2025, that was due to lack of business, a reduction in force, or other economic, non-disciplinary reason.”
Offers must be made in writing, and prospective employees will have 10 days to accept or decline the offer.
In addition, the ordinance would require worker retention at hospitality businesses for a period of 90 days after a change in ownership or control of the business. It would also require notice to workers of the change in control, and for workers to receive a performance evaluation after the 90-day retention period.
Protections will also be put in place to prevent retaliation against any workers who seek to exercise or enforce their rights under the measure.
The ordinance comes amid both great economic uncertainty and potential promise for Santa Monica and the region. The city’s revenues still haven’t recovered from the COVID pandemic, and it’s still unclear how the local economy will continue to be affected by tariffs and other economic policies at the federal level. But economists predict the inflationary environment will continue.
At the same time, large events are scheduled to arrive in Santa Monica this year that promise to not only raise significant revenue but also draw large crowds, which will require the hotels and Pier hospitality businesses to be fully staffed. In June and July, events are being planned on the Pier to celebrate L.A.’s participation in the World Cup. This fall, Santa Monica’s beaches are expected to host a first annual music festival being put together by the same company behind Coachella.
There is precedent for the measure. In 2001, as a response to economic shocks stemming from 9/11, the city council passed an ordinance that “created requirements for the recall from the layoff of workers of businesses located in the Coastal Zone and extended Downtown Core that had gross receipts of $5 million for that location in the year 2000.” The $5 million gross receipts threshold still stands in the new ordinance.
In 2019, the city council passed “retention protections for hotel workers in the event of a change of hotel ownership or control.”
Public Comment
Cindy Pfeifer with the Santa Monica Pier Lessees Association appeared to oppose the ordinance. She said, “This is an anti-business proposal that threatens the stability and confidence needed for a vibrant, fully leased Pier.” She also argued the measure would represent a legal quagmire for smaller operations, saying, “Even minor or technical violations could result in lawsuits that threaten their survival.”
Jim Harris, the Executive Director of the Santa Monica Pier Corporation, asked on behalf of his Board of Directors for the council to table the item and allow time for the Pier Corporation to hold a public meeting to consider all of the variables involved, including the current six-year economic downturn and reconstruction of the Pier bridge.
But several others were in favor, including Louis Watanabe, a retired business professor aligned with Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE). He called the recall and retention of Pier workers the right and moral thing to do.
Workers from Rusty’s Surf Ranch restaurant, and others on their behalf, also pleaded with the council to pass the measure. Proponents also included several hotel workers and their representatives from Unite HERE Local 11.
Council Debate
Councilmember Lana Negrete, speaking as a business owner, said, “I find this to be completely anti-business, and in some regards anti-resident, because residents suffer when businesses close or don’t come to Santa Monica altogether because we’ve made it so difficult.”
She also argued that Unite HERE Local 11’s support for the ordinance represents more of a political calculation for her colleagues than an identified local need, particularly in an election year.
Councilmember Ellis Raskin argued that being pro-worker is pro-business, and said that “the entire community benefits when workers have security; when folks can go home at night knowing they have a safe job.” He also stated that the ordinance strikes a balance in being very targeted and, therefore, limited in the scope of total businesses affected.
While acknowledging that the provisions of the ordinance can be challenging for businesses, Councilmember Dan Hall also said, “they can be life-changing for workers.” He also expressed his belief that, given the businesses involved are operating on publicly-owned land, “As the governing body of that property, we have the right and responsibility to demand a public good on behalf of our community.”
Councilmember Barry Snell acknowledged his struggle with the ordinance. He said he supports the motion with some corrections and asked his colleagues to consider eliminating the provision covering court costs for workers who sue under the protections. He also asked if they would consider increasing the employee threshold from five to 25.
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya agreed with Snell on both points.
Raskin moved for the measure’s passage without Snell’s two requests and maintained the ordinance’s provision of a Private Right of Action, meaning any legal recourse would be between workers and businesses, not fall on taxpayers, despite the public lands issue. Mayor Caroline Torosis seconded the motion.
Then, following some give-and-take between Councilmember Jesse Zwick and Raskin on an amendment striking the attorneys’ fees recovery and returning some language to the ordinance giving employers the right to remove employees under a reasonable provision, Zwick made a substitute motion that moves the item with those two changes. It was seconded by Zernitskaya, who later withdrew her second.
“I don’t think attorneys’ fees is the hill to die on, because as Ellis stated, there are ways to get attorneys’ fees,” said Torosis. She pointed out, as Raskin did, that the ordinance is designed to be very targeted and agreed with Hall’s assertion that the city should expect a public benefit for operations on city-owned land.
Raskin ultimately gave in on attorneys’ fees, and said his motion is open to making adjustments on the employee threshold upon further research on the number of businesses affected between five and 25. The city attorney, however, stated that if there is a change in the threshold, the item would need to be re-introduced versus simply moving to a second reading.
Councilmembers nodded in understanding and passed the motion, 6-1, with Negrete voting no.
Author
About The Author
