Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Labor Hospitality Wages topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

LA committee delays hotel-worker pay ordinance, orders six‑month impact report

3214374 · May 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Economic and Workforce Development Committee accepted staff reports, asked the city attorney to revise a proposed hotel-worker minimum-wage ordinance, delayed its effective date from July 1, 2025, to Jan. 1, 2026, and directed a six‑month follow-up on tourism impacts after hours of public comment and mixed testimony from labor and business.

The Economic and Workforce Development Committee of the Los Angeles City Council voted to accept reports from city staff and ask the city attorney to revise a draft hotel-worker minimum-wage ordinance, delay its effective date from July 1, 2025, to Jan. 1, 2026, and return a modified ordinance to the full City Council. The committee also instructed the Community Development Agency (CDA) to report back in six months on the ordinance’s impacts on the tourism industry, including any data on business closures, job losses, market analysis and other relevant projections.

The action followed more than an hour of public comment in Spanish and English during a special meeting that drew hotel and airport workers, union representatives and business owners. Supporters urged the committee to adopt the so‑called “Olympic wage” for hotel and airport workers to address rising housing and living costs; opponents warned that the timing and scope of the ordinance risked hotel closures, layoffs and reduced investment amid weak international travel and lower occupancy rates.

Committee members said the delay and the request for a follow‑up report were intended to give staff time to clarify the ordinance’s language and study its potential effects. The committee amended the draft to clarify the hotel definition to apply the training exemption only to hotels with 60 or more rooms, and approved the recommendation by a 3‑1 vote.

Public testimony was long and sharply divided. Several hotel and airport employees — many identifying themselves as union members or service workers — described low pay and difficulty affording housing and health care. One hotel worker, Michelle Hurtado, said she has worked seven years at a Los Angeles property and earns $19.79 an hour, adding in Spanish, “Por favor, voten sí, gracias.” Union representatives and speakers said higher wages would reduce economic insecurity and keep workers in the local economy.

Business groups and several hotel operators warned the ordinance, as drafted, would accelerate closures and layoffs because occupancy and international travel remain below pre‑pandemic levels. A hotel industry representative said some small, limited‑service hotels lack the pricing elasticity to absorb significant wage increases and pointed to recent closures and staff reductions. City tourism officials told the committee that Los Angeles remains below pre‑pandemic metrics for international visitors and hotel occupancy, and that recovery to 2019 levels could take years.

City staff detailed operational and enforcement issues the ordinance would create. Committee discussion covered which city office would administer training certification, how many enforcement positions would be needed, and whether the city’s recent staff reductions would affect enforcement capacity. Staff told the committee the draft ordinance on the table did not include a 60‑room threshold for certain training requirements; committee members instructed staff to add that threshold to match prior council direction.

Councilmember Price (author of the motion) recommended the changes and the six‑month monitoring period. After a brief request for clarifying language and a second, the committee recorded votes: Concejal Pérez (yes), Concejal Soto Martínez (yes), Concejal Park (no) and one other councilmember recorded as voting in favor; the committee reported the measure approved 3–1 and ordered transmittal to the full council.

The committee also accepted and recorded the City Attorney’s report dated March 7, 2025 and the draft ordinance of the same date for referral to the full Council with the changes described above. The committee requested that future reporting include measurable indicators such as number of business closures, layoffs, tourism projections and any available market analyses.

The matter will next appear before the full City Council; staff will return to the Economic and Workforce Development Committee with a six‑month follow‑up on the ordinance’s measured effects as instructed.