We all remember those days in March 2020 when we realized that Covid 19 was going to be different than anything we had experienced in our lives. Almost overnight, the entire country shut down. As we dealt with the unknown, reports informed us that the virus could be transmitted by touching surfaces that had been touched by infected people. Personally, I remember driving to Florida from Ithaca to see my daughter, who was "trapped" there, wearing gloves when touching the gas pump and fearing even stepping into the gas stations’ bathrooms.

Almost immediately, hotel CEOs assured potential guests that their future rooms were being cleaned with every safety measure in mind, and, most importantly, no one would enter their room during their stay unless they requested it. The age-old concept of daily housekeeping was suspended.

Fast forward: We later learned that the virus’ danger was more from an airborne transmission than from touching infected surfaces. Daily housekeeping did not, however, immediately return.

In the most recent previous hotel downturns – 9/11 and the recession of 2008, the industry "came back" by focusing on occupancy and keeping rates low. Four years after these downturns, the industry appeared "back to normal." Occupancy was strong, rates came back, and guests of all types returned at pre-downturn levels.

The Covid Comeback

The Covid comeback was different in two ways. First, instead of being driven by occupancy, the comeback was driven by rate. There were two reasons for this: (1) consumers who had spent more than one year locked in their homes really desired to travel and were prepared to pay whatever the cost. Hence, the term revenge travel was born; and (2) hotel employers simply were unable to fully staff their properties. The employee shortage had two main causes- people leaving this recession-sensitive industry and the country’s failure to enact a comprehensive immigration policy.

The second reason the comeback was different was that certain types of travel did not, and still have not, fully returned. Business travel changed during the pandemic with the rise of, and comfort with, remote meetings, conferences, and hearings - creating a whole new way of doing business. Thus, this new "normal" meant business people were not traveling like they once did, and business conferences were less frequent and smaller. The lack of a complete comeback, the fear of people in guest rooms, and the lack of employees created a casualty: daily housekeeping.

For Employers, the reduction in daily housekeeping has three main benefits. First, it alleviates the pressure to find employees. The labor shortage remains a substantial problem in many markets. Human Resource professionals spend countless hours recruiting room attendants. When their own efforts fail, hotels may turn to labor suppliers. Labor suppliers create a whole new set of issues- the joint employer doctrine, potential penalties for undocumented employees, and a loss of culture and standards. Second, some guests simply do not want people in their rooms. Being able to accommodate guests’ wishes by not providing a service is an incredibly simple way to score guest satisfaction points.

Alternatively, explaining to a guest that the only way for them to ensure that their room will be left unattended is to put a "do not disturb" sign on their door is not ideal. Guests forget. They are bothered to have to perform a task, simple as it is, to achieve their desires instead of simply letting the hotel know at check-in. Third, it saves the hotel a substantial cost. In fact, the cost savings can be so substantial that some hotels will offer incentives for guests to forgo daily housekeeping in the form of loyalty points, food and beverage credits, or other amenities.

Indeed, in some markets, room attendants’ hourly rate exceeds $30 per hour, and in Los Angeles and Seattle, local laws regulate the square footage a room attendant can clean in a day. Allowing guests to opt out of daily housekeeping saves money in terms of the hourly rate as well as supervision, laundry, and other ancillary costs.

Don’t Forget About the Costs

This does not mean, however, that there are not costs. First is the effect on the property. While many business travelers create little or no mess (I make my own bed when traveling alone, to stretch and out of habit), other types of traveling is not as easy on the room. I think back to my days as a "swim dad." My daughter and I would spend three days in a select service hotel where we would spend hours in between meet sessions, eating, working, sleeping, or just relaxing. By the end of the weekend, there were wet towels, leftover food, and other remnants of our stay. In addition, to the wear and tear on the room itself, the cleaning after three days could take two or three times more than what a "typical" checkout would take. The hotels would need to account for this in their scheduling and room credits.

The next and probably most obvious cost is the experience. Those old enough to remember air travel in the 1970s and before, look fondly back on what was once a highlight of a trip. The airlines’ mantra was to make every traveler feel special and to treat them to full meals and high levels of service. Today, people look to avoid air travel at all costs. Whether its zoom, driving, taking a train, or, for the very wealthy, flying private, to many people, almost anything is better than dealing with the commercial flying experience.

Will hotels become like airlines? Already, technology, low-tech like luggage with rollers or higher technology in the form of concierge apps or digital check-ins, has greatly reduced the human interaction that is a key component and highlight of the guest experience. In addition, food delivery apps have made in-room dining, and even hotel restaurant dining, less prevalent. Thus, the hotel simply becomes a place to sleep and not an integral part of the trip.

Impact on Hotel Employment

In addition to the loss of experience is the effect on hotel employment. The technological advancements listed above have all had the effect of lowering employee headcount. Rolling luggage means fewer employees at the bell stand; electronic check-ins mean fewer front desk employees. The same is true for concierge and other hotel services. Of course, the lower headcount is a positive to owners and operators motivated by profits. Alternatively, a reduction in, or elimination of, daily housekeeping is an existential threat for unions whose mission includes growing and increasing influence.

Currently, housekeeping is the area upon which technology has the least impact (though robots that vacuum are here, and other tasks may be on the way). Housekeepers’ importance to the union has grown because other departments have shrunk and housekeeping has not. Thus, reducing daily housekeeping is a huge threat to the most important department of unionized employees. If the union cannot protect the jobs of its housekeepers, the union’s influence on the industry will be greatly reduced. This fact has created what can be described as a two-tier response to today’s daily housekeeping issue.

Non-union hotel operators are free to make any unilateral decisions regarding daily housekeeping. For example, some hotels ask the guests at reservation, others ask at check-in. At least one hotel in New Orleans, a franchise of a major brand, only provides daily housekeeping if the guests request such 24 hours in advance. Accordingly, absent a local law requiring it, daily housekeeping is now a choice that non-union hotels make.

For unionized properties, the situation is vastly different. As stated above, lack of daily housekeeping is a threat to viability of unions in the hotel sector. On a more micro level, it is a source of angst and financial risk for employees. Instead of occupancy defining housekeeping needs, now guest choice also mitigates the need for room attendants on a daily basis. Thus, historical occupancy rates for certain times of year would no longer guarantee work for the employees. Union advocates will contend that this unknown contributes to the labor shortage. Consequently, daily housekeeping has been a major subject of the ongoing, and soon to begin, negotiations of 2024.

Employers will argue for guest choice. At the end of the day, hotels are in the business of customer satisfaction, and if guests do not want housekeeping, they should not have to have it. To continue this argument, employers contend that the do-not-disturb sign is not the solution to guest satisfaction.

Unions, however, will argue for what the employers refer to as "gag orders." A gag order means that the front desk or reservation agents are prohibited from even mentioning the option of opting out of housekeeping. The other option is that the guest can be informed that a do-not-disturb sign will avoid housekeeping, but then the question will arise as to whether rooms with a do-not-disturb sign will count towards the room attendants’ "credits" for the day.

The 2024 union negotiations will establish standards for daily housekeeping in numerous properties across the country. In the meantime, non-union hotels will, absent legislation, set their own standards. Guests at non-union hotels who want, or do not want, housekeeping will need to ask the property about its polices. Hotels will need to ensure that there are no local laws to comply with. Unions will continue to see the issue as vital to their existence.

Reprinted from the Hotel Business Review with permission from http://www.hotelexecutive.com/.