Hotel Profit Implications from Rising Wages and Inflation in the U.S.

Macroeconomic models based on the Phillips Curve predict that as the unemployment rate declines toward the long-run, natural rate, the pace of wage and price growth accelerates and inflation rises.1 In this paper I analyze the profitability prospects for the U.S. hotel industry in today’s relatively volatile economic environment, keeping in mind the Phillips Curve’s general principle that inflation and employment have an inverse, but relatively stable short-term relationship. Although employment and economic growth in the U.S. have been uneven in recent months, the unemployment rate has declined to less than 5 percent, which many economists believe is close to the natural rate. Growth in wages and salaries, as measured by the Employment Cost Index, has concurrently been moving upward between 2.5 and 3.0 percent during the past 12 months. At the same time, general inflation remains below levels that might typically be expected this late in the cycle, although core inflation is bumping up against the Federal Reserve’s 2-percent target. If the inflation rate continues to move upward as predicted by Phillips Curve models (and encouraged by the Federal Reserve), rising labor costs and other expenses will exert downward pressure on U.S. business profits. Backward movement up the Phillips Curve (with greater inflation) coincides with an expanding economy. In that scenario, prices of goods and services also will rise in real terms if their supply cannot keep up with demand, and producers have the ability to raise prices (absent fixed-price contracts such as leases).

Dealing with Shifting Labor Employment Sands

Changes in regulations and tighter interpretations of existing regulations engaged participants in 14th annual Labor and Employment Roundtable, hosted by the Cornell Institute for Hospitality Labor and Employment Relations. They also reviewed changes in union organizing rules. Two Supreme Court decisions dealt with the challenging application of accommodating workers’ health and religious needs, while a new ruling by the National Labor Relations Board calls into question the supposedly arm’s length relationship of employee leasing firms and their clients, as well as franchisors and franchisees. The NLRB also has shortened the campaign time for union elections. In one Supreme Court case, Young v. United Parcel Services, Inc., the Court pointed to a simple principle when employers implement policies for those with illness or medical conditions. Policies must be consistent with regard to how on-job and off-job health issues are treated, and the company’s policy must not be driven by economic considerations. That is, the Court stated that an employer’s denial of a light-duty assignment for an employee could not be based on cost or convenience. The case relating to religious accommodation also involved an economic hinge. In an earlier case, the Court had held that religious accommodations are limited to that which would have no more than a de minimus cost on the employer. In this case, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc., Abercrombie had declined to hire a woman wearing a headscarf on the assumption that she would need a religious accommodation. The Court frowned on the idea that an employer would take religious accommodations into account when deciding whether to hire a person. The franchising industry is attempting to make sense of the NLRB ruling regarding joint employment, in which the board ruled that franchisors that maintain some kind of control over their franchisees’ employees should be considered joint employers of those employees. This is a complicated matter, and the situation is still in flux. Finally, with regard to the telescoped union campaign ruling, these are supposed to benefit the unions. So far, however, there’s no indication that the change has affected the overall outcome of union election campaigns.

Experimental Evidence that Retaliation Claims Are Unlike Other Employment Discrimination Claims

The type of discrimination claim that strikes fear in the hearts of all employers is the dreaded retaliation claim. While employers contend, and plaintiffs admit, that retaliation is different from other discrimination complaints, employee advocates have put forth legislation that would equalize retaliation with the other types of discrimination. This bill, Protecting Older Workers against Discrimination Act (POWADA), would expand the so-called mixed-motive jury instruction to age, and disability, as well as retaliation. Moreover, it would allow plaintiffs, not judges, to decide which types of instruction the jury would receive. In this article, the authors argue that retaliation claims should not receive the same treatment as other discrimination claims (including age and disability), because it’s easy for juries to believe that retaliation is a factor, regardless of other facts. Once a fact-finding jury checks the box to indicate that an employer’s motive might include retaliation, the employer will likely have to pay fees and costs, at minimum, regardless of the claim’s final resolution.