PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Testimony by Eric Mosher, Lead Economist at Independent Budget Office (IBO), on Intro 991-B
3:19:40
·
150 sec
Eric Mosher, Lead Economist at the Independent Budget Office (IBO), presents findings from a forthcoming IBO report on the potential impact of Intro 991-B (the Safe Hotels Act) on hotels in New York City. He focuses on which types of hotels are most likely to be affected by the bill's provision restricting subcontracting for certain hotel employees.
- The analysis suggests that lower-cost independent hotels outside Manhattan are likely to be more affected by the direct employment provisions in the Safe Hotel Act.
- The IBO's analysis found a relationship between union status, direct employment of staff, and daily room rates in New York City hotels.
- Mosher notes that the IBO's analysis was limited to hotel establishments rather than employees and wages due to minimal information on subcontractors in the NYC hotel industry.
Eric Mosher
3:19:40
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee on consumer and market protection.
3:19:46
My name is Eric Mosier, and I'm a lead economist for the independent budget office.
3:19:50
My testimony today will highlight findings from a forthcoming IVO report that explores the potential impact of introduction 991b with the Safe Hotels Act on Hotels in New York City.
3:20:00
There's minimal information on the wages and employment of subcontractors in in the New York City hotel industry.
3:20:06
Limiting the scope of IBO's analysis to hotel establishments rather than employees and wages.
3:20:11
It's important to note the topics and issues that are not included in IBO's research presented today.
3:20:17
First, potential net effects of the bill on wages and hospitality industry to the e potential economic impact of changes to hotel employee wages, ways that hoteliers may respond to the bill's provisions, such as absorbing higher wages into operating budgets or raising room rates, and levels of tourism to City.
3:20:35
Today, I will specifically focus on what types of hotels are most likely to be affected by the bill's provision that restricts subcontracting for certain types of hotel employees.
3:20:45
2 premises underlie IVO's analysis.
3:20:48
The first is that Requiring direct employment of core employees would impose higher payroll costs to nonunion hotels relative to union ones.
3:20:58
Because union hotels are already more likely to follow some are all of the labor requirements in the bill.
3:21:04
Due to existing union contracts.
3:21:07
2nd is that the bills impact on establishments payrolls would be greater for hotels that currently have fewer direct employees per room.
3:21:13
In some cases, fewer direct employees may mean that the hotel engages subcontractors.
3:21:18
In other cases, it may mean that the hotel simply has fewer employees per room whether direct or subcontractor.
3:21:24
IBO assumes that on average hotels with fewer direct employees per rooms are likely to be using more subcontractors than hotels with more direct employees per room.
3:21:32
Under these assumptions, IBIO compared the characteristics of unionized hotels and non unionized hotels and then compared the characteristics of hotels with different ratios of direct employment per room.
3:21:43
And I will Yes.
Julie Menin
3:21:45
If you wanna see
Ilda Alvarez
3:21:45
if it has
Julie Menin
3:21:46
Submit for
Aretha Wareham
3:21:47
the Yeah.
Eric Mosher
3:21:47
But if I can just skip ahead of the summary.
3:21:49
So in summary, IVO's analysis, we focused on types of hotel establishments and found a relationship between union status, direct employment of staff, and daily room rates in New York City Hotels.
3:22:00
Overall, IBO's analysis suggests that the direct employment provisions in the Safe Hotel Act are likely to affect lower cost independent hotels outside Manhattan to a greater extent than other types of hotels in the city.
