Employee Voice in Practice: A Union and Non-Union Comparison Inside One Hotel (by R.L.)

Before taking HRT 3500, I understood the basic idea of unions, but I had never fully seen how much they impacted everyday work. That changed when I realized that the hotel where I worked operated with two completely different labor systems: almost every department was unionized, except one small department where I worked. I had never thought much about that difference until I witnessed how a single management decision, an attempted AI monitoring tool, played out in union departments compared to my own. Seeing that contrast made everything we learned about collective bargaining, employee voice, and workplace fairness feel real rather than theoretical.

One morning, while grabbing a late lunch in the employee cafeteria, I noticed union representatives speaking with groups of housekeepers. The conversations appeared serious, and by the next day, the entire department was celebrating. I later learned what had happened: management had attempted to introduce an AI tool through carts or walkie-talkies to monitor how long rooms took to clean, track employee movement, and measure workflow. The union immediately challenged the idea, arguing that this form of monitoring violated the existing collective bargaining agreement and would increase stress and pressure on employees. After discussions, the company dropped the idea completely. 

There were no prolonged negotiations, no compromise, and no implementation. The workers said no, and HR backed down.

Watching that unfold reminded me of what Bobby Walia, an attorney from Marriott International who visited our class, explained during his guest lecture. He described how, in unionized hotels, any operational change that affects working conditions must go through collective bargaining. Nothing can be added, removed, or adjusted without following the contract and engaging in a structured process. He even referred to it as “slow, detailed, and almost like its own language.” His explanation helped me understand exactly why the AI monitoring tool was shut down so quickly. It was not just about technology; it was about legally protected employee rights.

The contrast with my own department at the time made the situation even clearer. Because the department was not unionized, there was no bargaining process, no contract language, and no formal committee representing employees. Over that period, the task list grew constantly. New responsibilities appeared without warning, including additional paperwork, follow-up duties, and operational expectations that were often communicated only after they were already in place. There was little opportunity to question whether changes were fair or realistic. The checklist expanded, and employees adjusted, even when workloads felt overwhelming. The difference was so noticeable that it felt as though two entirely different systems were operating under the same roof.

This experience helped me understand one of the most important HR concepts covered in class: employee voice. In unionized departments, voice was formal and protected. It had structure, representation, and legal backing. Employees could challenge changes that felt unfair or invasive. In non-union departments, voice depended largely on management style. If managers were open, employees might be heard. If not, decisions remained decisions. There was no formal bargaining process, no steward-led grievance path, and no clear mechanism for pushing back.

The experience also clarified the broader reality of HR implementation. When Bobby Walia discussed how long it could take to negotiate changes in union environments, sometimes months or even years, it initially sounded exaggerated. After witnessing these differences firsthand, it made complete sense. Introducing new tools, policies, or procedures in a unionized environment required careful discussion and agreement. Meanwhile, in non-union settings, change was easy for management but heavy for employees. New tasks simply appeared and stayed.

Comparing these two systems helped me understand why unions exist in the first place. They protect employees from sudden changes, ensure fairness, and prevent new tools from being used in ways that increase pressure or surveillance. At the same time, the experience encouraged critical reflection on non-union environments. Without a formal voice, employees depended heavily on managerial discretion. That dynamic was not always negative, but it was unpredictable.

Seeing both systems operate side by side in the same hotel taught me more about HR than any single textbook chapter. It demonstrated how bargaining power shapes daily work, how much effort is required to maintain fairness, and why HR decisions cannot be separated from employee well-being. Most importantly, it reinforced that HR is not just about policies; it is about balancing operational needs with human needs. That balance looked very different depending on whether a department had a union behind it.

Questions for Thoughts

1. Should non-union departments within unionized hotels have alternative systems to ensure employees still have a voice in operational changes?
2. How should hotels balance technological innovation with concerns about employee privacy and workload?

About the Author

R.L. is a hospitality management student at Cal Poly Pomona with professional experience in luxury hotel operations. Through his work experience, he developed a strong interest in employee rights, union negotiations, and the HR decisions that shape daily operations. He hopes to work in a role that protects employees while supporting an ethical and effective workplace culture.

Note: The picture was downloaded from ElonNewsNetwork. R.L. submitted this essay as an assignment to Dr. Linchi Kwok's HRT 3500 Management of Human Resources in Hospitality at Cal Poly Pomona.