Connect with us

Business

With strike behind them, Los Angeles hotels look to move on

Published

on

With strike behind them, Los Angeles hotels look to move on

On a spring day last year, representatives from dozens of Los Angeles-area hotels gathered for a meeting with the union representing their cleaners, front desk clerks and other workers.

The workers’ contracts with the hotels had expired and leaders from Unite Here Local 11 laid out a stark proposal for new agreements, which included an immediate $5 an hour raise for its members.

It was a nonstarter for the hotel owners and operators — so much so they refused to send their negotiators to the next bargaining session. Weeks of tense negotiations followed and when talks broke down, Unite Here launched a strike thought to be the largest ever to hit the U.S. hotel industry.

The strike’s intermittent work stoppages, which had staff at more than 60 hotels walking off the job, would go on for more than a year. Workers in red shirts sporting drums and horns became a fixture outside of Los Angeles hotels. Picket lines were tumultuous at times and the disruption riled hotel guests, who lashed out at workers.

But now calm has returned. All but a few of the hotels involved in the strike have agreed to new contracts, conceding on the wage increases that had kicked off the strike as well as other demands made by Unite Here. In all, workers are set to receive a total hourly boost of $10 over the course of the four-year contracts.

Advertisement

While the labor unrest roiled a keystone of Southern California’s tourism industry and the new contracts have added to the hotels’ labor costs, hospitality experts said the strike isn’t expected to have a lasting impact on the region’s hotel industry. Hotels have emerged largely unscathed as demand for rooms in the region is healthy and revenue for the hotels climb.

“Right now people have been traveling and I would say hotels are doing well,” said Ed Fuller, a hotel and lodging industry veteran who previously served as Marriott International’s president and now runs an Irvine-based consulting group.

With the strike out of the way, Fuller said the hotel and broader tourism industry should be focused on boosting the number of international tourists back to pre-pandemic levels and “having the commitment that Los Angeles — and Orange County, and San Francisco and the whole state — is selling at all times.”

Upscale hotels in thriving coastal markets, which typically have unionized workforces, are doing relatively well, said Ryan Kawai Sanchez, an associate with real estate firm Matthews.

In particular, occupancy rates at hotels in Los Angeles County averaged more than 70% over the last 12 months, putting the region above the national average of 62.7%, according to data released by the travel industry nonprofit Visit California. The same is true for Orange County.

Advertisement

But not all hotels in the L.A. region are thriving, and location can be a deciding factor. Occupancy rates at the Glendale Hilton, for example, are hovering around 50%, said Travis Gemoets, an attorney at Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, which represents the property. Glendale, Pasadena and other more out-of-the-way areas don’t offer the same draw as more desirable and conveniently located areas such as downtown L.A. and near Los Angeles International Airport.

“It’s just a different market,” Gemoets said.

It was those differences in performance, Gemoets said, that led the Glendale Hilton’s owners to be reluctant to make a deal with Unite Here, since the increased wages the union was demanding would hit the hotel harder than more prosperous properties. The hotel eventually agreed to the wage increase last month, after other hotels in the area reached tentative agreements.

Workers took to the picket line at the Hilton Pasadena in December.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

“We want labor peace and that’s why we agreed,” Gemoets said.

Union leaders have said they try to extract greater concessions from hotels that prolong negotiations. For instance, in its agreement with Hotel Figueroa, announced last week, the union won an extra dollar raise for non-tipped workers, amounting to a total hourly boost of $11 over the course of the contract, as well as an extra $1 per hour contribution to workers’ pensions. In its deal with the Glendale Hilton, the union secured additional hours for culinary workers and higher pay for tipped workers.

Hotels — whether unionized or not — are battling higher labor costs due to ripple effects from fast-food minimum wage legislation and rising insurance premiums, as multiple insurance providers have abandoned the California market, experts said.

Motels and lower-tier hotels, particularly in California’s rural areas or regions generally with less foot traffic than touristy coastal areas, are lagging behind, Sanchez said. Overall, hotels in the state haven’t completely recovered to pre-pandemic occupancy levels, he said.

Advertisement

“We are really only seeing that year-over-year growth in the luxury sector, and that’s largely due to higher-end customers not being as affected by inflationary pressures as the overall population,” Sanchez said.

Still, “hotels are in pretty darn good shape overall,” said Carl Winston, a professor and director of the hospitality and tourism management program at San Diego State.

Hotel businesses can — and do — pass along added costs to customers, by upping their prices, Winston said. Hotel room rates have gone up dramatically, far exceeding inflation, because it’s the “only thing they can grow.”

“If hotels have a cost increase, they can pass it along to the consumer tomorrow,” Winston said. Hotels change their prices every damn day.”

He said the wage increases built into the new labor agreements are far less of an issue for most major hotels than the debt many of them have taken on, primarily from mortgages with unfavorable interest rates, construction loans and commitments to investors.

Advertisement

“There’s a sense of resignation when it comes to organized labor. It’s almost like, ‘OK, we don’t want them, but they aren’t our biggest threat,’” Winston said. “If you go to hotel boardrooms today, they aren’t talking about wages as an existential threat, it’s the cost of debt they are talking about.”

The lodging industry typically evaluates its health based on two main metrics: occupancy rates and average daily rates.

After rising steeply the last few years, hotel prices in the U.S. this year have remained mostly flat compared with the same time last year, according to data released in April by online booking site Hopper. Higher prices allow businesses to draw in more revenue, but also run the risk of driving away customers.

The median nightly rate for hotels in California this year is $206, a 6% decrease in cost compared with last year’s median of $220, according to data from Kayak. In June, the state’s average daily rate was $192.16, down 0.7% year over year, according to Visit California.

An apparent spike in prices for hotel rooms, Airbnb and other short-term options may show up for California visitors in the coming months, due to a new California law aimed at bringing transparency to resort fees, service fees and hidden prices that jack up a consumer’s bill.

Advertisement

Under the law, businesses must include mandatory fees in their initial advertised prices. Lynn Mohrfeld, president and chief executive of the California Hotel and Lodging Assn., said the group supported the legislation in Sacramento because it should bring “a level playing field” between hotels and the vacation rentals.

“If everybody does it the same way, it makes it a better buying experience for the consumer,” she told The Times earlier this year.

Dealing with the hard numbers of pricing and occupancy rates are a welcome return to normal for hotel owners after the upheaval of the strike.

Unite Here deployed a combination of disruptive tactics — noisy picketing in the early morning, surprise work stoppages, marches through hotel lobbies — that helped put pressure on hotels, said union leaders and hotel industry experts in interviews.

“Hotels were like, ‘This is crazy,’” Bill Doak, of Westwood-based real estate investment firm Stockdale Capital Partners, said of Unite Here Local 11’s demands. Doak’s firm owns the Sandbourne, a Santa Monica hotel that reached a tentative agreement with the union last November. “It was the union’s tactic to make sure hotel owners felt the pain,” Doak said.

Advertisement

Hotels put together contingency staffing plans and told guests they expected to be able to serve them largely without interruption. That proved a difficult task at times.

When workers walked out during the busy Fourth of July weekend, people visiting Disneyland, the Anime Expo downtown and the L.A. leg of Taylor Swift’s Eras tour were greeted outside their hotels by picketing workers banging on drums and blowing vuvuzela horns — of which the union has purchased hundreds.

In online reviews, guests vented frustrations with both hotel management and picketing workers. “If you want to have a peaceful vacation, choose another location,” wrote a tourist who stayed at 1 Hotel West Hollywood in August.

Early on, managers at some hotels realized that the delivery of portable toilets signaled the union’s plans to carry out a work stoppage and protest in front of the property, said Kurt Petersen, Unite Here Local 11 co-president. To confuse them, the union sent toilets to hotels at random.

In January, Unite Here Local 11 organizers took stock of the dozens of hotels that had not yet agreed to new contracts and noticed about 80% were owned by private equity firms or operated by companies owned by such firms.

Advertisement

The union then made more concerted efforts to target companies such as Aimbridge and Blackstone with work stoppages and ramped up efforts to reach out to public pension funds invested in the private equity firms.

“Are those tactics working? Are they getting owners and managers to come to the table? I think the proof is in the results. They are winning right now,” Winston said.

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Published

on

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.

Advertisement

What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.

But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.

Advertisement

The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.

Advertisement

How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments

To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.

Advertisement

The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.

In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.

In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.

Advertisement

Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.

Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.

Advertisement

Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.

Advertisement

How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies

With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.

Advertisement

The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.

The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.

Advertisement

The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.

One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.

Advertisement

Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.

And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Methodology

Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending