As New York City’s “Safe Hotels Act” advances through City Council, a revised version of the bill has recently surfaced that removes food and beverage operations from its provisions—a major relief for hospitality industry stakeholders. In the previous draft, hotels would have been required to directly oversee food and beverage services, which typically operate through separate leases or management contracts.

The initial provision was widely criticized and would have rendered many current arrangements illegal, according to Robert Bookman, General & Legislative Counsel for NYC Hospitality Alliance. “The original proposal would have made food and beverage impossible in hotels.”

While the removal of food and beverage operations eases concerns, the core provisions of the bill still stand: improving hotel safety by regulating essential services like security and front desk staffing. This bill emerges against the backdrop of a reported 14,000 safety complaints received by the NYPD about hotels in 2019-2023, according to Julie Menin, the bill’s sponsor. Its 26 co-sponsors argue that such regulations are essential to curbing crime and protecting both workers and guests.

For some guests, these safety concerns are all too real. Sarah Rian Szych shared a review on Yelp about her experience at the Hilton Garden Inn New York Times Square South in June 2021. According to Szych, she was locked out of her room and discovered that all her personal belongings, including cash and important documents, were missing. “I was in room 1104, and it shut down for the night while I was out for dinner,” she recalled. Despite multiple attempts to retrieve her property, neither hotel security nor officers from the W35th precinct helped her. “I’ve been homeless ever since,” she said, explaining how the incident left her without identification documents, making it impossible to verify her identity.

Hilton Garden Inn did not reply for comment.

As a former appellate litigator and Columbia Law School professor Dennis Fan explained, “The bill … gives a baseline level of what makes you a hotel,” pointing to provisions that establish minimum safety standards, including 24-hour security and human trafficking training for core employees.

The legislation is also notable for barring the subcontracting of these core services, ensuring accountability rests with the hotel itself. “The idea is the hotel is on the hook for the main parts of the bill,” he said, which means the hotel must take full responsibility for ensuring the safety of its guests and staff, rather than relying on contractors who might not be held to the same standards.

Critics, particularly from the hotel industry, believe the bill is politically motivated and intended to benefit worker unions.

“The bill is supposedly about hotel safety, but it really is not. What’s really about is helping the hotel union … force unionization of hotels,” Bookman stated. By requiring hotels to employ workers directly and prohibiting the subcontracting of core services, the bill makes it easier for labor unions to organize hotel employees. When workers are directly employed by the hotel rather than by third-party contractors, it simplifies union efforts to negotiate with hotel management and potentially increases union membership among hotel staff.

Fan dismissed these claims, noting that nothing in the bill explicitly requires unionization. He saw some validity in the opposition’s concerns but argued that the regulations are reasonable: “This is the minimum baseline of the hotel … having sheets and having pillows is not a five-star hotel.” He emphasized that many large hotels are already compliant, while smaller establishments might struggle more with implementation.

While critics claim that the bill could increase operational costs, potentially hurting tourism, Fan saw it differently. He suggested that such measures could, in fact, reduce long-term costs by improving employee retention and customer satisfaction. 

“I don’t understand why the hotels don’t view bills like this as win-win situations,” Fan stated, suggesting that improved working conditions could yield financial benefits in the long run.