In hotels, providing for protection of hotel employees; and imposing penalties.
HB1358 amends Pennsylvania’s lodging and housing laws to create a new subchapter on the protection of hotel employees. The bill requires hotels with at least 100 guest rooms to provide a free employee safety device—such as a two-way radio or similar electronic device—to hotel employees who work alone in guest rooms. Employees may use the device when they believe they are facing an ongoing crime, an immediate threat of sexual assault, sexual harassment, violence, or another emergency, and they may leave the area without retaliation while awaiting help.
When a device is activated, the hotel must promptly send a manager, supervisor, security officer, or other representative to the location. If the incident involved an immediate threat or crime, the affected employee must be reassigned away from the guest room for the rest of the guest’s stay without losing hours or wages, and other employees must work that room with a partner or security presence. The bill also allows hotels to keep records of reported guests, notify housekeeping or room service staff about those guests, and requires the Department of Labor and Industry to develop an employee education program and workplace notices explaining these protections.
The bill adds a new regulatory framework to Title 48 governing hotel workplace safety, specifically for large hotels. It imposes affirmative duties on hotel employers to provide safety devices, respond to activations, reassign employees after serious incidents, train workers, post notices, and comply with anti-retaliation protections. It also authorizes administrative penalties of up to $5,000 for a first violation and $10,000 for subsequent violations, enforced by the Department of Labor and Industry, while exempting workplaces covered by collective bargaining agreements that already address these issues.
The bill appears to have broad support on final passage, passing the House 109-94 after earlier committee votes that were closer and more divided. The unanimous 202-0 floor votes on amendment-related actions suggest general agreement with the policy direction, but the narrower committee and final passage margins indicate meaningful partisan or policy disagreement during the legislative process. Overall, the sentiment is favorable toward improving hotel worker safety, though not without opposition.
The main points of contention appear to be the scope of the mandate and the regulatory burden on hotel employers, especially large hotels that must provide devices, alter staffing practices, and manage guest-related incident lists. Opponents likely focused on cost, operational impacts, and the administrative role of the Department of Labor and Industry, while supporters emphasized protection from sexual harassment, assault, violence, and retaliation for hotel workers who clean or service guest rooms alone. The collective bargaining exemption also suggests some concern about preserving negotiated workplace safety procedures.