The Daily Herald

Maybe I'm missing something but in that article it states "when the resort re-opens" which I believe means it's not presently open....sooooo..why is it unacceptable to reduce the workers hours until the resort re-opens?

I understand that the workers need a wage and it's a union power thing but, in reality, right now they previous (and future) tasks are not needed.

I agree. While I hate to see anyone out of work who wants to work and considering the circumstances, they are doing pretty good to at least have some income from a limited schedule.

If there's no income how are they supposed to pay anyone......? <img src="http://www.traveltalkonline.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

First, you're assuming that they DON'T have any income, which may or may not be the case. If you buy it, most insurance has a 'business interruption' component which would pay to substitute for lost income. However, as I understand it, SXM law says that if you have a union contract, the business cannot just unilaterally change or reduce workers' hours. They have to try to meet with the union to discuss the matter and see if the two sides can agree on a resolution. If they can't, I think the business has to go to court and can't just unilaterally reduce hours.

Unfair to pass judgement because of the unknown elements for Divi or any resort regarding the actions of management and employees. What reimbursement was provided by insurance? What are the details of their labor contract with regard to minimum hours and days agreed to as a minimum? We all feel badly for the folks that were hurt by the hurricane but businesses cannot recover by operating at a loss.

Aren't the Dutch marines staying there? I would guess that they are paying. And the rooms need cleaning, towels washed, etc.

WIFOL met with Divi management a couple of weeks ago, and the agreement was to pay workers for four days; now Divi is reducing that to two arbitrarily.

But what bothers me even more (I do understand paying out when nothing is coming in isn't good for the bottom line) is that they are forbidding employees who opt for the $250 from working elsewhere. They aren't paying sustainable wages so why prohibit employees from other employment during that time?

If they go to work someplace else they might not come back to divi when divi opens.

I wouldn't blame them if they went elsewhere right now, and I think that's pretty dirty of them to require them not to work someplace else. How are people going to survive on that amount of money?

I wonder what other resorts are doing about their help? Seems a good gesture on Divi's part to keep workers on at reduced schedule so they at least get some income.

Maybe Divi doesn't have that "business interruption" insurance?

That is why I suggested that we make no judgement calls until (if ever) we know the details behind any decisions made by Divi management.
What type of insurance coverage do they have?
What is the extent of their damage?
What has Divi management agreed to in the current labor contract with their employees?

Assuming things are similar to the U.S Time Element " business income and extra expense coverage can be purchased several ways. It be purchased with a flat limit for a specific number of months, ( monthly limitation ) or in some cases what is called 12 months ALS meaning actual loss sustained. Often times in both cases " ordinary payroll is lined to 60 or 90 days. Based on experience here U S) in areas that are prone to wind and water the latter would be very expensive. Without any facts it would appear to me that they are trying to extend the time period that they can pay employees with the limitation they have. The monthly limitation is extended if you don't spend the full allocation. Its not like Divi could collect the payroll expense from the company and pocket it. They must realize and provide documentation for the expense to be reimbursed.

Ron Don, I would agree that it's quite possible Divi self insures a good portion of their " business income " . Because they have numerous locations for which they would be paying premium and they have separation of risk ( not likely they would lose more than one at a time) they do the math and see if it's better to self insure or perhaps carry a large deductible on that line of coverage.

I don't know if they self-insure or not, but this year they have lost more than one at a time. In addition to SXM, St. Croix is also closed due to Irma.

Again, as I stated before, I don't think it's a matter of what is "fair". I believe the law in SXM states that union workers CANNOT have their hours reduced unilaterally by the employer. They have to attempt to work out a reasonable solution for both parties.