txhyattlvr

Here's the scenario:

I have an employee visiting me in my home town for an extended period. I'm paying the bill. I'd like to book a room in MY name, and list him as the 2nd guest (so his name is on the reservation). I can show up and check in and will be onsite a bit. I don't plan on staying there overnight but might meet him for breakfast, etc.
The goal here is for me to maximize my points, get qualifying nights, etc. It's looking like it could be a total of 20 nights over the next few months so the advantages are pretty huge for me.

I've read the Terms and it seems like they are bit vague as to whether this is permissible or not. For example, the Terms say you must be a "registered guest" and you must physically check in, but don't specify that you must actually sleep in the hotel room. Obviously I have no problem being a registered guest and physically checking in... Also, the Terms mention "occupying" the room as a requirement when you are seeking credit for multiple rooms, but I don't see this mentioned for a single room.

I don't want to risk my Hyatt status or risk losing my points by doing this, so I'm wondering if anyone has any advice or experience with this practice? I do want to play by the rules, but it seems like there's some (perhaps) purposeful ambiguity on this specific topic in the Terms.

Thank you!

skj

The fact you feel the need to ask should tell you something ...

coggie

Maybe your employee would want those points and potential status?

Hydro88

Yeah, it's agains the terms.
That's really not vague at all... and common sense should also tell you what the clear answer is.

On the bright side, I applaud you for your excellent username!

Colin

exactly. the employee thing just makes this sh!tty. it would be totally fine if it was your mom coming to town for a visit, you checking in yourself, paying on your credit card. it would require an extra douchy hyatt manager to think it his job to ascertain whether you actually are sleeping in the bed.

txhyattlvr

I reached out to someone "in the know" and this is the response I got....

----
What you are suggesting is a gray area for sure, but NOT a clear violation of the T&Cs. What you are required to do is a) check-in IN PERSON at any hotel (people have tried to check in "virtually" or send someone else listed on the reservation to check in and not actually show up in person - and doing either is a clear violation) and b) STAY in the room. Hyatt doesn't define (presumably on purpose) what it means to "Stay." If they wanted to try define this they would. However, what you can't do is check in and not actually use the room, there's no argument that's a stay, and you would be in clear violation. However, if you check in yourself in-person, and a person who is listed on the reservation stays in the room, then you are living up the obligations outlined in the T&Cs. Never heard of anyone being sanctioned/punished for doing what you describe. There is no "bed check" and no requirement that YOU sleep in the room. You ARE required to use the room and you ARE required to check in in person. Putting whomever is staying in there on the reservation is icing on the cake and something else you are fully authorized to do.

VegasGambler

You are breaking the rules. You have to occupy the room to get the qualifying nights, and you have to occupy a room that night to get points.

But, it's not like they do bed checks. Your chances of getting caught are basically nil.

On the other hand if your employee goes on a drunken rampage one night and destroys the room, you may wish it was on his card and you were reimbursing him.

mecabq

I don't see a problem here. OP is booking, paying for, and checking into and out of the room. To me the fact that he won't be staying doesn't violate the spirit or the letter of the T&C.

This topic comes up frequently. Suppose someone was X nights short of status and booked a room for X nights in his hometown to reach the status level, but wanted to sleep at home. He booked it, paid for it, and checked in and out but didn't stay there in between. Would anyone argue that this violated the T&C or that there was anything morally wrong with it? I don't see how the OP's situation (when it comes strictly to the WoH program -- any issues of liability or business ethics with respect to his employee aside) is any different.

Or someone booked a hotel for X nights, took a side trip in the middle of the stay, but kept the room for whatever reason. Again, any issue with this?

Colin

the interest of Hyatt is to get more loyal customers through the expense of the WOH program. by giving the benefits to the already loyal boss, Hyatt is deprived of the opportunity to earn a new loyal customer in the employee. the employee fact is the bright line.

ehallison

never mind

writerguyfl

If that "in the know" person isn't someone running that hotel (i.e. General Manager, Director of Operations) in question, I'd be cautious.

What you want to do is breaking the rules. It's not gray, it's a crystal clear violation. Frequent guest programs do not exist in order to reward the people paying the bills. If you spend zero time in the room and never sleep there, you aren't a guest.

As VegasGambler notes, however, it's unlikely that you get caught. But, any bad behavior of that employee will be your responsibility.

Aside from the above, please consider that you're placing your employee in a very awkward situation. Because your name is on the room, that means you have access to that room at all times. That's a pretty creepy situation to be in for an employee. Personally, I'd have a major problem with that if I were the employee.

Often1

1. This is not a gray area in the least. When a term is not defined, it carries its ordinary plain English meaning. A reasonable person of average intelligence would not say that they are "staying" at a hotel if they go to the property, check someone else in and then go to their residence.

2. This is a lousy thing to do to an employee. Unless the business is failing and you desperately need those points for other business travel in order to keep the business afloat, you are nickel & diming the employee. There are hundreds of threads on FT from people who express real anger at their employer for doing direct villing (which is the rough equivalent here).

3. Unless "someone in the know" is the GM of the specific property or someone who will stand up for you if you get caught out, you really have to ask yourself if it's worth giving an employee something to hold over your head if something goes wrong in your relationship down the road.

txhyattlvr

Mistake.

txhyattlvr

Good grief - what a bunch of irrelevant sanctimony. This wasn’t a question about ethics or how to run a business - it was about a legal document.

I’m likely done commenting but will lastly point out that the T&Cs use the terms “stay” and “occupy” separately. This is an important and purposeful distinction. Plenty of people can rent rooms for legitimate reasons and not necessarily stay in the room itself. I think Hyatt actually recognizes this.

Obviously nobody has heard of Hyatt attempting to sanction anyone for this, so I’ll assume it’s generally permitted... if frowned upon by some.

VegasGambler

The terms say you have to occupy the room to get the credit. I don't see how it could be more clear.

Personally I don't care whether you do it, and I'm sure you will get away with it, but your question was about the terms, and the terms say that you have to occupy the room.