← Risk register SOC 39-3093 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Locker Room, Coatroom, and Dressing Room Attendants

15,560 US workers · median $36,300/yr · Personal Care

EXPOSED

Almost nothing in this job is text or screen work: you hand out towels and lockers, hang and retrieve coats, stock supplies, wipe down benches and showers, and keep an eye on who belongs in the room. Language AI can't touch that, and today's robotics can't navigate a wet locker room or find a specific garment on a crowded rack. The real threat isn't AI — it's self-service RFID lockers, automated coat-check carousels, and clubs and venues cutting the position entirely to save labor cost.

10-year outlook: The work itself resists AI completely, but headcount keeps shrinking as venues install self-service lockers and fold the duties into front-desk or housekeeping roles — expect fewer dedicated attendant jobs, concentrated in premium clubs, spas, and theaters.

US employment, 2019–2025-2.7%
15,99015,560 workers

Roughly flat across the period, with year-to-year wobble.

Median pay $25,110 → $36,300 +15.7% in real terms (nominal +44.6%, less ~25% US inflation over the period)

The job count is not the verdict

This line is counted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics — the one figure on this page that isn't a judgement of ours. Headcount moves on demand, offshoring, demographics and the business cycle, and automation is one term among several, often not the loudest.

So a falling line is not evidence that AI did it, and a rising one is not evidence that it won't. Both happen in this register: some occupations resist automation and shrink anyway, others are highly automatable and keep growing. The marked year is 2020.

BLS projection, 2024–2034

+6.4% 15,600 → 16,600 on the projections basis

Exposed, but growing

AI can already do a lot of these tasks, and the BLS still expects +6.4% more of these jobs by 2034. Demand for the output is growing faster than the work is being automated away — the mechanism BLS gives for software developers, and the combination people most often misread as an error.

Different clocks. The score is what current AI could do to this work today. The projection is how many of these jobs will exist in 2034. Everything between the two — how fast employers actually adopt, whether demand grows in the meantime — is why they can point opposite ways without either being wrong.

~4,200 openings a year on average, including replacing people who leave.

One email if this score changes. Watch as many occupations as you like from the same address — no account, and nothing is sent on a schedule, only when a verdict actually moves.

Also known as — 24 job titles this covers

Titles reported by people doing this work, from the US Department of Labor's O*NET survey. If your job title is here, this page is about your work even though the name doesn't match.

AttendantDoorkeeperHat CheckerHousekeeperShoe ShinerBath StewardClub StewardCoat CheckerJockey ValetKey AttendantMarina PorterSpa AssociateSpa AttendantArea AttendantBath AttendantRoom AttendantBathhouse KeeperColors CustodianLadies AttendantLocker AttendantRest Room MatronShower AttendantLocker Room ClerkHot Room Attendant

Score — 40/100 resistance

Holding it up: embodiment (16/20). Weakest point: liability shield (1/20).

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 13 + 16 + 1 + 7 + 3 = 40. · Scored 2026-08-11, and re-examined when evidence accumulates rather than on a schedule.

Task resistance 13/20

Mixed — a routine tier and a judgment tier Retrieving one member's suit from a 400-hanger rack, fitting a wet towel bin, and spotting a non-member wandering the sauna are all tasks no current system does — but issuing lockers, tracking claim tickets, and taking payment are already handled by RFID wristbands and automated carousels in newer venues, which is what pulls this to 13 rather than the high teens.

Embodiment 16/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments You are on your feet for a full shift in steam, standing water, and tile, lifting laundry bags, restocking amenities on high shelves, and reaching into stalls and lockers — an unstructured, wet, humid space with people undressing in it, which is about as far from a controlled workcell as service work gets; it stops short of 20 only because the space is indoors, mapped, and never involves vehicles or weather.

Liability shield 1/20

No licence, no signature requirement No state licenses coatroom or locker room attendants, no exam or continuing education exists, and when a coat goes missing the venue's posted liability limit or its insurer pays — not you, so there is no statutory body that would have to be rewritten before the job is replaced by a carousel.

Trust premium 7/20

Some relationship component Regulars at a country club or athletic club learn your name and you learn who takes the corner locker and who wants extra towels, and that familiarity is why some private clubs keep the post — but the guest came for the gym or the show, not for you, and most venues rotate attendants without a single complaint, which caps it at 7.

Judgment & accountability 3/20

Executes defined procedures on defined inputs The decisions are bounded and scripted: match ticket to garment, refer lost-property claims to a manager, call security rather than confront someone yourself, follow the venue's cleaning schedule — nothing you decide in a shift carries consequences that outlast it.

Confidence: medium · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

What this job involves — and which parts are yours

The verdict above describes this occupation as a whole. Almost nobody does the typical version of a job — tick what's actually in your week and see how your own mix sits.

AI already does these at usable quality

These still need a person

Active moats on the surviving side: embodiment, physical-presence

How to future-proof this job

Training paths for your skill gaps: MIT OpenCourseWare — circuits, systems and diagnostic method, free and ungated free · MIT OpenCourseWare — systems analysis and engineering free · Learning How to Learn — the most-taken course on Coursera, and free free to audit · Coursera — quality control and inspection courses, auditable free free to audit · MIT OpenCourseWare — finance and accounting free · edX — operations management and process monitoring courses free to audit

All 35 skills ranked by how many jobs they open →

Where this experience transfers — occupations you could move toward

Computed from U.S. Dept. of Labor O*NET skill and knowledge profiles: high overlap with what you already do, a materially higher resistance score, no large jump in required training, and no licence you would have to start a new pipeline to get. Targets that pay meaningfully less, that are themselves COOKED, or whose own headcount is falling are excluded — a move into a shrinking trade is not an escape.

Orderlies EXPOSED · 56/100 · you already have ~85% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Troubleshooting, Systems Analysis, Learning Strategies, Quality Control Analysis

Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners EXPOSED · 54/100 · you already have ~82% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Systems Analysis, Troubleshooting, Quality Control Analysis, Learning Strategies

Cooks, Restaurant EXPOSED · 57/100 · you already have ~75% of the skill profile

Skills to close: Systems Analysis, Quality Control Analysis, Management of Financial Resources, Operations Monitoring

What would move this back up — beyond any one person

The moves above are yours to make. This is the other half: what would have to change in the world for the occupation itself to score higher. None of it is in any one person's gift, but it is where the floor actually comes from. Scores here are not a one-way ratchet. Only two of the five dimensions — task resistance and embodiment — track what machines can do. The other three track law, what buyers will pay for, and who is answerable, and those move in both directions, often in response to the same pressure AI creates. If every lever below landed, this occupation would score around 57/100, still EXPOSED.

5 specific changes that would raise this score
  • already happening trust premium +4

    High-end venues (private golf clubs, luxury hotel spas, theater subscription tiers) marketing attended coat-check and locker service as a named amenity, the way concierge and valet parking survived automation; visible signal would be club dues structures or spa pricing that itemize attended locker room service, or hotel brand standards (e.g., Forbes Travel Guide five-star inspection criteria) requiring a staffed attendant in the spa locker area

  • plausible judgment accountability +5

    Formal designation of locker room attendants as safeguarding/observation staff under youth-athletics and gym abuse-prevention rules — e.g., state laws following the USA Gymnastics/Nassar reforms and SafeSport requirements that adult supervision be present in changing areas used by minors, making the attendant the person accountable for who enters and for reporting

  • plausible task resistance +3

    Task-mix shift if RFID self-service lockers and coat carousels absorb the handout/retrieval tier: the remaining role becomes exception handling — lost property claims, intoxicated or distressed patrons, minors, disability assistance, incident documentation. Watch for job postings retitled to 'locker room supervisor' or 'spa attendant/host' with lost-and-found and incident-report duties

  • plausible embodiment +2

    Nothing raises this by policy, but wet-floor slip liability and locker-room privacy rules that bar cameras and mobile robots from changing areas keep the work physically human-only; a state health-club code explicitly prohibiting recording devices or autonomous machines in changing rooms would harden it

  • unlikely liability shield +3

    A narrow route only: a state or municipal bailment/lost-property ordinance (or venue insurer requirement) conditioning a venue's liability cap for checked property on a named human attendant logging and signing for items, as some bailment case law already distinguishes attended from unattended checkrooms

The limit. Even with every lever, this stays a low-scoring occupation. There is no license, no personal liability, and the displacement pressure is a capital-for-labor swap by venue operators, not model capability — so improvements in AI barely move it and cost-cutting moves it a lot. Realistic ceiling is roughly the mid-50s, and it would be concentrated in luxury and youth-supervision settings rather than across the 15,560 workers.

These are conditions, not forecasts — what would have to happen, not what will. Specific rules, cases and bills are named so you can go and check whether they exist and where they stand; verify before relying on any of them. Nothing here is legal or financial advice.

Where this work is, and what it pays there

BLS metro figures for 63 areas. The verdict above does not change by city — the rubric judges what the work involves, not where it happens — but pay and headcount do, and the national median hides a very wide range.

Most of these jobs

New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ 1,980 $37,420 +3%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 1,350 $47,650 +31%
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 770 $38,990 +7%
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI 620 $29,890 -18%
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ 480 $38,570 +6%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 460 $36,110 -1%
Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, NV 440 $36,820 +1%
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 380 $42,710 +18%

Best paid

Kahului-Wailuku, HI 70 $55,830 +54%
Salinas, CA 50 $54,880 +51%
Urban Honolulu, HI 80 $50,140 +38%

Percentages are against this occupation's national median of $36,300. Counts are jobs in that metro, not vacancies. Metros where the BLS suppressed the cell are absent rather than shown as zero.

Who is actually doing this — nobody, on the record

We have no reported case of a named organisation automating this occupation. Not one deployment, not one announcement.

That is worth saying out loud next to a score of 40. The verdict above is about what the work exposes — what current AI could do to these tasks. It is not a claim that anyone has done it. For this occupation those two things have come apart completely: the capability argument is on this page, and the evidence column is empty.

Read that as a gap in the reporting we can see, not proof of absence — the dispatch runs on English-language feeds and misses plenty. If you know of a case, tell us, or add a field report from inside the job.

Quick take — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work? One tap, anonymous, and the running tally is public. Nothing else is asked of you.

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

Field reports — what people say has changed

No field reports yet. A written account takes a paragraph rather than a tap, goes to an editor before it appears, and is the one thing on this page the rubric cannot produce on its own.

File a field report

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.

Watch this verdict
Kept current

Rather than check back: get the digest and we'll tell you what changed — or watch a single occupation from its own page.