|
Letter
# 67
Subj:
Correction
Date: 01/27/2001 7:48:16 AM Pacific Standard
Time
From: MCMLVIIjeb
To: Bronxguy37
Bronxguy:
I am not
normally a person who vents his frustrations but you had me so
PO'ed. Anyway I did make a mistake (the $16.15 for health
insurance was per pay check not per month which means it comes to
$35 per month) my apologies.
I did think
of some other items though. We get a cost free life insurance
policy which when we opened in "93" was based upon
$50,000 per year and has since gone up but at the moment I'm not
sure what the amount is. This same figure is what our short term
and long term disability is based upon. Any benefit at the MGM is
based upon gross income + gross tips. Of course they estimate the
tokes but there pretty close, give or take.
I
would just like to say that the tokes are put on the paycheck so
the IRS leaves us alone (audits). I'm sure since your retired you
know someone that has fallen pray to the IRS's garnishments for
tokes sometimes not reported or sometimes not able to prove to the
IRS that they didn't exist. The California Hotel as recently as 2
years ago (the dealers) signed a document with the IRS allowing
the hotel to put their tokes on their paychecks in return the IRS
agreed not to audit those who signed for past tip compliance. I
for one think this is a good thing. The only people that wouldn't
are those that want to lie and cheat on their taxes.
I'm sure I
could think of some other good things about the MGM but they would
be my opinion and it seams my opinion does not coincide with yours
so you probably wouldn't care.
John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NFGE
Response:
Subj:
Re: correction
Date: 01/27/2001 11:20:57 PM Pacific Standard
Time
From: Bronxguy37
To: MCMLVIIjeb
John:
When
you say I wouldn't care about your opinion because it is different
from mine.....you are dead wrong. I respect your opinion and your
right to voice it. Furthermore, I do not disagree with you that
the MGM is one of the best employers in gaming. They are! But that
is not my point. What my argument is based on is that in
this industry, things change. Ownership and management changes all
the time. If someone told me 2 years ago that Steve Wynn would
sell all his hotels, I would have said they're nuts, yet he did
just that. With that in mind, what is wrong with the dealers
having a contract to protect their interests?
The argument I hear most (and this is the main thrust of
all the union buster's pitches) is that the dealers do not need
another party standing between themselves and management. The
facts are that the dealers themselves will sit at the negotiating
table and they alone have the right of refusal or
acceptance....NOT the TWU! Once the contract is negotiated and
accepted by all parties, the TWU steps out of the picture and is
only there for advice and help when requested by the dealers
themselves. The dealers will be running their own show. I know a
lot of nay Sayers will scoff at that, but it's true.
The TWU gets 30% of the dues to cover legal, political, and other
support functions. The other 70% stays in the local (under the
dealer's control). The TWU simply helps the dealers get to the
point where they can talk to management at their own level, not as
underlings who are constantly told: "do it my way or
don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." Now,
even though it is true that the MGM doesn't operate that way, I
cannot see why they would object to the dealers having the right
to discuss their working conditions with management, instead
of having them dictated to them. You must admit it is different
when they ALLOW you to speak, as opposed to you having the RIGHT
to speak.
And
one more thing.....if they are so terrific, and they look after
your interests so meticulously, why did they find it necessary to
spend literally millions of dollars to hire union busters to
prevent you from representing yourselves on an equal footing with
them? What are they afraid of? The answer is....they do not want
to lose any of the control they now possess. They want absolute
control. They don't want to share even one shred of control with
the dealers. At least, that's my opinion. You may disagree, but
that is your right.
Jack Lipsman
NFGE
P.S. And John, feel free to share my comments with anyone you
choose.
(Back
to Index)
|
