|
Caesars Palace
plays hardball with
dealers, asserts right to tips
Union says Harrah’s Entertainment’s proposed
workplace
rules prove the gaming giant ‘never intended to
negotiate’
|
Supporters
of a contract for Caesars Palace casino
dealers rally outside the resort in
September. Dealers, who voted to
unionize in December 2007, and
management have been unable to agree on
a contract. |
Two years after casino dealers at
Caesars Palace voted for union representation, they
still don’t have a labor contract and relations with
management have gone from bad to worse.
Caesars Palace executives have cemented their
authority as the side holding most of the cards,
proposing a list of new workplace rules and, in a
shot heard throughout the Nevada gaming industry,
asserting a right to dip into dealers’ tips.
Both sides filed complaints with the National Labor
Relations Board in late December, alleging the other
had failed to bargain properly. Like a go-between
for a dysfunctional couple, an examiner with the
NLRB has been trying to get the two sides to agree
on dates for meetings.
Harrah’s Entertainment, which owns Caesars, contends
that the union is unreasonably blocking its
proposals. The company says its proposed changes are
fair because they will bring dealers in line with
other Harrah’s employees, union and nonunion.
What that means is the company isn’t offering
dealers added benefits and is removing others, such
as corporate 401(k) matches and vacation days for
the longest-serving employees, notes the union
representing the dealers, the Transport Workers
Union Local 721.
“They never intended to negotiate,” Transport
Workers Union Gaming Director Joe Carbon says.
“They never considered our very few proposals. They
want to shove this down dealers’ throats as
punishment for joining a union. And they’re getting
away with it.”
Labor experts who aren’t involved in the fight say
Harrah’s may succeed in imposing its will on the
dealers. Unions have little power to pressure
companies into signing a first contract because
federal law doesn’t require employers to reach an
agreement — only that they negotiate. Without the
threat of strikes, which have become less likely in
the sorry economy, employers can refuse to sign off
on proposals they don’t like while adopting those
they do, says Jeffrey Waddoups, a UNLV professor in
labor management economics.
The dealers’ union contends Harrah’s violated labor
law by refusing to bargain in good faith, but the
difficulty in proving such an allegation is the very
reason many unions are never able to obtain a labor
contract, Waddoups says.
Caesars dealers refused to sign a proposed contract
the company presented in August because it contained
provisions giving management more control over their
jobs — the kind of control afforded to most
employers with nonunion employees.
One provision, since removed by management, would
have required employees to deal cards for 80 minutes
at a time with a 20-minute break, an increase from
the industry standard of 60 minutes followed by a
20-minute break. This move, which Harrah’s has
implemented in some casinos outside Las Vegas,
allows casinos to operate with fewer dealers.
Other language in the proposed contract would have
allowed Caesars to fire or discipline dealers for
any aspect of the job, including interactions with
customers or compliance with gaming policies and
procedures.
By comparison, Culinary Union contracts covering
tens of thousands of Las Vegas casino workers
require that employers have “just cause” to fire
workers. These contracts also contain a grievance
and arbitration procedure enabling workers to defend
their actions with the union’s help.
Caesars’ proposed contract stated that dealers
aren’t subject to grievance and arbitration
procedures. Instead, it says if the dealers don’t do
their jobs or break the rules, they would be subject
to discipline or termination at the “complete
discretion” of Caesars Palace.
Most distressing for dealers was a statement in a
management memo about Caesars’ right to divvy up
dealers’ tips with other groups of employees if a
“competitive need” arose.
The dealers figure “competitive need” translates
into “cost-effective way to supplement employees’
earnings.”
Tips are a very sensitive topic on the Strip because
they can account for a majority of front-line
workers’ earnings.
After Steve Wynn moved to give a fraction of his
dealers’ tips to their supervisors, dealers at Wynn
Las Vegas filed a lawsuit and a complaint with the
Nevada labor commissioner. The commissioner is
expected to rule this year on whether Wynn broke a
state law that forbids employers from taking “all or
part of any tips” given to employees.
Wynn dealers say the policy reduced their earnings,
before the recession, by more than 10 percent.
Dealers, who earn little more than minimum wage,
receive as much as 90 percent of their income from
tips — earnings that have fallen in the worsening
economy.
As of now, Caesars doesn’t intend to split dealer
tips with other workers, says Marybel Batjer,
Harrah’s vice president of public policy and
communications.
The statement was intended to inform dealers of
authority the company believes it has always
maintained to distribute worker tips as it sees fit,
she says. Some union workers in other departments
across the company’s casinos, such as banquet
workers, have union contracts that allow employers
to split worker tips with management, she adds.
After Wynn initiated his controversial tip-sharing
policy in 2006, executives with Strip competitors
MGM Mirage and Harrah’s Entertainment assured
dealers that they had no plans to give other workers
a cut of the dealers’ tips. Knowing that dealers
organized under a union at Wynn because of the tip
scheme, executives at competing casinos hoped to
quiet calls for unionization among their dealers.
Caesars’ statement on tips could help Harrah’s by
chilling further union organizing efforts by dealers
at other company-owned casinos, Waddoups says.
“The company has a big incentive not to reward
anyone for unionizing,” he says. “If Caesars dealers
end up getting a better deal, dealers would start to
organize all over the place.”
And though giving employees a worse deal than they
had before they unionized is an unusual outcome, the
poor economy provides the company with a reason to
do so.
Indeed, while the dealers say they unionized because
they were seeking job security, Batjer counters:
“Does anyone have job security these days?”
. |
