Culinary touts benefits of unions for casino owners

By Liz Benston

Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2003 | 11:12 a.m.

The casino industry's efforts to expand legalized gambling and fight casino tax hikes in several states over the past year might have been more successful had the industry sought greater support from unions, a local union leader says.

"The industry doesn't have a lot of friends out there," D. Taylor, president of the Culinary Union Local 226 in Las Vegas, said at last month's Global Gaming Expo in Las Vegas. "You haven't had an advocate outside the industry ... and I think it's come back to bite you.

"There's no easier (industry) to go after than casinos," he added.

Casinos often rely on industry-sponsored studies and gaming-friendly analysts to tout their proposals -- both sources that appear one-sided to legislators, he said.

Unions can provide political support in both gaming and non-gaming areas, said Gerald Einsohn. Einsohn is associate general counsel of Harrah's Entertainment Inc., which butted heads with the Culinary Union a few years ago over organizing workers at the Rio resort.

The Culinary -- known outside Las Vegas as the Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union (HERE) -- isn't the only union attempting to organize casinos.

The Teamsters is trying to organize casino workers, including non-traditional casino bargaining units such as dealers, Einsohn said.

Unions such as the Teamsters and the Communications Workers of America are branching out beyond their usual industries as a way to grow membership, Taylor said. Whether they will make a long-term commitment to the casino business remains to be seen, he said.

Local and national representatives for the Teamsters and Communications Workers of America could not be reached for comment.

Most other gaming jurisdictions outside of Nevada remain non-union, Taylor said.

Organizing tribal casinos that have sprung up nationwide in recent years may be more difficult, panelists said.

Tribes view union organizing efforts as a threat to tribal sovereignty, said Jerry Levine, an attorney representing the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in San Bernadino.

"Sovereignty is a paramount issue that seems to escape some unions," Levine said.

Individually, many Indians are tribal members and respect unions, he said. As a tribe, however, members are concerned about giving up some of their sovereign status if they invite a group of outsiders to organize members, he said.

"There's a very deep-seated resistance by tribes to have outsiders come in and tell them how to run their business," he said.

That resistance is especially fierce in California, where HERE sided with Las Vegas casinos that spent millions in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Proposition 5, he said.

The proposition would have legalized tribal casinos with slot machines but was overturned in state Supreme Court. That decision paved the way for Proposition 1A in 2000, which amended the state constitution to allow for full-scale casinos.

The San Manuel Band and the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians in San Diego have labor contracts with the Communications Workers of America.

HERE has criticized the compacts as favorable to management and say they don't provide workers with affordable health care.

This year, HERE signed its first and only California tribal contract with the Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians, who own the Cache Creek Casino in Northern California.

The union has criticized tribes for not providing adequate health care coverage for workers and for not following federal labor laws.

Ten other tribes have since signed agreements with HERE to allow for a "card check" procedure for union recognition that involves gathering signatures instead of holding a government-supervised, secret ballot election favored by most employers.

The agreements require the tribal casino employers to remain neutral on union organizing and not frustrate employee efforts to form a union, said Jack Gribbon, HERE's California political director.

They were struck over the past three years or so with tribes and are a sign that Indians are more comfortable negotiating with outsiders, he said.

"Tribes in compact negotiations will waive sovereign immunity on a limited basis for the purpose of regulation" and will also waive sovereign immunity when negotiating with casino companies to manage their casinos, he said.

"If they can do it with a vendor and with the state, why not with their workers, which frankly are the most important resource they have," he said.

Five of the 10 tribes with card check neutrality agreements already have casinos, while the remainder are in various stages of casino development, he said.

The CWA has since agreed to give HERE jurisdiction to organize the remaining casino workers in California. The agreement exempts the CWA's two casino contracts.

The future may not hold many labor contracts for tribal casinos, Levine said at the conference. Tribes may instead ink management deals with casino companies that already are unionized or union-friendly, he said.

Most casinos in California are run by Indians and aren't managed by outside casino companies. HERE estimates that about 90 percent of casino workers are non-Indians.

The tension that exists between tribes and unions is a "tragedy," Taylor told casino representatives.

"I think the sovereignty issue is extremely important," he said. "I think that has to be respected. There was no group that has been more exploited and degraded -- that was not that long ago."

Unions that are culturally sensitive to the Indian plight may not be sensitive to their political situation, Levine said.

"There needs to be mutual understanding and respect," he said.