Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2007 | 7:17 a.m.
The Culinary Union sent a not-so-subtle signal to unsettled Las Vegas casino operators last week when it threw a bash commemorating the 16th anniversary of the Frontier strike, one of the longest-running walkouts in U.S. history.
On one hand, the banquet was a simple acknowledgment of the sacrifice of the hundreds of workers who walked the picket line for six years, four months and 10 days on the Strip. On the other hand, it was a clear reminder of the lengths the union will go to achieve what it considers a fair contract.
And no one is feeling the heat these days like the new owners of the Tropicana.
Earlier this month, the Culinary joined its parent union, Unite Here, to announce the creation of an $80 million strike fund. The following week, about 8,000 union members voted to authorize their individual negotiating committees to call a strike if bargainers cannot reach new agreements. The union started registering members for strike benefits. Then came last week's Frontier event.
Such bluster seems to have had an effect.
The union secured deals with the Stratosphere, the Sahara and Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville in the Flamingo this month and is moving forward in separate negotiations this week with the Las Vegas Hilton and downtown Las Vegas operators.
Meanwhile, talks have stalled with the Tropicana's parent company, Tropicana Casinos & Resorts . Both sides have met three times since May, but have not set another bargaining date. The negotiations turned icy last month when the company expressed its desire to opt out of the Culinary's health care and pension plans.
Tropicana also seeks concessions on the union's guaranteed 40-hour workweek and contract language that bars nonunion subcontractors.
The company's posturing has casino industry insiders baffled. Since gaining a foothold in the local casino market nearly 20 years ago, the Culinary has considered its health and retirement benefits non-negotiable - and casino operators, with few exceptions, have obliged. Most insiders attribute the hardball tactics to the company's status as a Las Vegas neophyte.
Tropicana, an affiliate of Columbia Sussex Corp., the Cincinnati-area operator of midpriced hotels, acquired the Tropicana properties in Atlantic City and Las Vegas in January and soon embarked on aggressive cost-cutting measures. The company has fired more than 800 workers in Atlantic City and at least 300 in Las Vegas.
New Jersey gaming regulators have intervened on three occasions, objecting most recently that cuts in the security force would have jeopardized public safety and violated regulatory requirements. Regulators also are investigating cuts in Indiana, where the company operates a riverboat casino.
The intervention has irked company executives.
"The job of rightsizing these overstaffed properties has been challenging given the regulatory and political environments in which we operate," Columbia Sussex head William Yung told investors in a recent conference call.
The layoffs have left the Culinary fuming.
D. Taylor, the local union's secretary-treasurer and lead negotiator, has publicly called on Nevada gaming regulators to investigate the situation as the company attacks benefits the union sees as sacred.
"Their credibility is shot," Taylor said of the Tropicana in an interview last week.
The union has said the conditions that led agencies in other states to crack down also exist here. Public safety, cleanliness and service have suffered at the Tropicana Las Vegas because of the layoffs, workers say.
Sherri Elras, a food server at the Garden Cafe in the Tropicana, said she lost her regular shift shortly after the ownership change and now works as a "steady extra," picking up hours on an as-needed basis. Still, her workload has doubled, she said, and customers often complain about the cleanliness of their rooms.
"We've been through a lot of changes," Elras said. "The things we're fighting for are simple and we're ready to fight for what's right."
Tropicana disputes those charges.
"With all due respect to what union members say, I'm not sure it holds water," company spokesman Hud Englehart said. "Anecdotally anything could be true. The customers are the ultimate arbiters here and right now they are not telling us that's a problem."
Although the state Gaming Control Board is monitoring the situation, the union decries what it sees as inaction. Regulators , Taylor said, lack the political will to investigate an industry the state relies on to survive. "Nevada brings up the pack," Taylor said. "They're supposed to be the leader and that's clearly not the case here."
Las Vegas gaming experts said regulators, historically reluctant to involve themselves in labor disputes, were likely to stay away from the Tropicana.
Nevada regulators have a narrower mandate than those in New Jersey, said Anthony Cabot, a gaming industry lawyer. "The policies of gaming enforcement are ensuring both the fairness of the games and that people are paid if they win," Cabot said. "It doesn't go too far afield from that."
In New Jersey, however, regulators are involved in all aspects of the day-to-day operations of casinos, including staffing levels, said David Schwartz, director of UNLV's Gaming Studies Research Center. In the 1980s, state regulators even had the power to dictate the color of a property's tiles and carpet, he said.
By Nevada standards, New Jersey regulations are "highly intrusive," Schwartz said. For instance, a state gaming official is posted on premises at each property.
Although state gaming law gives regulators broad power to protect the public and the industry from harm, they have rarely used it, Schwartz said.
"Market principles apply in Nevada," he said. "If customers choose to stay away, a company would lose money and be forced to raise its standards."
In the meantime, the union will continue to register members for strike benefits.
archive
