Unionized Tribal Casinos
This puts an interesting dent in the sovereignty of Indian Nations.
The National Labor Relations Board has confirmed that federal labor laws apply to employees at tribal casinos.
In May of last year, the board declined to dismiss a union's complaint against the San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino in Highland, despite arguments that the federal government lacked jurisdiction because the casino is on an Indian reservation.
The NLRB issued a final ruling in that case last week, dismissing another argument by the California casino that the board had no jurisdiction. The board ordered the casino to allow the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union equal access to its property.
...
The May 2004 ruling ended a longstanding precedent that excluded American Indian employers from federal labor law.
Normally, both unions and tribes overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party and its candidates. The political clout of some tribes, at least those with a successful casino, has been growing quickly. The potential for casinos to become union workplaces could pit tribes and unions against each other, which would seemingly not be good for the Democrats. Of course, we have tribes battling each other over the proposed casino in the Columbia Gorge.
The Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde have a good thing going with their Spirit Mountain Casino being closest to the Portland area gamblers. That casino is Oregon's top tourist destination (the ugly secret behind Oregon's growth in tourism). The proposed sites in the Columbia River Gorge for the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs casino would kneecap the Grande Ronde's business advantage and cut into their $75+ million in annual profits.
Governor Kulongoski gained healthy contributions from both tribes in 2002, which were hoping to influence his opinion on the proposed casino. Do you suppose the Grande Ronde feel they are getting a good return on their investment, with the Governor not just supporting a Warm Springs casino, but giving the nod to the proposed site that's closer to Portland? Wonder who they'll support for governor next year.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal filed a friend of the court brief in the case because Connecticut's two casinos have more than 20,000 employees.
"American working men and women should enjoy the same fundamental rights, regardless of where they work," Blumenthal said. "This ruling means that tribal employees may now decide for themselves if they wish to join a union."
...
"In our view, the NLRB has flipped 30 years of decisions of law on its head," he said. "When an agency does a dramatic about-face, reasonable people can call those agency decisions into question. We're confident that this will be tested in federal court at some point, and we're confident there's some reasonable likelihood that the decision will be overturned."
Joann Weber, senior vice president of human resources at Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, said Foxwoods already provides benefits, competitive wages and a comfortable work environment without a union.
"We have consistently believed that the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation is in the best position to address the needs of our employees and to continue our practice of direct and open communications between management and employees," Weber said.
The sounds of big business... There are about 1,600 members of the Mohegan Tribe and fewer than 400 Mashantucket Pequot. Even if every single tribal member worked for the casinos, they would still comprise a bit under 10 percent of the employees.
Those two casinos brought in $1.6 billion in revenues last year, nearly 10 percent of the nationwide total for tribal casinos. If the casinos offer good pay and benefits--which they can certainly afford, unions wouldn't stand a chance of organizing the workers. So, why are the tribes worried?
Those two tribes contributed $1,070,906 to political candidates and PACs in 2004. Interestingly, most of the money went to out-of-state politicians--with just nominal amounts to the presidential candidates. The majority went to Democrats, but not by a lot...something Democrats must consider a disappointment.
As unions attempt to organize tribal casino workers, what impact do you suppose that will have on those tribes' political contributions?
The issue does offer lots of analytical possibilities.
One angle is that they have an immigration problem, or guest-worker problem. In time they will adapt.
They would have to give up their way of life (the new gambling habit) to save their way of life (whatever it was before).
It sounds like the end of reservations in lieu of creating (or recognizing) a class of beneficiaries of a special privilege, not unlike that of many other special classes that our government has become fond of creating in the interest of political factionalization . . . or dare I say in the interest of tribalization.
Alaska has generated court challenges to the manner of distribution of oil revenue. We might find clues there for how the tribal casino stuff could shake out over time, among the members of the special class itself.
Posted by:ron ledbury | October 10, 2005 at 22:57
Guest workers...interesting analogy. Does that make casino tribes something like Arab nations with oil?
I've read quite a bit of Native American commentary stating that embracing gambling results in a rapidly eroding culture. It doens't have to, but it's yet another huge, fast change that's tough to deal with.
I'm getting the feeling that the battles over access to the most lucrative gambling markets in the lower 48 are going to end up being more viciously fought than the somewhat more socialistic sharing of petrodollars in Alaska. There are more players for bigger dollars, more politicians to persuade, etc. Eventually, the tribes may only ally to protect their special privileges as a whole. It will be like the UN...the rich and powerful mostly out for themselves, the third world nations without gambling (or petrodollars), and the not very important in between.
Posted by:RoguePundit | October 11, 2005 at 17:29
Any state could just simply open up operation of a gambling house to anyone. The threat of stripping the special privilege, by giving it to all or none, must be a powerful campaign donation tool. The issue is not whether gambling should or should not be allowed, but only the existence of a special privilege.
The formula is repeated in nearly every context where a special privilege exists, or can be created.
[I snipped my book writing practice stuff . . . ]
The local folks of Indian descent have no game other than continued consent of some influence peddler.
It all boils down to some lawyer playing fast and loose with the notion of equal privileges and immunities, as if the refusal to apply the concept was a resource in and of itself, like grease.
In Northern Brazil you can give a bunch of folks little plots of land, in an egalitarian gesture, and things will settle out pretty much as can be expected . . . eventual consolidation of the plots into a small number of hands. Some Indians here will eventually have more than their neighboring Indians and they can either throw a big party to re-equalize things amongst themselves or they can accept as valid the notion that having more than enough, just like at the conclusion of a Monopoly game, is perfectly OK. They will take their money off the reservation, but won't have to go as far as a Swiss bank or the Cayman Islands. Big fish in a small pond are still small fry.
The assimilation process appears to be nearly complete.
The only odd balls are the folks in Montana that are sitting on some rather valuable oil products. They will lose it, watch.
Posted by:ron ledbury | October 11, 2005 at 22:03
Great point on the threat to strip special privileges.
Assimilation is indeed proceeding rapidly.
Posted by:RoguePundit | October 11, 2005 at 23:47