Yuku free message boards

I say again, this forum can't afford to lose even one poster. I looked in from time to time during my last hiatus. I saw four or five people wandering around looking lost. I came back, and then... so did many others. The GD board came back to life somewhat. If I leave again, I fully expect most of them to leave also. It's funny and it's sad at the same time. I guarantee that NOBODY is going to take your advice, Geffen Izlude. You can't even take it YOURSELF! Do you understand how that looks for a mob leader? Why not set an example, press the button you keep showing us and "ignore" my posts. Have fun though, trying to follow the discussion that I'll be participating fully in. Meanwhile, try to understand that I don't care if nobody responds my posts. I'll never know for sure that that's because nobody is reading them. Oh, and by the way, you have to sign up and log in to use the ignore feature, and this board, like all others, probably has 10 guests for every member online.

GregInTahoe: Tip sharing with supervisors is a net gain to owners. Mr. Wynn is "indirectly benifiting" by saving money in labor costs to balance what he felt was an unfair situation. An "inverted" situation they called it, where there was little incentive to become a supervisor. This "inverted" situation also occurs where I work. The supervisors make less total income than those they supervise.

I wrote: "That is, IF there is no net gain to the owners, why would you expect them to mess with the status quo?" That refers to owners other than Wynn. The damage has been done there and a union already voted in. I'm talking about other casinos where the supervisors make less than the dealers (that should have been clear from my post - It's all explained there) and the owners stand to lose something by allowing that situation to continue.

Your workplace may be ripe for the same type of change, IF your casino requires a quality of supervisor that is in short supply. If there is a queue out the door of qualified applicants waiting to take any supervisor job that opens up, your owners will have no need to make such a change. The present supervisors can either do a good job for the money they're getting or avoid the swing door hit them on the way out. I'm guessing that wasn't the case at Wynn. If it was, something is seriously wrong with the supply and demand universe.

It would also be affected by how many supervisor/good dealing jobs are available in the area, as an owner could be affected by increased supervisor turnover and the costs associated with that.

All in all, any decision to redistribute dealer tips to supervisors will be made property by property, and depend upon how the land lies at each. All dealer unionizing decisions should similarly be property-specific ones. It helps if you maintain a strictly business perspective on the whole thing, and not be led by the emotional, fear-mongering rantings of those who see general unionization as a panacea for all workplace ills.

Conduct an exhaustive analysis of your own property and local employment conditions (and stop groaning!), in an effort to assist you in making your decision. You don't owe any dealers unfortunate enough to be working at the "wrong" joint anything. Just as the Wynn dealers don't appear to think they owe any lower paid dealers, who they USED TO keep informed here regarding the Wynn situation, anything.

Now, fun question of the day: How many Wynn dealers have applied for promotion to supervisor, with a view to working at either the Wynn or the Encore (given that supervisor transfers to the Encore will create openings at the Wynn also)?

Properly I suppose is agreeing with you. Will you please explain to me how having Union representation that gives you the ability to guarantee your working conditions in a contract is not better than staying at-will employees where employers will continue to diminish working conditions to increase their corporate profits.

Union representation doesn't give you the ability to guarantee your working conditions in a contract. Ask any Wynn dealer. Also, contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on in the event of adverse conditions caused, say, by an economic downturn. In such an event, it would be better that the casino owners' hands are unfettered by the restraints of their workers' individual, myopic selfishness.

I believe promises should be kept and dealers can achieve that by having promises made to us put in a contract.

Were the Delphi and G.M. workers and retirees promised stuff in contracts? Are they going to get it? Please get in the real world if you want to discuss this issue.

The reality is the overall value of each contract will increase to keep up with inflation. Your Delphi example is irrelevant and designed to scare people, The treatment of the employees of the local Culinary Union provides a more accurate example of how employers and employees can work together to mutually benefit.

It's not true that each contract will increase to keep up with inflation. Contracts can be broken by mutual agreement in the face of economic adversity. However, you first have to GET a contract. The question is: What are dealers prepared to do (and, more importantly, prepared for doing) in order to get a contract? Dealers are spoiled, probably financially over-extended, and notorious for living for the moment. I wouldn't like to witness the sad spectacle that would be a failed dealer's strike.

My Delphi example is entirely relevant. For one thing, it involves an auto workers union, and not a culinary one - just like the dealers' situation. For another, it illustrates how even the strongest union can do nothing in the face of non-competitiveness or other negative economic factors, how a union may contribute to, or cause, the probable demise of an entire industry, and how union-won contracts can suddenly vaporize overnight.

If people get scared by that enough to think twice about voting a union in where one is generally not required, that's a good thing.

A certain employer has decided his dealers are making too much money and is attempting to establish an unacceptable precedent of confiscating these employees tips and giving a percentage of them to the supervisors.

That "has decided" and "is attempting to establish" is pure conjecture on your part. It would be a better discussion if we both stuck to facts, or prefaced our opinions with words to the effect that we were stating an opinion, e.g., "In my opinion, ..." The facts of the matter are that Wynn changed the tip distribution policy to include supervisors in a tip pool that was previously limited to dealers. His published motivtions for doing so, do not coincide with what you listed above.

What other employees will he want to include latter? Where does it stop?

I don't know, and neither do you. We have to monitor the situation. Nor do either of us know that Wynn's policy won't turn out to be the best thing in the long run for all concerned.

The dealer's toke committee was abolished and the dealers no longer have any involvement in the tip process. This act against his employees might cast this employer as a "villain." Everyone knows when Steve Wynn sets a precedent all the other hotels follow his lead. And this is why dealers now require protection.

I don't agree that dealers should be excluded from the tip distribution process. I see no benefit in so excluding them. However, I'm not Steve Wynn, and I'm not running Wynn. I defer to his proven track record as a precedent-setter in the casino industry. All he has produced so far (putting to one side the Wynn tip issue for a moment, since it hasn't been allowed to run its course) has been GOLD for dealers. That gold, as you appear to agree, has trickled down to ALL dealers.

The $100,000 figure you mention is not guaranteed, only the minimum wage of $13,000 per year is guaranteed by the employer. Dealers make the bulk of their income from the generosity of the guests. The amount received in terms of tips is irrelevant as it varies at each casino. By the way, it is a dealer's divine right to keep the tips that are given to them by the guest.

Nothing is guaranteed. No matter how scared you are, and no matter what anyone promises you, you can be sure of nothing. The employer doesn't guarantee the minimum wage. The employer only guarantees that he will give you it IF you remain in his employ. That last isn't guaranteed, not should it be in a society whose individual members, including tipped casino dealers, embrace and celebrate everything that living in a free market grants them.

Dealers don't make the bulk of their income from the generosity of the guests. Dealers make ALL their income from the hard work, wisdom, intelligence, foresight, diligence, courage and business savvy of the people who invest in casino projects, and the people they employ to manage those projects, via being granted the privilege of hanging out a tip shingle on those people's property. And, it's not a dealer's right to keep any tips (s)he is handed by a guest, while working under a pooled tip arrangement. If you don't believe me, and you deal under such an arrangement, try putting your tips in your pocket and see what a) your bosses say, and b) the other dealers say.

All of the above, everyone has to work together. Employers need employees and employees need employers, we can't exist without each other. Together we can find solutions to problems that may arise that will be fair and mutually acceptable.

You haven't convinced me that a union fits into that equation anywhere. Together, employers and employees, without unions, have historically found a way to coexist in a way that is acceptable and profitable to all concerned. Nothing need change.

If U.S. auto makers would have made automobiles that were not designed to be flawed, the U.S. auto industry would still be strong, but because of their corporate greed, Americans were forced to buy imported vehicles, not because they were cheaper to buy, because they were more dependable and cheaper to maintain. The greed of corporations is the cause of all our problems in this country.

I can't buy that. I find it more likely that rising manpower costs would have forced potentially detrimental management decisions with respect to production costs cuts in other areas - like quality. The casino industry is booming. It always has been booming. Now, would you have me believe that the union is going to come in and "save" it in mid-boom? Strangling the chicken is no way to increase egg production.