Given that all the pro-union arguments have personal income and benefits maintenance at their center, as opposed to some kind of idealistic "rights of
the worker", and given that working as a dealer in a casino is hardly a fitting entry on the resume of a card-carrying Communist or even dyed-in-the-wool
Socialist, I believe it's fair to say that the people making these arguments make them for reasons of personal financial gain (just as those making
anti-union arguments do so for reasons of personal financial gain). That is, these people have no idealistic motives for holding the views they hold, but
purely $elfi$h ones.
Many such arguments, if not all of them, suggest that casino corporate management wish to enhance their company's share price by cutting labor costs, and
that should they be successful in the latter, they will potentially achieve the former.
Given the above, would it be fair to expect that all those making pro-union arguments here have invested all their disposable income in shares of the
companies they work for, or the companies who appear to be most aggressivly carrying out their nefarious cost-cutting schemes? At the very least, wouldn't
such a course of action make for a very intelligent hedge against their union hopes being ultimately thwarted?
So, AlwaysBetRed, Wynnaccount and ziggy, etc., do you own increasing numbers of shares in Wynn?
If not, why should we take what amounts to personal financial advice from people who obviously lack the wherewithal to optimally manage their own financial
affairs?
On the other hand, if you are increasing your stake in Wynn, is there not something of the hypocritical in your dual position of support and
condemnation of the entity that will ultimately provide most, if not all of your future wealth whatever happens with respect to the unionization of the dealers
of that company?
I only ask.
