Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

About Us

Frank D. Russo

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Sponsors

Books

Assembly Democrats in California: Hang in There For the Casino Workers, There's National Labor Issues At Stake

Capitol.jpg

By David Brody
Professor Emeritus
University of California, Davis

Last summer the Governor struck a deal with five southern California tribes tripling their allotment of slot machines. The Legislature balked, however, and the gaming compacts are now back for reconsideration. They have been approved by the Senate, so it’s up to the Assembly. The debate vibrates with an energy that only big bucks can generate. The tribes, the State, assorted lobbyists, consultants, and party money-raisers—everyone stands to win, except the working people who keep the casinos running. There’ll be more jobs, yes, but at poverty-level wages. This country has a remedy for such inequities. It’s called collective bargaining.

If employees want collective bargaining, that’s their right under our labor law. All the compacts embrace this enshrined principle and, indeed, take the federal law as their template, which means, first, that the choice rests with casino workers and, second, that the casino operators have a “duty to bargain” once the majority has spoken. No one is contesting these basic rules. What is being contested, furiously, is a procedural question: How should majority rule be implemented?

The original gaming compacts, the ones approved in 1998, opted for the electoral process that the National Labor Relations Board uses for certifying bargaining agents. Sounds nice and democratic until you observe what actually happens. The playing field—what transpires before the worker enters the voting booth--almost ludicrously favors the employer. He can make employees attend mandatory meetings and one-and-one interrogations; he can tell them their jobs are at stake; he can keep organizers off the premises; and he doesn’t have to put up with troublemakers. He fires them. The NLRB is not much, but at least it’s there. There’s no NLRB for the Indian casinos; they essentially police themselves. No wonder that casino workers keep their heads down. Or that not one of casinos mandated by the original compacts has been organized.

So, in this round of negotiations, the unions are demanding “card check,” which means that casino workers signify by authorization cards whether they want union representation. Card check is just as legitimate a route to collective bargaining under the federal law as the election. And it has the salubrious effect of denying employers a platform for coercion. Critics say card check opens employees to undue influence by organizers or fellow workers, which may be so, but of course with nothing like the menace of a boss who holds an employee’s job in his hands. Besides, casino workers understand the value of collective bargaining. All they have to do is look across the border at the Las Vegas casinos. They don’t need to be pressured by organizers. They flock in when they have the chance. That’s been the experience at the northern California casinos that accepted card check in 2004. Every one of them is unionized.

Although it might seem a strictly California affair, this dispute about casino workers is in fact at the cutting edge of a nation-wide battle for labor’s rights.. The very same issue--card check as the normal route to collective bargaining—is at the core of the Employee Free Choice Act, which suddenly came alive when the Democrats swept the 2006 elections. That it passed the House probably represents only a moral victory, but the Employee Free Choice Act has a real shot if the Democrats win big in 2008. It has, in any case, become a defining party issue. In act of solidarity during the House debate, every Democrat in the California legislature signed a letter of support. Yet half the Senate Democrats, herded along by Don Perata, then turned around and approved the gaming compacts.

Something had to give, they will say. Yes, and that’s where Sacramento and Washington part company. Giving up on card check for casino workers is part of a high-stakes deal. But deal-making cuts in more than one direction. Look at it from the other side. Is card check really a deal-breaker? Those 22,000 slots represent billions of dollars of revenue, a veritable cash cow for the tribes and, given its cut, for the State. The tribes can’t even argue that collective bargaining is bad for competitiveness because what they’re principally getting from the compacts is a monopoly in their market areas. Maybe tribal leaders will wise up and stop listening to their anti-union advisers. They might even decide to give struggling workers no better off than they once were a break.

But that depends on the Assembly Democrats. Assembly leaders have been in intense negotiations the last couple of weeks, and the latest reports are that they are about to fold on card check. They cite a recent court ruling that says that Indian casinos fall under the federal labor law and that renders the card-check issue moot. They might be mistaken. States are pre-empted from mandating card check. But it is entirely lawful for employers to accept card check voluntarily. And that's what the gaming compacts are--voluntary agreements. So Assembly Democrats should stand firm. They shouldn't be spooked by those fake TV ads or by the threat of casino money come the next election. The pending Assembly vote on the compacts will be a real test of how much money talks in California politics.

David Brody is a professor emeritus at UC-Davis, the author of many acclaimed books, and a specialist in labor history.

Posted on June 13, 2007

Comments

A labor union mouthpiece like Prof. Brody loses credibility for his one-sided view of tribal casinos and their employee practices. Prof. Brody asserts, "There’ll be more jobs, yes, but at poverty-level wages" when he characterizes the proposed increase in the number of slot machines at several tribal casinos. Yet, he offers no facts to support this assertion. He also neglects to mention that typically, tribal casinos give employees a benefits package rivaling anything the private sector gives to employees, even if unionized. For example, at one tribal casino, the Pechanga Resort and Casino, the employees receive paid medical and dental insurance, a life insurance policy (optional), paid sick days, a 401K plan with employer contribution, paid vacation days, flexible work hours (in some occupations), bereavement leave, annual cash bonuses, a credit union, an annual employee party, reimbursement for educational expense, and so on. Further, the PRC promotes employees based on merit and potential, and allows transfers from one position to another. As well, the PRC has an ombudsman to help resolve employee issues. The PRC hires old people, young people, females, disabled persons, all races and nationalities, and does so without the active discrimination found elsewhere. The list goes on. As a result, the PRC human resources department regularly receives hundreds of job applications. Prof. Brody also fails to note that a labor union tried for weeks to induce PRC employees to sign up for a union, but the employees did not show enough interest. Worse, Prof. Brody misleads the reading public by failing to discuss the Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance in the existing tribal-state gaming compacts. The TLRO allows labor union organizing efforts at tribal casinos. But the labor unions do not like the TLRO because it gives employees a vote on unionization, and provides free speech to the tribal government (representing tribal members) to have a say on unionization. Let the labor unions face voting and free speech. Looking fairly at how tribal casinos operate will help to inform rather than to skew the debate on labor unions versus tribal casinos. Moreover, evidently for narrow reasons, Prof. Brody ignores the function of tribal casinos as economic engines in their communities, creating wide benefit therein. Prof. Brody fails the big test by never mentioning that tribal casinos, like every other business, wish to expand their operation to meet customer demand. A capitalist economic environment thrives on business expansion. Let the tribal casinos do so. The tribes, the local communities, the state, and job-seekers will benefit.

Posted by: anotherview at June 14, 2007 01:38 PM

Why is members of the State Assembly negotiating with the Sycuan tribal Indian mafia? I was a Police and Security Officer at Sycuan. This small cash-rich tribe is made up of convicted felons on the tribal council, drug dealers and thugs. After I reported racketeering and their connections to mafia organized crime operatives Sycuan purposely injured and disabled me. Then I was fired. Non-Indian employees have absolutely no legal rights. The Sycuan tribe also fired every employee that discovered they had a major or terminal illness, every one of them. When is someone going to report these civil and human rights abuses? The San Diego Union Tribune refused to report it, but the small Daily Californian did. After they reported this the newspaper was bought out out and reduced to a weekly newspaper. See, Sycuan has a lot of money to destoy who ever they want. They also buy who they want in elected government. Only in America!

Posted by: Jon George at June 15, 2007 07:27 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker