Arnold Knightly's (July 21st-RJ)
piece titled "WORKERS' RIGHTS: Union
leaders vow to keep fighting," reported
accurately that the TWU lost the casino
dealer's labor election at the Rio.
However, the article also included some
opinions from Daniel Cornfield, a
sociology professor at Vanderbilt
University which are both arrogant and
illogically unsound, and therefore, must
be challenged.
Central to the arrogance argument is
the fact that Mr. Cornield's own, no
doubt, healthy compensation is not now,
nor will it ever be, under attack by an
egomaniacally inclined management boss
like Steve Wynn. His tenure and payscale
are written in stone, unlike that which
is begrudgingly bestowed upon the
misguided casino dealers and their union,
as he implicitly implies.
His
quote further states that "you can't
assume conditions at one property will
be present at another." Let us look at a
recent court ruling that allows casinos
to exempt tax remittances to the state
for comped player and employee meals.
This ruling was aimed at a single
property, but in a NY Second just about
every property in the state was circling
around like the sharks they are,
demanding their rebate from an already
financially challenged state.
Does the naive Mr. Cornfield think
for one minute that this asinine policy
of employee tip confiscation by Steve
Wynn would be self-limiting to one
property if and when the other
properties see it is not successfully
challenged?
That is why this is the pre-eminent
issue in the union campaign, and why it
should remain so.
Jack Lipsman, Vice President
IUGE
Las Vegas, NV
(702) 456-8272
C. (702) 279-1780
