But the Courant suggests that management may refuse to bargain.
Although winning on Saturday, dealers remain far from a collective bargaining agreement. Leaders of the Mashantucket Pequot tribe, which owns and operates Foxwoods, could refuse to bargain with the UAW and push the issue into federal court.And in another article...
The tribe throughout the process leading up to Saturday's vote has fought the vote administered by the National Labor Relations Board, saying the federal agency does not have jurisdiction over the casino on its reservation. Instead, tribal leaders have said workers should organize under recently passed tribal laws concerning unions.
Foxwoods officials declined to comment early Sunday morning on their next step. But a statement released by the casino indicates management is likely to continue its fight against the UAW on jurisdictional grounds.
"We are disappointed with the preliminary tally, however, these results will not be official until all legal issues, including jurisdiction, are resolved," said John O'Brien, Foxwoods' president in a statement.
The NLRB conducted the vote on Saturday from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. in a ballroom at the casino. Federal officials then counted the ballots as casino management, union officials and dealers looked on.
Foxwoods management has fostered a feeling of unease about the union through radio and newspaper advertisements, handouts to employees, and posters at employee bus stops. A poster behind the hotel worker warned "With the UAW, the threat of a strike will always be with us," and cited instances in which past UAW strikes in Connecticut had allegedly led to violence such as rock throwing.
Card dealers know that even an overwhelming vote in favor of unionization will not immediately bring new bargaining power. The casino, which unsuccessfully sought to avoid an election on the grounds that the labor law of the United States does not apply on Indian land, could challenge the outcome.
"I think they're going to fight it," a card dealer named Judith said shortly after voting.
Do you know anything about what the tribal laws re: unions are, and/or what the implications would have been for the dealers to organize under those as opposed to under UAW?
ReplyDelete(Google is not as helpful as i would like, and my brain is not quite stirring yet).
I'm not exactly clear on your question, but I'm pretty sure that the casino ownership is trying to make the claim that the tribe is exempt from all federal collective bargaining law, and i take it to mean that no union would be acceptable to them
ReplyDeletei probably mischaracterized a bit - what i was referring to (and what i'm failing to find specifics on) is the statement that the tribal nation would/could/might allow a union under tribal law instead of federal.
ReplyDeletethe desire to not write the stuff i need to today is translating into an obsession with native tribal law particulars.
I'm not directly familiar with this subject, but from what i've heard from folks who have worked on tribal casino campaigns, it seems to me that the tribal law/federal law question is really being deployed not out of a genuine desire to preserve tribal sovereignty, but rather out of, in many cases, a calculated attempt to continue the superexploitation of workers who would remain bereft of the admittedly weak protections of U.S. labor law. The choice seems not to be between two competing legal systems, but, in this particular zone, between lawless exploitation and a modicum of legal protections. But i don't know enough to substantiate that and would urge you to enquire with folks from unions organizing tribal casinos - unite here and the uaw, for their take.
ReplyDelete