Robot Worries Could Cause a 50,000-Worker Strike in Las Vegas (technologyreview.com)

Thousands of unionized hotel and casino workers in Las Vegas are ready to go on strike for the first time in more than three decades. From a report: Members of the Culinary Union, who work in many of the city's biggest casinos, have voted to approve a strike unless a deal is reached soon. Some background: On June 1, the contracts of 50,000 union workers expire, making them eligible to strike. Employees range from bartenders to guest room attendants. The last casino worker strike, in 1984, lasted 67 days and cost more than $1 million a day. Why? Higher wages, naturally. But the workers are also looking for better job security, especially from robots. "We support innovations that improve jobs, but we oppose automation when it only destroys jobs," says Geoconda Arguello-Kline, secretary-treasurer for the Culinary Union. "Our industry must innovate without losing the human touch."

Comments

I really don't want robot dealers or croupiers

[bobstreo]

I enjoy some repartee with my dealer, and to know when to walk away when they bring in a new (mean/Chiller) dealer.

It would probably cost less, because I tip my human dealers and waitresses, but certainly less "fun". with robots. If I want creepy animatronics, I can go to a Disney park,

I also wonder how a robodealer would figure out I was counting cards with multiple decks....

It's cooks and bartenders

[rsilvergun]

not dealers. At a high volume bar you don't interact enough with the bartender for it to matter much. At the more expensive lower volume ones they're not going to replace the bartender because it's usually a pretty girl/hot guy for you to ogle and hit on.

Re:Point?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're willing to go on strike to prevent their jobs from being taken by robots that can't go on strike? I can see no downside.

The Vegas Golden Knights hockey team is in the NHL playoffs, playing for the Stanley Cup for the first time.

This is a big deal, with lots of people coming to Vegas to spend lots of money.

This is when the employees have maximum leverage, so they are far more likely to get a favorable deal now that they wouldn't get at any other time.

Re:Right to strike

[Wrath0fb0b]

I tend to think of it as a goal collision between multiple different interests of the union:

-- Ensuring that existing employees get better wages, benefits & working conditions
-- Increasing the number of employees represented, thus increasing dues collected and clout

The union is supposed to advocate for the former. Indeed they should be happy if automation kills 1/3rd of the jobs but leaves the remaining workers better off in terms of pay & conditions -- that's surely in the interest of the workers to get more money after all.

Unfortunately, their incentives are aligned towards the latter because 1/3rd fewer jobs means 1/3rd fewer dues to the union and correspondingly less clout. That's why you hear about construction unions mandating ridiculous minimum staffing levels -- sometimes 2-4 times as much as super-socialist European countries!

This isn't really about poor morals per-se (although it's at least amoral), it's just a quirk in the incentive structure. And I don't really have a solution for it -- certainly weaker unions is not in the worker's (or country's) interest either.

Re:You're doing it wrong

[Trailer Trash]

rather than demand the continuation of exhausting and physically demanding work instead of automation you should be demanding the wealth generated by automation and civilization be evenly distributed.

Of course can't have that since it's the socialisms...

Yep. Why don't you start by sharing some of your wealth with an African nation?

Oh, yeah, forgot, you only want to share other people's wealth. I forgot how looney left socialists think.