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

Point?

[Alypius]

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.

Re:Point?

[religionofpeas]

Just because there's no good solution doesn't mean you should try a shitty one.

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:Point?

[barc0001]

What else do you suggest they do?

Also, the robots can take their jobs one day, not *today*. If they are able to hammer out a legally binding contract that guarantees the casinos won't replace existing workers with robots under heavy financial penalty, then it's a win for them.

If they wait 10 years till those robots are ready to go and then strike they're screwed, so they have to play their hand now. I don't fault them in the least. Other workers in other sectors should be doing the same but too many people just consider themselves fortunate to be employed today and don't think about 10, 5 or even 1 year in the future and how their bosses are already planning their replacement.

Re:Point?

[MightyYar]

Please come back with a better solution

Clearly we need a law to prevent the use of productivity enhancing technology. I can't fathom a world where productivity leads to an improved standard of living for everyone. Imagine if farming were mechanized, making food less expensive so that people could pursue a career making things in cities. Then those same people could spend this newfound wealth and free time on vacation at a gambling resort in the middle of the desert, creating thousands of new jobs in the hospitality industry. Stupid, huh? Who the hell would want to go to the desert? We can dream.

Re: Point?

[Zero__Kelvin]

That is because you skipped the thinking phase and went straight to posting a snarky comment on Slashdot. If you had spent 10 seconds thinking first you would realize that the robots aren't there yet, so a strike will indeed cost a lot of money to the money mongers.

Re:Point?

[Opportunist]

Re-training to what? What is that magical low-skill job that isn't going to be replaced by robots soon?

Re:Point?

[religionofpeas]

Car manufacturing.

Right to strike

[fluffernutter]

I fully support their right to strike since it is the only mechanism the 'common worker' has to defend themselves and ensure they get a reasonable slice of the pie. However, this is probably something that cannot be stopped.

Re:Right to strike

[chispito]

I fully support their right to strike since it is the only mechanism the 'common worker' has to defend themselves and ensure they get a reasonable slice of the pie. However, this is probably something that cannot be stopped.

Strikes don't really influence the customer like they used to (in many cases they turn off customers who aren't in unions themselves), and I'm not sure how this would affect the management other than to increase their desire to automate.

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: Right to strike

[c6gunner]

A sizable chunk has to go to shareholders and executive bonuses, otherwise there is no incentive for management to change anything.

You say this in response to an article which discusses employers losing $1 million per day thanks to a union strike.

Right. No incentive at all.

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....

You're doing it wrong

[rsilvergun]

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...

Re:You're doing it wrong

[Marc_Hawke]

The distribution is supposed to come in the form of lower-prices. A room that's attended by a robot needs to cost half that as a room with an human attendant. Same with food. When McDonald's replaces all their people with robots, it's supposed to make hamburgers cost 50cents. The balance between robots taking all the jobs is that people won't need as much money, so they won't need as much 'job.' We can cut the work-week down to 15 hours and have 3 people share the job that one was doing previously because the robots have driven cost-of-living down.

That's not socialism, that's capitalism.

The problem is that the prices aren't dropping. As a previous poster said, the money saved on robots is filtering UP and creating wealth rather than reducing prices. Not sure who to blame for that. It's gotta be the people who are willing to pay 'human' price for 'robot' service. Of course, I personally don't know the difference, so I can't make that choice. I guess I'm part of the problem.

Re:You're doing it wrong

[Train0987]

Or we could try enforcing illegal immigration slave labor that drives wages down for all.

Is it also too mean to suggest that perhaps being an entry level server is not a wise choice to make for a life-long career? The writing has been on the wall about automation for about 50 years now. We've all seen this coming.

Re:You're doing it wrong

[Train0987]

Prices are set by the market for those goods and services, not the arbitrary fantasy of socialists.

Re:You're doing it wrong

[Nidi62]

The problem is that the prices aren't dropping. As a previous poster said, the money saved on robots is filtering UP and creating wealth rather than reducing prices. Not sure who to blame for that. It's gotta be the people who are willing to pay 'human' price for 'robot' service.

There is no incentive for the owners to drop the prices as automation reduces cost, because currently all or most of those paying human prices can continue to do so. It's not until the amount of un/under -employed reaches a critical mass and are unable to pay human prices for robot goods that the price of those goods will move towards robot prices. But even that will be a slow transition if allowed to happen naturally.

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.

Re:You're doing it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I do. And if you and the GP live in the US (or many other countries), so do you. Here's what countries the US gives foreign aid to. I'm not saying the current foreign aid structure is good, but the GP is definitely sharing some their wealth with African nations.

Re: I bet Las Vegas is getting hit by the Internet

[KixWooder]

Perhaps, but I was there last week and the casinos and street were so packed you could barely walk.

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.

Just delaying the inevitable

[sjbe]

The simple fact is that they can either get on board with learning to work with automation OR they can eventually watch their jobs go away anyway when the jobs move to someplace with more pliable labor and better automation. It would not be hard for tourists to start going elsewhere if they don't like what they get. If you have a job that can be readily taken by automation then sooner or later it will be. Your only defense against this is to have a skill set that is difficult to automate. Pretending otherwise is like fooling yourself into thinking this internet thing is a fad.

Re:Just delaying the inevitable

[fluffernutter]

It's easy to write a comment professing "thou shalt learn a non-automatable skill" but there are many reasons why this is a vast oversimplification to the point that it is almost laughable. Education costs money, many people cannot BE educated if they have the money, and what do you educate yourself in anyway? Almost any "attainable with a college certificate" job seems to be a candidate for automation over the next 15 years or so.

Re:Just delaying the inevitable

[barc0001]

> The simple fact is that they can either get on board with learning to work with automation

How exactly does someone "work with" automation that is designed to replace you?

> Your only defense against this is to have a skill set that is difficult to automate.

Boy it sure is easy to get those isn't it, especially in the education utopia that is the USA. They're already starting to replace "high skill" white collar workers with software, and as general purpose automation gets better and better there will be very few "difficult to automate" jobs. And the few that fall into that category will be quickly flooded, which will also have the knock-on effect of driving the going rate for those services through the floor as there are many hungry mouths offering to do that work. The US doesn't need 30 million plumbers for example.

Human interaction?

[sjbe]

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,

That is a valid opinion but the question would be how many people share that opinion. Slot machines don't involve a person and they are hugely popular. I could see plenty of people wanting to play blackjack or poker and not caring at all if there is a human dealer. I know I wouldn't give a shit.

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

The dealer probably doesn't most of the time unless you are being stupidly obvious about it. It's the eye in the sky that is watching for that.

Re:I really don't get this one

[Train0987]

Then you've never been to Asia. Much wait/server staff have been automated for about a decade or more.

Re:Replace the servers, not the chefs

[CrimsonAvenger]

There are many countries around the world that do not tip, because it's not necessary, it's even frowned apon in some cultures.

And your point is?

By your logic, since there are also many countries around the world where English is not the primary language, American servers should not speak English....

While the proper payscale of servers is debatable, the fact that tips are part of our culture (yeah, I know, Americans and "culture" are two words that don't really go together) means that tips should at least be considered when discussing pay....

It's all good.

[Locke2005]

Fortunately, all the striking workers can be easily replaced by robots, so it will cause no inconvenience to the companies involved! In short, when you realize that robots could do your job much better for a much lower price, you should probably shut up about it! As a consultant, I constantly bite my tongue to avoid pointing out to customers how stupid it is that they are paying me a lot of money for little benefit to their company.

There are millions of people who aren't smart

[rsilvergun]

enough to go to college, but they _are_ smart enough to hold a gun. For thousands of years demagogues have used desperation and fear to motivate and organize these people. Perhaps if you have the guts to brutally oppress and kill them you can keep them under control. Much like we keep the population of stray dogs under control. But I don't know a lot of folks who have what it takes to go that route or who would say it's the right thing to do.

If you abandon the working class they will turn on you out of desperation. And if you wait until they actually turn on you to oppress them it'll be too late. Now's the time to act. Either fix the world so it's a better place for everyone or hope you're gonna get to be one of the oppressors and get to work on justifications for the brutal things you're going to have to do to maintain your quality of life.