The House Advantage: Organizing Niagara’s Casinos

Back in the early 1990s, city leaders in Niagara Falls, determined to pull the community out of an economic slump brought about by deindustrialization and a depressed tourism sector, asked the provincial government to allow the city to host a commercial casino and organized a referendum on the issue in conjunction with the November 1994 municipal elections. Casino proponents argued it would create jobs, attract investment, augment tax revenues, and correspondingly reduce the tax burden on local residents. Opponents of casino gambling feared an increase in crime and compulsive gambling, traffic congestion, and a heavier tax burden owing to a greater need for policing and other costs associated with the criminal justice system.¹

Whereas opponents of casino gambling were based primarily in religious communities, the pro-casino forces included community leaders from all across the political spectrum, as well as representatives from both business and labour — including former CLC president Shirley Carr, who acted as co-chair of the YES campaign leading up to the referendum.² Carr’s role was strategically important for the YES forces because it indicated that organized labour viewed casino gaming as an important source of jobs and, perhaps more importantly, as a key to the revitalization of Niagara’s labour movement.

On election day, Niagara Falls voters decided that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages and endorsed casino gambling, with 63 percent casting ballots in favour of the referendum question. Just over two years later, Casino Niagara, nestled in the Clifton Hill tourist area, opened its doors to the public. From the very start, a number of labour unions showed active interest in organizing casino workers. However, despite multiple union drives by several different unions over the course of the past fifteen years, Niagara’s casinos have, by and large, remained ununionized. The non-union status of the vast majority of casino workers in Niagara is somewhat surprising, given that most other casino workers across North America belong to labour unions and enjoy the higher wages and better working conditions typically associated with union membership. If the union advantage is so obvious, then why have Niagara’s casino workers repeatedly rejected unionization?

Briefly put, casino management enjoys a “house advantage” in its efforts to avoid unionization. In the gaming industry, the house advantage refers to the profitable winning edge that the casino has over the player. Over the long term, the house advantage virtually guarantees the casino will always win. In the case of Niagara’s casinos, management has perfected a union-avoidance strategy that relies on a complex mix of both union substitution and union suppression to dissuade casino workers from organizing.

When Casino Niagara opened its doors to the public in December 1996, HERE, the CAW, the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and the OPSEU all tested the waters. Casino workers complained about low wages, exposure to second-hand smoke, and preferential treatment for a privileged few. The various unions made their pitches to casino workers, and it soon became clear that the CAW had emerged as the favourite among pro-union employees. While the CAW’s membership was based primarily in manufacturing, particularly in the automotive sector, it had a very good reputation as a strong union that was able to secure decent contracts for its members. The CAW had also recently organized workers at Casino Windsor, thus establishing an important toehold in Canada’s emerging gaming industry.

After the CAW gathered enough support through card signing to trigger a certification election in early November 1999, CAW national president Buzz Hargrove made a personal visit to Casino Niagara. He chatted with casino workers about poor working conditions, air quality issues, and management’s tendency to play favourites.³ After a scrum with reporters outside the casino, Hargrove, armed with a roll of coins and a stack of chips, made his way inside. He was greeted by a security officer who asked for his autograph. Hargrove lost his money pretty quickly — it was a sign of things to come. Over a period of four days early in November 1999, the OLRB held a secret-ballot vote to determine the wishes of casino workers. In the end, the workers voted 1,169 to 1,064 against the CAW. The union blamed its narrow defeat in part on the provincial government’s decision to do away with the card-based method of union certification, which had been used successfully in 1994 to organize casino workers in Windsor. In 1995, the Conservative government of Mike Harris replaced the card-based system with a mandatory vote system that had the effect of making it easier for employers to avoid unionization.

Under the old card-based system, in order to be recognized by the OLRB as the official bargaining agent for a group of workers, a union needed 55 percent of the employees in a workplace to sign union cards. In this system, the signatures collected on union cards represent a demonstration of the workers’ desire to be represented by the union. Under the mandatory vote system, unions are required to sign up at least 40 percent of the employees on union cards, at which point the union can file a certification application with the OLRB. This application in turn triggers a mandatory vote five business days later, supervised by the board. The union is required to win at least 50 percent plus one of the votes cast in the secret-ballot certification election in order to become the official bargaining agent for the workers. During the five business days between the union’s application and the certification vote, workers are typically bombarded with anti-union literature and an assortment of threats and promises from management designed to discourage workers from following through with unionization.⁴ In effect, despite the vote by secret ballot, the system actually inhibits workplace democracy, providing employers with both the opportunity and the incentive to influence the outcome of the vote through intimidation, coercion, misinformation, or all of the above.⁵

In the wake of the CAW’s unsuccessful bid for certification, OPSEU announced that it would take a crack at unionizing Casino Niagara employees.⁶ In February 2000, the union overcame casino management’s house advantage by successfully organizing casino security guards, winning a certification election by a margin of 101 to 71 votes.⁷ The union had hoped that this small victory would help to secure the support of casino workers in other departments, but the union’s organizing drive eventually fizzled out, and the CAW returned to try a second time. By this time, however, casino management had perfected a very sophisticated union-avoidance strategy, consisting of two basic parts.

On the one hand, casino management has employed “union substitution” techniques that are designed to increase worker loyalty and thus make employees — or “associates,” as casino management calls them — far less likely to identify with the interests of the union. These techniques have included signing bonuses, free dry cleaning services, educational reimbursements, casino-sponsored holiday parties and family picnics, and annual pay raises. Casino management has also tried to keep wages and working conditions more or less in line with those of unionized casino workers in Windsor. This has created a situation in which casino workers in Niagara receive comparable wages and vacation time provisions without having to pay union dues, which obviously undermines the incentive to unionize. In addition, casino management has provided mechanisms whereby employees can air their grievances and resolve disputes. These include open-door policies and formalized complaint procedures, which, although not legally enforceable, lend the impression that employee complaints are taken seriously and dealt with in a fair and consistent manner.

On the other hand, casino management has simultaneously pursued a strategy of union suppression, which is designed to plant seeds of doubt about unions in the minds of workers and play on worker fears concerning the impact of unionization on job security. The goal here is to cast the union as a self-interested and disruptive third party. Casino management’s union suppression techniques have included the development of an anti-union website and frequent distribution of anti-union fact sheets, as well as captive-audience meetings intended to dissuade workers from unionizing.

Buzz Hargrove has argued that if workers are given the choice between having a union and not having a union, they will likely choose to have a union — but if workers are given a choice between having a union and having a job, they will always choose their job.⁸ Hargrove’s point is that casino management’s union avoidance tactics have changed the nature of the certification vote itself, encouraging workers to vote on the basis of their fears rather than their hopes for the future.

Admittedly, some workers are genuinely uninterested in union membership, particularly those who earn a substantial portion of their income through tips. All the same, anti-union attitudes on the part of some workers cannot possibly explain why the CAW has repeatedly failed to organize Niagara’s casinos. We know that support for unionization exists because workers are willing to sign union cards. And yet a significant number of workers who initially indicate support for the union ultimately vote against union representation in the secret-ballot certification election. This phenomenon was evident in March 2001, when the CAW narrowly lost its second certification vote — this time by a substantial margin of 1,701 to 820. Even though over 40 percent of the workers had signed union cards, less than a third of the workers ultimately voted in favour of CAW representation. Casino management’s union-avoidance strategy was instrumental in dispelling much of the union support in the workplace. As CAW organizer Maureen Kirincic told local media, “Management put a lot of pressure on the workers and fought hard. Workers were given a 50 cents an hour raise just prior to the vote and they were led to believe they are going to get a bonus up to $1,000 and that whatever we bargained for Windsor they [management] would follow.”⁹ The strategy worked perfectly. A few months later, Casino Niagara initiated layoffs and scaled back hours for casino workers in all departments, prompting more than a few employees to second-guess their decision to reject the CAW.¹⁰

On 22 October 2001, construction began on a second casino, in the Fallsview area. The CAW knew that, once the new Fallsview Casino Resort opened its doors, it would be even more difficult to organize casino workers, given a much larger workforce spread across two different workplaces. For their part, Casino Niagara workers worried about what the opening of the new casino would mean for their jobs. Would Casino Niagara close down — and, if it did, would they be able to transfer to the new location? The uncertainty surrounding the opening of the Fallsview Casino Resort prompted renewed interest in union membership.¹¹ The CAW seized the opportunity to launch another organizing drive in advance of the opening of the new casino. It managed to sign the required number of workers on union cards, setting the stage for a certification vote in December 2003.

In response, casino management scheduled a series of paid captive-audience meetings with casino workers and provided them with thinly veiled anti-union literature to read before the vote. In a letter to casino management, CAW organizing director Paul Forder complained that the meetings constituted “nothing more than a direct attempt by you to bombard the workers with management views and opinions in an attempt to dissuade them from voting YES for the CAW. If you really respected your workers, you would not insult their intelligence by trying to tell them how to vote.”¹² Casino management’s campaign prevailed once again: Casino Niagara workers voted 1,334 to 907 against union representation. Dejected by a third straight defeat, the union went back to the drawing board.

A year later, another round of aggressive layoffs and shift reductions at the casinos sparked renewed interest in unionization. After scores of workers from both Casino Niagara and the Fallsview Casino Resort contacted the Niagara Falls Review to complain about the massive cutbacks, the newspaper penned an editorial chastising casino management. “So many people seem unhappy at the two casinos that the Canadian Auto Workers union may be met with open arms next time it tries to organize there,” the paper warned.¹³ The next day, the CAW officially launched its fourth drive to unionize casino workers in Niagara Falls.

On 30 March 2005, in an effort to promote the union’s organizing drive, fifty CAW retirees showed up at the Fallsview Casino Resort wearing bright green T-shirts featuring the CAW’s logo and a message on the back: “Sign your CAW union card today.” Once inside, the retirees scattered across the gaming floor, claiming seats at slot machines. The union’s marketing ploy irked casino management, who instructed security guards to ask the retirees to either remove or change their T-shirts — prompting CAW retiree Dennis Hryorchuk to quip that visiting the casino nearly caused him to lose his shirt.¹⁴ The incident attracted media attention and brought the union’s organizing drive back into the spotlight. However, the union was having difficulty gathering the number of signed union cards required to trigger a vote, largely because of increased turnover in contract positions.

In November, the CAW announced it was creating a new local specifically for casino workers in Niagara. Local 21 — the number inspired by a natural blackjack — is just “good luck,” explained CAW organizer Maureen Kirincic.¹⁵ By creating a separate local, the CAW was addressing concerns among casino workers that their own workplace issues might be overshadowed by issues in the automotive sector — the union’s traditional power base in Niagara. The union held a series of open houses for casino workers to field their questions and encourage them to sign union cards, but, in the end, the CAW could not muster enough support and was forced to put the organizing campaign on hold.¹⁶

Meanwhile, working conditions at Niagara’s casinos went from bad to worse. In May 2007, members of Niagara Falls City Council started openly criticizing casino management’s treatment of its workforce and of the community. Councillor Jim Diodati complained, “They’re taking without giving. That seems to be the new philosophy.”¹⁷ Niagara Falls MPP Kim Craitor told the local media that he had similar concerns, adding, “I’m extremely frustrated by the way employees are treated down there.”¹⁸ However, the disappointment of local politicians did not convince the casinos to change their winning strategy for avoiding unionization.

In October 2007, amid rumours that the provincial government was considering closing Casino Niagara, the CAW partnered with Local 2347 of the hotel workers’ union to launch an online petition campaign in support of hospitality workers in Niagara. The text of the petition reflected a prevailing sense in the community of the gap between the casinos’ promise of year-round well-paying jobs for all tourism workers in Niagara and the reality of economic life for those same workers.

We the undersigned believe the following: Having two casinos in Niagara Falls is vital to the continued economic prosperity of the city.

Prosperity will only be guaranteed if the jobs at the casino and in the surrounding tourism industry are good jobs.

Goods jobs are jobs where: workers earn a living wage that allows them to support their families in dignity, workers are respected and receive the training they require to work safely and pursue career advancement opportunities, workers are ensured of benefits, including secure pensions, workers are free to join and be active in unions where their collective bargaining rights are respected.

So as to advance the interests of everyone in Niagara Falls, workers must be included in discussions surrounding the future of the casinos. Workers must be given the opportunity to select representatives who will be at the table alongside the hotel owners and other interested parties.

Background: Niagara Falls’ two casinos are an important part of our local economy and employ more people than the city’s next 8 largest employers combined. Those other 8 employers are hotel and restaurant companies which are at least partially dependent on the casino to attract visitors to Niagara Falls.

Fifty years ago, things looked very different in the Niagara region. While there was a thriving tourism industry, the bulk of our local economy was centred on manufacturing and the jobs it created in our community. The loss of those manufacturing jobs has directly affected the standard of living for people in Niagara. While the 1960s saw our region enjoying one of the highest per capita incomes in Canada, the Niagara region now has the lowest median income in all of Ontario.

Families in Niagara Falls are struggling. Many workers in this area are making very close to the minimum wage and are subject to seasonal unemployment as is typical in the tourism industry. And yet the tourism industry in Niagara Falls continues to reap massive profits each year.

If we want Niagara Falls and all of its citizens to prosper, we need to demand more than just the simple fact that our two casinos remain open. We also need to demand that the jobs at those two casinos and in the surrounding tourism industry are the kind of good jobs that can sustain our families and allow us to live in security and dignity. We need to ensure the people who work at the casinos and the surrounding hotels are just as involved in discussions between the city and the province on the casinos’ future as the tourism owners clearly already are.

Workers are prepared to get involved if they are only given the chance.¹⁹

Soon after the provincial government laid to rest rumours that Casino Niagara might close its doors, the CAW, UNITE HERE, and LIUNA all initiated campaigns to organize casino workers. However, the latter two unions did not manage to make much headway, and once again the CAW emerged as the most promising option for pro-union casino workers.

The CAW hammered away at the issue of job security in its communications to casino workers. According to figures released by the union, 84.5 percent of casino workers held full-time positions in 2003. By 2009, that number had dropped to just 57 percent.²⁰ The CAW also argued that the percentage of temporary workers had jumped from 3.5 percent in 2003 to 17 percent in 2009.²¹ In effect, for a growing proportion of casino workers, casino management had turned what were supposed to be steady full-time jobs into part-time, casual work. This served casino management’s union-avoidance strategy perfectly. Contract employees were less likely to support unionization owing to the precarious nature of their employment and fears that unionization would lead to the elimination of contract positions.

In January 2010, the CAW filed an application for certification, which it later withdrew when it discovered that hundreds of occasional banquet servers had been unaccounted for in its calculations.²² The CAW would need more signed union cards in order to meet the 40 percent threshold needed to trigger a certification election under the Labour Relations Act. In the weeks that followed, the union continued to promote the issue of job security in an effort to gather the additional cards it needed. At a meeting of the CAW Gaming Council in Niagara Falls in March 2010, longtime Casino Niagara employee Romel Argueta reinforced the union’s job security message in a speech he delivered about the state of the gaming industry in Niagara:

I started working for Casino Niagara in 1996, almost 14 years now. I remember very well the opening day of Casino Niagara. Everybody in this community — local politicians, small business, our families, in particular, we, the ones who got a job at Casino Niagara. We were so pleased to have the opportunity to bring these full-time jobs to our communities.

Back then, the majority got a full-time job. That’s not the case today. That’s not the case these days. These casinos are no longer providing full-time jobs in our communities. Instead, seasonal work, contracts, part-time jobs are increasing. We, the workers in these communities, we need to provide our children a good education, health care, shelter, food, clothing, etc. In order to do that, we need full-time.… We have the second highest unemployment rate in the country. One in every six children in our communities lives in poverty.

We’re not going to reduce poverty, inequality with these precarious jobs. I think these days more than ever, we — the workers in these communities — we need unions. But also, we need progressive, local politicians. And together we can stand up to these corporations, to these multi-million corporations, and say enough is enough — we are not going to allow you to come here and disrespect our workers in our communities. That’s what we need to do.²³

Soon afterwards, the CAW was able to submit its application to the OLRB, triggering a certification election in April 2010.

While the CAW was busy convincing workers to support the union, casino management was walking a thin legal line in its communications to workers prior to the certification election. For example, employers are not allowed to tell workers that unionization will result in a workplace closure. However, casino management provided workers with data showing that workplaces organized by the CAW (mostly in the manufacturing sector) had experienced thousands of layoffs and job losses over the course of the previous few years.²⁴ Management also told workers that unionization would mean building a new employment contract from scratch — creating the impression that a collective agreement negotiated by the union might leave them worse off in terms of wages, benefits, and working conditions.²⁵ Casino management went even further on the issue of job security, arguing “the union cannot guarantee your job secuity — however, your membership helps guarantee the union’s job security.”²⁶ This type of employer communication, which portrays the union as a self-interested third party, is common in union-avoidance campaigns, as it reinforces the idea that workers have more in common with their employers than they do with any union. This anti-union strategy also frames the certification decision as a risky gamble for workers, in the hope that employees will remain loyal to the employer even in the face of poor working conditions.

Casino management also exploited worker fears about the prospect of strikes and lockouts. Despite the fact that 97 percent of all CAW negotiations are concluded without a strike, in a communication to workers in advance of the certification election, casino management wrote: “We’re not saying unionization will lead to a strike, but every CAW-represented Casino worksite has been on strike.”²⁷ Although the union repeatedly attempted to quell workers’ fears concerning the assertions and innuendo proffered by casino management, their efforts were not entirely successful.

On the first day of the April 2010 union certification vote at the two casinos, the Niagara Falls Review published letters from both CAW president Ken Lewenza and Art Frank, president of Niagara Casinos, which encapsulated their respective positions on unionization.

Ken Lewenza, Canadian Autoworkers Union

There’s no question that for thousands of Niagara casino workers this week’s union certification vote has been a long time coming.

Since the casinos opened their doors, workers have expressed a willingness to speak for themselves at work, with a collective voice equal with their employer. This is the basis for true workplace democracy.

Sure, my teeth were cut on the auto assembly line. But I can tell you, there aren’t a lot of folks tougher than those who have put in their time on the casino floor. Dealing with the public on a daily basis, whether it’s working the floor, serving cocktails or slogging away in back rooms, these workers have generated billions in profits for their employer and their province with no fair value in return.

Casino workers are a major force in Canada’s tourism industry and play an important role in generating the wealth that contributes to our social and economic development. Even in the worst economic downturn in recent history, Ontario’s gaming workers still helped rake in hundreds of millions in third quarter revenue for the O.L.G. in 2009.

Nearly half of that was generated by Niagara’s casinos.

Yet the hourly earnings of most gaming workers (similar to most non-union service sector workers in the gaming sector and elsewhere) still lie well below Canada’s industrial average. Worse still, their work hours are sporadic and simply out of their control.

Many have been led to believe that full-time work, or at the very least guaranteed part-time work hours, is a luxury. They have come to think it selfish or inappropriate to demand good workplace benefits.

How do I know this? As president of C.A.W. Local 444 in Windsor, I stood with thousands of casino workers in their heroic and historic drive to organize, demanding respect and a quality of work life from their employer. I felt their frustrations and I listened to their concerns.

That organizing drive, and the subsequent collective agreements we were able to negotiate, changed the face of collective bargaining in the Canadian gaming sector. It was an emotional and inspiring victory.

Today, C.A.W. represents more than 7,000 casinos, slots and racetrack workers in Canada, making us the country’s largest gaming sector union.

Despite what many observers may think, joining a union isn’t about being spiteful towards an employer, and it’s certainly not about damaging business (what jobs would be left if that were the case?). For casino workers, it’s always been a question of respect and fairness at work.

Antagonism, hostility and public resentment are often bred when employers choose to ignore those rights and, instead, spend untold amounts of time and energy trying to convince workers that they have their best interests at heart. In this employer’s case, it’s been 14 years’ worth.

Casino workers will head to the voting booth this week, with the full support of C.A.W. members across the country, demanding fairness, equality and a true sense of empowerment from their boss — once and for all.

No worker should demand less.

Art Frank, President of Niagara Casinos

Since 1998, the C.A.W. has attempted unsuccessfully to become the trade union representing the associates at Niagara Casinos on four separate occasions.

The fifth such attempt will take place Wednesday, Thursday and Friday at polling stations at Fallsview Casino and as an organization, we have always maintained we prefer to deal directly with our associates rather than through a third-party like the C.A.W.

Over the past 13 years, we have demonstrated we are an employer of choice in the Niagara region thanks to an excellent compensation and benefits package — the best in Niagara and the best among all other commercial casino operations in Ontario.

Niagara Casinos has a corporate culture that allows associates to work in a safe environment of dignity and respect in which they are not only free — but encouraged — to bring any employment issues to our attention.

Since joining the Niagara Casinos team, I have said that the only thing that guarantees job security is a viable business. We have persevered despite countless challenges and today we have a viable business.

Our associates are faced with an extremely important decision — a decision that should not be left for others to make on their behalf.

We recognize the ability of our associates to make informed decisions in matters relating to their employment and we will always respect those decisions.

I encourage all associates of Niagara Casinos to take the time to vote; today from 4 to 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. to 1 a.m., or Thursday and Friday 8 to 10 a.m., 4 to 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. Polls will be open at these times at both Fallsview Casino and Casino Niagara in the associate dining rooms.

This is a vote for you and your family and your working relationship at Niagara Casinos.

Your vote counts. Your vote matters.²⁸

The CAW spent the next few days calling members who signed union cards reminding them to vote and offered rides to their supporters in order to ensure maximum turnout.²⁹ For its part, casino management offered to cover taxi fare to get workers to the polling station and offered financial incentives to workers from out of town who showed up to vote outside of their regularly scheduled shifts.³⁰ In the end, casino workers rejected unionization once again, this time by a vote of 1,806 to 1,047.

CAW organizer John Aman tried to find a silver lining in the result. He told the local media, “Our solid support is increasing. Clearly, it’s a wake-up call for the company on many aspects. All is not lost.”³¹ Casino management was pleased with the result. Company spokesperson Greg Medulun did acknowledge that “a number of our associates believe representation is required,” adding that “we consider this an opportunity to explore a potential change to our workplace environment.”³² However, Medulun also heaped praise on the casino’s management team. Before the ballots were counted, he told the Niagara Falls Review that “from the moment we were given notice C.A.W. was attempting to certify our associates, the management team worked to ensure [they] had the opportunity to educate themselves.”³³ But what kind of education did casino management deliver to its workforce? Did workers confidently cast ballots armed with all the information they needed, or did they fall victim to casino management’s union-avoidance strategy?

The CAW continues to argue that casino management’s use of union substitution and union suppression tactics, combined with the provincial government’s refusal to reinstate card-based union certification, have solidified casino management’s house advantage in combatting unionization.³⁴ This dismal assessment, however, has not prevented the union from fighting against the odds. Niagara’s casino workers are still plagued by a lack of job security in an economic and political climate threatened by currency fluctuations, cross-border delays, and high energy prices. Labour unions potentially hold the key to a better, more certain, future for these workers. But as the case of Niagara’s casinos has demonstrated, unionization is highly contested, and employers are willing to fight tooth and nail to avoid having to deal with unions. All the same, the CAW persists in active efforts to organize casino workers in Niagara.