|
For a few years in the late 70's my family and I lived in Great Falls, Montana. I learned in school that American Indians were called Native Americans and that Jews don't get to sing in the front of the Christmas Pageant even if they don't have any of their front teeth (I was in second grade and the song was "All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth" and none of the kids, including myself, could understand why they refused to let me be in front). I also had my first actual encounter with a Native American. My father and I were driving somewhere (it's been too long for me to remember) when we saw an old man with long hair not looking so good sitting on a gutter by the street. These were the days where people helped when they saw someone hurt so my father stopped, because it was the right thing to do. He helped the old man to our car and we took him to his home in the local trailer park. He was Native American and fortunately he wasn't hurt, he was just staggeringly drunk. This was the stereotype for Native American all across the United States in the days before. Then along came Indian Casinos, and all of that changed. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in Southern California is one of the nation's wealthiest tribes thanks to Indian gaming. Tribal lands are considered sovereign governments, so the Indians (or Native Americans as I still think of them) are allowed to place casinos on their land for revenue. Indian Casinos have since become a huge business and part of that is because as a sovereign government the tribes have decided that they don't have to follow federal labor laws. Now the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians are in court, using their money to finance a precedent-setting legal fight contending that tribes are exempt from federal labor laws because they are sovereign governments. If the San Manuel lose this case it could potentially allow tribal casino workers to organize and form a union. That means approximately 250,000 workers in over 400 casinos. According to Joseph A. Turzi, an attorney who has previously represented tribes in labor disputes but isn't involved in this case, "It's tremendously significant because tribal gaming is a target for labor, one of the significant targets for labor, and this would significantly open up the ability of labor to organize." In 2004 the National Labor Relations Board decided that the board had jurisdiction over tribal businesses. This means tribal casino workers would be covered by the National Labor Relations Act that bars unfair labor practices and gives workers the rights to organize and bargain with employers. Vincent Duro, the San Manuel Vice Chairman, believes this is unfair to the tribes. "They've taken the tribe and simply defined us as an employer instead of a government, which we are. That is, to me, really outrageous. The erosion in and of tribal sovereignty is a serious threat." The board sees national labor practices and sovereign government as two different things and having one under national jurisdiction doesn't negate the other. "Running a commercial business is not an expression of sovereignty in the same way that running a tribal court system is," the labor board said in its opinion, approved by a 3-1 vote. Given the money involved and the complications connected to tribal lands being a sovereign government both sides expect the case to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. David Fleischer, senior attorney with the labor board, says that "It's that kind of a case." When Congress allowed for casinos to be placed on tribal land their goal was to help bring up the standard of living for Native Americans. They have succeeded in their goal, but with it have opened up a can of worms. The issue at hand is about the right to create unions, to strike, and to picket casinos in case of a strike on tribal land. Right now tribal casino workers have none of these rights. "Workers are left without weapons to be able to force an employer who wants to fight unionization," said Jack Gribbon, political director for Unite Here in California. Unite Here is the union which wants to organize on the San Manuel land. Giving workers the right to fight for a better workplace is an essential part of what being American is all about. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation; give us the right to represent ourselves. This means give us the right to work without being treated as a slave. Give us the respect of being paid a fair wage on time with all of the normal social benefits. For the most part tribal casinos provide that for their employees, but not all do and those that don't are ruining it for the rest of them. I don't see anything wrong with a union, besides the added bureaucracy. As long as employers are treating their employees well and in a fair legal manner there won't be any problems. As I see it if workers want the right to form a union that is a fairly blatant plea that something is desperately wrong in the workplace. Of course, I have zero experience with unions, so I could be wrong about that… Internet casinos are not based on US tribal land. There are numerous based in Kahnawake in Canada, and so far the country is allowing them to continue hosting online gambling establishments even though it is against Canadian law. If US tribal land was really a sovereign government they would be able to have internet casinos located on their land without an issue with the US government. However, they have not because they can not. Ultimately tribal lands are part of the United States and must abide by federal laws. I have a strong feeling that this case will go the way of the workers. Posted on: September 7, 2006
Back to September 2006's archive |
||||||||||||
|
|
Del.icio.us
Digg
Google
Spurl
Furl
Simpy
Y! MyWeb
