Supreme Court should halt tip pooling

To the editor:

In the Review-Journal’s June 6 article, “Court hears tip-pooling case,” we cannot escape the fact that for seven years, Nevada gaming regulators, the Legislature and the governor dropped the ball.

In 2006, Wynn Resorts initiated confiscation of dealers’ tips to supplement the pay of the management team. The problem should’ve been quickly dealt with, but was ignored and allowed to fester.

This de facto taking is expressly prohibited by Nevada Revised Statute 608.160, which states that employers cannot benefit from employees’ tips in any way. By paying management personnel with tip money, Steve Wynn is substituting tip money for his own salary expenditure, thereby creating a benefit for himself.

Mr. Wynn attempts to justify this by renaming the job titles of management, whom he now calls team leaders. No amount of creative semantics will obfuscate what he’s trying to do: take someone else’s money.

Then there’s Mr. Wynn’s attorney, Eugene Scalia. Mr. Scalia, speaking before the Nevada Supreme Court, stated that the current law and years-old precedents that interpret it “have withstood the test of time with remarkably little litigation.” That’s like having President Barack Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, stonewall on Benghazi for seven months before saying, “Oh, Benghazi, that’s old news.”

This so-called precedent didn’t withstand the test of time. It has instead been the subject of endless delaying tactics initiated by Mr. Wynn and his lawyers, and for him to now argue that it withstood the test of time with remarkably little litigation is at once untrue and insulting.

This confiscation of dealers’ money is so obvious and indisputable, and this issue is so clearly defined by NRS 608.160, that I cannot imagine why it’s taking the state so long to remedy. I’m the founder and past president of the Nevada Casino Dealers Association and have personally spent 42 years at the gaming table. I find this issue very troubling on a personal level, potentially dangerous to the gaming industry and to the overwhelming majority of employees in Nevada. And it’s obviously not good for the dealers, who derive a large part of their income from tips.

My hope is that the Nevada Supreme Court will do its proper duty and ensure equity and fairness for all the tip-earning employees in Nevada.

TONY BADILLO

LAS VEGAS

Mexican consulate

To the editor:

I’m sure Julian Adem, the new consul for the Mexican Consulate in Las Vegas, will respect the U.S. decision on immigration reform — as long as it’s favorable (“Consul, Mexico looking forward to U.S. decision on immigration,” Wednesday Review-Journal). Why do we even have a consulate in Las Vegas? One thing the reporter didn’t ask was, “How do they treat Americans who go to Mexico without a passport?” Do they get deported immediately? Do they end up in jail?

Mr. Adem speaks about civil rights, but illegal immigrants don’t have any, because they aren’t citizens. He’s just one of many trying to push the politically correct agenda. Of course, he’s very happy with the new state legislation regarding driving privileges for illegal immigrants. I’d hope in the future, he’ll place more emphasis on having Mexicans learn to read, write and speak English. This will prove they actually want to assimilate and pledge to be Americans, instead of Mexicans just living in another country.

ROBERT OWEN

LAS VEGAS

Say no to chained CPI

To the editor:

President Barack Obama and members of Congress are considering many ways to reduce the national budget deficit. Unfortunately, among the proposals being discussed is one which is so detrimental to seniors on Social Security that it should ultimately be abandoned: chained Consumer Price Index.

Chained CPI means a never-ending change in the Consumer Price Index (like the law of diminishing returns). It will severely affect the cost-of-living adjustment which people on Social Security depend upon to help pay for rising health care, groceries and utilities as they get older. It will also adversely affect retired federal employees who already suffer detrimental losses to their (Social Security Benefits) retirement due to the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision. Retired military, younger disabled veterans who get early benefits and women who have earned historically lower wages will be affected.

It works like this: You buy steaks, and the government is assuming that as those steaks get too expensive, you will buy something less expensive, such as pork or poultry. The following year, the chained CPI takes this change into account, and the cost of living adjustment is further reduced. Then people will be buying cereal or canned tuna. When the third year comes, the COLA is again reduced. After buying your week’s worth of cat or dog food, what will you be buying the fourth or fifth year out?

Isn’t it amazing that our members of Congress and the president will still be buying their steaks?

TERRY FRAZIER

MESQUITE