Some people are intent on making sure that Foxwoods Resort Casino doesn’t make money. After a push for unionization failed last year, they are trying again. In 2007, the United Auto Workers union, fresh of the success of driving the American auto industry into the ground, decided that they wanted to destroy the casino industry as well. So they decided that they should take control of Foxwoods Casino, a tribal casino located in Connecticut.

Despite the fact that the Foxwoods Resort Casino is run by the Mashantucket tribe and is on tribal land and thus falls under tribal jurisdiction, the federal government defied law and common sense by stating that the tribal casinos are also subject to the National Labor Relations Act. It is an opinion that the tribes are still fighting in court.

In the meantime, with Foxwoods already losing money, some of the employees voted to be represented by the UAW, giving up their voice and saying goodbye to being paid based on your merit as an employee. Productivity also went down as salaries and benefits went up – at the demand of the union. As common sense dictates, the result of falling profits and rising payroll costs led to layoffs.

Now the bartenders, beverage servers and others want to join the United Food and Commercial Workers union, or at least according to the union. According to the actual vote that took place last year, the employees didn’t want to be unionized. However, they voted under last year’s rules, where if an employee was not present to vote, they were counted as a “no.” This year, thanks to Obama’s pal Andy Stern, the National Labor Relations Board now has a new rule that votes are only counted among those present. For that reason, the union wants a new vote this year and they want it supervised by the NLRB.

Foxwoods says they are welcome to vote again under Mashantucket Pequot labor law rules. Rodney Butler, chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Council, says giving the NLRB control goes against “tribal self-governance.” He said that “tribal law should apply in these matters. We will continue to vigorously oppose any further attempts to undermine our sovereignty.”

THE NLRB has scheduled a hearing for Friday on the matter of who can supervise the election. Whatever happens, two things need to be known: First, whatever ruling is made by the federal government, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the business practices of tribal companies on tribal land. That land is sovereign territory. Then again, the federal government has long asserted its will over state matters in which it has no jurisdiction, so why should this be any different?

The other thing we need to take out of this is the motive of the unions. Always remember that the unions don’t care what’s best for the company or the workers. They only care about what’s best for the unions. They push for unionization because that increases their revenue –through dues – and they push for larger salaries and benefits because that increases their revenue – through larger dues. The result of unionization is almost always the same. It leads to lower productivity and motivation from the workers, lower revenue for the business, fewer job openings, and eventually lay-offs. Often times it also leads to the business going into debt (see the auto industry, schools, police and fire departments for just a few examples).

When I first read this report, I had to double-check to make sure my source wasn’t The Onion, The Daily Show, MSNBC or some other source of fake news. It wasn’t. It seems as though this report I’m about to give you is actually true.

A Pennsylvania man forfeited $2,000 in casino winnings and was arrested for violating his self-imposed ban. The 55-year-old man, who has not been named, placed himself on Pennsylvania’s self-exclusion program in April 2009. Many people place themselves on a self-exclusion list if they have a gambling addiction or some other problem of irresponsibility and they want to make sure they are unable to go to a casino and lose money.

If you are on the self-exclusion list, no casino is allowed to admit you and let you play. Somehow, a Pennsylvania casino – the Presque Isle Downs & Casino in Erie, PA – did let him enter and play. Not only that, but he won a $2,000 jackpot. Once it was learned that he was on the self-exclusion list, his winnings were forfeited and he was arrested for trespassing.

And there’s where I think this goes into the realm of insanity. Players like this man have a problem controlling their urge so to take away the temptation of gambling at a casino, they voluntarily place themselves on an exclusion list. It is the choice of the individual to place themselves on the list as a way of helping them fight the temptation to play at a casino. The casinos then oblige by helping them with that. Why are criminal charges involved?

I get the forfeiting of the money. That makes sense because if he gets to keep it he is being rewarded for giving in to temptation and playing at a casino. Since the man wants to avoid that, you don’t want to reward that behavior. I don’t think a punishment in the form of criminal charges is warranted, though. Did he know when he agreed to the self-exclusion that he could be charged with trespassing if he violated the self-imposed ban?

It seems to me that if people with gambling problems learn that putting themselves on a self-exclusion list could bring criminal charges against them, they won’t do it. Let’s face it, if they didn’t have a problem with willpower, they wouldn’t be trying to exclude themselves. If relapsing can result in a criminal conviction, though, it seems like many will say “no thanks” and will not get help with their gambling problem.

Charging this man with trespassing is wrong and the charges need to be dropped immediately. Anything else is absurd and just morally wrong.

According to the AFP, some genius in India faked his kidnapping because he needed money for a gambling trip. Pawan Verma, a 22-year-old in New Delhi, staged his own kidnapping and demanded $40,000 from his father so he could make a trip to Macau, where he wanted to celebrate New Year’s Eve with his girlfriend with a night of partying, gambling and other excesses.

Apparently, Verma doesn’t have enough spare time in his life to watch any of the American movies where someone stages a kidnapping in order to get some money. Spoiler alert: It never ends well! When you get out of jail, though, Mr. Verma, I would suggest watching Fargo. It’s the best of the fake-kidnapping movies.

The case against Verma is pretty good. What makes them think he staged the kidnapping? Well, the authorities were tipped off when Verma was seen at the drop site picking up the random money…Yes, folks. This rocket scientist actually went to the drop himself instead of sending someone else and somehow didn’t expect to be recognized. He thought his dad would just drop off $40,000 without having anyone watching? I imagine it went down something like this:

Verma’s father: Look, there’s somebody heading over to the duffle bag now!

Cops: Okay, team. Get ready to move in.

Verma’s father: What the f–? It’s Pawan!

Cops: What?

Verma’s father: That’s my son! I can’t believe it! He’s okay!

Cops: Are you sure it’s him? It can’t be someone else?

Verma’s father: Are you saying we all look the same? No, it’s him; I know it. Thank God…Wait, he’s taking the money. He’s walking away…That son of a—

Verma, not surprisingly, was arrested. The authorities found it hard to believe that he had a legitimate reason for picking up the ransom money when he was supposed to be kidnapped at that time. A police officer in New Delhi told the press that Verma wanted to treat his girlfriend for New Year’s. He “wanted to fulfill her wish but was not able to bear the expenses.”

Maybe he should have just come clean. It’s always tough when you have to tell your girlfriend you can’t afford something, but I think that’s a little less damaging to the relationship than getting arrested for faking your own kidnapping. Add to that the fact that, if he needed to conduct this scheme to afford the gambling trip, this man has no business gambling in the first place! You should never gamble money that you can’t afford to lose, and I think it’s safe to say that if Verma had to con his dad out of $40,000 to hit the casino, he fits in the can’t afford to lose category.

A police offer said that if the father wishes, the charges against Verma will be dropped. My opinion: He should go to jail and be banned from ever visiting a casino…and from having kids.