Casinos in Connecticut are struggling to make money and are searching for ways to keep their business alive. That isn’t exactly a surprise. You can take that first sentence and replace “Connecticut” with any other state and replace “casinos” with virtually any other type of business and it is still accurate. Everyone is hurting right now, with the exception of labor unions, government employees, and political activists that are helping shape government policy.

Casinos are among the hardest hit by recession, though, because when people begin to tighten their wallet, trips to casinos start being cut out of the budget. Even President Obama told people not to go to Vegas anymore, which didn’t exactly please their Chamber of Commerce.

In light of all of that, casinos are looking at new ways to make money. Some in the Connecticut casino business, such as Rodney Butler, the owner of Foxwoods Resort Casino, are suggesting a reduction in the legal gambling age. Currently you need to be 21 to gamble in the state of Connecticut. The proposal would reduce the minimum gambling age to 18. Others within the casino industry, such as Mohegan Sun casino owner Lynn Malerba, disagree.

Malerba is chairwoman of the Mohegan Tribal Council and chief of the tribe. Through a spokesman, she stated that she believes that “the difference between a gambling age of 18 and a drinking age of 21 would make such a change very difficult to implement and manage.” Malerba indicated that changing the gambling age to 18 would only work if the drinking age was also lowered to 18 due in part to the fact that gambling and drinking tends to go hand in hand within casinos.

I imagine Malerba is worried about potential lawsuits if the casino staff serves alcohol to minors. Currently anyone allowed admission to the casino is legally allowed to drink so there is no problem. In addition, are 18 year olds going to be interested in visiting a casino if they can’t drink? I don’t think so. That brings up two possibilities then. Either reducing the gambling age would not attract new business because the 18 year olds would not go to the casinos knowing they can’t drink, or the casinos would have to be lax in their carding of guests. Many bars have a reputation for not checking ID’s frequently, which makes them popular with minors. However, a casino caught doing that could conceivably be fined, face legal action or even be shut down.

And while we’re on the subject, saying that 18 year olds are old enough to gamble with their money but not old enough to order a beer is just ridiculous. Society needs to determine at what age a person is an adult. Different states have different rules on that. The legal age of consent ranges from 16 to 18, the drinking age used to range from 18 to 21 depending on the state, but that changed with the passing of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which effectively changed the minimum age to 21 in every state. You must be 18 to buy cigarettes in most states, though in some it is 19. In most city, county and state law enforcement agencies you must be 20 or 21 to join. You must be at least 21 for a federal law enforcement job. However, in every state in America you may join the military at the age of 18.

Does any of that make sense? Now I support a state’s right to set their own age limits rather than having it all done federally. That will cause a difference in the ages from state to state. Can we at least get some consistency within the state borders, though? Why do we have some states where you can have sex at 16, join the military at 18, join the police department at 20 and drink alcohol and gamble at 21? If you’re 18, you’re mature enough to go off to a foreign land and risk your life defending America but not mature enough to have a beer while you’re there? Oh, and you better not play poker in the barracks, either. I also think it’s crazy that we have cops who are not legally allowed to drink arresting people for underage drinking.

So what should the age be in Connecticut? It’s something to think about.

Tribal casinos employ approximately 280,000 people across the United States, many of whom are American citizens. For the most part, the casinos are not subject to union control. However, one of the biggest tribal casinos, Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, is the first to sign a union agreement under tribal law. They may soon be the first tribal casino to file for bankruptcy.

Foxwoods Casino, I hope you enjoyed making money and having productive employees, because you have a union contract now, so you can kiss all of that goodbye. Say hello to fewer hours worked, longer lunch breaks, more frequent breaks, a higher payroll and a workplace full of employees who have no incentive to try their best. Say hello to unionized labor.

The dealers at the casino were upset because the big, bad company was mistreating them for no good reason so they decided to organize and set up collective bargaining. One dealer told NPR that they wanted to join a union because they were “angry that we were losing these good benefits that we had when the company was still making money.”

Um… So you admit that they’re no longer making money? In 2007, revenue was down so the casino had to cut costs in payroll and benefits. It’s what economists would call balancing a budget. That’s kind of like what you’re supposed to do with your finances at home – make sure you’re not spending more than you’re making. Anyway, after cuts were made the dealers got upset and voted to join the United Auto Workers union. Yes, that would be the same UAW that has led to GM, Ford and Chrysler being so successful of late.

In order to stay in business the casino had to lay off a large part of their workforce, including 700 employees as recently as the fall of 2009. The casino’s revenue is down 13% and has $700 million in debt that is due.  And how did the UAW respond to this financial crisis that could lead to the company filing for bankruptcy? They got raises for the workforce!

The recently completed deal gives dealers a 12% raise, allows part-time employees to receive the benefits of full-time employees and provides a more beneficial system for tips. The UAW even gushed with pride that the contract is so “progressive,” which is union code for “bad for business.”

Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I always thought that when a company was hemorrhaging money was a bad time to hold your hand out and ask for a bigger cut. We’ve seen how well that has worked with the Big Three automakers. Union contracts have put them in a situation where it’s almost impossible to make a profit. Is such a fate coming to the casino industry now as well? The UAW hopes so, and they have been going after the casino industry for years.

None of this was even possible until 2007. Because tribal territory is considered a sovereign nation separate from the United States, they had always been immune from any federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act. However, in 2007 a California judge ruled against the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and said that federal labor laws did apply to tribal casinos because they employ so many non-tribal members. So let’s get this straight. Because American citizens decide of their own free will to take a job for a company that operates on foreign soil, that foreign company now has to abide by American labor laws? That makes no sense. The tribes saw the ruling as an assault on their sovereignty, and rightfully so, and as a result it has opened the floodgates for powerful unions like the UAW to take control.

So is bankruptcy next for the Foxwood Casino? It’s unclear whether a tribal casino is even eligible for bankruptcy, but then again, logic would state that federal labor laws don’t apply to them, so who knows? If not bankruptcy, since the UAW is involved, a taxpayer-funded bailout may be in the future. And if it happens, we all know where the bulk of those bailout funds will go: to the UAW.