Remember the planned Foxwoods Casino in Pennsylvania? There have been plans for some time to build the casino in Pennsylvania, but those plans have stalled due to the developers not raising enough money and missing a government deadline. Now they might have another shot at launching their casino, thanks to a Las Vegas competitor.

Harrah’s Entertainment, the largest casino company in the world, has agreed to invest in and manage the proposed Philadelphia casino. The agreement is nonbinding and is contingent on the developers getting regulatory approval and enough financing from other sources.

Harrah’s has signed a term sheet that allows them to participate in the casino license that the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board awarded to Foxwoods in December 2006. As part of the deal, creditors such as Harrah’s and Citizens Bank would restructure debts owed to them. Harrah’s would “invest new capital for a minority ownership position in the property and would also agree to a management role,” according to the developer, Philadelphia Entertainment & Development Partners (PEDP). The management role is perhaps more important to getting the ball rolling than the investment of capital.

There are still a lot of challenges facing the proposed casino. The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board still has to decide whether or not to revoke the gambling license they granted to the group. In 2006, they gave the license to PEDP and Foxwoods Development Company, part of the Mashantucket Western Pequot Tribal Nation. However, when that license was granted, Wynn Resorts was a partner. They pulled out of the deal in April of this year. Since then, the developers have missed deadlines to build the casino and pay permit fees. Because of the missed deadlines, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board has the right to revoke the gaming license.

After 32 years of asking, the Shinnecock tribe has finally received formal recognition from the federal government. The Shinnecock tribe knew they existed, as evidenced by their 1,292 members living on an 800-acre reservation in Southampton, New York, but it took 32 years for the government to come to that realization, it seems.

On Tuesday, the Bureau of Indian Affairs formally recognized the Shinnecocks as a Native American tribe. Along with the symbolic nature of that designation and the feeling of finally having their existence verified, the Shinnecocks are now allowed to open a casino in on their reservation.

Seeking the ability to open a casino was one of the reasons that the tribe petitioned the government for recognition in the first place. Though living among the wealthy and famous in the Hamptons, the Shinnecock tribe is an impoverished one. Opening a casino can lead to a drastic improvement in the economic status of the tribe; just ask the Seminole.

There is a slight problem, though, and that is that the Shinnecocks don’t want their casino to actually be located on their reservation. The Hamptons are full of rich people and are flooded with tourists every summer. A casino in the area would face stiff competition from basically everything else that the Hamptons offer. For that reason, the tribe wants their casino located elsewhere, preferably in New York City or in its suburbs. Such a move is possible, though it is complicated by federal law and politics.

By the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, federal recognition automatically entitles a tribe to a Class II casino that can carry slot machines but no table games. To have a Class III casino, which can have table games, the tribe would need to make a deal with the state in which it’s located, with the state getting a share of the revenue. The Shinnecock tribe is interested in a Class III casino off of their reservation, which would require a deal with the state legislature that would be signed by the governor and permission from the federal government.

New York Governor David Patterson supported recognition of the tribe and said that he wants to “explore with them ways in which they might be able to partner with us and bring revenues into the state.”

Even with a deal with the state in place, there is no guarantee that the federal government will allow the tribe to open a casino outside of their reservation. In addition, any proposed casino will likely be opposed by unions and lobbies for casinos in nearby markets. For example, approximately 20% of the customers in Atlantic City casinos come from New York City. More than 30% of the customers of Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut are New Yorkers. Those establishments are not going to love the idea of a tribal casino in New York City.

What will happen next is anybody’s guess. The Shinnecocks want a casino, but not on their reservation in the Hamptons. The people of the Hamptons don’t want a casino there. There are mixed feelings about an off-reservation casino in New York City. The Shinnecocks have already lobbied Congress for such a casino, with no decision being made.

Don’t expect anything to happen soon. It takes 30 days after this formal recognition for the tribe to be official. Also, though the fight for recognition began in 1978, the tribe didn’t make any progress until they sued the Interior Department in 2006. Suddenly, it became more difficult to ignore them.

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).

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.