|
Based upon initial interviews with
members of the provincial gambling board and Sun
managers in Cape Town, as well as analysis
of the Western Cape’s report on the bid
evaluation process (1999), I have found that the
deciding
factor was Sun’s proposal’s potential for the
“empowerment” of previously disadvantaged groups
(mainly local blacks) through both employment at
the casino and as management partners.
Through interviews with representatives of both
Sun and its partner Black Empowerment
consortium, I will specify the linkages between
these organizations. And through interviews and
ethnographic observations, I will specify the
exact role of floor managers in the casinos. (B)
For
the California case, I will utilize the same
methods to analyze firm-tribe relations and
floor
managers for a case study of one tribe.
Labor Process
To induce their workers to perform both
non-interactive tasks (on the casino floor,
speed and
security) and interactive ones (service), casino
management can employ either despotic (low
wages, tight
surveillance of and little autonomy for workers)
or hegemonic (investment in workers, who are
given
autonomy) labor control strategies (MacDonald
and Siriani; Leidner 1993, 1999; Sallaz 2001).
Insofar as
the South Africa industry is characterized by
competition among firms, relatively high
laborintensiveness,
21 minimal union presence, and the discursive
construction of wage employment as a strictly
economic form of individual empowerment, we
would expect shop-floor labor regimes for the
casino’s
service workers (dealers, waitresses, cashiers,
etc.) to be organized despotically. On the other
hand,
21 Tribal casinos are primarily low-rolling,
“slot” houses, while in South Africa table games
occupy a greater
percentage of floor space. These latter houses
thus involve more workers relative to the
former.
Back to casino
news
|
