Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

sponsored by
News
Jun. 21, 2009
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

MGM Grand workers approve five-year deal

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

MGM Grand workers who are represented by the Culinary and Bartenders unions ratified a new five-year collective bargaining agreement Saturday that is similar to other Strip resort contracts ratified before the economic downturn.

Additionally, workers at Strip casino properties approved a plan to defer this year's raises until next June 1 to help resorts manage the poor economy.


Most Popular Stories
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • FATAL SHOOTING: Police again mourn comrade
  • NORM: Biden finds rank has its privileges
  • NORM: Walton: Coach deserved a punch
  • Station Casinos posts $455 million third-quarter loss
  • DEADLY HOME INVASION: Police suspect link to family
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • UNLV sacks football coach Sanford
  • NORM: CityCenter seeks presidential visit
  • Suspect in officer slaying leaves hospital, enters jail




    • The money deferred will be spread over the remainder of the contracts for 35,000 workers with properties owned by Harrah's Entertainment, MGM Mirage, Las Vegas Hilton, Tropicana, Riviera, Sahara and Planet Hollywood Resort.

    The agreement extends the contracts an extra year to 2013.

    A similar agreement with downtown hotel-casinos is still being negotiated.

    The new MGM Grand agreement, which covers nearly 2,500 workers for Culinary Local 226 and Bartenders Local 165, calls for an annual cost-of-living increase.

    Workers retained their family health insurance plan where employees are not required to pay premiums.

    Also, the contract maintained the company's contributions to the employee pension fund.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 2 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Jeff wrote on August 07, 2009 02:24 PM: Just because most companies do it, doesnt mean all should. I'm not disagreeing with you... just pointing out that you've not explained in the slightest why it's a good/bad thing.


    timothyaw wrote on June 21, 2009 05:12 PM: "Workers retained their family health insurance plan where employees are not required to pay premiums."
    Okay, that's the problem! Most private companies require their employees to pay something toward their health care. At some point (hopefully soon) they will start picking up part of these costs. That's the union for you!