Not that it would be enough or anything, I do not know. In fact the ONLY issue I have heard mention of is the Health Insurance. I do have this question though. Your post brings up this point. Are the casinos proposing any pay pr wage increases? If the hotels/casinos are looking to stop paying all or part of the insurance and if they are choosing to pay with a wage increase, than it may not be as difficult to make ends meet since the wage increase may be enough to pay the increase cost of the health insurance. You would simply have them withold the employee contribution. It might come to a situation where they give with one hand (wage increase) and take most of that back with the other hand (insurance coverage witholding).

Also, remember, as union workers, even if the casinos do stop paying for the health insurance, these workers won't have AS TOUGH a time as many of us who are truely independant. Not that it won't still be expensive and maybe some employees still may not be able to pay for it, but, Where I for example have to buy insurance as an individual and yes it is very expensive for quality coverage, the union workers do still have the buying power of numbers within their union. The union could acquire an insurance package for their membership and offer it to the workers at a lower cost than what others of us might find. This is the same process used by a lot of proffessional associations. The Association acquires a package at a special rate because they are bringing in a BLOCK of people. The good health of some will pay the expenses of others, within the group. The larger the group, the less expensive the insurance. Members can then enroll in the plan at sometimes significant savings.

I am not trying to negate the issue here. It is a legitimate gripe that the casinos are pushing this. I am just pointing out some realities that might show that there is some leeway for some negotiation amongst reasonable negotiators. Remember, it is not uncommon to stake a position far beyond your actual negotiation point so that you can negotiate your way back to where you might have originally wanted to be. Therefore, the casinos might really intend to increase wages some and expect that the employees will either except THEIR (the casinos) plans or keep the union coverage and pay for part of it themselves. Then, the issue would be, what is not covered by the casinos coverage that would be covered in the union plans or vice versa. It is possible that the union plans either offer a lot of unnecessary coverage or is over priced? Like I said, I do not know this issue that well. I am just posing questions here.

I do wish everyone luck on this.