Vegas at Odds: Labor Conflict in a Leisure Economy, 1960-1985. By James P. Kraft. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010. xii, 273 pp. $55.00, ISBN 978-0-8018-9357-5.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
James P. Kraft's study of management-labor relations in Las Vegas is not the usual tale of union decline and management triumph that dominates studies of the 1970s and 1980s. Focusing on the fast-growing service sector rather than manufacturing, Kraft finds that Las Vegas service workers, far from being “docile” or “hard to organize,” formed the core of a vigorous, if not always triumphant, late twentieth-century labor movement (p. 8). In this fast-paced combination of labor and business history (which also includes a mysterious murder), Kraft argues that organized labor in Las Vegas became more, not less, forceful after the mid-1960s, even as union power in other areas was declining. As resort ownership shifted from small proprietors to large corporations, management-labor relations soured. Corporately owned resorts imposed more hierarchical and rigid workplace regulations and were less willing to negotiate with workers, formally or informally. Although resorts often did not share similar aims, by the 1970s they were more likely to present a unified front in labor talks. But instead of buckling under, unions were strongly supported by service workers (66 percent of whom were unionized), and as arbitration records and strikes in the seventies and eighties demonstrate, unions continuously confronted resort management, often with success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".