Howard Stutz highlights a current policy debate about tip pooling at Wynn Las Vegas Resort. The owner of the resort, Steve Wynn, enacted a new tip pooling policy in which table games supervisors receive a portion of the tips normally pooled and distributed among only dealers. In this paper, I will discuss two problematic issues in this policy based on the ideas of distributive justice and compensatory justice.

The tip policy seeks to achieve distributive justice through appealing to a couple of material criteria. First, it uses the criterion of perfect equality by implying that the range between dealer-supervisor salaries across all Las Vegas resorts should be comparable. Stutz explains that the "significant high-end casino play" at Wynn results in a greater difference between the wages of supervisors and dealers than other resorts. The policy thus attempts to increase the parity among dealer-supervisor earning ranges across casinos by reducing the range at this resort. Nonetheless, one might argue that in a competitive capitalist atmosphere such as that of casino resorts, perfect equality is unwarranted and that higher dealer wages constitute a fair result of highly successful casinos. Second, the policy uses the criterion of contribution to imply that the role of supervisors is similar to that of dealers, and therefore justifies a more equalitarian distribution of salaries. However, the nature of their tasks differs in that dealers directly serve customers thus directly earning tips, whereas supervisors monitor the dealers. Hence, one might argue that their tasks do not comprise equal work, and therefore do not require equal pay. At the core, these arguments rely on whether the similarities and differences between the occupations of dealer and supervisor are morally relevant respects that can help determine the fairness of the new tip policy.

Furthermore, those who implemented the tip policy implore the principle of compensatory justice by asserting that it rectifies Wynn Las Vegas Resort's increased inequality of dealer-supervisor wages. The resort presupposes that the disparity constitutes a result of a misdeed (i.e. attracting high-end players) in need of remedy. One might question the extent to which Wynn supervisors are victimized by this disparity. Wynn supervisors likely earn higher salaries and better benefits than supervisors at other resorts. However, the resort assumes that correcting the inequality is fair, but in order to achieve fairness for supervisors, it must also reduce the dealers' wages. Reno attorney Mark Thierman states, "An employer can't take back somebody's money and put it in their own pocket," which illustrates the distributive injustice resulting from this policy aimed at achieving compensatory justice. Indeed, instead of raising salaries for supervisors, the owners of Wynn Las Vegas Resort transform what was once their dealers' income into income for supervisors. As such, one might argue that the resort raise supervisors' wages with casino revenue rather than expanding the tip pool. In that way the resulting salaries for both dealers and supervisors would seem fair to both parties.

In conclusion, the new tip pooling policy enacted at Wynn Las Vegas Resort illuminates how injustice might arise from a quest for distributive justice and ideals of perfect equality. Although the policy calls upon distributive and compensatory justice for table game supervisors, the dealers likely consider the consequences of this policy to be unjust in both substantive and procedural distributive manners. While supervisors receive an increase in wages, dealers experience a decrease because of the method in which the supervisors' salaries are raised.