The government has reiterated that it will not change its current policy in which only Macau ID holders are allowed to be employed as card dealers, or croupiers, in Macau’s casinos. The policy will remain at least for the rest of the government’s current term, according to a statement from the Government Information Bureau.
In order to promote the healthy long-term development of the city’s gaming industry, the government will “[step] up efforts to optimize gaming-related regulation, and to strengthen [the] supervision of gaming operators.” The government added that it hopes these efforts will improve the overall operation of Macau’s casinos.
With respect to the policy of prioritizing the career progression of Macau residents, the government will additionally monitor whether gaming operators are offering employees on-the-job training, “in such a way as to improve those employees’ upward career mobility or their horizontal mobility within their respective companies.”
Various reports of interviews with casino executives over the past half-decade have asserted that the lack of competition among Macau dealers has “spoiled” casino employees.
“A combination of poor work attitude and wide employment choices reduces work productivity,” wrote Desmond Lam, an associate professor at University of Macau, as early as 2011.
A Times report at the end of the last year unveiled that it is possible robotic croupiers will be introduced in the future – as are being trialed in the U.S. – which may make human dealers a necessity of the past.
However, some gaming analysts have posited that the robots may have less appeal to gamers in Macau. “Asian customers are more inclined to gamble in a noisy and crowded environment, preferring to banter with dealers and fellow gamblers than sit in front of a machine that provides little or no engagement,” said Carlos Siu, an associate professor at Macau Polytechnic Institute, as cited in poker news website, High Stakes DB.
It is not clear whether the robots would be regarded as “employed” in a legal sense, or whether the government’s policy would prohibit their introduction. DB
No Comments