Two proposed multibillion-dollar gaming deals announced less than a week apart would put 17 Las Vegas Strip casino resorts under new ownership, prompting questions about whether the transactions will affect tens of thousands of employees who work for Caesars Entertainment Inc. and MGM Resorts International in Southern Nevada.
Combined, Caesars and MGM employ approximately 70,000 workers in Las Vegas, including roughly 35,000 members of Culinary Workers Union Local 226. The $17.6 billion Caesars acquisition and $18 billion MGM proposal would take two of the Strip’s largest public casino operators private, shifting control from shareholders to new ownership groups led by Fertitta Entertainment Inc. and Barry Diller-backed People Inc.
Labor leaders and hospitality experts say most frontline employees are unlikely to face immediate impacts from the proposed transactions, though corporate and management positions could face greater scrutiny as new owners evaluate costs and operations.
Union contracts offer protections, but uncertainty remains
“We’ve been through big sales before,” Culinary Secretary-Treasurer Ted Pappageorge said.
Pappageorge said the union’s contracts require successor owners to honor existing collective bargaining agreements, protecting workers’ seniority, benefits and employment rights after a sale.
“The challenges are companies are going to clean house and let go workers, requiring them to reapply and you lose your benefits or seniority,” Pappageorge said. “But we have strong union contracts that mandate that any sale or new owners have to assume the contracts.”
About 35,000 Culinary members work at Caesars and MGM properties, accounting for approximately 60 percent of the union’s membership, according to Pappageorge.
“What’s unprecedented is the fact that these two massive companies are in play at the same time. That is somewhat unusual,” he said. “But it seems to be a sign of strong interest in Las Vegas.”
Where job cuts typically happen
While union protections may help shield many frontline workers, hospitality experts say mergers typically create pressure to eliminate overlapping positions at the corporate level.
“If you are in the front of the house, more property-level staff, you should not be worried too much,” said Cass Shum, an associate professor of hospitality at UNLV who studies labor issues. “As long as the lights are still on, you will have a job.”
Instead, Shum said the greatest risk often falls on corporate departments where duplicate functions can be consolidated.
“Corporate staff tends to duplicate when there are mergers and acquisitions,” she said. “If you are working in corporate finance and those kinds of areas, there is a little bit more risk.”
That assessment was echoed by Milos Eric, co-founder of hospitality employment and data platform OysterLink.
“When there’s a major hospitality company’s acquisition, labor costs are usually the first place new owners look to cut,” Eric said. “It may be primarily through the consolidation of management and the elimination of duplicate jobs.”
According to OysterLink data, Las Vegas ranked as the nation’s third-largest hospitality hiring market during the first quarter of 2026, though Eric said hiring trends could shift depending on how the transactions unfold.
Long-term labor implications still unclear
Tony Lucas, a former casino executive and associate professor of hospitality at UNLV, said he sees little evidence that either deal is primarily driven by a desire to reduce frontline staffing levels.
“You’ve got to have people to run the place,” Lucas said.
Lucas said ownership changes often result in turnover among executives and senior leadership, but casino operators still require large workforces to run hotel towers, casinos, restaurants and entertainment venues.
“I doubt he’s looking at labor going, ‘Oh, they’re too labor-heavy,’” Lucas said while discussing Diller’s proposal for MGM.
Eric pointed to Diller’s own rationale for pursuing MGM as a potentially encouraging sign for employees. In announcing the proposal, Diller described MGM as possessing valuable “real-world assets that AI cannot easily replicate.”
“That may actually be a good sign for workers,” Eric said. “If a new owner truly believes in the human element, it is less likely that the headcount will be reduced dramatically.”
Future negotiations a key unknown
While most observers see limited risk for frontline employees in the near term, some uncertainty remains over what future labor negotiations could look like under new ownership.
Shum said one of the key questions will be how private ownership affects future contract talks with organized labor.
Pappageorge said People Inc. remains something of an unknown because the union does not have an established relationship with the company. However, he noted that indications that existing management teams could remain in place would be viewed positively by labor.
For now, Pappageorge said broader economic conditions pose a more immediate concern for hospitality workers than changes in ownership.
Still, he views the proposed acquisitions as a sign that investors remain confident in Las Vegas despite recent challenges facing the tourism industry.
“We think these deals are a sign of a vote of confidence in the value and the potential upside of Las Vegas,” Pappageorge said.
Contact David Danzis at ddanzis@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0378. Follow @AC2Vegas_Danzis on X.
