Workplace Factors that Encourage and Discourage Gambling amongst Gaming Venue Employees: A...

Workplace Factors that Encourage and DiscourageGambling amongst Gaming Venue Employees:A Managers’ Perspective

Nerilee Hing & Helen Breen

Received: 3 January 2007 /Accepted: 15 March 2007# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract This paper reports on one stage of a large qualitative research project examiningthe gambling behaviour of employees in gaming venues in Queensland, Australia. For thisstage, managers’ opinions were gathered on how working in gaming venues influencesemployees’ gambling. Personal interviews were conducted with 44 club, 27 hotel and twocasino managers. Judgement sampling was used to include managers from venues ofdifferent sizes, types and locations. Using content analysis, eight major workplace factors,comprised of 46 sub-factors, were perceived to encourage employees to gamble. Ninemajor workplace factors, comprising of 27 sub-factors, emerged that appear to discourageemployees from gambling. Nine major workplace factors, comprising of 47 sub-factors,were reported to have no influence on staff gambling. Most managers consider that workingin a gambling venue mainly discourages employees from gambling.

Keywords Workplace factors . Gambling . Managers’ perspective

Introduction

In 2005, our paper published in Gambling Research (2005) reported on the initial stage of aqualitative research project examining the gambling behaviour of employees in gamingvenues in Queensland Australia and how aspects of their workplace might influence thatbehaviour. After reviewing the scant literature on the topic, that paper reported findingsfrom interviews with 32 gambling counsellors in Queensland, who identified a range ofworkplace factors that can encourage gambling and potentially gambling problems amongstgaming venue staff, and a range of factors that can deter venue staff from gambling. Fromthat paper, it was concluded that: staff who work in gaming venues appear an at-risk group

Int J Ment Health AddictionDOI 10.1007/s11469-007-9062-z

Paper from the International Conference on Gambling: Gambling and its Impacts—Policy, Practice andResearch Perspectives held in New Zealand in September 2006.Submitted for refereeing by The International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction for possible inclusionin the Special Edition of the journal featuring papers from the International Conference on Gambling:Gambling and Its Impacts—Policy, Practice and Research Perspectives.

N. Hing (*) :H. BreenCentre for Gambling Education and Research, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australiae-mail: [email protected]

for problem gambling; that this risk stems from a variety of factors relating to working in agambling environment; that numerous workplace factors also protect some staff bydeterring them from gambling; and that there are strategies venues can implement to betterencourage responsible gambling amongst their staff. This paper reports on a further stage ofthe same research project.

The aim of this investigation was to explore Queensland gaming venue managers’perceptions about the gambling behaviour of their employees and how aspects of theirworkplace might influence that behaviour, in order to identify how gaming venues canprovide a work environment that encourages responsible gambling and discouragesproblem gambling amongst their employees

Gambling by Gaming Venue Staff

The gambling behaviour of gaming venue employees has attracted little attention in termsof research. Models of gambling involvement (e.g. Productivity Commission 1999;Blaszczynski 2001; Thomas and Jackson 2004) identify environmental factors asinfluencing gambling involvement, so it might be expected that the work environment ingaming venues would influence the gambling behaviour of employees. However, only threepeer-reviewed, published empirical studies have been conducted investigating the gamblingbehaviour of gaming venue employees and all were undertaken in the United States ofAmerica.

First, Collachi and Taber (1987) asked 34 employees from three large casinos in Renoabout their frequency of gambling, gambling habits, opinions of others who gamble, andgambling itself. Although many findings were consistent with problem gambling (e.g.borrowing money between paydays), no consistent, quantifiable instrument was used tomeasure problem gambling.

Second, Shaffer et al. (1999) examined the prevalence of pathological gambling,drinking, smoking and other health risk behaviours amongst casino employees, surveying3,841 full-time casino employees from four sites of one casino. The study found that thecasino employees had a higher prevalence of past-year Level 3 (pathological) gambling(2.1%), but a lower prevalence of Level 2 (problem) gambling (1.4%), than the generaladult population, when measured on the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS).

Third, Shaffer and Hall (2002) conducted a prospective study into gambling, drinkingand other health factors amongst full-time employees at six sites of one US casino at threeobservation points approximately 12 months apart. Of the 9,943 eligible employees, 1,176provided data at these three points. Using the SOGS, prevalence rates of past-year Level 3gambling (pathological gambling) were 4.3% at Time 1, 2.1% at Time 2, and 1.8% at Time3. For Level 2 gambling (problem gambling) rates were 21.2% at Time 1, 15.1% at Time 2,and 13.0% at Time 3. The researchers concluded that the casino employees evidencedconsiderable plasticity in their capacity to change their gambling behaviour within thecontext of regular exposure to gambling. Amongst those with complete prospective SOGSdata, 22.6% improved their gambling decision making and thus reduced their SOGS scoreduring the research period, while 11.6% became more disordered. The majority of Level 3employees tended to become Level 2 gamblers, suggesting they tended to ‘languish in asubclinical state even after they experienced a period of relief from more serious gamblingproblems’ (2002: 419). Nevertheless, the results question the conventional wisdom thatgambling problems are always progressive and suggest that some employees may adapt totheir exposure to gambling after an initial novelty effect.

Int J Ment Health Addiction

Evidence from these studies suggests that gaming venue employees may be an at-riskgroup for developing gambling problems. However, no research has been conducted intothe gambling behaviour of gaming venue employees in Australia, and none of the citedstudies examined how particular aspects of the work environment in gambling venuesmight influence that behaviour. Understanding these aspects of the work environment maywell assist in developing strategies and identifying pathways to providing a workenvironment conducive to responsible gambling amongst employees in gaming venues.

As well, this understanding may help to focus attention on a public health approach togambling for gaming venue employees. A public health approach has three importantobjects: prevention of unacceptable risks in gambling; protection of vulnerable people fromgambling related harm; and, harm minimisation through community education andinformed decision making by gamblers (Korn and Shaffer 1999). Responsible gamblingpolicies and programs in gambling venues generally reflect a public health approach. Apublic health approach attempts to minimise harm, promote informed consent, discourageproblem gambling and minimise adverse gambling consequences for customers (Blaszczynski2001; Thomas and Jackson 2004; Perese et al. 2005). However, what is not known is how thiswork environment, a gaming venue, affects employees, particularly employees who gamble.With these research needs in mind, the authors undertook this investigation with 73 experiencedand knowledgeable venue managers to gather and examine their perspectives on how aspects ofthe workplace might influence the gambling behaviour of employees in gaming venues.

Methodology

Manager selection was restricted to Queensland clubs, hotels and casinos, as these venuesare the major providers of gambling activities in Queensland. As most Queensland TABsare operated within clubs, hotels and casinos, the research captured opinions of managers ofvenues that provide gaming machines, table games, keno, TAB and bingo.

To select an appropriate sample of managers, the researchers used judgement sampling.This strategy is based on judgements about the overall population and the feasibility ofincluding a variety of them in the research (Shaffer et al. 1997; Atkinson and Flint 2001).The researchers try to select units characteristic of the population under investigation(Legge 2003). Three objective criteria were set—to include managers from adequatenumbers of the three venue types; from a range different sized venues based on the numberof gaming machines; and, from venues in different geographic regions. Five regions wereselected—Brisbane, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Cairns and Mt Isa/Longreach—toprovide data from a metropolitan centre, a heavily populated tourist area, a coastal regionalarea, far north Queensland, and the outback, respectively.

Table 1 Interviews Completed with Gaming Venue Managers

Brisbane GoldCoast

SunshineCoast

Cairns Mt Isa &Longreach

Total

Club managers 12 9 7 10 6 44Hotel managers 7 5 3 9 3 27Casino managers (representingthree casinos)

1 1 2

Total 19 15 10 20 9 73


From a list of all Queensland Hotels Association (QHA) hotels and a similar list of allClubs Queensland (Clubs Queensland) clubs, plus the four Queensland casinos, wesampled a selection of venues to approach for managers to interview. For each of the fiveregions, we tried to achieve an appropriate representation of large and small venues,independent and chain hotels, and hotels and clubs in different socio-economic and regionalareas. Based on these criteria, we selected at least ten hotels and ten clubs from each of thefive regions, except for Mt Isa/Longreach where fewer hotels and clubs operate. Afterliaising with representatives from all four Queensland casinos, three agreed to participate.

In mid-2005, the QHA sent letters to the hotels and Clubs Queensland sent letters toclubs we had sampled to encourage their participation. Removing some hotels wheremanagement had changed and letters were returned, we contacted 71 clubs, 54 hotels andthree casinos to request interviews with managers. Of these, 44 club managers, 27 hotelmanagers and two casino managers (representing three casinos) agreed. Table 1 shows thegeographic and venue breakdown of the 73 club, hotel and casino managers interviewedfrom the five areas of Queensland.

The manager interviews lasted between 30–60 min and were recorded with permission.The interviews were semi-structured and asked about four main areas: gambling andstaffing facilities in the venue; extent of staff gambling, within and outside workplace;managers’ opinions on whether and how various aspects of working in gaming venues are

Table 2 Gaming Venue Manager Interview Schedule

Managerial Interview Schedule

1. Gaming Facilitiesa. What type of gaming facilities does your venue have? (gaming machines, TAB, table games, keno, lotterytype games, bingo). How many of each type?

b. What contribution do your gaming operations make to your business’s profits? (whole, three quarters,half, one quarter).

2. Staffinga. How many staff do you have (full time, part time, casual)?b. How many work in the gaming sections?c. Approximately, what is staff turnover per year?3. Extent of staff gamblinga. Are staff allowed to gamble on the premises? In their uniform? Out of uniform? During a work break? Ontheir days off work?

b. If yes, do your staff gamble much on the premises? Could you estimate how many and how frequentlythey might do this? What do they gamble on? Do they gamble with other members of your staff?

c. Do you know if any of your staff gamble at other venues? Could you estimate how many and howfrequently they might do this? What do they gamble on? Do they gamble with other members of your staff?

4. Close interaction with gamblersa. From your experience, does frequent interaction with gamblers influence the gambling behaviour of youremployees? How? Why? Examples?

5. Frequent exposure to gamblinga. From your experience, does frequent exposure to gambling in the workplace influence the gamblingbehaviour of your employees? How? Why? Examples?

6. Influence of fellow employeesa. From your experience, do fellow employees influence the gambling behaviour of your employees? How?Why? Examples?

7. Influence of managementa. From your experience, do gambling venue managers and their policies and practices influence thegambling behaviour of your employees? How? Why? Examples?


likely to influence employee gambling behaviour; and, managers’ opinions on venuestrategies that could encourage responsible gambling and discourage gambling problemsamongst gaming venue employees.

Based on themes that emerged from earlier work (Hing and Breen 2005), the managerswere questioned about the following aspects of the work environment, but they were alsofree to raise additional themes they considered pertinent: close interaction with gamblers;frequent exposure to gambling; influence of fellow employees; influence of management;nature of employee work; work hours; frequent exposure to gambling marketing andpromotions; responsible gambling training of staff; and responsible gambling strategies inthe venue. Table 2 shows the interview schedule used.

The interviews were transcribed and responses arranged under each question in theinterview schedule. Content analysis and inductive analysis were used to analyse the data.First, open coding was used to break down, examine and compare data to find majorelements in the content of the interviews (Berg 1995). From this, inductive analysis wasused to find emerging themes (Patton 1990). The analysis then synthesised these emerging

Table 2 (continued)

Managerial Interview Schedule

8. Nature of employee worka. From your experience, do any workplace stressors influence the gambling behaviour of your employees?How? Why? Examples?

9. Hours of worka. From your experience, does working the odd hours typical of hospitality work (nights, weekends,shiftwork) influence the gambling behaviour of your employees? How? Why? Examples?

10. Frequent exposure to gambling marketing and promotionsa. From your experience, does frequent exposure to gambling marketing and promotions influence thegambling behaviour of your employees? How? Why? Examples?

11. Responsible gambling training of staffa. From your experience, has the responsible gambling training your employees have completed influencedtheir gambling behaviour? How? Why? Examples?

12. Responsible gambling strategies in the venuea. From your experience, have the responsible gambling measures implemented in your workplaceinfluenced the gambling behaviour of your employees? How? Why? Examples?

13. Other aspects of the work environmenta. From your experience, are there any other aspects of the work environment we haven’t discussed thatinfluence the gambling behaviour of your employees? How? Why? Examples?

14. Staff welfarea. Do you think that hospitality staff are an at-risk group for developing gambling problems? How? Why?Examples?b. Do you have any mechanisms to alert your staff to risks of problem gambling amongst themselves orother staff?c. What would you do if a staff member revealed that they had a gambling problem?d. What would you do if a staff member revealed that they suspected another staff member had a gamblingproblem?e. Do you have regular staff meetings for staff to discuss workplace concerns?f. Are staff paid in cash, cheque or by electronic means? Can staff get an advance on their wages?15. Venue strategies to encourage responsible gamblinga. In your opinion, what are the most effective ways that gambling venues can help encourage responsiblegambling and discourage problem gambling for their staff?


themes into meaningful core categories of workplace factors, under which variousexplanatory sub-factors provided details of each core factor (Strauss and Corbin 1999).

The research project was limited by relying on voluntary participation of managers.Interviews from non-participating managers may have revealed additional and differentissues. The sample was not random and results cannot be generalised. The researchersrelied on managers being accurate and truthful in their responses, this can be compromisedby social desirability effects.

Key Characteristics of Participating Gaming Venues

The 73 gaming venue managers provided information about the clubs, hotels and casinosthey managed. Table 3 shows these characteristics and demonstrates that the samplecaptured venues which varied in terms of size based on numbers of gaming machines, othergambling facilities offered, contribution of gambling revenues, numbers of staff and gamingstaff, and extent of staff turnover.

Results from the responses given by the 73 club, hotel and casino managers arepresented below by workplace factor, with numerous reasons why each factor wasperceived to encourage or discourage staff gambling identified. Indicative quotations areincluded.

Factor 1: The Influence of Close Interaction with Gamblers on Employee Gambling Emergingfrom the data, close interaction with gamblers can encourage employee gambling orconversely discourage employee gambling.

Table 3 Key Characteristics of Participating Venues

Clubs N=44 Hotels N=27 Casinos N=3

Operated gamingmachines

44 27 3

Operated TAB 22 15 3Operated keno 29 16 3Operated table games 0 0 3Number of gamingmachines (Av.)

88 28 1,000

No. venues with 20GMs or less

14 11 0

Number of staff Range 3–300 Av. 17full-time Av. 30part-time or casual

Range 6–146 Av. fivefull time Av. 24part-time or casual

Range 345–2,500 full-time,part-time or casual,depending on season

Number of gamingstaff

13 full-time, part-timeor casual

Eight full-time, part-timeor casual

150–700 full-time,part-time or casual,depending on season

Staff Turnover Low-24 venuesHigh-20 venues

Low-14 venuesHigh-13 venues

Range 3–12% Av. 7.5%(casino function only)

Staff not permitted togamble in theseworkplaces

23 14 3


Some risk factors encouraging employee gambling:

& Staff hear about wins more than losses—‘if someone is winning everyone knowsabout it.’

& Seeing wins creates hope of winning—‘some of them are easily influenced, theymight...see someone win $1,000, and think oh, isn’t that great, I’d like some ofthat.’

& Staff constantly hear about gambling and are given ‘hot tips’—I’ve worked in theTAB and somebody has always said I’ve got a hot tip.’

Some protective factors discouraging employee gambling:

& Staff are deterred by seeing heavy gamblers—‘and you don’t want to go down that track.’& Staff see negative responses to losses—‘they get a bit narky about it’ and ‘I’ve seen

the sadness that goes with that.’& Staff see or hear about losses—‘they see how much people lose and it affects them

to the point where they don’t want to lose much money.’

Factor 2: The Influence of Frequent Exposure to Gambling on Employee Gambling Severalreasons were given for why frequent exposure to gambling can encourage employeegambling, while other reasons were thought to deter employee gambling.


& Normalises gambling—‘it desensitises the staff’; ‘makes you a lot morecomfortable with it’; ‘when you are around it all day, you think it is nothing.’

& Staff may have ready access to gambling—‘the keno terminal is right there and noone is going to know,’ ‘when you have access...after work or whatever, having alittle bit of a punt...’; ‘I started punting because I managed a hotel with a TAB,’

& Surrounded by lights, music, atmosphere—‘all that hype gets people excited, thatfeeling of a win.’

& New or younger staff may be vulnerable—‘in that they do see it as exciting’; ‘thestaff that become immune to it are at management level.’


& Staff can become sick of being around gambling—‘you’ve had this all day. Do youreally want to go and listen to them banging in your ear again?’

& Staff have better knowledge of odds of losing—‘they know that you can’t win.’

Factor 3: The Influence of Fellow Employees on Employee Gambling The interviewsrevealed ways in which managers felt work colleagues can encourage staff gambling andways in which they can deter this.


& Staff gamble together after work—‘a couple of guys...go straight to the casino if theywere...finishing together at 1 AM’; ‘we’re in a staff syndicate for big lotto jackpots.’

& Staff gamble together on days off—‘they let their hair down, have a few drinks andgamble’; ‘the older ones go to the club to gamble and drink.’

& Staff encourage other staff to gamble—‘people are easily influenced. If you finishat 5 AM and everyone is going to do it, then you might think, fair enough’;‘someone will say, go on, put $5 in, and they do and then they’re gone.’



& Staff provide support/advice to not gamble—‘if he puts $20 through the other staffbag him out and tell him it is a losing proposition.’

& Staff socialise with fellow employees outside work in ways other than gambling—‘the only thing I’ve heard them say is, “let’s go to the disco” not the pokermachines. I think they need some time out from all that ting, ting, ting and bling,bling, bling. It drives them nuts.’

& Staff prefer own social interests with friends—‘[they] are influenced not so muchby other staff members, but by other social groups...they go out with friendsoutside work.’

& Preference for family involvement—‘they don’t socialise much together...the olderones will go home to their husband and kids and the younger ones will go out withtheir friends’; ‘I don’t think they socialise much.’

Factor 4: The Influence of Gambling Venue Managers, Policies and Practices on EmployeeGambling The data revealed ways managers thought that management policies andpractices can encourage or discourage employee gambling.


& Managers are sometimes gamblers, so set an example—‘the only one that reallyplays them is myself, if I’ve had too much syrup....’

& Workplace has a gambling culture—‘if everything is geared towards gaming, then Ithink they can be influenced (to gamble)’; ‘they’d finish their shift and play, orcome in before their shift and play.’

& Gambling can be a job requirement—‘you need to know a lot about gambling; youneed to be a gambler yourself’; ‘you’ve actually been introduced to it in training.’


& Policy of no gambling in workplace—‘the no gambling policy removes thetemptation and protects the staff.’

& Managers can provide advice/support to not gamble—‘they should take that personto one side and say this is not on.’

& Proactive culture of responsible gambling—‘all our employees go throughresponsible gambling training...our policy is definitely a protective factor.’

Factor 5: The Influence of Workplace Stressors on Employee Gambling Workplace stresswas considered to encourage employee gambling or conversely deter employees fromgambling.


& Staff need to unwind after work—‘they have a drink, have a gamble, it is theirtime. I do see a lot of hospitality workers do that.’

& Staff want to be left alone—‘they would rather just sit in the corner, have a beer, acigarette and a punt on a machine...that is where the problem starts.’ Staff getstressed about difficult patrons—‘I play the pokies to de-stress, probably becauseI’m at the forefront of the people who know everything, who want to criticise,chastise, condemn, complain, scrutinise.’



& Staff avoid gambling for stress relief—‘you get more stressed, especially if losing.’& Supportive work environment—‘it comes back to management, what environment

they want their staff to work in...what I’ve bred into my staff is that you’re not hereto take any abuse...I will support them 100%. If they decide someone is rude oraggressive or their behaviour is not suitable for here, they go.’

& Staff de-stress in other ways—‘if they have a bad night they’ll go out on the drink’;‘stress affects their alcohol intake, not their gambling’; ‘they de-stress by drinking,or even by going out for karaoke.’

Factor 6: The Influence of Shift Work on Employee Gambling Several reasons that shiftwork can encourage gambling by employees emerged, as did other reasons that shift workmight inhibit employees from gambling.


& Staff can suffer social isolation—‘shift workers become quite lonely’; ‘you’resitting there by yourself, you might think, well I’ll just go and have a few bets andplay the pokies’; ‘gambling is something they can do on their own.’

& Staff gamble to fill in time between shifts—‘they don’t really want to go home; it issomething people can do without having any company.’

& Only gaming venues are open after late shifts—‘the casino is the only place youcan get into after 3 AM.’


& Staff might go out less—‘it would be worse if you worked 9 to 5, having theweekend to play.’

& No gaming venues open after some shifts—‘for our people (casino staff), theywouldn’t be able to go anywhere.’

Factor 7: The Influence of Frequent Exposure to Gambling Marketing and Promotions onEmployee Gambling Gambling marketing and promotions were considered to potentiallyencourage employee gambling or act as deterrents.


& Promotions can be a trigger—‘employees are exposed to it a lot more, and I thinkthat has an influence.’

& Reinforces gambling as a way to win money—‘promotion certainly increases thegambling attitude’; ‘it definitely does affect people, because it’s something fornothing.’

& Raises awareness of jackpot levels—‘even I have watched the jackpots and goneelsewhere to play them.’


& Staff are aware of low chances of winning promotions—‘about how little chanceyou have of winning a prize.’

& Promotions turn staff off—‘you get sick of them more than anything else.’& Staff don’t take much notice of promotions—‘I don’t know if the staff take notice

of what the jackpot is up to’; ‘no, I don’t think so. I think they become blasé to


those things. I think if you asked the gaming staff what the keno jackpot was at,they couldn’t tell you.’

Factor 8: The Influence of Responsible Gambling Training on Employee Gambling Whileresponsible gambling training would be very unlikely to encourage staff gambling, reasonswere provided for why this training might discourage staff from gambling. However,reasons were also given why responsible gambling training might not deter employeegambling.


& Raises staff awareness of problem gambling and its signs—‘they are very alert forproblems after doing the training; they learn a lot about their own gambling at thesame time.’

& Raises staff awareness of effects of problem gambling—‘they see the ramifications,the knock-on effects’; ‘when you train, you have to explain everything, includingthe Gamblers Helpline...so they know.’

& Raises staff awareness of poor odds—‘you know that keno’s odds are what they are,that the pokies have odds between 89 and 91, so you know you are going to lose.’

Some factors that may not deter employee gambling:

& May not encourage staff to reflect on their own gambling—‘I don’t think it workseither way. If they are going to do it they will do it; a lot don’t [take it on board].’

& Training is not engaging—‘I think they think half of these things are a bloodyjoke’; ‘in my opinion, I’ve been to many many courses over the years, but notmany of them have impacted on the direction of my life.’

& Training can provide a false sense of security—‘I have done my RSG. The otheremployees have not done it as yet...I don’t think it really affected my gambling.With our group, about 20 of us, all we wanted to do was go and play the pokiesafter it. I don’t know why...I reckon there were 15 of us playing the pokies after.’

Factor 9: The Influence of Other Responsible Gambling Measures on EmployeeGambling Other responsible gambling measures were thought to discourage employeegambling but in contrast several reasons emerged for why these measures might have littleeffect.


& Raises staff awareness of gambling problems—‘signage, posters, beer coasters, etc.it sinks into staff, it is drummed into them.’

& Can trigger problem recognition—‘staff who will be influenced by it would be thepeople who had an existing problem.’

& Involvement with patron self-exclusion deters staff gambling—‘because they see atclose hand what heavy gambling does’; ‘self-exclusion is a great eye-opener forstaff.’

Some factors that may not deter employee gambling:

& Staff don’t notice signage—‘people don’t read the signs; I think staff do see it, butthey probably don’t take a great deal of notice.’


& Responsible gambling measures become very familiar—‘...they do not influenceemployees, because it is too in our face; I don’t think they give a thought to wherethe ATM is situated, and I don’t think the gamblers do either.’

Factor 10: The Influence of Other Aspects of the Work Environment on EmployeeGambling Additional points were raised in response to the question of whether otheraspects of the work environment are likely to influence the gambling behaviour ofgambling venue employees.

Reasons that other aspects of the work environment encourage employee gambling:

& Alcohol consumption—‘it’s a real drinking culture; it catches them all...onceyou’ve had too much to drink, you lose control of yourself and go to the gamblingroom.’

& Credit betting—although illegal and prosecutions have occurred ‘there is apossibility of betting on credit, keno and TAB...it can influence hospitalityworkers, knowing you don’t need cash until the shift ends.’

& Access to cash—‘it’s a known fact that if you are a problem gambler, that is theworst thing in the world, access to cash.’

& Low wages—‘being on a lower salary or wage, you are more at-risk.’& Staff boredom—‘if people get bored and are alone, they tend to gamble.’& Reluctance to expose a problem due to embarrassment or fear of job loss—‘I don’t

think any of our employees would ever be upfront; they’d be very fragile to do that.’& If staff can’t gamble in workplace, a problem may go undetected—‘if staff were

allowed to gamble here, I might be able to pick up on their gambling habits andaddress them.’

Workplace Factors Perceived by Managers to Encourage Staff Gambling

Table 4 summarises the themes and major sub-themes discussed above relating toworkplace factors that can encourage gambling amongst gaming venue staff and whethereach was identified by the club, hotel and casino managers.

Workplace Factors Perceived by Managers to Discourage Staff Gambling

Table 5 summarises those themes and sub-themes relating to factors perceived todiscourage staff from gambling and whether each was identified by the club, hotel andcasino managers.

Workplace Factors Perceived by Managers to Have No Influence on Staff Gambling

An unintended outcome of this research was the finding that managers perceived thatseveral factors raised earlier by gambling counsellors (Hing and Breen 2005) had noinfluence on gambling by employees. Table 6 summarises those themes and sub-themesrelating to factors perceived to have no influence on employee gambling and whether eachwas identified by the club, hotel and casino managers.


Table 4 Workplace Factors Perceived by Gaming Venue Managers to Encourage Gambling by GamingVenue Employees

ClubManagers

HotelManagers

CasinoManagers

Close Interaction with Gamblers:Staff hear about wins more than losses √ √Seeing people win creates hope of winning √ √Staff constantly hear about gambling and are given ‘hottips’

√ √

Patrons can encourage staff to gamble √Frequent Exposure to Gambling:Increases staff familiarity with gambling √Increases staff interest in gambling √ √Normalises gambling for staff √ √Staff may have ready access to gambling √ √Staff are surrounded by the lights, music and atmosphere √ √New or younger staff can be vulnerable √ √Staff can lose sight of the value and ownership of money √Staff become attracted to the gambling environment √Influence of Fellow Employees:Staff gamble together in their workplace √Staff gamble together after work √ √Staff gamble together on days off √ √Staff introduce other staff to gambling √ √Staff directly encourage other staff to gamble √Influence of Venue Managers, Policies and Practices:Managers allow staff to gamble in the workplace √ √Managers are sometimes gamblers and so set a badexample

√ √

Workplace has a gambling culture √ √Managers might talk about gambling in a positive way √Gambling can be a job requirement √Influence of Workplace StressorsStaff need to unwind after work √ √Staff need to escape from work stresses √Staff can experience stress about difficult customers √ √Staff want to be left alone √ √Staff have to leave their workplace soon after end of a shift √Influence of Shift Work:Staff can suffer social isolation √ √Lack of alternative social opportunities for staff √ √Staff gamble to fill in time between shifts √Staff need to find solitary leisure activities. √Staff tend to socialise and gamble with other hospitality workers √ √Lack of alternative recreational opportunities for staff √Only gambling venues are open late at night √Frequent Exposure to Gambling Marketing and Promotions:Promotions can act as a trigger √ √Reinforces gambling as way to win money √ √Raises awareness of jackpot levels √ √Other Aspects of the Workplace:Some staff drink large quantities of alcohol √ √


Comparisons amongst Club, Hotel and Casino Managers’ Responses

Tables 7, 8, 9 summarise the opinions of the managers from the clubs, hotels and casinos(respectively) about each of the nine workplace factors that they were questioned about.Their responses are categorised as ‘encourages gambling,’ ‘discourages gambling,’ ‘either/both,’ ‘no influence’ and ‘don’t know/no response.’

The following points compare overall responses given by the club, hotel and casinomanagers to each of the workplace factors analysed earlier, and speculate on some reasonsfor any major differences.

Close interaction with gamblers was perceived by most hotel managers as having thepotential to encourage staff to gamble. The club managers’ opinions were more varied, withless agreement that close interaction with gamblers may encourage staff gambling, butgreater acknowledgment that this interaction may discourage staff gambling, have eithereffect or have no influence at all. In contrast, both casino managers felt that this interactiondiscourages staff gambling. The influence of close interaction with gamblers on staffgambling may be related to the scale of gambling operations. Queensland hotels havesmaller scale gambling operations (maximum of 40 gaming machines), fewer customersand the likelihood of personal interaction of staff with their more regular customers. Incontrast, the typically larger numbers of gamblers and high rollers at the casinos, theopportunity for 24 h gambling and less personal interaction of staff with customers mayexplain why the casino managers thought that staff would be deterred from gambling bytheir interactions with patrons. The data in Table 5 also indicate that club and casino staffmay be more exposed to negative emotional responses of patrons to gambling losses, whichmay be a deterrent.

Frequent exposure to gambling was perceived by hotel managers as having the potentialto discourage staff from gambling. Club managers’ opinions were more varied as theyconsidered that this exposure can either encourage or discourage staff from gambling orhave no influence. Both the casino managers felt that this exposure discourages staff fromgambling. Again, the larger scale of gambling operations in the casinos and many clubsmight explain this result. The data in Table 6 indicate that club employees may have greateropportunity for job rotation, which gives them breaks from the gambling environment. Theage profile of employees may also be an influence, where clubs typically employ olderworkers. Some managers noted that older, mature staff have a better understanding of theodds of losing, are deterred from gambling in their leisure time due to familyresponsibilities and treated gambling as part of their normal hospitality workload. Newer

Table 4 (continued)

ClubManagers

HotelManagers

CasinoManagers

Some staff have the opportunity to bet on credit √ √Staff have access to cash √ √Low wages of some staff √ √Some problem gamblers are attracted to the industry √Staff receive gratuities from patrons drawing attention to wins √Reluctance to expose problems due to embarrassment or job loss √ √Employees cannot gamble at workplace so problem undetected √ √Staff boredom √


younger staff were seen to be more vulnerable or susceptible to having distorted viewsabout winning from gambling and being influenced by gambling in their workplace. Thesocio-demographic characteristics of young age and low socio-economic status of novicegaming staff generally align with the characteristics of those at high risk of gamblingproblems, as found in many national prevalence studies (Productivity Commission 1999;

Table 5 Workplace Factors Perceived by Gaming Venue Managers to Discourage Gambling by GamingVenue Employees

ClubManagers

HotelManagers

CasinoManagers

Close Interaction with Gamblers:Staff see problem or heavy gamblers and don’t want to belike them

√ √

Staff see negative responses to gambling losses √ √Staff see the amount of money patrons spend on gambling √ √Staff see or hear about the losses √ √ √Frequent Exposure to Gambling:Staff can become sick of being around gambling and theenvironment

√ √

Staff see venue takings from gambling √Staff have better knowledge of the odds of losing √ √ √Influence of Fellow Employees:Staff provide support or advice to stop gambling √ √ √Friends from work want to avoid gambling venues √ √Influence of Venue Managers, Policies and Practices:Managers can provide support or advice to stop gambling √A policy of no staff gambling in the workplace √ √ √A proactive culture of responsible gambling √ √ √Training and education courses √Strict management policies √Influence of Workplace StressorsStaff avoid gambling for stress relief √Staff can be deterred by stress about difficult customers √Influence of Shift Work:No gambling venues open after some shifts √ √Staff might go out less √Frequent Exposure to Gambling Marketing and Promotions:Staff are aware of the low chance of winning promotions √ √ √Promotions turn staff off √ √Influence of Responsible Gambling TrainingRaises awareness for staff of problem gambling and its signs √ √ √Raises awareness for staff of the effects of problem gambling √ √ √Raises awareness for staff of the poor odds in gambling √ √Raises awareness for staff of ways to seek help √ √Influence of Other Responsible Gambling Measures:Measures raise awareness of gambling problems √ √ √Responsible gambling measures can trigger problemrecognition

√ √

Staff involvement in self-exclusion of patrons deters stafffrom gambling

√ √


Perese et al. 2005). Newer younger staff often begin working in gambling venues as casualsor part-timers and may not receive the responsible gambling training provided to long-termstaff.

Fellow employees were considered as predominantly having no influence on staffgambling by the majority of the hotel managers, half the club managers and by both casinomanagers. Where fellow employees are influential, club managers considered them as morelikely to encourage rather than discourage gambling by fellow staff. Table 6 indicates thatthe older staff are often not interested in socialising or gambling with other staff. Staff withfamilies and/or their own social interests seem more likely to go home, to pursue theirfavourite recreational activities or socialise around sports such as golf. Some staff becomeimmune to any influence from the work environment on their gambling. Shaffer and Hall(2002) found that problem gambling rates amongst longer-term casino employees decreasedover time. Abbott (2006) has proposed that during new exposure to gambling, previouslyunexposed people are at high risk of developing gambling problems, but that over timeadaptation typically occurs and problem levels reduce, even in the face of increasingexposure. This ‘honeymoon period’ seems apparent amongst new young gaming staff.While a few managers felt that some staff gamble together after work, for the majority ofstaff a balanced lifestyle was more important than the influence of fellow workersencouraging gambling.

Venue managers, their policies and practices were perceived as being a very stronginfluence on discouraging staff gambling by both casino managers, the majority of the hotelmanagers and about half of the club managers. No one thought that venue managementmainly encouraged staff to gamble. However, around one-quarter of the club managersacknowledged that venue management has the potential to both encourage and discouragestaff gambling, depending on the example set by managers, whether staff are allowed togamble in the workplace, and whether the workplace has a gambling culture. Overall, thepolicy of no staff gambling in the workplace and a proactive culture of responsiblegambling, including training, were especially supported by the managers as an importantdeterrent for staff gambling. There were suggestions that managers in rival venues were notas strict or as vigilant as themselves. Managers acknowledged that the influence ofmanagement on staff gambling only extended to the workplace and staff could easilygamble elsewhere.

Workplace stressors were perceived mainly as having no influence on staff gambling byover half of the hotel and club managers and by both casino managers. Many noted that thiswas because staff de-stress in other ways. While it was acknowledged that there is a need tounwind after work, especially after dealing with difficult customers, managers thought thatalcohol use rather than gambling may be the more usual relief. Gaming venue employeeselsewhere have reported high levels of stress, irritability, moodiness and exhaustion afterwork, along with sleep and appetite problems (Keith et al. 2001). However, managers inthis investigation reported that, with their support, open communications and some training,staff learn to deal with workplace stressors. Some managers considered the work as notparticularly stressful and, even where it was, stress would not encourage non-gamblers totake up gambling. Others considered that staff avoided gambling as a relief from workplacestress.

The influence of shift work was perceived differently by the three groups of managers.The casino managers felt that shift work discouraged gambling by staff as there are nogambling venues open after many casino shifts finish, because casino staff have regular,established shifts and they settle into a routine. While about one-third of club managers feltthat shift work would have no influence on staff gambling, another third considered that it


Table 6 Workplace Factors Perceived by Gaming Venue Managers to Have No Influence on Gambling byGaming Venue Employees

ClubManagers

HotelManagers

CasinoManagers

Close Interaction with Gamblers:Staff do not discuss wins and losses with patrons √Staff are either gamblers or non-gamblers anyway √ √Some staff have little interaction with gamblers √Frequent Exposure to Gambling:Staff are either gamblers or non-gamblers anyway √Staff inductions point out the realities of gambling √Staff are rotated between jobs or departments √Staff become immune to any influence √ √Influence of Fellow Employees:Staff prefer not to socialise together √ √Staff socialise by going out to drink instead √ √Staff do not socialise together because of family responsibilities √ √Older staff are not interested in socialising √Staff have shared sports interests instead √Some staff finish work alone √ √No peer pressure to gamble or this is resisted √ √Staff lose interest in socialising with other staff √Influence of Venue Managers, Policies and Practices:Staff do not mix with management √Management policies restrict staff gambling only in workplace √ √Management have no interest in or knowledge of what staff doin their own time

√ √

Management do not try to influence staff √Influence of Workplace StressorsSome staff are trained to better cope with stress √The work is not stressful √ √Staff de-stress in other ways √ √ √Supportive work environment √Stress would not influence non-gamblers to gamble √ √Influence of Shift Work:Management strategies to minimise effects of shiftwork √ √ √Management strategies to assist staff home √Older staff have family commitments √ √Staff have other hospitality friends to socialise with √Staff find other activities in their time off √ √Staff just want to go home after a shift √Frequent Exposure to Gambling Marketing and Promotions:Staff are often not allowed to enter workplace promotions √ √ √Venue does very little gambling marketing and promotions √ √Management policies separate staff from these activities √Small prizes are not attractive √Staff don’t take much notice of promotions √ √Promotions are not attractive to the age group √Staff who are not gamblers would not be influenced √Venue has no linked jackpots √Influence of Responsible Gambling TrainingTraining may not be done because it is voluntary √ √


could either encourage or discourage staff gambling. Less than one-tenth of club managersfelt that shift work was mainly an encouraging influence. While less than half of the hotelmanagers thought that shift work would discourage staff gambling, a minority thought itwould encourage gambling and, equally, a minority thought it could do either. Shift workcan interfere with a worker’s family, social and community life, with their leisure activitiesand with other obligations (Keith et al. 2001) and some managers recognised that socialisolation and a lack of alternative social opportunities may encourage staff to gamble.However, standard rosters for shift work take much uncertainly out of hospitality work.Meeting family commitments also appears to be a stabilising influence, discouraging staffgambling at the end of a shift.

The influence of frequent exposure to gambling marketing and promotions was alsoperceived differently by the three groups of managers. Again, the casino managers felt thatthis discouraged their staff from gambling, as staff are very aware of the low odds ofwinning. The club managers had more mixed responses. About one-third felt that thisfrequent exposure would have no influence on staff gambling, and about one-fifth each feltthat they would encourage staff to gamble, discourage them, or have either influence. Incontrast, most hotel managers said that these activities discourage staff in their owngambling. In Australia, the Productivity Commission (1999) concluded that certainmarketing activities promoting gambling have the potential to undermine responsiblegambling and informed decision-making by reinforcing inherently false beliefs, even if theadvertisements or promotions themselves are not deceptive. In this investigation manymanagers said that they do not allow staff to enter workplace promotions and that staff areaware of the low chance of winning. Some clubs protect staff by separating them fromworking with gambling marketing and promotions, contracting independent organisationsto develop and operate these activities. Large prizes were thought by some to be attractiveand raise awareness of gambling as a way to win money, but most managers thought thatstaff were turned off by promotions and did not notice the more usual small but frequentprizes.

Responsible gambling training was the most strongly supported workplace factordiscouraging staff gambling, as perceived by both casino managers, about three-quarters ofthe hotel managers and one-half of the club managers. Over two-thirds of all managers saidthat the influence of responsible gambling education and training raises staff awareness ofproblem gambling. While some staff may not always reflect on their own gambling as aconsequence of completing this training, managers felt that they actively reinforce

Table 6 (continued)

ClubManagers

HotelManagers

CasinoManagers

Training may not be done due to other difficulties √May not encourage staff to reflect on their own gambling √ √Training was not engaging √ √People may be in denial about their own gambling √ √Influence of Other Responsible Gambling Measures:Staff don’t look at signage and/or are sceptical about them √ √Signs are aimed at patrons not staff √Signs become too familiar √People may be in denial about their own gambling √


responsible gambling ideas in the workplace. Taking a public health approach (Blaszczynski2001; Thomas and Jackson 2004), the casinos have active policies for training staff from allfunctional areas, whether full time, part time or casual, in responsible gambling education.Being large organisations in just a few locations, they have a strategically organisedapproach to train all their staff and contractors. Clubs and hotels, with more variety in sizeand location, have a much more varied approach. Again using a public health approach(Blaszczynski 2001; Thomas and Jackson 2004), the club and hotel state associations havean active and planned campaign to train staff in the venues, but it is the responsibility ofhotel and club managers to take up their state associations’ offer to train their staff. Whereresponsible gambling training was considered as having no influence on staff gambling,often staff had not completed the training or had not found it engaging.

Other responsible gambling measures, such as signage and self-exclusion, were mainlythought to discourage staff gambling. Both casino managers considered these measures a

Table 7 Summary of Club Managers Opinions about the Influence of Workplace Factors on EmployeeGambling

Influence of... EncouragesGambling

DiscouragesGambling

Either/both

NoInfluence

Don’t Know/no Response

Total

Close interaction with gamblers 8 13 10 7 6 44Frequent exposure to gambling 5 6 11 14 8 44Fellow employees 9 1 6 22 6 44Venue managers, policies andpractices

0 24 10 4 6 44

Workplace stressors 5 2 5 23 9 44Shift work 5 0 14 16 9 44Frequent exposure to gamblingmarketing and promotions

9 8 6 15 6 44

Responsible gambling training 0 22 0 11 11 44Other responsible gamblingmeasures

0 16 0 11 17 44

Table 8 Summary of Hotel Managers Opinions about the Influence of Workplace Factors on EmployeeGambling


DiscouragesGambling

Either/both

NoInfluence


Total


0 21 3 1 2 27


3 19 3 2 0 27


0 12 5 5 5 27


discouraging influence, as did nearly half the hotel managers. Club managers were morelikely to be non-committal. Reasons given for discouraging staff gambling were that thesemeasures raise staff awareness of problem gambling, its signs and effects, the poor odds ingambling and sources of help for gambling problems. However, club and some hotelmanagers were equally likely to say that it had no influence or they did not know or theywere non-committal. They commented that signage can become very familiar if notregularly refreshed, some were sceptical about its usefulness, and some thought that staffperceived it as aimed only at patrons. Yet in one study of the perceived efficacy ofresponsible gambling measures in a sample of Australian clubs in Sydney (Hing 2003),18% of participants reported they had reduced the frequency of their gambling, 17%reported they had reduced their typical session length, and 19% reported they had reducedtheir usual gambling expenditure because of responsible gambling measures.

Other workplace factors were identified as encouraging staff gambling. A propensity todrink alcohol which may lead to riskier gambling behaviour was identified by both club andhotel managers. The link between alcohol consumption and gambling problems is welldocumented and is associated with increased risk-taking during play (Perese et al. 2005).Other workplace factors were low wages, access to cash and the opportunity to bet on creditat TAB and keno terminals, which in combination may provide temptation for bored staff.However, if kept busy at work with observant managers and good security, there isapparently less opportunity for staff to gamble at work. Club and hotel managers also notedthat staff may be reluctant to expose a gambling problem due to embarrassment and/or fearof job loss, and that a gambling problem may well go unheeded if employees cannotgamble in their workplace. Club managers reported that gratuities offered to staff drawattention to gambling wins, while some speculated whether problem gamblers are drawn towork in the industry.

Opinions about the at-risk status of hospitality staff varied amongst managers. Over halfthe club managers (23) and both casino managers (two) considered that hospitality staffwere no more at-risk of developing gambling problems that the general population. Hotelmanagers were much more evenly divided on this question, with over half (14) saying thatyes, hospitality staff were more at-risk of developing gambling problems. Some managerssimply said they did not know or that it could go either way. Of the 73 managers

Table 9 Summary of Casino Managers Opinions about the Influence of Workplace Factors on EmployeeGambling


DiscouragesGambling

Either/both

NoInfluence


Total


0 2 0 0 0 2


0 2 0 0 0 2


0 2 0 0 0 2


interviewed in all three sectors, 35 said ‘no,’ 31 said ‘yes’ and seven were ‘undecided’ or‘didn’t know.’ Thus, a slight majority of managers felt that hospitality staff were no moreat-risk of developing gambling problems than the general population.

Conclusion

This paper has reported on one stage of a larger study into gambling by gaming venueemployees and aspects of working in gaming venues that are perceived to influence staffgambling. The paper drew on face-to-face interviews with 44 club, 27 hotel and two casinomanagers. While sizeable minorities of the managers had different views, the largestproportions of the club, hotel and casino manager considered that:

& Close interaction with gamblers mainly encourages staff gambling (22 respondents),& Factors that mainly discourage staff gambling are: venue managers, their policies

and practices (47 respondents); responsible gambling training (45 respondents);other responsible gambling measures (30 respondents); frequent exposure togambling marketing and promotions (29 respondents); and, frequent exposure togambling (20 respondents),

& The factor that has either type of influence on staff gambling is shift work (19respondents),

& Factors that have no influence on staff gambling are fellow employees (44respondents); workplace stress (41 respondents); and, shift work (19 respondents).

This is the first known comprehensive study in the world to examine the relationshipbetween working in a gambling environment and employee gambling. It builds on anearlier stage of data collection that gathered opinions on this issue from 32 gamblingcounsellors in Queensland Australia. Subsequent stages have sought opinions from gamingvenue employees, problem gamblers and peak industry bodies. These results will bereported in additional papers to provide inclusive and stakeholder-based perspectives.

Acknowledgement Financial assistance for this research project has been provided by the QueenslandOffice of Gaming Regulation, Treasury Department. The researchers would also like to acknowledge thesupport of Clubs Queensland, the Queensland Hotels Association, Queensland Gambling Help, the GamblingHelpline, the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers’ Union, Legal Aid (Brisbane), the gamblingcounsellors, problem gamblers, venue managers and staff we interviewed.

References

Abbott, M. (2006). Do EGMs and problem gambling go together like a horse and carriage? Paper presentedat the 2006 International Conference on Gambling: Gambling and Its Impacts: Policy, Practice andResearch Perspectives, Auckland, New Zealand.

Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball researchstrategies. In Social Research Update, Vol. 33. Guildford: University of Surrey. Retrieved from: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk./sru/SRU33.html accessed 28/2/06.

Berg, B. (1995). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (2nd. ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

Blaszczynski, A. (2001). Harm minimisation strategies in gambling: An overview of international initiativesand interventions. Melbourne: Australian Gaming Council.

Collachi, J., & Taber, J. (1987). Gambling habits and attitudes among casino workers: A pilot study. Paperpresented at the 7th Conference on Gambling and Risk-Taking, Reno, Nevada.


http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk./sru/SRU33.html

http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk./sru/SRU33.html

Hing, N. (2003). An assessment of member awareness, perceived adequacy and perceived effectiveness ofresponsible gambling strategies in Sydney clubs. Report commissioned by the Casino CommunityBenefit Fund for the New South Wales Government. Lismore: Centre for Gambling Education andResearch, Southern Cross University.

Hing, N., & Breen, H. (2005). Gambling amongst gaming venue employees: Counsellors’ perspectives onrisk and protective factors in the workplace. Gambling Research, 17(2), 25–46.

Keith, M., Cann, B., Brophy, J., Hellyer, D., Day, M., Egan, S., et al. (2001). Identifying and prioritizinggaming workers’ health and safety concerns using mapping for data collection. American Journal ofIndustrial Medicine, 39, 49–51.

Korn, D., & Shaffer, H. (1999). Gambling and the health of the public: Adopting a public health perspective.Journal of Gambling Studies, 15(4), 289–365.

Legge, J. (2003). Statistics: Power from Data! Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/power/about/about1.htm accessed 28/2/06.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). California: Sage.Perese, L., Bellringer, M., & Abbott, M. (2005). Literature review to inform social marketing objectives and

approaches and behaviour change indicators to prevent and minimise gambling harm. Report preparedfor the Health Sponsorship Council. Auckland: Gambling Research Centre, Auckland University ofTechnology.

Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia’s gambling industries: Report no. 10. Canberra: AusInfo.Shaffer, H., & Hall, M. (2002). The natural history of gambling and drinking problems among casino

employees. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(4), 405–424.Shaffer, H., Hall, M., & Vander Bilt, J. (1997). Program evaluation: A practical guide to discovering what

works. Harvard: Division on Addictions, Harvard Medical School. Retrieved from: http://www.divisionaddictions.org/html/library.htm accessed 26/2/06

Shaffer, H., Vander Bilt, J., & Hall, M. (1999). Gambling, drinking, smoking and other health risk activitiesamongst casino employees. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 36, 365–378.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1999). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In A. Bryman & R. Burgess(Eds.), Qualitative research: Volume III. London: Sage.

Thomas, S., & Jackson, A. (2004). Program findings that inform curriculum development for the preventionof problem gambling. Gambling Research, 16(2), 40–51.


http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/power/about/about1.htm

http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/power/about/about1.htm

http://www.divisionaddictions.org/html/library.htm

http://www.divisionaddictions.org/html/library.htm

Date post:	19-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Workplace Factors that Encourage and Discourage Gambling amongst Gaming Venue Employees: A...

Documents