Hing, N., & Breen, H. (2008). Gambling activities and gambling problems amongst gaming venue employees: A preliminary survey. The Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, 24(4), 329-341.
Gambling Activities and Gambling Problems Amongst Gaming Venue Employees: A Preliminary Survey Authors Nerilee Hing and Helen Breen Biographical Details of the Authors Nerilee Hing (PhD, M.Bus, B.Bus Tourism) is an Associate Professor and Head of the Centre for Gambling Education and Research, Southern Cross University. Helen Breen (M.Bus, B.Bus Tourism [Hons], B. Arts) is a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Gambling Education and Research, Southern Cross University. Contact Details For Principal Author Centre for Gambling Education and Research School of Tourism and Hospitality Management Southern Cross University PO Box 157 Lismore NSW Australia Ph: 02 66 203 928 Fax: 02 66 222 208 Email:
[email protected] Short Title Gambling Amongst Gaming Venue Employees
1
Gambling Activities and Gambling Problems Amongst Gaming Venue Employees: A Preliminary Survey
Abstract Gaming venues have recently devoted considerable resources to lowering the risk to their patrons of developing gambling problems. However, far less attention has been given to lowering these risks for gaming venue staff, even though numerous workplace factors can enhance the attractiveness of gambling. This paper reports on a small survey of 56 gaming venue staff, conducted as part of a larger project investigating workplace influences on the gambling behaviour of gaming venue employees. The results indicate that gambling is a very popular activity, and the group is distinctive for its high expenditure on and regular participation in certain forms of gambling. The rates of problem and moderate risk gambling were extremely high. The opportunity therefore exists for gaming venues to better protect their employees by limiting staff gambling in the workplace, raising awareness of the risks of gambling, assisting any staff with gambling problems, and better promoting employee wellbeing.
Keywords Gaming venues – employees – problem gambling
2
Introduction In 2005-06, the authors conducted a research project in Queensland Australia examining how working in a gaming venue influences the gambling behaviour of gaming venue employees.12 It used mainly qualitative methodologies involving interviews with gaming venue employees, gaming venue managers, gambling counsellors and some clients who developed gambling problems while working in gaming venues. An assumption was that gaming venue employees are not exempt from the risk of developing gambling problems, and indeed may be more at-risk due to their work environment. While these interviewees identified numerous gambling-related risk factors for gaming venue staff and various strategies venues could implement to discourage the development of gambling problems amongst their workers, the small sample sizes needed for in-depth qualitative research were not conducive to a broad-scale prevalence study of gambling problems amongst gaming venue employees. However, to gain some indicative data on this, one quantitative measure was used – a small survey of the employees we interviewed. This asked about their own gambling behaviour and contained a problem gambling instrument. This paper reports on that survey.
The paper firstly comments on employment in gambling venues, previous research, and potential risk factors to which staff may be exposed. The survey methodology is then explained, before results are presented and discussed.
Employment in Gaming Venues
3
Employment generated by gambling industries in Australia (and overseas) is significant. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates there were 76,848 persons employed in the provision of gambling services at the end of June 2005.3 These comprised 18,347 persons employed in casinos, along with 23,813 licensed gaming staff in clubs and 21,924 licensed gaming staff in hotels. However, when hotel and club staff without gaming licences are also included, total employment in businesses supplying gambling activities exceeds 156,000.4 5
In Queensland, 581 licensed clubs operate 21,102 gaming machines and 771 hotels operate 18,382 gaming machines, while the state’s four casinos collectively operate 284 table games and 3,593 gaming machines.6 The casinos and many hotels and clubs also operate keno and TAB outlets. At 30 June 2004, there were an estimated 28,000 positions in hotels and clubs with gaming machines, while employment in the state’s casinos is estimated to be around 4,000, depending on the season.7
In Queensland, licensed gaming employees in hotels and clubs are not allowed to play gaming machines in their workplace during the period of their employment.8 Additionally, all employees are restricted from betting on keno in their workplace. However, the Act does not restrict licensed gaming employees from off-course betting at a workplace TAB. As a house policy, some hotels and clubs do not allow any employees to gamble on any activity in the workplace, others restrict staff gambling to when they are not in uniform, while others place no restrictions apart from those required by law. This means non-gaming staff are free to gamble in their workplace on gaming machines and
4
the TAB when not on duty. In contrast, employees in the casinos are restricted from gambling in their workplace at any time.9 Thus, staff of gaming venues in Queensland have varying access to gambling activities in their workplace. Nevertheless, all staff still has ready access to gambling activities outside their workplace, while others have full access to most gambling activities within their place of employment.
However, physical access to gambling is just one factor that may influence the gambling behaviour of gaming venue staff. Consistent with a public health perspective which recognises the potential influence of contextual factors on gambling behaviour, additional factors may be influential. Various models of gambling involvement depict these as relating to personal characteristics, the gambling activities themselves, and the context in which gambling occurs.10 11 12 The workplace setting and culture can influence the behaviour of venue staff. The hospitality industry in Australia has the largest percentage of workers reporting short or long term risks for consuming alcohol.13 Reasons for this include: alcohol is readily available; a culture of alcohol promotion exists in hospitality; and, hospitality generally attracts younger workers who (across all industries) are more likely to engage in at-risk alcohol consumption. From the 2001 National Drug Strategy Household Survey,14 alcohol consumption patterns associated with work patterns were analysed by Pidd.15 Compared to other industries, hospitality workers had the highest percentage of workers who missed a work day due to their alcohol use, attended work under the influence of alcohol and usually drank at their workplace. In the Australian hospitality industry a culture of high alcohol consumption is apparent in the workforce. 5
In the field of gambling, research conducted by Keith et al,16 71 Canadian gaming employees mapped their concerns about their health, occupational hazards and the impact of working conditions on their lives. These employees identified ergonomics, indoor air quality, biological and physical hazards and stress as issues of concern. Workplace stress, such as dealing with difficult customers, relations with management, short staffing and shift work were reported to interfere with a worker’s life outside work.17 In the Canadian setting, impacts of working in a gaming venue are physical and emotional. Given the distinctive work context for gaming venue employees, it might be expected that their gambling behaviour is also distinctive.
Prior Research into Gambling by Gaming Venue Employees Very little research has been conducted into gambling by gaming venue employees, with only four empirical studies previously conducted: •
Collachi and Taber asked 34 employees from three casinos about their gambling behaviour. Although many of their findings were consistent with problem gambling (e.g. borrowing money between paydays), no instrument was used to measure problem gambling.18
•
Shaffer, Vander Bilt and Hall examined the prevalence of pathological gambling, drinking, smoking and other health risk behaviours amongst 3,841 employees from four sites of one casino. The employees had a higher prevalence of past-year Level 3 (pathological) gambling, but a lower prevalence of Level 2 (problem) gambling, than the general adult population, when measured on the South Oaks Gambling Screen.
6
Employees also had a higher prevalence of smoking, alcohol problems and depression than the general adult population.19 •
Duquette surveyed 271 employees of one hotel/casino, also using the South Oaks Gambling Screen. The rate of pathological gambling was found to be 20.3 per cent, compared to 1.14 per cent for the general adult population.20
•
Shaffer and Hall conducted a prospective study into gambling, drinking and other health factors amongst 1,176 full-time employees at six sites of one casino at three observation points approximately 12 months apart. While still higher than the general population, pathological and problem gambling rates, as measured by the South Oaks Gambling Screen, decreased over time. These results question conventional wisdom that gambling problems are always progressive and suggest some employees may adapt to their exposure to gambling after an initial novelty effect.21
While these studies were all conducted in the United States, problem gambling rates are high. This paper focuses on some survey results that suggest that gambling problems amongst Australian gaming venue employees are also likely to be extensive.
Methodology As part of the larger research project, a judgment sampling strategy was used to select venues to request interviews with managers and employees, with importance placed on adequate numbers of the three venue types (clubs, hotels and casinos), small through to 7
large venues, and those in different geographic locations. Based on these criteria, we approached 69 clubs and 50 hotels to request an interview with their managers, and 44 club managers and 27 hotels managers agreed. Three of the four casinos also participated and two managers, representing three casinos, were interviewed. Refusals by managers of larger venues were about twice the number of refusals by managers of smaller venues. There were no striking differences in refusals from managers in remote, regional, urban and metropolitan areas given the total number of venues in each location.
Employees were recruited for interviews via these managers. Thus, while the club and hotel employees participated voluntarily, they were either selected by the managers or more commonly were on duty when we visited and able to be freed from duties. A different approach was taken to recruit casino employees. The casinos advertised the research project on-site, resulting in about one quarter of participants pre-arranging interviews directly with the researchers. The remainder were recruited during two days we spent in each casino’s employee dining room. Thus, the casino interviewees participated voluntarily and the sample was essentially self-selecting. In total, we interviewed 35 club, 17 hotel and 38 casino employees. At the conclusion of each interview, employees were asked to complete a gambling behaviour survey. Unfortunately, two of the three casinos did not allow us to administer this survey to their employees. In all, 56 questionnaires were completed by 34 club, 16 hotel and six casino employees.
The survey comprised a two-page questionnaire with four main sections:
8
•
the respondent’s demographics (age and sex);
•
the respondent’s work characteristics (current job title, type of gaming venue currently employed in, other gambling venues worked in, and total length of time working in gaming venues);
•
the respondent’s gambling behaviour (frequency, session length and expenditure); and
•
the Canadian Problem Gambling Severity Index.22
Prior research on gaming venue employees in the United States mentioned above used the South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS) as their problem gambling survey instrument. The SOGS instrument has been the dominant and established instrument in numerous gambling studies.23 The Victorian Government conducted research24 to compare and evaluate the SOGS instrument with their Victorian Gambling Screen and the Canadian Problem Gambling Index (CPGI). Overall, the CPGI was reported as demonstrating the best measurement properties of the three survey instruments.25 The CPGI is the instrument that has been standardised as a problem gambling measure for Queensland, having been used for the Queensland Household Gambling Survey in 2001 and again in 2003-04. 26 27
Results were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. However, with the small non-random sample, the results cannot be generalised. Given that we surveyed employees from five regions in Queensland, and from venues of different types,
9
sizes and ownership structures, the results may be indicative of the larger population of Queensland gaming venue employees.
Characteristics of Respondents Respondents ranged from 20 to 58 years (mean = 31; median = 29), reflecting the expected young profile of gaming venue workers. Fifty-four per cent were female, consistent with the proportion of females employed in Australian gambling industries (53 per cent).28 29Respondents were working in a range of positions, including administration, bar attendant, bar manager, cashier, chef, croupier, duty manager/supervisor, gaming attendant, gaming manager, human resources, promotions and security manager. Thus, both gaming and non-gaming related positions were represented, with the most common positions being gaming attendant (25%), duty manager/supervisor (23%) and bar attendant (12.5%). Most respondents were employed at operational level (50%), and most held gaming-related positions within their current workplace. About 60 per cent currently worked in clubs, 29 per cent in hotels and 11 per cent in casinos. Throughout their career, nearly three-quarters had worked in clubs, nearly half in hotels, about one-sixth in casinos and about one-tenth in TABs. A few had worked at a racetrack. The total time that respondents had been working in gaming venues ranged from 6 months to 26 years (mean = 7.7; median = 6.5).
Our interviewees identified numerous aspects of working in a gaming venue that potentially encourage venue staff to gamble. See Table 1 below. INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
10
Gambling Activities of Respondents This section presents the survey results relating to the respondents’ gambling participation, frequency, session length and expenditure.
Gambling Participation
Gaming machines attracted the highest participation rate, being played by over threequarters of respondents during the previous 12 months. During this time, over half of respondents also participated in TAB betting, keno and lottery-type games (comprising lotto, instant lotto, lottery and soccer pools). Around one-quarter participated in casino table games, racetrack betting, sportsbetting and private gambling, while bingo and internet gambling attracted few participants. On average, each of the 56 respondents had gambled on 3.5 different types of gambling in the previous 12 months. Only seven respondents had ‘hardly at all/never’ gambled on any type of gambling during this time.
Table 2 compares these participation rates to results from the Queensland Household Gambling Survey 2003-04.30 Our employee participation rates are higher for all types of gambling except playing lottery-type games, and particularly higher for gambling on gaming machines, the TAB and keno. INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
11
Gambling Frequency
In the previous 12 months, the ‘typical’ respondent gambled on gaming machines about once a month, on the TAB between once a month and once every few months, on keno and lottery-type games once every few months, and ‘hardly at all/never’ on the remaining types of gambling. However, the gambling behaviour of the ‘typical’ employee clouds the high degree of polarisation within the sample. While nearly one-quarter of respondents played gaming machines at least weekly, nearly one-half played them only once every few months or less. While about one-sixth bet on the TAB and played lotterytype games at least weekly, about two-thirds did so only once every few months or less. Similarly, one in ten played keno at least weekly, while three-quarters played very infrequently or not at all.
The most common regular (at least weekly) gambling activity amongst respondents was playing gaming machines, followed by TAB betting and playing lottery-type games (Table 3). Nearly one-quarter of respondents were regular gaming machine players, about one-sixth were regular TAB and lottery-type game players, while around one in ten were regular sportsbetting and keno gamblers. Comparisons with the Queensland Household Gambling Survey 2003-04 are difficult because the frequency categories did not align (their closest category was ‘more than weekly’, which is clearly different from ‘at least weekly’).31 When compared to results from the National Gambling Survey conducted by the Productivity Commission, higher proportions of our employee respondents were regular (at least weekly) gamblers on all forms of gambling except lottery-type games
12
and internet gambling, and these proportions were markedly higher for gaming machines, TAB betting and keno (Table 3).32 INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
Gambling Session Length
Amongst respondents, average session length was longest for racetrack betting (4.7 hours), followed by private gambling (2.6 hours), bingo (2.5 hours), casino table games (2.5 hours), gaming machines (2.3 hours), TAB betting (2 hours), sportsbetting (1.7 hours) and keno (1 hour). Time spent playing lottery-type games was the shortest (0.26 hours)
Gambling Expenditure
The gambling activities attracting the highest mean expenditure per gambler per month were sportsbetting ($127), followed by gaming machines ($121), casino table games ($102), internet gambling ($83), private gambling ($79), TAB betting ($78), racetrack betting ($75), lottery-type games ($59), keno ($50) and bingo ($30) respectively. The average per capita monthly expenditure on all gambling amongst the 56 respondents was $258, equating to $3,097 per year, or about 2.9 times more than that for Australian adults ($1,066.95) and about 3.2 times more than that for Queensland adults ($967.96) during 2003-04.33 When compared to the per capita expenditure for Queensland adults (Table 4), it is apparent that the employees spent about twice as much on gaming machines, over five times as much on TAB betting, over three times as much on lottery-type games, over ten times as much on keno, and 1.7 times more at casinos.34 Average employee
13
expenditure on sportsbetting is nearly 100 times the per capita expenditure for Queensland adults, but represents few respondents.35 INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE
Problem Gambling All 56 respondents completed the Canadian Problem Gambling Severity Index, a validated instrument consisting of nine questions that are scored to categorise respondents into four major groups:36 •
Problem gamblers - those who have experienced adverse consequences from their gambling and may have lost control of their gambling.
•
Moderate risk gamblers - those who may or may not have experienced adverse consequences from their gambling but who may be at risk if they are heavily involved with gambling.
•
Low risk gamblers - those who may be at risk if they are heavily involved with gambling and experience certain correlates of problem gambling.
•
Non-problem gamblers – those who will not have experienced any adverse consequences of gambling.
The survey results indicated that the prevalence of problem gambling and moderate risk gambling was extremely high amongst respondents when compared to the Queensland population.37 The prevalence of problem gambling is 16 times higher amongst the gaming venue employees we surveyed than amongst the general population in the state, being 8.9 per cent for the former and 0.55 per cent for the latter. Similarly, the rate of 14
moderate risk gambling is ten times higher amongst the gaming venue employees we surveyed than amongst the general population in the state, being 19.6 per cent for the former and 1.97 per cent for the latter. Collectively, the prevalence of moderate and severe gambling problems amongst the surveyed employees is around 11 times higher than the state average. The rate of low risk gambling at 16.1 per cent is triple the Queensland figure of 5.34 per cent. Thus, nearly half of respondents can be considered to be at some risk from their gambling (Table 5). INSERT TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE
Relationships Between Problem Gambling And Respondents’ Characteristics And Gambling Behaviour Few statistical tests were applied to test relationships in the data due to low numbers in many cells. However, some key observable trends are set out below. •
Age. The mean age of the problem gambler group was the lowest (27 years), followed by the moderate risk group (28 years) and the low risk group (31.9 years). Nonproblem gamblers had the highest mean age of 32.6 years. Shaffer and Hall note that younger and recent casino employees have higher rates of problem gambling than longer-term employees. While this finding could arise in other ways, it also might reflect little time for adaptation to working in the gambling industry.
•
Sex. Compared to the Queensland Household Gambling Survey 2003-04, females in this survey were over-represented amongst the problem gambler and moderate risk gambler groups.38 When the gambler sub-types are cross-tabulated with the sex of respondents (see Table 6), it is evident that 3 of the 5 cases of problem gambler are 15
female, and that about 33 per cent of females and 23 per cent of males in the sample are moderate risk or problem gamblers. This result contrasts markedly with those for the Queensland Household Gambling Survey 2003-04 which found that of the problem gambler group 64 per cent were males and 36 per cent were females while in the moderate risk gambler group 61.5 were male and 38.5 per cent were females. Thus, female respondents in this sample can be considered to be at more risk from their gambling than males (see Table 6). INSERT TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE
•
Work characteristics. All problem and moderate risk gamblers worked in front-ofhouse positions entailing gambling-related duties, at both operational and supervisory levels, while hotel employees were over-represented amongst both the moderate risk and problem gambler groups. The problem gambler group had worked in gambling venues for the shortest time, while the non-problem group had worked in gambling venues for the longest time, perhaps reflecting some form of adaptation by the latter.
•
Gambling participation. The problem gamblers had participated in an average of 5.5 different gambling activities in the previous 12 months, compared to 5.2 for moderate risk gamblers, 4.0 for low risk gamblers and 2.5 for non-problem gamblers. Nearly all problem and moderate risk gamblers had gambled on gaming machines, the TAB and keno in the previous 12 months, compared to lower proportions of the other groups. A distinguishing characteristic of the problem gambler group was that 80 per cent had engaged in private gambling during this time period.
16
•
Regular gambling. A higher proportion of the problem gambler group were regular (weekly) gaming machine players (60 per cent) compared to the moderate risk gamblers (38 per cent), low risk gamblers (22 per cent) and non-problem gamblers (6 per cent). A higher proportion of the problem gambler group (40 per cent) were also regular keno players and regular private gamblers (20 per cent) compared to the other groups.
•
Session length. There was a significant positive relationship between CPGI score and session length for gaming machines (r = 0.556, p ≤ 0.001), but not for other forms of gambling. The problem gamblers had an average session length of 5.5 hours when playing gaming machines, while moderate risk gamblers spent about 3 hours and the other two categories a little over 1 hour. Clearly, there is the trend of longer session lengths on gaming machines as the extent of gambling problems increases.
•
Gambling expenditure. There was a significant positive relationship between CPGI score and expenditure on gaming machines (r = 0.647, p ≤ 0.001), on the TAB (r = 0.446, p ≤ 0.012), and on keno (r = 0.587, p ≤ 0.002). That is, higher scores on the CPGI are associated with higher expenditure on gaming machines, TAB and keno.
Discussion While the survey results are not representative of the population of Queensland gaming venue employees, the results from these 56 respondents present a distinctive picture of the gambling behaviour of these employees which contrasts markedly with state and national figures (where comparable). They indicate that the 56 respondents collectively have a high participation rate in many gambling activities, gamble very frequently and for
17
long periods on some activities, and have a high expenditure on gambling. Given this, it is not surprising that the prevalence of severe and moderate gambling problems is much higher amongst this group, especially those who are younger, those who are female and those who are new to the industry, than the state average. Some implications of these results are now identified.
•
First, the results suggest that the prevalence of gambling problems amongst gaming venue staff in general may be high, thereby warranting further investigation to establish whether this group is indeed at higher risk of gambling problems than the general population.
•
Second, the results suggest that certain gambling-related risk factors are associated with working in a gaming venue, factors that encourage or facilitate staff gambling. From Table 1, the influence of venue managers, policies and practices and to a lesser extent, close interaction with gamblers are risk factors that appear to be modifiable. Factors reported as mainly discouraging staff from gambling39 40 resulting from this research (including all 197 participants, not just this sub-group of 56) include: responsible gambling training for individuals; responsible gambling measures implemented at the venue level; and supportive venue managers and their policies and practices. These public health measures adopted and implemented in full by empathetic managers could assist in protecting some staff from developing problems with gambling.
•
Third, given that the gambling behaviour of the employees we surveyed was quite polarised between those who gamble intensively and those who hardly or never
18
gamble, there may also be certain moderating and protective factors that deter some staff from gambling. Certain protective factors and interventions reported by Hing and Breen41 42 resulting from research with all 197 participants include: exposure to heavy gambling is a deterrent for some; gambling becomes unexciting or even stressful for others; some have an increasing awareness of poor odds and losses associated with gambling; other staff have a heightened knowledge of responsible gambling; peer pressure and support to not gamble assists some staff; having limits on access to gambling; seeking help for any problems with gambling; and supportive management attitudes helps other staff. The effects of exposure to gambling are complex43 but one effect suggested by Abbott, Williams and Volberg44 is that as people increase their experience with new forms of gambling, adaptations will be made that enable problems with gambling to be counteracted. While Orford45 claims that more exposure and more access to gambling usually leads to more incidence and harm, Shaffer46 argues that after the initial novelty effect of gambling has worn off, adaptation to the risks and hazards associated with gambling is possible, albeit a slow process. Further, there are early indications that regulatory and public health measures47 may contribute to adaptation. •
Fourth, an associated challenge for gaming venues is to attempt to lessen the risk factors and boost protective factors, where possible, for their staff. This may include, for example, venue strategies to raise general awareness for staff about gambling and problem gambling, managerial strategies to specifically include awareness about gambling and problem gambling for new staff at induction, to provide support and
19
advice for staff with gambling problems, to limit accessibility to gambling in the workplace, and to promote staff wellbeing.
Conclusion This paper has provided some preliminary data that suggest that risk of gambling problems amongst staff in gaming venues may be extensive, when compared to the general population. This result parallels research findings that many Australian hospitality staff face risks with their high alcohol consumption levels compared to other industries. With limited numbers, the results from a survey of 56 employees of Queensland hotels, clubs and casinos found that the prevalence of moderate and severe gambling problems amongst this group was collectively around 11 times higher than the state average. While physical and emotional impacts from working in Canadian gaming venues have been documented, this is the first indication of gambling impacts from working in Australian gaming venues. Around 45 per cent of this group were at some risk from their gambling. Further, when compared to state and national figures, this group was characterised by a high participation rate in many gambling activities, high gambling expenditure levels, and a high proportion who were regular gamblers.
While subject to the limitations of convenience sampling and a small database, these distinctive results warrant a reporting of these data and justify the need for a larger scale quantitative study.
Acknowledgements
20
Financial assistance for this project was provided by the Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation, Treasury Department.
21
Table 1: Reasons Why Working in a Gaming Venue Can Encourage Staff Gambling Close Interaction with Gamblers Staff hear about wins more than losses Seeing people win creates hope of winning Staff get caught up in the excitement of patrons’ wins Staff constantly hear about gambling and given ‘hot tips’ Patrons can encourage staff to gamble Staff who gamble build relationships with other gamblers Staff want a piece of the action 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 Infrequent staff can gain distorted views about winning New or younger staff can be vulnerable Staff can lose sight of the value and ownership of money Increases perceived insider knowledge about gambling Staff become attracted to the gambling environment Normalises heavy gambling for staff Triggers the temptation to gamble Influence of Fellow Employees Staff gamble together in their workplace Staff gamble together after work Staff gamble together on days off Staff directly encourage other staff to gamble Staff introduce other staff to gambling Staff share gambling tips Staff gamble on hospitality industry nights Staff travel away together to gamble Staff social club activities can encourage gambling Staff gamble before work Staff gamble to gain acceptance into the workgroup General acceptance of gambling amongst staff Gambling problems not taken seriously by staff Influence of Venue Managers, Policies and Practices Managers are sometimes gamblers and set an example Managers gamble with staff Managers allow staff to gamble in the workplace Gambling can be a job requirement Workplace has a gambling culture Managers sometimes talk about big wins Managers might talk about gambling in a positive way Managers do not take gambling problems seriously
Influence of Workplace Stressors Staff need to unwind after work Staff can experience stress about problem gamblers Staff can experience stress about difficult customers Staff can experience stress from heavy workloads Job dissatisfaction/boredom Staff need to escape from work stresses Staff want to be left alone Staff have to leave workplace soon after end of a shift Influence of Shift Work Staff can suffer social isolation Lack of alternative social opportunities for staff Lack of alternative recreational opportunities for staff Only gambling venues are open late at night Staff need to find solitary leisure activities Staff tend to socialise with other hospitality workers Staff gamble to fill in time between shifts Staff social life can revolve around the workplace Staff gamble while waiting for others to finish work Shift work makes it easier to hide heavy gambling Shift work leads to stress Frequent Exposure to Gambling Marketing and Promotions Promotions can act as a trigger Reinforces gambling as a way to win money Raises awareness of jackpot levels Increases knowledge about other promotions Staff get caught up in the excitement of promotions Worsens existing gambling problems
Other Aspects of the Workplace Some staff drink large quantities of alcohol Reluctance to expose problems due to fear of job loss Some staff have the opportunity to bet on credit Irregular wages of casual staff Low wages of some staff Young age group of staff Self-exclusion difficult due to embarrassment/ job loss Staff are overlooked in problem gambling Staff cannot gamble at workplace so problem undetected Access to cash and pay in their workplace Lack of alternative employment opportunities Staff may not have time to access help services The industry attracts gamblers and problem gamblers The industry attract outgoing people Staff receive gratuities drawing attention to wins Staff boredom
22
Table 2: Gambling Participation on Different Types of Gambling in the Last 12 Months Category Gaming machines TAB betting Keno Lottery-type games Casino games Racetrack betting Sportsbetting Bingo Internet gambling Private gambling
No.
% 44 34 28 29 16 12 13 3 2 13
78.6 60.7 50.0 51.8 28.6 21.4 23.2 5.4 3.6 23.2
QLD HGS %a 32.17 16.42b 16.47 67.32 5.62 -b 4.36 3.48 0.27 1.84
% Difference +46.43 +44.28 +33.53 -15.52 +22.98 +18.84 +1.92 +3.33 +21.36
a
Sourced from Queensland Government, (2005). Queensland Household Gambling Survey 2003-04, Queensland Government, Brisbane.
b
The Queensland Household Gambling Survey 2003-04 does not include TAB betting and racetrack betting as discrete categories, instead having one category of ‘horse/dog races’.
23
Table 3: No. of Respondents Who Are Regular (At Least Weekly) Gamblers on Different Types of Gambling Category Gaming machines TAB betting Keno Lottery-type games Casino games Racetrack betting Sportsbetting Bingo Internet gambling Private gambling
No. of Respondents 13 10 6 10 2 2 5 1 2 2
% 23.2 17.9 10.7 17.9 3.6 3.6 8.9 1.8 3.6 3.6
24
NGS % 5.2 2.9 1.3 30.4 0.1 0.3 2.4 0.1 4.7 0.4
% Difference +18.0 +15.0 +9.4 -12.5 +3.5 +3.3 +6.5 +1.7 -1.1 +3.2
Table 4: Per Capita Gambling Expenditure by Respondents Compared to Queensland Adults Category Gaming machines TAB betting Keno Lottery-type games Casino games Racetrack betting Sportsbetting Bingo Internet gambling Private gambling Total
Total Monthly 4949.11 2418.93 1297.92 1893.12 1620.00 676.98 1012.00 30.00 83.00 475.02 14456.08
Per Capita Monthly 88.38 43.20 23.18 33.81 28.93 12.09 18.07 0.54 1.48 8.48 258.14
Per Capita Yearly 1060.52 518.34 278.13 405.67 347.14 145.07 216.86 6.43 17.79 101.79 3097.74
Per Capita QLDa 519.44b 99.46c 23.73d 117.90 205.19e -f 2.25 -f -f -f 967.97
a
Sourced from Office of Economic and Statistical Research, (2005). Australian Gambling Statistics 1978-79 to 2003-04, Queensland Government, Brisbane.
b
Excludes expenditure on gaming machines at casinos.
c
Includes expenditure at both on and off-course TABs.
d
Excludes expenditure on keno at casinos.
e
Includes expenditure on tables, gaming machines and keno at casinos.
f
Data unavailable
25
Table 5: Distribution of Gambler Sub-Types Amongst Respondents Compared to Queensland Adults Category Non-gambler Non-problem gambler Low risk gambler Moderate risk gambler Problem gambler Total
% Current Survey 5.4 50.0 16.1 19.6 8.9 100.0
% QLD Gambling Survey 19.73 72.40 5.34 1.97 0.55 100.00
26
% Difference -14.33 -22.40 +10.76 +17.63 +8.35
Table 6: Gambler Sub-Types by Sex Category Male Female Total
Non Problem 17 14 31
Low Risk 3 6 9
Moderate Risk 4 7 11
Problem Gambler 2 3 5
Total 26 30 56
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Gambling Services Australia 2004-05. Catalogue No. 8684.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra 2 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006. Gambling Services Australia 2004-05. Catalogue No. 8684.0. Canberra. 3 ibid 4 ibid 5 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006. Pubs, Clubs, Taverns and Bars Australia 2004-05. Catalogue No. 8687.0. Canberra. 6 Queensland Government, 2005. Results of the 2004 Queensland Survey of Gaming Machine Venues. Queensland Treasury, Brisbane. 7 ibid 8 Gaming Machine Act, 1991. QLD 9 Casino Control Act, 1982. QLD 10 Productivity Commission, 1999. Australia’s Gambling Industries: Report No. 10. AusInfo, Canberra. 11 Thomas, S. and Jackson, A. 2004. Influences on Gambling Behaviours and Outcomes: a model for the design of effective interventions. Gambling Research, Vol 16, No. 2. 12 Perese, L. Bellringer, M. and Abbott, M. 2005. Literature Review to Inform Social Marketing Objectives and Approaches and Behaviour Change Indicators to Prevent and Minimise Gambling Harm. Report prepared for the Health Sponsorship Council, Gambling Research Centre, University of Technology, Auckland. 13 Pidd, K. 2005. Workplace Culture and Alcohol Use. National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction, Adelaide. 14 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2001. National Drug Strategy Household Survey: detailed findings. Drugs Statistics Series No. 11. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra. 15 K. Pidd, op cit. 16 Keith, M. Cann, B. Brophy, J. Hellyar, D. Day, M. Egan, S. Mayville, K and Watterson, A. 2001. Identifying and Prioritising Gaming Workers’ Health and Safety Concerns Using Mapping for Data Collection. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 39. 17 ibid 18 Collachi, J.L. and Taber, J.L. 1987. Gambling Habits and Attitudes Among Casino Workers: A Pilot Study. Paper presented at the 7th Conference on Gambling and Risk-Taking. Reno, Nevada. 19 Shaffer, H.J. Vander Bilt, J. and Hall M.N. 1999. Gambling, Drinking, Smoking and Other Health Risk Activities Amongst Casino Employees. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. Vol, 36. 20 Duquette, K.B. 1999. Casino Employee Gambling Behaviour. Unpublished Masters’ Thesis. University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 21 Shaffer, H.J. and Hall, M.N. 2002. The Natural History of Gambling and Drinking Problems Among Casino Employees. The Journal of Social Psychology. Vol, 142. No. 4. 22 Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. 2001. The Canadian Problem Gambling Index: Final Report. Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Ottawa. 23 Wenzel, M. McMillen, J. Marshall, D. and Ahmed, E. 2004. Validation of the Victorian Gambling Screen. Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority, Melbourne. 24 ibid 25 ibid 26 Queensland Government Treasury Department. 2002. Queensland Household Gambling Survey 2001. Queensland Government, Brisbane. 1
27
27
Queensland Government Treasury Department. 2005. Queensland Household Gambling Survey 2003-04. Queensland Government, Brisbane. 28 Australian Bureau of Statistics, op cit 29 Australian Bureau of Statistics, op cit 30 Queensland Government Treasury Department, op cit 31 ibid 32 Productivity Commission, op cit 33 Office of Economic and Statistical Research. 2005. Australian Gambling Statistics 1978-79 to 2003-04. Queensland Government, Brisbane. 34 ibid 35 ibid 36 Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, op cit 37 Queensland Government Treasury Department, op cit 38 ibid 39 Hing, N. and Breen, H. 2006. Workplace Factors that Encourage and Discourage Gambling Amongst Gaming Venue Employees: An Employees Perspective. Gambling Research. Vol, 18. No, 2. 40 Hing, N. and Breen, H. 2007. Workplace Factors that Encourage and Discourage Gambling Amongst Gaming Venue Employees: A Managers’ Perspective. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. Vol, 5. No, 2. 41 N. Hing and H. Breen, op cit 42 N. Hing and H. Breen, op cit 43 Abbott, M. 2006. Do EGM’s and Problem Gambling go Together Like a Horse and Carriage? Gambling Research. Vol, 18. No, 1. 44 Abbott, M. Williams, M. and Volberg, R. 1999. Seven Years On: a follow up study of frequent and problem gamblers living in the community. Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington. 45 Orford, J. 2005. Complicity of the River Bank: the Search for the Truth About Problem Gambling. Reply to Commentaries. Addiction. Vol, 100. 46 Shaffer, H. 2005. From Disabling to Enabling the Public Interest: Natural Transitions from Gambling Exposure to Adaptation and Self-regulation. Addiction. Vol, 100. 47 M. Abbott, op cit
28
