Bloomberg - No Disney Fun for Orlando Workers as Poverty Nears 20%

WDW1974

Well-Known Member
And of course Disney is the largest single site employer in the state, and country.

THIS!

I was about to type the very thing.

People don't seem to comprehend the significance to this simple fact. Disney has a HUGE role in setting wages for the entire service sector based on this.

UNI could decide tomorrow to start workers at $15 an hour and it would garner a few headlines, but it wouldn't make a fundamental shift in the economy. ... if WDW tomorrow decided workers should start at $15 an hour it would create huge ripples across the entire nation's workforce.

This is one example of how Disney's size gives them huge advantages ... and how it can be huge disadvantage for people.

I'd love to see George and Andy spend a month trying to live on $8 or even $10 an hour. That would be fun.
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
Why is this just about or referring to Disney World? There are many thousands working and Uni, Sea World, and at thousands of other entertainment attractions and restaurants and hotels all around this huge tourist area that don't make a lot in the same situation right?

Disney sets the market. They're the largest employer. If they paid $15/hr, Universal and Seaworld would be forced to do the same.
 

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
Disney sets the market. They're the largest employer. If they paid $15/hr, Universal and Seaworld would be forced to do the same.

I don't think they would be forced to though it would put pressure on them.

I think there has been a big discussion on these boards about this before but doubling front line pay while having a positive effect for the CM's could also have a negative effect for the parks growth and other costs going up to offset the new payroll.

Who knows. I'm not a finance guy and I didn't stay at a holiday inn express last night (Saratoga Springs actually lol)
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
I don't think they would be forced to though it would put pressure on them.

I think there has been a big discussion on these boards about this before but doubling front line pay while having a positive effect for the CM's could also have a negative effect for the parks growth and other costs going up to offset the new payroll.

Who knows. I'm not a finance guy and I didn't stay at a holiday inn express last night (Saratoga Springs actually lol)

But as the largest single site employer, Disney sets the average wage for the Orlando area just through sheer numbers alone. Nobody has to pay anything because of how Disney behaves; moreover Disney isnt ahead of the curve - they are the curve.
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
Gradual increments of inflation.

Also the fact is most positions at the other parks do pay marginally better. Even with Disney's increase they are only starting to match the other competitor park's average starting wage pay which is going to soon raise.

It only makes sense. If the parks are continuing to bring in more profits than ever and dominating the tourism market and being the most visited place in the world than many deserve better. I am often more on the side of not raising starting pay but competitively there is something to be said.
 

El Grupo

Well-Known Member
Probably wouldn't hurt to have the Disney bean counters take a closer look at Costco. Sounds like that company pays their frontline people significantly better.

A few years ago, Wall Street analysts reviewed Costco's overall performance and initially determined that stockholders should be getting more for their investment in the company. At first glance, employees were getting paid to much. By cutting staff and wages to better align with other retailers, such as Wal-Mart, Costco could generate better dividends, which should be priority #1.

Upon further review, the analysts had a revelation of sorts. The reason that Costco was averaging twice as many sales per employee as Wal-Mart was simply because those working for Costco were more satisfied due to better pay and benefits. What a novel thought. Employees satisfaction does have an impact on the bottom line.
 

PhilharMagician

Well-Known Member
Gotta comment - and it's just a personal opinion....

I would pay MORE at WDW if I KNEW the money was going toward a decent wage structure for WDW cast members.

Nope. Not that I do not understand what these people are going through because I do. It is the fact that the WDC keeps raising prices, reaping record profits and paying millions upon millions of dollars in bonuses to the executives because they are able to pull blood from a stone. I feel for the little guy and in my occupation I fight for them every day. Point is giving Disney more money would never put it in the little guys pocket.
 

WDW1974

Well-Known Member
Why is $15 the most quoted reasonable wage? If we are going to use arbitrary numbers, why not $25 or $30?

I used that figure because it is the least amount of money that I could personally live on in any rational sense, albeit not in the Faux Top One Percent style that I am used to. (and I know the answer here of simply work 80 hours between two jobs at $8 an hour!)

I also can argue that it is a fair starting point for many positions. ... I can't say the same at $25 or $30 an hour.

But, hey, we could simply pay people $3 an hour and tell them they could be making that a week and that they should be happy.

That's a discussion for others ... @slappy magoo loves those discussions.
 

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
I used that figure because it is the least amount of money that I could personally live on in any rational sense, albeit not in the Faux Top One Percent style that I am used to. (and I know the extreme right wing answer here of simply work 80 hours between two jobs at $8 an hour!)

I also can argue that it is a fair starting point for many positions. ... I can't say the same at $25 or $30 an hour.

But, hey, we could simply pay people $3 an hour and tell them they could be making that a week and that they should be happy.

That's a discussion for others ... @slappy magoo loves those discussions.
Hey, my first job paid $3.75/hr and that was well above minimum wage at the time.

Maybe we should just cut minimum wage down to $3.75/hr.

After all, that worked OK for me ...

More than 3 decades ago. :rolleyes:
 

Hakunamatata

Le Meh
Premium Member
I used that figure because it is the least amount of money that I could personally live on in any rational sense, albeit not in the Faux Top One Percent style that I am used to. (and I know the answer of simply work 80 hours between two jobs at $8 an hour!)

I also can argue that it is a fair starting point for many positions. ... I can't say the same at $25 or $30 an hour.

But, hey, we could simply pay people $3 an hour and tell them they could be making that a week and that they should be happy.

That's a discussion for others ... @slappy magoo loves those discussions.
@WDW1974 I should have stipulated that I wasn't questioning why you used the number. My comment was more a rhetorical observation given that is a number that is thrown out by many supporting an increase in the minimum.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom