Politics 28000 Layoffs coming to Disney's domestic theme parks - statement from Josh D'Amaro

This thread contains political discussion related to the original thread topic
N

natatomic

Well-Known Member
When I was part-time, I often worked more than 40 hours a week. However, you can’t just say, “hey, I worked full-time hours this week, give me benefits!” You have to work more than X number of hours (I believe it is 32 for Disney, if memory serves correctly) consistently over a period of time. I think you have to average full-time hours for 6 whole months. And Disney keeps track. If you reach that threshold, you are immediately “capped,” and you are not allowed to work more than 31 hours per week for a certain period of time. Enough time that you’re no longer in danger of averaging full-time hours.
(That’s a rough explanation anyway)
 
ImperfectPixie

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
natatomic said:
When I was part-time, I often worked more than 40 hours a week. However, you can’t just say, “hey, I worked full-time hours this week, give me benefits!” You have to work more than X number of hours (I believe it is 32 for Disney, if memory serves correctly) consistently over a period of time. I think you have to average full-time hours for 6 whole months. And Disney keeps track. If you reach that threshold, you are immediately “capped,” and you are not allowed to work more than 31 hours per week for a certain period of time. Enough time that you’re no longer in danger of averaging full-time hours.
(That’s a rough explanation anyway)
Click to expand...
I hate that practice.
 
GeneralKnowledge

GeneralKnowledge

Well-Known Member
natatomic said:
When I was part-time, I often worked more than 40 hours a week. However, you can’t just say, “hey, I worked full-time hours this week, give me benefits!” You have to work more than X number of hours (I believe it is 32 for Disney, if memory serves correctly) consistently over a period of time. I think you have to average full-time hours for 6 whole months. And Disney keeps track. If you reach that threshold, you are immediately “capped,” and you are not allowed to work more than 31 hours per week for a certain period of time. Enough time that you’re no longer in danger of averaging full-time hours.
(That’s a rough explanation anyway)
Click to expand...
They also play games with people’s jobs being designated as “temporary assignments” that just seem to be magically renewed every so often.
 
etc98

etc98

Well-Known Member
monothingie said:
Chapeks salary is $10mil that equates to 400 cast members making $25K/year.

Igers salary was $48mil that equates to 1920 making $25K/year.

If you total up all the executive salaries you don’t even make it 1/4 of the CM laid off.

BTW if you think DLR staying closed is a scapegoat, what should they do? Continue to pay everyone as if nothing is wrong? TWDC is hemorrhaging. If you’re naive enough to think it’s sustainable you’re in fantasy land.
Click to expand...
The point is they can afford to restore executive pay to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, money that the executives do not need to survive by the way, but they can’t afford to pay their cast members, who absolutely do need that money to live. If they’re hemorrhaging, then they should have cut executive pay first, and then laid off cast after.

You said it yourself. If just Iger and Chapek didn’t take a salary this year, almost 2000 cast members might still have a job. But instead, those cast members have to worry about unemployment, and possibly being evicted or going hungry because the Bob’s wanted to buy third homes.

It’s because just like everything else about our economy right now, it’s set up so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
 
E

easyrowrdw

Well-Known Member
LAKid53 said:
"Some loopholes"? FLSA is pretty clear what constitutes overtime for non-exempt employees. Also pretty clear what a non-exempt (hourly) and exempt (salaried) employee is.
Click to expand...
Those classifications are more complicated and still open to interpretation. And the minimum pay for an exempt employee was very low ($23,600) until this year. As far as I know Amazon is still facing a class-action lawsuit over this issue.
 
L

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
GeneralKnowledge said:
They also play games with people’s jobs being designated as “temporary assignments” that just seem to be magically renewed every so often.
Click to expand...
Many companies are on the same bandwagon. They call it outsourcing the work to outside companies. When job or project is finished, it's not the companies responsibility to keep those workers on the payroll anymore.
 
wannabeBelle

wannabeBelle

Well-Known Member
etc98 said:
The point is they can afford to restore executive pay to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, money that the executives do not need to survive by the way, but they can’t afford to pay their cast members, who absolutely do need that money to live. If they’re hemorrhaging, then they should have cut executive pay first, and then laid off cast after.
Click to expand...
I'm not even being that philanthropic honestly. I just know that when I go to the Parks, I dont plan on seeing or interacting with either of the Bobs, Josh, etc. al. I do plan on seeing the CM at the restaurant where I am dining, I know I plan on seeing musical acts and streetmosphere with multiple CM's, I know that I will be interacting with the CM's who make sure I am seated and strapped in properly on the rides. Im sure there are others but you get the idea. If you make cuts and they are in the areas that affect the guest experience, the quality of that experience will decline. I understand cuts can be made that WON'T affect the experience and in California due to the Parks being closed there is no job to return to. Florida is a different situation. While we shouldn't just employ people for the sake of employing them, the parks should not be the first place to be cut, as that is where your revenue now and in the future is coming from. Cut the experience and people will not be as anxious to come because the experience is not what they expect. Marie
 
N

natatomic

Well-Known Member
GeneralKnowledge said:
They also play games with people’s jobs being designated as “temporary assignments” that just seem to be magically renewed every so often.
Click to expand...
Those are one that people choose to do and usually have to apply for. Not something people are forced to do. (Aside from temporary relocations like the workers at a closed water park, for example. But those are typically only for a month or two.)
 
TrainsOfDisney

TrainsOfDisney

Well-Known Member
natatomic said:
When I was part-time, I often worked more than 40 hours a week. However, you can’t just say, “hey, I worked full-time hours this week, give me benefits!” You have to work more than X number of hours (I believe it is 32 for Disney, if memory serves correctly) consistently over a period of time. I think you have to average full-time hours for 6 whole months. And Disney keeps track. If you reach that threshold, you are immediately “capped,” and you are not allowed to work more than 31 hours per week for a certain period of time. Enough time that you’re no longer in danger of averaging full-time hours.
(That’s a rough explanation anyway)
Click to expand...
Yes.. this. Lol.
 
R

Riverrafter21

Well-Known Member
ParkerLoLs said:
Here are my reasons against Old Fashioneds: If I want a Fanta (which I don't), I'll order a Fanta.
Click to expand...
I get it, people can get heavy handed with the syrup while making an OF. Especially if they giving you the Don Draper version where they're practically adding a cherry kool-aid packet.

I think the bourbon is better enhanced in the Old Fashioned
 
RSoxNo1

RSoxNo1

Well-Known Member
lentesta said:
Yes, I'm saying Disney, and all corporations, need to play a larger part in the US social safety net. And yes, that means shareholders, as private individuals, need to pitch in more.

And yes, I'm saying that Disney should keep these people on their payroll for some period of time even if they're not being used. Let's say a year is Disney's responsibility, just so we can talk about concrete numbers. Beyond that, it's up to the employee and local, state, and federal taxpayers. (I'm not wedded to a year, but again, let's make the numbers easy to talk about.)



Billionaires got $637 billion richer during the pandemic.



Fair enough. I think they tapped $18.2B in debit in 3 rounds earlier this year [cite] in debt that comes due in 6 to 40 years, at interest rates of 3.35% to 4.7% [cite].

Let's assume that Disney doesn't use its dividend or cash on hand, and they don't issue new stock or sell assets, and let's assume they set aside $1B for those 28,000 employees.

Adding $1B in debt at 4% interest for 30 years would've cost Disney $4.8MM per month, or $57.6MM per year.

Bob Iger got $65MM in compensation in 2018. [cite]

So yeah, to help 28,000 people for a year they would've had to expend slightly less money per year than they paid that one guy.

That does not, in the overall scheme of things, sound like it's a huge risk.

And again, there's no guarantee that "markets" would've viewed this negatively. It would've been a massive positive PR story.
Click to expand...
I’m 100% with you, but something like a full year severance on part time employees at this scale would be unprecedented. It doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen, but even half that would be a totally different news story.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom