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

[wannabeBelle]

You are absolutely correct, Disney can (and does) run their business in the way that they think is correct. Others absolutely have a right to question those decisions and ask questions, as we certainly do on here. At the end of the day, most of the people on the boards love the Parks and the Resorts and simply feel that spending money in one area of executive compensation will not benefit the company as a whole in the long term. There are positions that will be eliminated, and of course the situation on California isnt helping any, but at some point the company makes a choice and the individual consumer reacts. If this isnt what they are looking for in a vacation, another option will be selected. I am not advocating for Disney to keep employees on the payroll ad infinitum. I do agree that the cuts at the front line CM level has a direct impact on the product that I am paying for, certainly more than a cut of an executive's compensation on a limited time basis. If the parks recover and are doing great, sure the executives can have their bonus. Until then I'd prefer to see the money put into the Parks and experiences within that to attract more consumers, which to me, includes your staff. Marie

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Let's identify the specific individuals involved and have them explain themselves. Because another way of looking at this layoff is that local, state, and federal taxpayers are now on the hook for their welfare.

Also...
If / When those positions are replaced with CP and International that will hurt the local and state economy will it not?

 

[disdonald]

Disney already cut the dividend for first half of the year. Come on people, it wasn't that long ago.. lets keep a level head.

Keep employees another 6 months and then what?? Beg they be kept for another 6months? When does it stop?

I stated it can not go on forever.
I was just saying there are ways to help out given it is a pandemic.
There are also ways if you kept them on to communicate next steps and expectations for the next 4-6 months.
Letting go just before holiday season during a pandemic, that is brutal

 

[lentesta]

Why do you keep employees who you have no foreseeable use for?

Because we're in a pandemic, Disney hired those employees and shares a responsibility for their welfare, those employees are unlikely to find comparable jobs soon, and Disney's got the means to help.

disney did suspend its dividend

You're right, for the first half of the year. They should continue to do that for another four months to help these CMs for a year.

Why should TWDC mortgage the entire company to float just one division’s employees?

WTH are you talking about? They'd need $1B to pay $37K to each of the 28,000 employees. The company is worth $229B, so they'd need 0.43% of the company's assets. To help 28,000 people. That's the equivalent of you or me giving $172 on a salary of $40,000.

Would you give $172 to help 28,000 people, even if it meant you were $172 poorer than people who didn't give?

why should disney jeopardize the fiscal stability of the entire company in a long term manner to keep employees that you have no future for?

See above. And FWIW, Disney's market cap fluctuates by around $5B every day. If the entire company is so precariously balanced on knife's edge that $1B less would ruin everything, how does the company get through the week?

while noble.... it would be stupid and take down a much bigger swath of the company and shareholder long term (and short term) value

As I said in an earlier post, there are many studies that show a positive correlation between charitable behavior and stock price. You're assuming things to be true that aren't obviously true. And we all need to get away from this kind of thinking - that "this is the way it has to be." It's not.

Edited: to clean up my first, terrible edit.

 

[lentesta]

Shareholders provide working capital. The connection between Shareholders and the companies they support enforce it.

Just this morning I've invented two new things that also provide capital. I call them "banks" and "bonds". Do you think they'll be useful?

 

[Goofyernmost]

Just this morning I've invented two new things that also provide capital. I call them "banks" and "bonds". Do you think they'll be useful?

OK, I get it. You don't think that stockholders can apply any pressure to the BoD and force certain things to happen. You may be right, but I would think that stocks are risky enough that if they continue to invite shareholders into the company, that those shareholder have a lot more collective power the anything the average guest has.

 

[wannabeBelle]

WTH are you talking about? They'd need $1B to pay $37K to each of the 28,000 employees. The company is worth $229B, so they'd need 0.43% of the company's assets. To help 28,000 people. That's the equivalent of you or me giving $172 on a salary of $40,000.

Would you give $172 to help 28,000 people, even if it meant you were $172 poorer than people who didn't give?

And also I'd probably think that giving the $172 to a cause like that would ultimately end up benefitting me in the long run as the company will be stronger and more able to weather the storm, get back out there and do what we do. I'd gamble $172.00 on the future of my company over taking a one time pay cut/ missing a dividend payment. But you have to put the money where it counts and that is in the things that make Disney special, including front line CM's. All of the money management in the world will not attract your guests to your parks if what made it special for them in the first place is no longer there. Marie

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

You don't think that stockholders can apply any pressure to the BoD and force certain things to happen.

That wasn’t said.

If Disney was being forced by stockholders and the BoD to make these decisions it would be a different conversation.

During the Vice President debate, the mass layoffs at Disney were mentioned by the moderator, is that the kind of publicity the BoD wants?

 

[wannabeBelle]

You may be right, but I would think that stocks are risky enough that if they continue to invite shareholders into the company, that those shareholder have a lot more collective power the anything the average guest has.

Nope that isnt true. We are purchasing the "product" and if we dont like the product any longer, we can find another option. This doesnt benefit the company, the stockholders or the BoD at all. They may not like what people are saying and especially if it is being discussed at a national level such as Elizabeth Warren or the Moderator at the debates did, but if they are smart they should be listening. Marie

 

[Riverrafter21]

During the Vice President debate, the mass layoffs at Disney were mentioned by the moderator, is that the kind of publicity the BoD wants?

No, but they're happy with quarterly calls about an increase in earnings, with highlights on CNBC.

They feel they can achieve this more easily by cutting labor.

 

[lentesta]

OK, I get it. You don't think that stockholders can apply any pressure to the BoD and force certain things to happen. You may be right, but I would think that stocks are risky enough that if they continue to invite shareholders into the company, that those shareholder have a lot more collective power the anything the average guest has.

Shareholders can apply pressure. It's not a given that they would in this case.

Even if shareholders do apply pressure, that's a choice made by specific shareholders or their representatives - people, in either case. Let's identify those people and ask them to explain their choices.

Again, we shouldn't hide behind "this is the way it has to be" without asking whether there are alternatives.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Again, we shouldn't hide behind "this is the way it has to be" without asking whether there are alternatives.

Or typing for the one millionth time “Disney is a business” - we are all aware.

I think some posters imagine themselves as a college professor teaching other lowly posters as their students. We are allowed to question the decisions of the mighty Chapek.

 

[flynnibus]

I haven’t seen anyone even suggesting that.

What do you call paying for or employing people that are not working?

 

[Riverrafter21]

Or typing for the one millionth time “there are alternatives” - we are all aware.

 

[flynnibus]

The first step is pointing out that it's a choice, made by actual people, to lay off 28,000 CMs while paying shareholders a $3B dividend.

A choice that no one made. The first half dividend was suspended. The second half dividend choice hasn't been made.

 

[flynnibus]

People seem to think that there's some gigantic cost associated with keeping part time Cast furloughed, like the company paying 100% of health care premiums for the enrolled full time Cast. As far as I'm aware, there's not. The only direct cost (again, as far as I'm aware) is the education benefit, which I would expect to get pared down anyway as things continue not looking great. One could argue the admission privileges as well, but that's not a direct cost.

I don't see some massive economic/financial downside for the company to keeping part time Cast on furlough and letting natural attrition as folks don't get called back immediately take it's course over time and the almost certain scaling back of benefits as a furlough continues.

Positions have overhead. It's hard for me to stop maintaining your office space, your costume, your manager, your HR costs, the staff that support you, etc when your role is just idle vs eliminated.

There is more to the cost of a position than the direct dollars I spend on you individually or your benefits.

What do you do with thousands of employees and roles you don't have any use for?

 

[LSLS]

WTH are you talking about? They'd need $1B to pay $37K to each of the 28,000 employees. The company is worth $229B, so they'd need 0.43% of the company's assets. To help 28,000 people. That's the equivalent of you or me giving $172 on a salary of $40,000.

Would you give $172 to help 28,000 people, even if it meant you were $172 poorer than people who didn't give?

So two things. One, I do think it's worth pointing out that it would cost more to keep the benefits as well (no idea how much, but worth noting).

But, I also think it's a bit unfair to compare $172 to $1b. After all, living on $40k for a person is WAY harder than a company with $229b. Basically, most would give up the $172 to help anyways, but it's even more extreme to me as a person with $40k would miss $172 a ton more than a company worth hundreds of billions.

 

[legwand77]

I'm not telling anyone to do anything. Nowhere have I said Disney is evil , and nowhere have I told me to quit going. I want Disney to succeed, but that doesn't mean I have to agree to all of the decisions. And one I don't agree with is removing thousands of part timers that have voted their working life to the company.

Part timers are devoting their life? maybe part time devoting.

 

[wdwmagic]

Part timers are devoting their life? maybe part time devoting.

A lot of them were part time by title, but actually worked what amounts to full time hours and more. And as I've said before, many had decades of service. So I think that counts as pretty much devoting a person's working life to Disney.

 

[mm52200]

Part timers are devoting their life? maybe part time devoting.

A lot of part time and seasonal weren’t those job status by choice. People try to get full time for YEARS. People have been seasonal for 7 or 9 years, trying to get full time and are never able to.
And they all work full time hours too.