Cast Member Wages

[NelsonRD]

But...evil rich people!

And, muh wage gap!

You left out greedy. Its evil, greedy rich people.

Remember, the rich is the only group that can be attacked with no consequence. I wonder if somebody targeted a rich person, if that would be considered a hate crime?

 

[englanddg]

You left out greedy. Its evil, greedy rich people.

Remember, the rich is the only group that can be attacked with no consequence. I wonder if somebody targeted a rich person, if that would be considered a hate crime?

Remember, Rich rhymes with Witch.

BURN THEM ALL!

 

[flynnibus]

So really, what difference does it make what he makes?

One can not discount the effects money' has on people. On what they value, on how they relate to others, etc. Don't you think there would be a big difference if there wasn't such a massive gap between bosses and the people they lead?

Fear of failure doesn't really mean much when you have golden parachutes and can count on your buddy network to land you another job.

 

[NelsonRD]

One can not discount the effects money' has on people. On what they value, on how they relate to others, etc. Don't you think there would be a big difference if there wasn't such a massive gap between bosses and the people they lead?

Fear of failure doesn't really mean much when you have golden parachutes and can count on your buddy network to land you another job.

Are you suggesting that having a network of people that know your value is just for the elite? And, that it is not possible to reduce the pay gap between the bosses and the people they lead, by elevating yourself? Because that is terrible advice for entry level workers.

The problem I always had with the minimum wage debate is that, if you work someplace long enough, you will be promoted. Within a company, there are opportunities, if you seek them out. If you understand your strengths and weakness you can be more successful without somebody doing it for you. I am not athletic, I cannot sing, play an instrument, or dance. No matter how hard I try, I can only expect entry level minimum wage employment, if at all, when pursuing those fields. It is these unreasonable expectations, and high turnover that keeps people in entry level positions.

 

[draybook]

Are you suggesting that having a network of people that know your value is just for the elite? And, that it is not possible to reduce the pay gap between the bosses and the people they lead, by elevating yourself? Because that is terrible advice for entry level workers.

The problem I always had with the minimum wage debate is that, if you work someplace long enough, you will be promoted. Within a company, there are opportunities, if you seek them out. If you understand your strengths and weakness you can be more successful without somebody doing it for you. I am not athletic, I cannot sing, play an instrument, or dance. No matter how hard I try, I can only expect entry level minimum wage employment, if at all, when pursuing those fields. It is these unreasonable expectations, and high turnover that keeps people in entry level positions.

Not always. I'm currently stuck in my position and it's because of the usual politics and favoritism. I'm actually in the beginning stages of legal action, so I can't speak to it more. But the "who you know/butt kissing" is really rampant these days.

 

[NelsonRD]

Not always. I'm currently stuck in my position and it's because of the usual politics and favoritism. I'm actually in the beginning stages of legal action, so I can't speak to it more. But the "who you know/butt kissing" is really rampant these days.

I understand. Sometimes 'butt kissing' is viewed by upper management as enthusiasm for willing to succeed, and it also provides visibility and name recognition, whether a person is competent or not.

 

[draybook]

I understand. Sometimes 'butt kissing' is viewed by upper management as enthusiasm for willing to succeed, and it also provides visibility and name recognition, whether a person is competent or not.

And that's why we have incompetent people in leadership. Because it's become a popularity contest instead of something based on qualifications.

 

[NelsonRD]

And that's why we have incompetent people in leadership. Because it's become a popularity contest instead of something based on qualifications.

I would argue the biggest obstacle to strong leadership is college. Today, students go to college and get a degree in management, with no qualifications of what they are actually managing. I wouldn't trust some MBA's managing girl scout cookies. Back in the day, a foreman became the foreman of a construction site because they have worked and understood each of the positions he was managing. This is not true today. Colleges graduate managers, and the managers look for employment, with no idea what industry they may be entering.

 

[flynnibus]

Are you suggesting that having a network of people that know your value is just for the elite? And, that it is not possible to reduce the pay gap between the bosses and the people they lead, by elevating yourself? Because that is terrible advice for entry level workers.

I didn't say anything about entry level or progression- I was responding to your comment about what they get paid being irrelevant. When someone starts making multi million dollars a YEAR.. It does have an impact on how they perceive and act. When people get paid more than 4x what a good paying employee will get paid IN THEIR LIFETIME to leave or be fired.. There will be a disconnect between how people value things.

So yes, ultimately pay does matter, even if it's just a ripple in the fiscal ocean of the company.

To your comments about progression... There very much is a separation of classes. Progression from the working class to the executive class in organizations is not linear or necessarily connected. I've spoken on this topic in the past. It's almost feudalism and blood lines at some orgs where if you aren't from the right blood lines... No way you'll move from the working tiers to the 'leadership team' that lives at the capital making decisions in a vacuum

 

[NelsonRD]

I didn't say anything about entry level or progression- I was responding to your comment about what they get paid being irrelevant. When someone starts making multi million dollars a YEAR.. It does have an impact on how they perceive and act. When people get paid more than 40x what a good paying employee will get paid IN THEIR LIFETIME to leave or be fired.. There will be a disconnect between how people value things.

So yes, ultimately pay does matter, even if it's just a ripple in the fiscal ocean of the company.

To your comments about progression... There very much is a separation of classes. Progression from the working class to the executive class in organizations is not linear or necessarily connected. I've spoken on this topic in the past. It's almost feudalism and blood lines at some orgs where if you aren't from the right blood lines... No way you'll move from the working tiers to the 'leadership team' that lives at the capital making decisions in a vacuum

Your concept is the problem. My argument is about pay, not treatment of employees. You should not be focused with others are doing or making. I gave up a long time ago wondering how 'other people do it'. A successful business trait is not wasting time or energy trying to understand or justify what others are making. People give up and make excuses too easy. I focus on my earning potential only, and what upper level managers higher then me make, has no relevance in my day to day lifestyle. If you want to focus on that, and let that define you, it is only holding you back.

 

[flynnibus]

Your concept is the problem. My argument is about pay, not treatment of employees.

And what I'm saying is one's earnings influence their perceptions and behaviors.

When you pay a guy 27million to go away because he didn't get the next promotion (like my company has)... You can not ignore what that means to how an individual functions.

You should not be focused with others are doing or making. I gave up a long time ago wondering how 'other people do it'. A successful business trait is not wasting time or energy trying to understand or justify what others are making. People give up and make excuses too easy. I focus on my earning potential only, and what upper level managers higher then me make, has no relevance in my day to day lifestyle. If you want to focus on that, and let that define you, it is only holding you back.

Thanks for the motivation speaker pitch... That has nothing to do with things. I'm speaking as part of management, and how the business operates... Not as some jealous worker who is complaining about my pay.

I make insane money... My focus is on management and how the business operates. who is placed in what positions and what their true value is to the organization. You keep going on about this jealously thing which has nothing to do with the people I'm talking about.

dont know what your exposure is to these kinds of executive musical chair games... But it very much a game of 'don't rock the boat'.

Execs don't want to break the cycle because it will circle back around to hurt them next time they need a new role.

Stakeholders are not independent and the bankers only care about the short term stock movement.

It's the aristocracy watching each other's backs to stay in the circle.

I mean I've even watched boards in my own companies or directly adjacent pay off execs who are going down for sec violations verse terminating their contracts with cause. You can be a criminal, rob the company, and your cohorts will give you a soft landing

In this day and age... These guys shouldn't even be on fixed contracts. They should work at will like most employees

 

[NelsonRD]

And what I'm saying is one's earnings influence their perceptions and behaviors.

When you pay a guy 27million to go away because he didn't get the next promotion (like my company has)... You can not ignore what that means to how an individual functions.


Thanks for the motivation speaker pitch... That has nothing to do with things. I'm speaking as part of management, and how the business operates... Not as some jealous worker who is complaining about my pay.

I make insane money... My focus is on management and how the business operates. who is placed in what positions and what their true value is to the organization. You keep going on about this jealously thing which has nothing to do with the people I'm talking about.

dont know what your exposure is to these kinds of executive musical chair games... But it very much a game of 'don't rock the boat'.

Execs don't want to break the cycle because it will circle back around to hurt them next time they need a new role.

Stakeholders are not independent and the bankers only care about the short term stock movement.

It's the aristocracy watching each other's backs to stay in the circle.

I mean I've even watched boards in my own companies or directly adjacent pay off execs who are going down for sec violations verse terminating their contracts with cause. You can be a criminal, rob the company, and your cohorts will give you a soft landing

In this day and age... These guys shouldn't even be on fixed contracts. They should work at will like most employees

So are you really trying to sell the idea that if he made less money he would be a better person? That is offending to successful people - which is why some are considered sobs, its because the negative connotation that goes around with being wealthy. Instead of applauding success, we demonize it. But as I posted earlier, the rich are the only group that can be attacked with no consequence.

People receive packages and benefits that are part of their hiring agreement. Seeing somebody walk away with millions after doing a bad job is the same as regular employees taking cash payouts for unused sick and vacation leave. It is part of the negations that take place prior to hiring.

Additionally, I am not focused on jealousy. I am focused on the fact that CEOs make big money, and that does not justify being a disgruntled employee. My stance has been what others make should not be factored into your evaluation on what your perceived worth is, or what an outsider believes their value or worth is. And this "Disney make billions last year and pay me $9 an hour" routine is childish.

Your example of criminal or poor performing employees is a different issue. The fact remains that these negotiations are in place similar to an athlete signing to a team. There are guarantees, bonuses, and term contracts. Several athletes have been signed big money only to end up on the bench for underperforming, ultimately paying them for nothing, some get paid while on another team. It seems to me your biggest issue is with the hiring process, and again, not what I am arguing.

I am not disagreeing with you on the performance based issues, what I am disagreeing with is people, from home, place a value on a CEO as ‘too high’ and as a result of that high salary they need to be demonized, when in reality, in the scope of the budget, saving on a CEO does not mean lower cost elsewhere.

 

[flynnibus]

So are you really trying to sell the idea that if he made less money he would be a better person?

I'm saying it is an influencer and often is a factor that isolates them from things they govern.

It's hard to gauge customer impact of bus service changes when you only drive in town cars.

The insane wealth creates gaps and separation that is difficult for many to bridge.

Instead of applauding success, we demonize it. But as I posted earlier, the rich are the only group that can be attacked with no consequence.

And you generalist and lump my statements into that when it's nothing of the sort. I don't demonize success, I am critical of self serving sweetheart deals that exist only because of the incestuous nature of the community.

People receive packages and benefits that are part of their hiring agreement. Seeing somebody walk away with millions after doing a bad job is the same as regular employees taking cash payouts for unused sick and vacation leave. It is part of the negations that take place prior to hiring.

They come from agreements? Wow.. Shocker...

1- notice I said they should t have individual contracts? That's because I already knew they existed ... Duh
2- most of these deals are far beyond what they are contractually owed... They are Payoffs to get the individual to go away without legal fights
3- just pointing to the contracts ignores that the very existence of the contract and those kinds of terms are already a perk reserved for the executives. It's not an opportunity even allowed for rank and file (Union cba is as close as most would get).

I am focused on the fact that CEOs make big money, and that does not justify being a disgruntled employee.

Ok, so stop trying to make my points into your predisposed argument.
.

Your example of criminal or poor performing employees is a different issue. The fact remains that these negotiations are in place similar to an athlete signing to a team. There are guarantees, bonuses, and term contracts.

Your missing the forest for the trees

1- those contracts have termination clauses for things like misconduct...
2- the point is that they are ignored and not excercised because the insider club Wong rock the boat and it's better in their eyes to buy them out vs terminate with cause.

They aren't entitled to it - they are granted it in the game of 'lesser evils'

The impact this kind of behavior has goes beyond the company's bottom line

 

[PhotoDave219]

One can not discount the effects money' has on people. On what they value, on how they relate to others, etc. Don't you think there would be a big difference if there wasn't such a massive gap between bosses and the people they lead?

Fear of failure doesn't really mean much when you have golden parachutes and can count on your buddy network to land you another job.

I'll tell you that I dont get that from the LTM....

 

[flynnibus]

I'll tell you that I dont get that from the LTM....

dying industry

 

[PhotoDave219]

dying industry

Hey I'm willing to sell out quickly and join "The Man"(tm) for $50k+/yr......

 

[NelsonRD]

I'm saying it is an influencer and often is a factor that isolates them from things they govern.

It's hard to gauge customer impact of bus service changes when you only drive in town cars.

The insane wealth creates gaps and separation that is difficult for many to bridge.



And you generalist and lump my statements into that when it's nothing of the sort. I don't demonize success, I am critical of self serving sweetheart deals that exist only because of the incestuous nature of the community.



They come from agreements? Wow.. Shocker...

1- notice I said they should t have individual contracts? That's because I already knew they existed ... Duh
2- most of these deals are far beyond what they are contractually owed... They are Payoffs to get the individual to go away without legal fights
3- just pointing to the contracts ignores that the very existence of the contract and those kinds of terms are already a perk reserved for the executives. It's not an opportunity even allowed for rank and file (Union cba is as close as most would get).



Ok, so stop trying to make my points into your predisposed argument.
.


Your missing the forest for the trees

1- those contracts have termination clauses for things like misconduct...
2- the point is that they are ignored and not excercised because the insider club Wong rock the boat and it's better in their eyes to buy them out vs terminate with cause.

They aren't entitled to it - they are granted it in the game of 'lesser evils'

The impact this kind of behavior has goes beyond the company's bottom line

I disagree, CEOs that lack details of their operation has nothing to do if they are driving a town car, or a Focus. They are simply buying into satisfaction figures provided to them from senior leaders.

All deals are sweetheart self serving, that is how you attract talent. Do you think you will get Alan Mulally for 100K a year and some free park tickets? But, you are still blurring this thread comparing CEO pay vs. performance, and that is not what I am arguing.

I am arguing CEO pay vs Cast Member Wages, and how it has no affect.

 

[flynnibus]

Hey I'm willing to sell out quickly and join "The Man"(tm) for $50k+/yr......

Low standards... Less than 6 figures is not skilled labor around here

 

[flynnibus]

.

I am arguing CEO pay vs Cast Member Wages, and how it has no affect.

When you create a hypothesis... It must be tested. When a test disproves the hypothesis... You must redefine it, and test again...not simply ignore it. You are trying to selectively listen to support your own hypothesis. That's not how it works.

Pay does have an effect, but it's a dimension you don't want to accept because it challenges the hypothesis

If you don't like it, it's because your statements are too broad and must be narrowed to fit what you want. Does ceo pay really move the entire labor expense? Not in the grand scheme... But that doesn't make the pay irrelevant period. That's where your scope matters

 

[Siren]

Yes it is and no it isn't. Bob Iger has got to be a smart man. You don't get to the top and stay there by being an idiot. He knows who to please and that is his target. However, no man, no matter what one perceives that they do, is worth the kind of money that he is given. He would be nothing without his advisors and well beyond that he would be nothing without the people that actually represent those companies directly with the public. For any one person to take that large a discrepancy between what he draws for a salary and what those that keep him afloat make is sheer craziness.

It is one thing for the person that put everything on the line and built a successful company to be generously compensated for taking that risk. They risked losing their homes and other assets to build it. Spent countless hours planning, worrying and pushing to achieve and had a lot to lose. Mr. Iger has nothing to lose. He didn't exactly step into a failing company. If he did something stupid tomorrow he would be sent on his way with enough golden parachute money to finance a high end retirement for literally thousands of plain folk like ourselves.

In any employment situation there needs to be different levels. People with no skills are not going to automatically be given all the money they need just because it would be nice. No one is owed a good living. Those things are earned. It comes with something that today's workforce seems to have rejected as not necessary and that would be paying your dues. No one, for sure, is forced on the payroll, anyone with savvy and drive can go in a different direction, but, they shouldn't be in abstract poverty either. I think that if you were to study the habits of those that are the worst off financially from low wages you will find that the champagne taste and beer pocketbook scenario applies. They see the commercials on TV with all the young people partying with nice clothes and expensive friends and they decide to live the same way. Unfortunately, they cannot afford to and before long they are in debt and floundering. (It's important to say here that I'm not talking about everyone, but, I am talking about the a lot of the population) Those that say... I'll work harder as soon as they pay me more, really don't understand how it works.

The point is that since it is the front line cast members that create the image for Disney, they should be compensated for that. Even beyond that they should be backed up by their managers and empowered to maintain organization, but, to say that people like Mr. Iger aren't grossly overpaid is just wrong on many different levels.

Hi @Goofyernmost, this is an excellent comment and very well said. I totally agree with everything except for Iger's salary. I think he is somewhat underpaid for he has done for Disney's brand the massive amount of responsibility he has to shoulder.

Likewise, for the Cast Members too -- they totally deserve a livable wage and believe they are sorely unpaid but we cannot blame Iger for that. The blame lies with our government and our laws.

This is why I always commend the Auto Industry for paying their entry level employees a livable wage. Costco is another company that should be commended.

I believe Iger is being unfairly targeted and scapegoated to further someone's personal political agenda. That is so wrong -- especially when there are far worst offenders out there like The Discovery Channel and TLC CEO who made over $150,000,000 last year for a couple of TV network that people barely watch. I imagine the bulk of his salary must come from licensing or something like that. Who knows.

As an aside, Disney and Bob Iger have been in the press for banning a reporter. I totally respect Disney for doing this and I would have done the same thing.

There is *nothing* wrong or unethical about it. This is a common practice within the fashion industry. If any fashion reporter writes a bad commentary on any fashion designer and/or the models they will be banned or blacklisted from attending any future fashion shows, viewings or after parties -- without question.

Anna Wintour of Vogue does not bad mouth or slander any designer or model. She just will not feature them in the magazine(s).

The cardinal rule in fashion is "if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say it at all, otherwise it will cost you, dearly.

No one is suppressing or compromising freedom of speech. But, if someone wants to be a bad rogue reporter than they should expect to pay the price. What makes them think that it's okay to slander, smear and write disparaging things about a company and then expect to be invited to all the premieres and parties -- it doesn't work like that.

Again, the reporter can write whatever he wants about Disney but it's ridiculous for him to expect Disney to reward him for it.