Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[DCBaker]

 

[flynnibus]

That was before the furloughs were announced.

The furloughs are not a surprise... It's always just been a question of 'when'. How long Disney would over-extend itself to try to keep paying it's employees. Only the pixie dusters thought Disney would keep that up indefinitely. Without government intervention.. it just wasn't happening.

The reason you and other posters are talking such orders of magnitude in differences is... one is talking the entirity of the TWDC company.. while another is just talking Parks.

 

[DisneyCane]

How many of these lawsuits do you see during evacuation orders?

It is legally justifiable if there is a high chance of a flood or wild fire. It's not the same concept being used here. The concept here is that an uninfected person might possibly become infected and then might get seriously ill or might transmit the virus to somebody else who might get seriously ill.

Also, business carry loss of business insurance that will cover those types of closures. They won't cover this.

I'm not saying that the measures won't help slow the spread of the virus. Just by the way a respiratory virus spreads it has to have some effect. I'm saying that for it to be legal with respect to a business then the government needs to compensate the business. With respect to personal interactions, I don't think there is any legal ground to order me not to go to my neighbor's house unless I am helping them which is essentially what my town ordered last week (which may or may not still be in force based upon the Governor's executive order).

That doesn't mean I'm going to go over to my neighbor and get in his personal space just because I can. I respect the reasoning and I keep my distance. Legally, I don't think it is enforceable unless I or my neighbor tests positive. Then it becomes legal to quarantine the infected person.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

The furloughs are not a surprise... It's always just been a question of 'when'.

Not really... I think if Disney thought they could actually reopen for June 1, they would keep cast on.

 

[DisneyCane]

I think we may actually be able to test that. Odds aren't in your favor. Good Luck though. You may want to try to get a lawyer that would take that on a contingency basis.

Believe me, if I was still in that business I would be testing it.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

Believe me, if I was still in that business I would be testing it.

You'd lose.

 

[flynnibus]

It is legally justifiable if there is a high chance of a flood or wild fire. It's not the same concept being used here.

You made the argument they can't displace your business without compensation -- period. It wasn't conditional on anything. The example above shows that is not the case.

You're trying to make fundamental claims on rights... then throw in conditionals after the fact. That's not how it works.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Not if it is the same owner/renter. I have experience with this from years ago when I did have ownership in a small movie theatre chain. There was a location in Rhode Island that had operated since the 1980s under a different operator. Their lease expired and we signed a new lease. The fire marshal required us to upgrade the fire suppression to the current code and also restricted us from popping popcorn with customers in the building due to the new code (the modifications would have been too expensive to be worth it). We had to comply with the new code because we applied for a new CO. The prior operator was allowed to operate under the code in place when they opened in the 1980s.

Changes to use and occupancy are by far the most common trigger but they are not the only ones. NFPA 101, one of the common model code components, has specific requirements for existing structures that continuously apply. California has required seismic upgrades for all hospitals, public and private. Most fire and building codes start by vesting final authority in the code official, giving said official wide discretion regarding enforcement.

 

[Jwink]

They're just laid off.

Ummmm what? I haven’t heard that

 

[GoofGoof]

Ummmm what? I haven’t heard that

That’s because it wasn’t part of the announcement.

 

["El Gran Magnifico"]

I believe that I could successfully sue the entity that has forced me to close and demand that I be justly compensated.

Plus. What is your basis to bring suit? Loss of profit?. You can't sue somebody for the money you "think" you would have made. You had no contract with John Smith down the street, guaranteeing he would see 5 movies per month in your theater.

 

[flynnibus]

Not really... I think if Disney thought they could actually reopen for June 1, they would keep cast on.

The comment assumes 'no known opening' -- people were going on and on with hopes that Disney was going to keep paying people with no opening on the calendar. It was fantasy. Even the June 1 date would be a stretch to pay thousands idle for 2+ months.

And June 1 was never communicated as an opening.. it's everyone doing mental gymnastics based on a point in the future reservations had to use as a start point. The date would have changed (and will) as the forecast for actually operating changes.

Reality is Disney probably has no targeted date.. just hopes. They are probably focusing on what it means to operate afterwards and to work out what it would take to get to that type of operation. Then they have a timeline.. and can apply it when dates about actual potential opening happen. Then work backwards from that to make it a reality... to know when you need staff, supply chain, etc.

 

[TrojanUSC]

It is legally justifiable if there is a high chance of a flood or wild fire. It's not the same concept being used here. The concept here is that an uninfected person might possibly become infected and then might get seriously ill or might transmit the virus to somebody else who might get seriously ill.

Also, business carry loss of business insurance that will cover those types of closures. They won't cover this.

I'm not saying that the measures won't help slow the spread of the virus. Just by the way a respiratory virus spreads it has to have some effect. I'm saying that for it to be legal with respect to a business then the government needs to compensate the business. With respect to personal interactions, I don't think there is any legal ground to order me not to go to my neighbor's house unless I am helping them which is essentially what my town ordered last week (which may or may not still be in force based upon the Governor's executive order).

That doesn't mean I'm going to go over to my neighbor and get in his personal space just because I can. I respect the reasoning and I keep my distance. Legally, I don't think it is enforceable unless I or my neighbor tests positive. Then it becomes legal to quarantine the infected person.

It is absolutely enforceable. There are a host of restrictions on your "rights" for the greater public good. This virus is extremely transmittable and there's countless examples of dozens of people being infected from one get together. States that acted early (California) are seeing positive results from these measures, meanwhile there's many stories of spring breakers becoming community spreaders when businesses in Florida refused to close or church groups getting together and a superspreading event occurring.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

And June 1 was never communicated as an opening.. it's everyone doing mental gymnastics based on a point in the future reservations had to use as a start point.

It’s not mental gymnastics to assume that Disney was hoping to be open June 1 if they were taking reservations for June 1.

 

[Jwink]

That’s because it wasn’t part of the announcement.

I know... my husband is full time hourly union- is laid off what the buzz is? Like is that what will probably happen? Why not furlough them too? I’m freaking out

 

[Jwink]

That’s because it wasn’t part of the announcement.

He’s a skilled technician. It’s hard to find someone with his skill set and they’ll need it for park operations ... ugh I’d rather him be furloughed than laid off

 

[TrojanUSC]

It’s not mental gymnastics to assume that Disney was hoping to be open June 1 if they were taking reservations for June 1.

They want to have reservations on the books for when they open, but they know full well they may have to cancel reservations in June. They're only accepting them then so they don't open at 5% occupancy. Their public line says "until further notice" and no date should be considered "safe."

 

[flynnibus]

It’s not mental gymnastics to assume that Disney was hoping to be open June 1 if they were taking reservations for June 1.

It is... Disney never stated that as a target date. Everyone took it from the date of the offers and the reservation window. These two things look alike - but they are not the same.

 

[DisneyGigi]

 

[MissingDisney]

This piisses me off so bad. I literally just walked away from my dad's funeral. We were permitted only 10 people there and for the safety of my mom none of us could even hug her to console her. All total we had 6 of us, a few family friends could have come, but they are mostly elderly and stayed home.

And here these jerks are showing off their stupidity. I truly pray that no one suffers for their arrogance.

So very sorry for the loss of your dad.