Disney may eliminate jobs of 140 servers

[barnum42]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Disney may eliminate jobs of 140 servers

Before you call me callous and cold, let me tell you a bit about my employment life.]

I did not say you were callous or cold, just that the statement was.


Ever turn at an intersection after the light has turned to red?

Nope - too big a risk that someone is going to smack into me. Best to be a few minutes late in this world that far too early in the next

Ever Take too many items through the checkout lane marked 10 items or less. ..

Nope - I can read and I show consideration to others.

I would suggest that you step down off your high moral pedestal and evaluate your own life before pointing fingers.

I'm far from perfect, and just because I get annoyed at power and money hungry individuals who defecate over others is not a reason for me to be chastised. If you feel I've pointed a finger at you for corporate decisions, then it seems you have misunderstood my points.

Did you complain when the market dropped after 9/11. Could this be greed poking its head up again?

I was too busy feeling appalled by the whole situation and making sure nobody I knew was involved.

The sad thing is people think that business should be a charity.

No – they just think that treating employees as something other than a disposable commodity would be a decent thing. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I wonder how many suits and stock holders masquerading as Christians conveniently forget this one when they are too wrapped up in their own wealth?

If this is what you want, then living in America will never meet your expectations as only communist and socialist countries offer anything close to a charity situation.

Check the ID – I don’t live in America. Though the UK is no better from this angle. As a system, communism does not work, but that’s a whole other thread.

The bottom line of my point is that we should treat people decently, in any aspect of life. This should include business. If thinking that maybe it would be great to be nice to people for a change is something that can only be spoken from a pedestal, then get me a ladder and a loud haler.

 

[Ariel17]

Oh dear...x.x

 

[prberk]

First... Rob, I am sorry to hear about your "forced" separation from the company. I hope you are doing O.K.

Second... Corporate "downsizing" is a reality, but so is abusive actions by the unions that cause management to harden.

I do not know what is the case behind the labor layoffs in the case on this topic (as opposed to MKT's individual case), but I do know that sometimes unions can be greedy, too, in negotiations; and if a union has a history of greed and creating slothful work situations, the companies may become less sensitive to employee needs as staff size decisions are made.

But most important to me, though, on determining whether a corporation is truly insensitive, is the following:

Are they really adjusting for economic pressures that threaten their future (and thus the future of the rest of their employees), or are they simply trying to trade committed, trained (expensive) employees for temporary and less-committed (but less expensive) employees.

Some layoffs are pure greed, and ultimately hurt the company by destroying loyalty; but others are actually good and show that the company cares for the other employees by doing what it needs to stay healthy...

It all depends on the motives....

 

[Shaman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Disney may eliminate jobs of 140 servers

Originally posted by niteobsrvr
If this is what you want, then living in America will never meet your expectations as only communist and socialist countries offer anything close to a charity situation.

Views are swayed by how much one has in their bank account and how hard they have to work to have that amount of money in there....alot can be said about capitalism...the many issues expressed in this thread dealing with the dark side of capitalism are addressed by famous communist and socialist philosophers...

The fact is that when everything is said and done it all comes down to GREED....

Thats the reason communism and socialism doesn't work...greed...and thats the same reason capitalism works all too well...greed....

If I were the leader of a business I would do as much as it morally, and reasonbly possible to keep as much profit as possible...I would treat workers with respect...and would not take advantage of them....(but then again I'm not the leader of any company)....

Many leaders have a great big mansion to go home to after work...the average worker doesn't...most likely they are going home to a cramped apartment....

I like to hear most of these wealthy conservatives speak about the value of morals (for most love to impose THEIR high morals on others) and yet if you'd look hard enough you would probably see that all that money they have, has comes at the expense of others...and liberals aren't exempt from the criticism (but then again most liberals don't pound their chest, preaching the high morals of their "christianity")....

At the end of the day no matter how much we talk about corporate abuse and union corruption and "cleaining house"....our voices will be drowned out by the greed...and our decisions will reflect the opposite of our beliefs....

I'm all for businesses making money, and for them making decisions so that they don't lose money...just as long as they are as fair as possible...many people bash charity...but whats wrong with being charitable every now and then?

The Walt Disney Company, has become a huge corporation, perhaps one that Walt himself would be ashamed especially since it holds his name...but thats life...in the meantime we're part of the system...we support the company...we walk the parks...buy the merchandise...watch the movies....and you know what...we contribute to the abuse....interesting isn't it....

So it all comes down to greed and hypocrisy....wonderful....

Sorry for the long post...I know somethings I've said will offend some...that was never the intent...I was trying to prove a point...a point which is just my opinion, an opinion which is neither greater or lesser than anyone elses. :wave:

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Listen, this could be greed and it could be plain cut-backs..........

But would you guys like to wait and see what the option was when disney goes down and has to let go every single worker there and make 1000s of people unimployed!

I supose you don't so lets not argue about this... If disney makes this decision lets hope it's just cut-backs, and they will come around and re-hire those people! If this is the "safe lane" I suppose we'll have to deal with it....

And remember Disney makes magic when people bring in "pixie dust", but when that stuff runs out how can they make more magic?

Have a nice day................

 

[markc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disney may eliminate jobs of 140 servers

Originally posted by barnum42
“That's not a cold statement nor is disney showing a lack of morality. This is business. If you don't like it, nobody's forcing you to work for a company.”

I would love to spend every day enjoying myself, but I have to pay the bills and so am forced to work for a company.

No, you aren't forced to work for a company. Using the word "force" means that you have no choice, which you do. You choose to live a life which requires you to earn wages. Not only that, but you have the option to run your own company.

“By taking a job at ANY company, you are NOT guranteed a stable job position. This is something that's understood. Almost EVERY company in the world goes through a "house cleaning"; it's how they keep their livelihood and how they continue to thrive”.

Using business euphemisms like “house cleaning”, “downsizing”, “market forces” or any of the other naff buzz words that greedy suits use to try and hide their lack of care does not make the mistreatment of other humans an acceptable action.

It's not mistreatment. Mistreatment would suggest they were doing something illegal and out of the norm. Letting employees go to save the company's ability to survive in the long term is NOT mistreatment. I would suggest if you would like further information as to why you are incorrect with using the word "mistreatment" and why this practice of downsizing is perfectly legal and humane, that you take some business classes at a university to better understand what it takes to run a business. Until then, it is blatantly obvious that your concept of how a business runs in flawed.

So the suits make the mistake, but they get to keep their jobs to the expense of others.

Not always; a lot of times it's simply a matter of economic conditions changing their ability to maintain as many employees.

And if you don't want your job to be in jeopardy because of some "suits", then there's nothing stopping anybody from recieving a decent education so that you become the suits, or starting your own business so that you answer to yourself. If you are unwilling to look into other options, then complaining about the "suits" is futile and rather pointless. It's far more easy to find a scapegoat then to take the matter in your own hands.

“There's no point in paying for workers who aren't benefiting them. It's not a charity, it's a business”

We are back to selfish greed – “workers who aren't benefiting them”.

It's comments like that which make it painfuly obvious your education in how a business runs is very limited. A workers only purpose in a company is to help the company run it's operations to secure it's livelihood. If a worker is "deadweight" and not contributing to helping the company out, then he/she is not needed. Again, this is not a charity where people are payed for an un-necessary job, it's a business.

It never seems to be a case of keeping the business afloat, but keeping greedy fat cats in their new Ferraris. This is not “business”. This is just callous greed.

Granted, it's in bad taste for the higher-ups to be driving around in Ferarris or using corporate benefits at a time when downsizing is occuring, however these "ferraris" usually only eats up a small fraction of the total savings a company earns by getting rid of un-necessary employees and closing down plants/selling divisons that are no longer profitable.

I won't even deny the fact that *there* are some companys (very few, but none-the-less they exist) which do operate on greed. However, that isn't the case most of the time, and downsizing is definitely not a sure-fire sign that it is occuring (especially in Disney). To avoid that, I don't think there's any excuse for anybody not making an attempt to start their own company or at least get an education which will allow them (or give them an opportunity to try) to get higher up in a company. Those options are definitely not easy, but they are there, and anybody who refuses to try to obtain those really has no room to complain about being at the mercy of a company.

Treating people with care and respect should not be excluded from the workplace.

I wholeheartedly agree, however your definition of "care and respect" is far too liberal and inappropriate for a business trying to survive financially. Downsizing is something that does not fall under the category of "care and respect".

I've been the unfortunate "victim" of downsizing as well (twice in a two year period), but it's something that I understand and move on from. The company's I worked for who did that, had to in order to survive. I picked myself up when that happened both times, and moved on. I've since then gotten my MBA and have been able to secure a great paying job with good security based on my education so as to avoid any possible downsizing.

 

[barnum42]

I did not reply to this post to engage in a personal insulting match. I stated my opinion that corporate management’s desire to reap personal gain is often done at the expense of humanity. This is not an invitation for you to question my education or attempt to belittle me for having compassion for others.

 

[Shaman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disney may eliminate jobs of 140 servers

Originally posted by markc
No, you aren't forced to work for a company. Using the word "force" means that you have no choice, which you do. You choose to live a life which requires you to earn wages. Not only that, but you have the option to run your own company.

You're right...people are not forced to work for a company...however people ARE "forced" to work...if you don't work you don't get money, if you don't have money you can't live a "normal" life...if you don't have money you can't start your own company...

Which brings me to the original post...these 140 individuals aren't forced to work at a company; but society and the laws of the land in many ways put a gun to your head and tell you to "GET A JOB"....these people got a job for Disney...probably worked their butts off...and now may get the boot...I think the point people who are upset with this are trying to make (and I don't speak for any of them)....is that while the company is "downsizing", getting rid of people left and right and the powers that be are getting huge pay checks and pay raises.....maybe they should take pay cuts to help people keep their jobs.....you know "for the company to survive".

But of coarse who in their right minds would do that.....

:hammer:

 

[niteobsrvr]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disney may eliminate jobs of 140 servers

Originally posted by objr
You're right...people are not forced to work for a company...however people ARE "forced" to work...if you don't work you don't get money, if you don't have money you can't live a "normal" life...if you don't have money you can't start your own company...

Which brings me to the original post...these 140 individuals aren't forced to work at a company; but society and the laws of the land in many ways put a gun to your head and tell you to "GET A JOB"....these people got a job for Disney...probably worked their butts off...and now may get the boot...I think the point people who are upset with this are trying to make (and I don't speak for any of them)....is that while the company is "downsizing", getting rid of people left and right and the powers that be are getting huge pay checks and pay raises.....maybe they should take pay cuts to help people keep their jobs.....you know "for the company to survive".

But of coarse who in their right minds would do that.....

:hammer:

I wouldn't call getting rid of .25 percent of your workforce "getting rid of people left and right". The cost savings per quarter is about .175 percent though on the bottom line so that will really make a huge difference in the executive and shareholders pockets.

 

[Shaman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disney may eliminate jobs of 140 servers

Originally posted by niteobsrvr
I wouldn't call getting rid of .25 percent of your workforce "getting rid of people left and right". The cost savings per quarter is about .175 percent though on the bottom line so that will really make a huge difference in the executive and shareholders pockets.

The fact is Disney the past couple of months has indeed been getting rid of people left and right...these 140 may be part the casualty count....still I should I have used a different phrase...cause who cares about 140 people...

:lookaroun

 

[niteobsrvr]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disney may eliminate jobs of 140 servers

Originally posted by objr
The fact is Disney the past couple of months has indeed been getting rid of people left and right...these 140 may be part the casualty count....still I should I have used a different phrase...cause who cares about 140 people...

:lookaroun

I just recently returned to work for the mouse after a little over a years absence (for personal reasons). I must say I have noticed a difference in regards to how the company is handling its cast. First and foremost, if you screw up on the job, especially if this has been a trend in your employment with the company, you are not going to be employed there very long. This is a different approach than they were taking in 2000 and 2001 when I worked there.

The simple fact of the matter is the employment market now favors the employer unlike the last half of the 90's or so. If you are incompetent, bad attitude, etc, Disney can easily replace you. Even more specifically, if you exhibit those traits and are at the higher end of the pay scale, the company can replace you with someone who costs less. Thus they have incentive to do so.

From time to time on these boards, I read of people complaining about the quality of the cast. From my experience, it isnt necessarily the new cast members who are the subject matter for these complaints. Often times these are the people that have been there for years. These are also often the same people that are responsible for the newer cast members not having the proper information to help you make the day magical. After all, the keeper of the "secrets" can make theirselves seem absolutely invaluable while makeing everyone else seem less than dedicated.

The other factor effecting how Disney does business is their place in the entertainment market. Every year, more and more options appear for people to take part in for vacations, short term getaways, and other situations. Each one of these new options takes a little bit of money from Disney's pocket. Thus the mouse either has to work harder to maintain the status quo or shave costs to maintain the profit levels. It seems to me the company as of late is working pretty darn hard to shore up or increase their market share world wide. It also seems its probably not enough by itself and thus cost cutting becames necessary evil.

Finally, if you look at WDW from a historical point of view, every time contract negotiations start so the the staff reductions and rumors of staff reductions. Things aren'always as they seem. Especially since the current contract expires in 6 months. Its a marketing campaign on Both the union and Disney's part as they each jockey for the upper hand in the negotiations. It is quite possible that the 140 people who might be layed off are part of this negotiation process.

The Union would never outright admit they would allow people to be layed off but it does happen. Lets say the senior banquet servers would like o negotiate a higher wage. Of course Disney is going to try to hold down costs. The union then says, "well we we let you reduce our ranks by 140 in order to get the significantly higher wage we want. Then when you need extra servers you can contact the union hall and we will provide temporary workers or you can go to a catering company that also uses our union employees." Thus the senior union members get the rais they want. Disney reduces staff. And no one, neither Union or Disney is worried about the 140 least senior people let go. Its almost never the highest paid people that get let go.

 

[Shaman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Disney may eliminate jobs of 140 servers

Originally posted by niteobsrvr
The Union would never outright admit they would allow people to be layed off but it does happen. Lets say the senior banquet servers would like o negotiate a higher wage. Of course Disney is going to try to hold down costs. The union then says, "well we we let you reduce our ranks by 140 in order to get the significantly higher wage we want. Then when you need extra servers you can contact the union hall and we will provide temporary workers or you can go to a catering company that also uses our union employees." Thus the senior union members get the rais they want. Disney reduces staff. And no one, neither Union or Disney is worried about the 140 least senior people let go. Its almost never the highest paid people that get let go.

Disney should be getting rid of incompetent workers...thats efficient fair business...if you skrew up you deserve to get the boot....however the same kind of thinking doesn't apply to people who have worked hard for the company...eventually if you get fired and your working really hard; employees will begin to ask themselves whats the point....

About the negotiations....its funny how people are reduced to such a lowly thing as pieces to a puzzle....thats the world we live in I guess....we could debate about this issue as much as we want but when all is said and done those approx 140 people (if in fact they lose their jobs) won't be very happy...while those who made the decision will still go home with a smile on their face....which side would one rather be on.....

Business can prosper and still be fair...sometimes it takes more thinking than some are willing to do. The few must make sacrifices for the larger mass of people??...What?! That just isn't fair for those that are being sacrificed...

My views are strongly evident in my previous posts on this thread...so I doubt I will be posting anything related to the subject anymore...its a touchy subject...and an interesting one to think about...but in the end I wouldn't want to be one of those people whose job is on the line for nothing but working really hard and just being in the wrong place at the wrong time; on the wrong side of numbers...

 

[frazierle]

I agree with objr, if your not pulling your weight, you need to go. Give someone else that chance. I stayed at AS Music this week and if the food service folks who work there are the status quo for Disney, they could easily cut 140+ jobs and maintain the same level of service. A line with 15+ people in it 1 person working 4 others standing around watching. I actually witness a "cook" refuse to make 4 philly cheese steaks subs because it would take too long to make. These folks should be thankful they work for Disney because most other places including McDonalds would not put up with it.