Disney not subject to Anaheim’s ‘living wage’ ballot measure, judge rules - OCR/SCNG

[TP2000]

• "Complimentary meals" at the Hotel Del is what I call a benefit!

No kidding!

I had a couple fabulous meals with friends at the Hotel Del this summer at their wonderful Serea seafood restaurant. And the bartenders and tapas at the Babcock & Story lounge are top notch. The Hotel Del has really upped their food game in recent years. Not that the employees are eating that same food, but I'm sure their cafeteria is doing just fine.

Which reminds me... we used to hear how crummy and greasy the not-cheap food was in the CM cafeterias at Disneyland. Is that still the case? They clearly aren't subsidizing food service for CM's from the sound of things. And that's where I'm happy to commiserate with CM's; they deserve better treatment from their company on some things like on-site food service.

What kind of an idiot exec do you have to be to not see that?

And again that reminds me of the heavily subsidized food service at big corporate outfits like Amazon, Google, Apple, etc. Even though those are high paid, white collar profesionals, the companies they work for subsidize the food service on-site.

Lunch at Google HQ is as Insanely Awesome as You Thought

Forget sloppy cafeteria fare. The cafés on the Google campus serve some of the best food in the San Francisco Bay Area. We snagged a coveted invitation to eat lunch on site and found out what all the fuss was about (think pecan-crusted rockfish and homemade chai trolleys).

www.seriouseats.com

 

[CaptinEO]

No kidding!

I had a couple fabulous meals with friends at the Hotel Del this summer at their wonderful Serea seafood restaurant. And the bartenders and tapas at the Babcock & Story lounge are top notch. The Hotel Del has really upped their food game in recent years. Not that the employees are eating that same food, but I'm sure their cafeteria is doing just fine.

Which reminds me... we used to hear how crummy and greasy the not-cheap food was in the CM cafeterias at Disneyland. Is that still the case? They clearly aren't subsidizing food service for CM's from the sound of things. And that's where I'm happy to commiserate with CM's; they deserve better treatment from their company on some things like on-site food service.

What kind of an idiot exec do you have to be to not see that?

And again that reminds me of the heavily subsidized food service at big corporate outfits like Amazon, Google, Apple, etc. Even though those are high paid, white collar profesionals, the companies they work for subsidize the food service on-site.

Lunch at Google HQ is as Insanely Awesome as You Thought

Forget sloppy cafeteria fare. The cafés on the Google campus serve some of the best food in the San Francisco Bay Area. We snagged a coveted invitation to eat lunch on site and found out what all the fuss was about (think pecan-crusted rockfish and homemade chai trolleys).

www.seriouseats.com

I agree with you. Although a "living wage" for a themepark job in Orange County is unrealistic to me, the company by all accounts treats their employees like garbage.

I had a coworker that was a former CM. His friend was fired when the til from their vendor cart came up one dollar short. This was after a 24 hour party where it was mass chaos and they were completely overwhelmed and understaffed.

I also have read how it can take 20 minutes between parking your car and getting to your work location, which they don't pay you for.

I'm not a Disney defender at all, those practices are awful.

 

[el_super]

That's not what I said. I said Disney has obviously decided that there is no return on having the world's greatest Small World attraction host vs. just an average worker. If they thought having a better employee there would lead to a better return, they would pay accordingly.

That's literally what I was suggesting you meant: that guest service is not something the company expects a return on. That can only really be true if you admit that the guests aren't willing to pay extra for it (which you did below).

Disney has obviously determined that having often untrained, unprofessional, and unhappy Cast Members serving you a popcorn or loading you into a Small World boat will not have a negative impact vs. the cost of hiring better employees. If anything, blame the Disney consumers who continue to pay top dollar for this level of service - that is why they have made that calculation.

That's exactly what I thought you meant. I would mostly agree with this, but I do think that there are other market forces also dictating where wages end up, and as I keep pointing out, Disney has already started putting more money on the union table, simply due to the current work climate and the need to fill jobs.

If, as trends would currently suggest, a large segment of the population no longer want to work in low paying/high stress positions, and Disney has trouble filling spots, they will start to raise wages.

That's why Disney is offering $1000/$1500 hiring bonuses at the Job Fair they are hosting this week:

 

[el_super]

The challenge for these folks is that they are grown adults doing many jobs that require zero experience that a teenager off the street could do (and I was one of those teenagers and was waving a flash light on the parade route on my first day - it wasn't rocket science). So they have knowingly signed up for jobs that guarantee low wages based on required skill set. Nobody forced them to make that life choice.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that someone working at Disneyland should be paid the same as someone with a skilled profession or someone with more experience. What they are saying, what the union is saying, what the Cast Members are saying is: there is no benefit to society in having a job paying such low wages that people have to petition the government for extra assistance, while also working 40+ hours a week.

The argument that companies should be allowed to pay a "fair" price for unskilled labor is really one for slavery and servitude, since there would be no benefit to paying anything above $0.

If enough people say no to low paying jobs, wages go up. If the employees organize into a union, and fight collectively for more money, wages go up. If society decides there is no benefit to having low paying jobs, they enact minimum wage laws and measures such as Measure L, which ultimately served it's purpose.

 

[el_super]

Had dinner tonight at the new Kura Sushi restaurant in Garden Grove. (We also go the Brea, Irvine and Cypress locations)

Kura's OK, but really not all that great compared to other sushi places. I don't even think it's the best revolving sushi place in OC. Their "Real Crab" California rolls are weird.

Also: Their staff make more money than Disneyland (currently).

 

[flynnibus]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that someone working at Disneyland should be paid the same as someone with a skilled profession or someone with more experience. What they are saying, what the union is saying, what the Cast Members are saying is: there is no benefit to society in having a job paying such low wages that people have to petition the government for extra assistance, while also working 40+ hours a week.

Then what will happen is many jobs will stay part time - because not all work justifies that kind of expense. You end up with less full time workers, and more transient lower skilled jobs filling out the body ranks. And workers who can't or won't advance their skills will be locked into working more hours at more jobs to make ends meet.

 

[el_super]

Then what will happen is many jobs will stay part time - because not all work justifies that kind of expense.

Why? The demand of running the park hasn't changed at all. Disney is also offering full time conversions already for some people who hired in over the summer, so it definitely doesn't seem to be true.

 

[flynnibus]

Why? The demand of running the park hasn't changed at all.

A job's worth is based on the value it returns and what it takes to fill that role - not the employee's need. When you need a body to just wave people down a parking lane a few hours a day - that work is highly interchangable, can be done by almost anyone, and doesn't drive a ton of individual value. It's a cheap role and will always be one because it's something almost anyone with a pulse can do. So it will remain a poor paying job.

 

[el_super]

It's a cheap role and will always be one because it's something almost anyone with a pulse can do. So it will remain a poor paying job.

What is it about wanting people to be paid less? I've been saying since Friday that Disney is offering the same wages that were planned under Measure L, and that CM demands are being met, and yet you keep wanting to point out that there will be some retribution for this? Why? Why not just be happy that the Cast Members are getting paid more.

If you think that Disney is going to end up cutting back on labor, reducing the amount of shifts or reducing positions, then great. If the only recourse to offering CMs a better wage is to lower the guest service of the park, then so be it, since apparently that will not have any negative impact on their bottom line at all.

 

[flynnibus]

What is it about wanting people to be paid less?

It's not about wanting people to be paid less - It's reality calling that says you pay people based on what you expect to get in return. So when you make generalized statements like "there is no benefit to society in having a job paying such low wages that people have to petition the government for extra assistance, while also working 40+ hours a week." - you have to face the reality that not all jobs justify a 40hr/week position.. and when you pressure what people pay IF ITS A FULL TIME ROLE you simply create pressure to AVOID creating full time roles if the work is so low value.

Same way so many roles were limited from becoming full time when the healthcare mandates were put out.

 

[RobWDW1971]

If enough people say no to low paying jobs, wages go up. If the employees organize into a union, and fight collectively for more money, wages go up.

Ask the auto workers in Detroit in the 80's how that worked out for them.

Supply and demand will always rule out. The laws of economics are like the laws of physics, you can't wish them away.

And apparently our disconnect, and I will move on, is that you are talking about labor minimums and I am talking about driving individual value in the marketplace to enhance one's earning potential.

If a person's skills and output are such that a company is only paying them a certain amount because they are forced under penalty of law to do it, that speaks volumes about the value of that person's labor in the marketplace. That no matter how poorly they work, no matter how terrible their output is, no matter how low their skill level is, the company is forced to pay them that wage.

 

[el_super]

you have to face the reality that not all jobs justify a 40hr/week position.. and when you pressure what people pay IF ITS A FULL TIME ROLE you simply create pressure to AVOID creating full time roles if the work is so low value.

Yeah but in this case we are talking about the very real situation that Disneyland is under. An operating theme park where the number of attraction operators are mandated by law. The demand for labor in the park is only really impacted by attendance, so as long as that stays high, there will be a need for people working in the park.

If there was any real meaningful cuts in labor to be made at Disneyland, they would have made them already no? Unless you also subscribe to the idea that cutting CMs and guest services will have no impact on the guest experience and their willingness to return, there isn't a whole lot of labor left to cut.

Additionally, Disney maintains a lot of full time positions, because it is more cost effective for them to have fewer overall CMs working more hours than it is to have many individuals working part time. Disney pays a small fortune in hiring and training costs, continuing update training (such as diversity and inclusion training) and in ongoing benefits like the main entrance pass and disney aspire. A lot of these ongoing costs are the same whether the employee works 40 hours a week or 4.

Ask the auto workers in Detroit in the 80's how that worked out for them.

You think they will close up Disneyland and move it to Japan? You might be a little late for that.

Supply and demand will always rule out. The laws of economics are like the laws of physics, you can't wish them away.

Of course. But I see that as part of the reason they are getting the increased wages.

If a person's skills and output are such that a company is only paying them a certain amount because they are forced under penalty of law to do it, that speaks volumes about the value of that person's labor in the marketplace. That no matter how poorly they work, no matter how terrible their output is, no matter how low their skill level is, the company is forced to pay them that wage.

Yeah, I get that and I'm not arguing that at all. Some people don't have the skills to compete in the marketplace, and some people don't have the intelligence to finish higher education. And no one is trying to suggest that these people end up making $60k+ a year and able to afford a house and vacations to Europe.

What I am arguing though is, that if people want to work 40 hours a week, and put in the time and labor that they can offer, that they should be able to get a roof over their head, a warm place to sleep, and groceries. Basic human necessities. Yes some of that relies on the government for help and assistance (esp housing), but there's no reason why a person working 40 hours a week shouldn't be able to afford food. Or have to make a choice between food or rent. People generally understand this truth, and this is why things like Measure L passed by the voters of Anaheim, and why minimum wage laws exist at all.

The human factor is absolutely part of the laws of economics and you can't wish them away.

 

[Sailor310]

No kidding!

I had a couple fabulous meals with friends at the Hotel Del this summer at their wonderful Serea seafood restaurant. And the bartenders and tapas at the Babcock & Story lounge are top notch. The Hotel Del has really upped their food game in recent years. Not that the employees are eating that same food, but I'm sure their cafeteria is doing just fine.

Which reminds me... we used to hear how crummy and greasy the not-cheap food was in the CM cafeterias at Disneyland. Is that still the case? They clearly aren't subsidizing food service for CM's from the sound of things. And that's where I'm happy to commiserate with CM's; they deserve better treatment from their company on some things like on-site food service.

What kind of an idiot exec do you have to be to not see that?

And again that reminds me of the heavily subsidized food service at big corporate outfits like Amazon, Google, Apple, etc. Even though those are high paid, white collar profesionals, the companies they work for subsidize the food service on-site.

Lunch at Google HQ is as Insanely Awesome as You Thought

Forget sloppy cafeteria fare. The cafés on the Google campus serve some of the best food in the San Francisco Bay Area. We snagged a coveted invitation to eat lunch on site and found out what all the fuss was about (think pecan-crusted rockfish and homemade chai trolleys).

www.seriouseats.com

I've eaten at SpaceX a couple of times. They have great food. Free/Subsidized for employees.

 

[Cesar R M]

The math works…

1974 minimum wage = $2.10 an hour, 40 hours a week = $84 a week, 4 weeks a month (avg) = $336, two workers = $672 a month pre tax = approximately $540 a month take home.

Mortgage on a $25,000 home = $205 a month.

You wouldn’t be able to afford one on a single income but with two full time incomes in the home you could.

They also bought an affordable home because the average home price in 1975 was $39,300 which would have been a $315 mortgage, probably a bit out of reach with even two full time incomes but not impossible.

For comparison sake with todays $15 an hour rate that would = $4800 gross a month with two full time incomes, approximately $3850 net, compared to your 1975 prices that would be a $1500 mortgage for an affordable home ($315,000 equivalent) or a $2245 mortgage on the average priced home ($475,000 equivalent). Anaheims current average home price is about $775,000.

Whats interesting is using an inflation adjuster online the $2.10 minimum wage in 1975 = $10.54 today so it really is more of a housing issue than a wage issue. $15 today has more purchasing power now than $2.10 did then, house prices are just astronomically high.

not only housing.. medicine and insurance as well.

 

[Cesar R M]

I agree with you. Although a "living wage" for a themepark job in Orange County is unrealistic to me, the company by all accounts treats their employees like garbage.

I had a coworker that was a former CM. His friend was fired when the til from their vendor cart came up one dollar short. This was after a 24 hour party where it was mass chaos and they were completely overwhelmed and understaffed.

I also have read how it can take 20 minutes between parking your car and getting to your work location, which they don't pay you for.

I'm not a Disney defender at all, those practices are awful.

What boggles my mind is the story about how CMs got fired for eating popcorn that was about to be thrown away after park closing.
I wonder if thats true or not.

 

[Cesar R M]

Ask the auto workers in Detroit in the 80's how that worked out for them.

If globalization hadn't been archieved and corporations didnt have cheap hands out of country to exploit. Do you think they would have caved in?

 

[Dear Prudence]

I agree with you. Although a "living wage" for a themepark job in Orange County is unrealistic to me, the company by all accounts treats their employees like garbage.

I had a coworker that was a former CM. His friend was fired when the til from their vendor cart came up one dollar short. This was after a 24 hour party where it was mass chaos and they were completely overwhelmed and understaffed.

I also have read how it can take 20 minutes between parking your car and getting to your work location, which they don't pay you for.

I'm not a Disney defender at all, those practices are awful.

A company that has more money than God and wants to charge you for Fast Passes, laid off their CMs last year, but gave themselves bonuses at rates that were downright immoral.

 

[Professortango1]

It's not about wanting people to be paid less - It's reality calling that says you pay people based on what you expect to get in return. So when you make generalized statements like "there is no benefit to society in having a job paying such low wages that people have to petition the government for extra assistance, while also working 40+ hours a week." - you have to face the reality that not all jobs justify a 40hr/week position.. and when you pressure what people pay IF ITS A FULL TIME ROLE you simply create pressure to AVOID creating full time roles if the work is so low value.

Same way so many roles were limited from becoming full time when the healthcare mandates were put out.

When you are a major company, having 100 Full Time Employees is cheaper and easier than having 200 part time employees. Part time has far higher turnover and less productivity. When you're a mom and pop trying to avoid offering benefits, it makes sense to have part time employees so you don't end up above 20 Full Time Equivalent, but for a mega corporation like Disney, having to constantly train and replace workers just means wasted resources and poor output.

 

[Heppenheimer]

What boggles my mind is the story about how CMs got fired for eating popcorn that was about to be thrown away after park closing.
I wonder if thats true or not.

Even AMC let us eat free popcorn when I worked there as a teenager, just as long as we didn't eat it while we were serving customers.

 

[flynnibus]

When you are a major company, having 100 Full Time Employees is cheaper and easier than having 200 part time employees. Part time has far higher turnover and less productivity. When you're a mom and pop trying to avoid offering benefits, it makes sense to have part time employees so you don't end up above 20 Full Time Equivalent, but for a mega corporation like Disney, having to constantly train and replace workers just means wasted resources and poor output.

Completely depends on the role and your organization.. and really has little to do with mom&pop vs corporation. In fact, corporations are in a better spot because they would likely have scale over a mom&pop and may have better margins to absorb such overheads.

If a role requires 20hrs of training.. the role requires 20hrs of training no matter who owns the company. The corporate business is more likely to have scale, process, and people dedicated to those tasks.

You have both concerns over turnover and productivity. But the bigger your group and the greater the hours you must cover, the more productive having more part timers becomes. It's very expensive to keep spare full timers around to cover unexpected absences and vacations... while part timers you can apply in whatever volume is needed.

I mean... it's why companies like big box stores and Disney use so much part time. The labor flexibility is essential.