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

[October82]

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.

You're not describing the essentiality of labor flexibility, you're describing why it is a lucrative strategy. It remains that way until workers put a price premium on providing that flexibility. That's one of the many factors driving increases in wages for low income workers right now.

 

[flynnibus]

You're not describing the essentiality of labor flexibility, you're describing why it is a lucrative strategy.

I am - you are just too wound up to understand the concept of PERSPECTIVE of who the statement was about. Of course I was writing about the labor flexibility for the employer.. after all.. THE JOB EXISTS BECAUSE OF THEIR NEED.

Having jobs offered is not the right of the worker.. It's a meeting of the needs.

 

[Darkbeer1]

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[October82]

I am - you are just too wound up to understand the concept of PERSPECTIVE of who the statement was about. Of course I was writing about the labor flexibility for the employer.. after all.. THE JOB EXISTS BECAUSE OF THEIR NEED.

Having jobs offered is not the right of the worker.. It's a meeting of the needs.

I'm not sure who you think you're responding to. I'm not @Professortango1 - I'm well aware that companies and workers have different perspectives. That doesn't make labor flexibility essential for the functioning of the economy. The idea that "labor flexibility" is essential is a consequence of structural problems in labor markets.

Because labor markets are about both workers and employers, it's not possible to talk only about the "perspective of the employer". As you say "it is a meeting of the needs". The reality is that labor flexibility is desirable for some employers when labor costs are low. It's become a common thing because of wage stagnation, especially at the low end of the labor market. Some part of what we're seeing now is that workers realize that labor flexibility is something that they can charge a premium for. That means that wages for people in these jobs will increase as long as companies desire that flexibility given the market price for it. The net result will be fewer but higher paid part time positions and more full time positions. As @Professortango1 mentioned, companies will likely move more workers into full time and higher paid positions because the price premium on labor flexibility is offset by the gains from reduced turnover. Large companies are better positioned to capture those gains through, as you said, economies of scale.

 

[smooch]

You seem sincere in your commentary and from your post it appears you are in college so you are naturally coming at this from a theoretical/academic point of view. As someone on the other end of the spectrum (old and partially retired), I can only provide insight from the reality of how the actual business (private and corporate) world works.

When people have run a small business and needed the cash flow from that business to pay their employees, feed their family, and repay their business loans or have lead a private or public company that has gone bankrupt and had to lay off all of its employees and cancel orders from suppliers that crippled their business or lost a significant amount of their net worth in private/public investments, they can tell you that these issues are not theoretical. Risk, reward, and return on their personal investment as well as their investors' (institutional, private, etc.) capital is at the core of these decisions.

No business is going to increase its cost base, lower its cash flow, and generate a lower return for its investors intentionally. If a company (Disney or otherwise) felt that increasing the wages of their employees by 50% would generate a net return, they would do it. They obviously do not believe that paying the Small World attractions host 50% more will generate enough incremental return.

It is that simple. I know in today's society we like to attach motives, emotions, good guys/bad guys, etc. and talk about employees being part of the magic, most important resource, etc, etc. but decisions will always be made in the interest of those that are funding the business and are taking the risk of loss of that investment.

I understand that completely, I acknowledged that companies want to make the most profit they can, or at least I meant to, that is the point of a business: to make money. I guess my problem is seeing companies worth so much that have employees struggling to afford to live, they have the money to pay their workers more but will not because that would lower the revenue they are bringing in. Those funding the businesses are the ones risking their investment so it makes sense they want to make as much money as possible because they're putting in the money, but the people actually working the jobs are also valuable to the company and deserve to be compensated fairly. Without the investors those people would not have a place to work they wouldn't have the equipment / facility / etc. but without the workers the equipment and facilities would be a waste. Workers are valuable. Workers deserve to be paid their fair share, and it is my belief that if you work full time at a job you deserve to be paid enough to have food and housing without having another job. I am not trying to paint any specific company or person out as a bad guy, I am just saying the system we have does not compensate people for their work properly. I am not saying a CM working at Small World should earn enough to buy a house and have a wife and kids (that would be nice though wouldn't it) but I am saying that I know there are CMs and just essential workers / entry level workers in general that work full time and don't make enough to pay for their expenses for living without having another source of income. People need to pay for more than just food and housing, there are more things considered essential to live off of than that and when it's all said and done it's very hard to truly claim people working these essential jobs that keep our economy going and our communities running are being paid what they deserve.

So again I understand entirely why companies answer to boards and do what they do to generate as much revenue as possible, that is exactly what a company is created to do, I personally have a moral disagreement with specifically large corporations with CEOs earning millions of dollars like Chapek earning $14.2 million last year while the people on the frontline of the parks directly running the show are being denied the minimum wage that was previously mandated. It's all very complicated, like I said I do not know what the solution is because you can't simply just increase the minimum wage to what is an actual livable wage without the many repercussions it would have in the company and the economy as a whole. I just view our system as broken, that is my personal opinion.

 

[CaptinEO]

I understand that completely, I acknowledged that companies want to make the most profit they can, or at least I meant to, that is the point of a business: to make money. I guess my problem is seeing companies worth so much that have employees struggling to afford to live, they have the money to pay their workers more but will not because that would lower the revenue they are bringing in. Those funding the businesses are the ones risking their investment so it makes sense they want to make as much money as possible because they're putting in the money, but the people actually working the jobs are also valuable to the company and deserve to be compensated fairly. Without the investors those people would not have a place to work they wouldn't have the equipment / facility / etc. but without the workers the equipment and facilities would be a waste. Workers are valuable. Workers deserve to be paid their fair share, and it is my belief that if you work full time at a job you deserve to be paid enough to have food and housing without having another job. I am not trying to paint any specific company or person out as a bad guy, I am just saying the system we have does not compensate people for their work properly. I am not saying a CM working at Small World should earn enough to buy a house and have a wife and kids (that would be nice though wouldn't it) but I am saying that I know there are CMs and just essential workers / entry level workers in general that work full time and don't make enough to pay for their expenses for living without having another source of income. People need to pay for more than just food and housing, there are more things considered essential to live off of than that and when it's all said and done it's very hard to truly claim people working these essential jobs that keep our economy going and our communities running are being paid what they deserve.

So again I understand entirely why companies answer to boards and do what they do to generate as much revenue as possible, that is exactly what a company is created to do, I personally have a moral disagreement with specifically large corporations with CEOs earning millions of dollars like Chapek earning $14.2 million last year while the people on the frontline of the parks directly running the show are being denied the minimum wage that was previously mandated. It's all very complicated, like I said I do not know what the solution is because you can't simply just increase the minimum wage to what is an actual livable wage without the many repercussions it would have in the company and the economy as a whole. I just view our system as broken, that is my personal opinion.

Thats why the people working entry level jobs should attend a certification program, trade school, or college to get out of that situation. Even if someone is a single parent with kids, taking 1 or 2 classes a semester when you arent on shift can slowly help you achieve this goal.

We need entry level workers but we also need skilled workers. Together they all make things work.

The work required for a job never equates to pay. The enlisted military makes almost nothing yet risks their lives and are in dangerous situations daily.

Yet all my friends who have gone military did so to get work experience and schooling and now do very well for themselves.

CMs should stay as little as needed and then use that experience to say they have "customer service" on their resume.

 

[Darkbeer1]

Thats why the people working entry level jobs should attend a certification program, trade school, or college to get out of that situation. Even if someone is a single parent with kids, taking 1 or 2 classes a semester when you arent on shift can slowly help you achieve this goal.

We need entry level workers but we also need skilled workers. Together they all make things work.

The work required for a job never equates to pay. The enlisted military makes almost nothing yet risks their lives and are in dangerous situations daily.

Yet all my friends who have gone military did so to get work experience and schooling and now do very well for themselves.

CMs should stay as little as needed and then use that experience to say they have "customer service" on their resume.

And the Disney Aspire program will pay for those programs if you are a CM. Every CM should look into it, even if you only take online classes due to your schedule.

And in California, and other places, non-CM's have lots of options.

Home Page - California Adult Education Program

California Adult Education is a free website to help adults find classes or programs in support of their education needs or improve their skills for better employment opportunities. California Adult Education is a resource for Adult Educators to access statewide practices and innovative...

caladulted.org

 

[Darkbeer1]

>>Last week, Orange County Superior Court Judge William Claster ruled that a 2018 Anaheim ballot measure requiring businesses that receive a city tax subsidy does not apply to the Disneyland Resort, pointing to how Measure L – which was written and placed on the ballot by the Coalition of Resort Labor Unions (CRLU) – defined a tax subsidy.

In his ruling, Judge Claster stated it was a simple question of whether the 1996 Resort bonds – which financed the construction of the Mikey & Friends parking structure – constituted a “City subsidy” as defined in the union-written Measure L.

Given the plain language of Measure L, Claster ruled the only way he could – against the CRLU.

The Resort unions coalition denounced Judge Claster’s adherence to the language they authored as “hyper-technical” and vowed to appeal the ruling.<<

>>It’s worth noting that a few months before the CRLU lawsuit was filed, Disneyland cast member and UNITE-HERE Local 11 executive board member Glyndanna Shevlin spoke at the March 19, 2019 Anaheim City Council meeting about how Measure L had improved her life as a Disney cast member. Shevlin, who was the public face of the Measure L campaign, told the councilmembers:

“Measure L was a very big thing for me. It made me have a living wage and I now have a home. The last three years prior – I was homeless. But now I have a good living wage.”

Of course, Shevlin is being disingenuous, since Measure L does not apply to the Disneyland Resort (as Judge Claster subsequently ruled).

The point is the Resort unions are making contradictory claims. On one hand, you have UNITE-HERE Local 11 leaders, members and their attorney claiming Disneyland must adhere to Measure L but is failing to do so.

On the other hand, you had a Local 11 leader, spokesperson for Measure L and Disneyland cast member claiming that she got an increase to a “living wage” and has a home because of Measure L.

So which is it? UNITE-HERE and the CRLU can’t have it both ways. They can’t have a Measure L spokesperson and Disneyland employee says Measure L raised her pay, and then turn around and sue saying Disneyland isn’t raising cast members by according to Measure L.

That kind of doublethink may fly with Resort union apologists, but clearly flopped in the courtroom of Judge Claster.<<

​

Judge Rejects Resort Union Doubletalk, Rules Measure L Wage Spike Doesn't Apply To Disney - Anaheim Independent

Last week, Orange County Superior Court Judge William Claster ruled that a 2018 Anaheim ballot measure requiring businesses that receive a city tax subsidy does not apply to the Disneyland Resort, pointing to how Measure L – which was written and placed on the ballot by the Coalition of Resort...

www.anaheimindependent.com

 

[RobWDW1971]

I understand that completely, I acknowledged that companies want to make the most profit they can, or at least I meant to, that is the point of a business: to make money. I guess my problem is seeing companies worth so much that have employees struggling to afford to live, they have the money to pay their workers more but will not because that would lower the revenue they are bringing in. Those funding the businesses are the ones risking their investment so it makes sense they want to make as much money as possible because they're putting in the money, but the people actually working the jobs are also valuable to the company and deserve to be compensated fairly. Without the investors those people would not have a place to work they wouldn't have the equipment / facility / etc. but without the workers the equipment and facilities would be a waste. Workers are valuable. Workers deserve to be paid their fair share, and it is my belief that if you work full time at a job you deserve to be paid enough to have food and housing without having another job. I am not trying to paint any specific company or person out as a bad guy, I am just saying the system we have does not compensate people for their work properly. I am not saying a CM working at Small World should earn enough to buy a house and have a wife and kids (that would be nice though wouldn't it) but I am saying that I know there are CMs and just essential workers / entry level workers in general that work full time and don't make enough to pay for their expenses for living without having another source of income. People need to pay for more than just food and housing, there are more things considered essential to live off of than that and when it's all said and done it's very hard to truly claim people working these essential jobs that keep our economy going and our communities running are being paid what they deserve.

So again I understand entirely why companies answer to boards and do what they do to generate as much revenue as possible, that is exactly what a company is created to do, I personally have a moral disagreement with specifically large corporations with CEOs earning millions of dollars like Chapek earning $14.2 million last year while the people on the frontline of the parks directly running the show are being denied the minimum wage that was previously mandated. It's all very complicated, like I said I do not know what the solution is because you can't simply just increase the minimum wage to what is an actual livable wage without the many repercussions it would have in the company and the economy as a whole. I just view our system as broken, that is my personal opinion.

It's actually not complicated. Once you accept the reality of economic forces, the world makes much more sense to you and there is much less emotion, anger, and frustration.

Employees will be paid how the market values their skills.

If you aren't satisfied with how your employer is valuing your skills, find another employer to pay you more. If you can't, then your skills are being properly valued.

It truly is as simple as that.

Back to our Small World attractions host. Even if you are the world's best attraction host - smiling, Walt-quoting, guest satisfying creator of joy and happiness. Well, you signed up for a union job where those skills are not only not valued and compensated, but you are paid the same as the worst attractions host with your seniority/shift.

If they wanted to be paid for their personal skill, performance, and potential, they wouldn't have taken a union job which is, by its very definition, a lowest common denominator job.

People who have skills want to be in the open market where they can achieve unlimited upside vs being protected from downside (such as minimum wage or union scale).

So if you are a union attractions host stuck at an established wage regardless of your talent, the only person to blame is the one in the mirror.

Otherwise, enjoy the job and pay scale you signed up for and stop complaining.

Again, it's actually quite simple.

 

[TP2000]

>>It’s worth noting that a few months before the CRLU lawsuit was filed, Disneyland cast member and UNITE-HERE Local 11 executive board member Glyndanna Shevlin spoke at the March 19, 2019 Anaheim City Council meeting about how Measure L had improved her life as a Disney cast member. Shevlin, who was the public face of the Measure L campaign, told the councilmembers:
“Measure L was a very big thing for me. It made me have a living wage and I now have a home. The last three years prior – I was homeless. But now I have a good living wage."
Of course, Shevlin is being disingenuous, since Measure L does not apply to the Disneyland Resort (as Judge Claster subsequently ruled).

Never let pesky things like facts or reality or truth get in the way of a good message.

 

[Disney Irish]

It's actually not complicated. Once you accept the reality of economic forces, the world makes much more sense to you and there is much less emotion, anger, and frustration.

Employees will be paid how the market values their skills.

If you aren't satisfied with how your employer is valuing your skills, find another employer to pay you more. If you can't, then your skills are being properly valued.

It truly is as simple as that.

Back to our Small World attractions host. Even if you are the world's best attraction host - smiling, Walt-quoting, guest satisfying creator of joy and happiness. Well, you signed up for a union job where those skills are not only not valued and compensated, but you are paid the same as the worst attractions host with your seniority/shift.

If they wanted to be paid for their personal skill, performance, and potential, they wouldn't have taken a union job which is, by its very definition, a lowest common denominator job.

People who have skills want to be in the open market where they can achieve unlimited upside vs being protected from downside (such as minimum wage or union scale).

So if you are a union attractions host stuck at an established wage regardless of your talent, the only person to blame is the one in the mirror.

Otherwise, enjoy the job and pay scale you signed up for and stop complaining.

Again, it's actually quite simple.

In an ideal world that is of course how it would work, merit and skill based pay, but it doesn't work that way in reality. If it were we wouldn't be having this conversation across many industries and many companies in this country not just Disney.

As you stated correctly previously companies want to make the most amount of profit they can, which in turn means they want to pay the least amount they can get away with. So while we like to believe that most companies will pay based on merit and skills out of the goodness of their heart or to get the "best" workers, the reality is most large corporations don't whether there is a union or not, market/economic forces or not. And most definitely won't for entry level jobs unless forced to, and in most cases not even for middle management. Sure some companies will, some have been named here like In-n-Out, but your only guarantee to getting any sort of real merit or skill based pay is at the executive level.

Gone are the days when corporations will give a pay bump to the regular rank and file based on merit or skills on a regular basis.

I've worked in corporate life long enough to learn that companies won't do much unless forced to, and again market/economic forces are not enough to get them to do much beyond fixing the next PR mess. This is why real wages have been stagnant for almost 5 decades, especially in entry level jobs, even though workers might be getting more per hour than in years past.

 

[el_super]

Thats why the people working entry level jobs should attend a certification program, trade school, or college to get out of that situation. Even if someone is a single parent with kids, taking 1 or 2 classes a semester when you arent on shift can slowly help you achieve this goal.

It's hard to focus on classes when you don't have money for dinner.

 

[el_super]

So if you are a union attractions host stuck at an established wage regardless of your talent, the only person to blame is the one in the mirror.

Otherwise, enjoy the job and pay scale you signed up for and stop complaining.

Again, it's actually quite simple.

Who is complaining? Using the power of the union to demand higher wages is the market at work.

 

[RobWDW1971]

Who is complaining? Using the power of the union to demand higher wages is the market at work.

It absolutely is. Mandated union and non-union minimum wage labor increases are an economic force.

And I think about it every time I go to McDonalds and use a kiosk to order where there used to be a person at the register, and I pour my Coke where there used to be someone at the drink station, and I check myself out at Ralph's and Target where there used to be cashiers, and I check in my own bags at the airport where there used to be service representatives, etc.

As the saying goes, the real "minimum wage" is zero.

 

[Dear Prudence]

Disney literally has more money than God, paying their employees appropriately is well within their means. Anything less is immoral. That's it. That's the end of that.

What kills me is the people who virtue signal non stop about changes in the park, but literally say NOTHING about the fact that real human people aren't being paid appropriately or treated with any degree of dignity.

 

[el_super]

As the saying goes, the real "minimum wage" is zero.

Yeah.. so great that they've been able to pass on more of the labor onto their customers while charging them more for the product.

And to add insult to injury, Target and Walmart and McDonald's still can't find enough people to work there.

 

[October82]

Yeah.. so great that they've been able to pass on more of the labor onto their customers while charging them more for the product.

And to add insult to injury, Target and Walmart and McDonald's still can't find enough people to work there.

Not just passing labor costs onto consumers, but society subsidizes the wages of service industry workers who make below what a fair market would pay. A low minimum wage is a basically just a way of turning tax dollars into corporate profits. I'd rather those dollars stay in the hands of working people, but maybe that's just me.

 

[October82]

Thats why the people working entry level jobs should attend a certification program, trade school, or college to get out of that situation. Even if someone is a single parent with kids, taking 1 or 2 classes a semester when you arent on shift can slowly help you achieve this goal.

We need entry level workers but we also need skilled workers. Together they all make things work.

The work required for a job never equates to pay. The enlisted military makes almost nothing yet risks their lives and are in dangerous situations daily.

Yet all my friends who have gone military did so to get work experience and schooling and now do very well for themselves.

CMs should stay as little as needed and then use that experience to say they have "customer service" on their resume.

Is there anyone that is OK with enlisted people being paid pennies for risking their lives?

 

[flynnibus]

workers who make below what a fair market would pay.

What is making this an unfair market? Are workers being forced to work there? Is there no other work available?

 

[Heppenheimer]

Is there anyone that is OK with enlisted people being paid pennies for risking their lives?

I say this as a veteran... lower enlisted can actually make a decent salary for young people, considering they have no medical, housing, uniform or utility expenses, and they can eat for free at the dining facilities. It's not a salary that would support a young family but it isn't intended as such either. For a single, young soldier living in base housing, it provides an appropriate starting salary.

The tax exemptions and bonuses we got paid during deployments ended up being quite lucrative. I started building my household wealth on a deployment savings plan that I then transferred into a mutual fund after it matured. 20 years later, that account is worth over $150K.

You can do quite well on a military salary, but you can't blow your paycheck on stupid stuff, like overpriced no-money-down trucks, entertainment systems, or pimped-out auto detailing.