-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney not subject to Anaheim’s ‘living wage’ ballot measure, judge rules - OCR/SCNG
- Thread starter Darkbeer1
- Start date
Why aren't there protests about this money making union (Over $20 Million in the Covid year 2020) paying her so little...
denyuntilcaught
Well-Known Member
Agreed - STEM and health will always be safe bets, but society doesn't exist on those alone. Going back to my earlier point, it's not necessarily the degree, it's what you do with it. I think it's always a better choice to invest in higher education once you have a relative idea of what you want to do, versus expecting your time in college to tell you what you want to do.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
It was obvious she was an employee of the union because she was used repeatedly in their public videos shown canvassing neighborhoods, in addition to being selected to sit next to Bernie Sanders at the big rally, etc.
But she made $25,000 from that union gig in 2015? And $9,500 from the union in 2019?
Funny how that didn't make it into the 2018 video, or as part of her argument that she shouldn't have to "change" or do anything but set out muffins in order to make a living for herself.
It's just all so smarmy and disingenuous. If I were a dues paying member of that union I would really be upset to see where my money goes and how it is used to attack employers.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Thank you for giving us that update, it's appreciated.
That seems like a very generous offer for the CM's, especially if they don't have to live up to the old grooming standards any longer.
The CM's will approve this wage hike and vote for this contract. They always do.
DavidDL
Well-Known Member
I'm just stepping into this thread now but absolutely with the belief that CMs should be given a living wage and even a bit more.
Because to me, the roles inside the park aren't 1 to 1 comparable to similar positions outside them. Sure, someone taking an order at Disneyland technically has the same role as someone taking an order at In-N-Out.. but the difference between the two is that the customer ordering at In-N-Out doesn't need to pay $159 a head just to be able to make the order. A Guest who has a negative experience in a place like Target or Trader Joes isn't the same as someone who has a negative experience in Disneyland. Because they didn't pay a premium to enter the former locations.
Not to say that we should be lowering our expectations across the board or anything, good service should be expected when you're paying money for something but at Disneyland, I think it's safe to say that expectations from Guests should be reasonably higher after what they pay to get in. Increased wages would also go a long way in keeping CMs happy and more inclined to keep a smile on their faces and to push for that "Disney difference" when being broken down daily by Guests who expect so much after what they paid to get in. The issue can be that if Disney is charging Guests more to enter, those Guests will (rightfully so), expect an experience to match wherever possible. But if Disney doesn't raise CM wages to match, then you just get Guests who demand the best crashing with CMs who aren't paid like they are the best.
The role of a CM is multifaceted, too. You're not just an attractions operator. You're also a pseudo janitorial member. -and a Guest relations CM required to know the most up to date information about a park that is changing every day. In short, if you are doing the job Disney wants you to do, then you aren't just working one definable role. You're whatever the Guest needs you to be in any given moment and you should be paid to match that. -and if you aren't, well, then you'd be less inclined to be everything they need you to be.
There will, of course, be instances where the Guest isn't always right. Just because you paid a premium to enter doesn't entitle you to violate any sort of safety rules like having your child stand on a trash can to watch Fantasmic!. Those situations will be unavoidable. But Guests can get combative in moments like this, too. I've literally seen CMs spat on working Guest Control because they were doing their jobs. If that's what they're faced with on a daily basis, then they deserve more than the minimum. Yes, it happens elsewhere. But I'd wager not at the rate it happens in the parks with the sheer amount of Guests who pass through the gates per day and what they paid to enter.
Because to me, the roles inside the park aren't 1 to 1 comparable to similar positions outside them. Sure, someone taking an order at Disneyland technically has the same role as someone taking an order at In-N-Out.. but the difference between the two is that the customer ordering at In-N-Out doesn't need to pay $159 a head just to be able to make the order. A Guest who has a negative experience in a place like Target or Trader Joes isn't the same as someone who has a negative experience in Disneyland. Because they didn't pay a premium to enter the former locations.
Not to say that we should be lowering our expectations across the board or anything, good service should be expected when you're paying money for something but at Disneyland, I think it's safe to say that expectations from Guests should be reasonably higher after what they pay to get in. Increased wages would also go a long way in keeping CMs happy and more inclined to keep a smile on their faces and to push for that "Disney difference" when being broken down daily by Guests who expect so much after what they paid to get in. The issue can be that if Disney is charging Guests more to enter, those Guests will (rightfully so), expect an experience to match wherever possible. But if Disney doesn't raise CM wages to match, then you just get Guests who demand the best crashing with CMs who aren't paid like they are the best.
The role of a CM is multifaceted, too. You're not just an attractions operator. You're also a pseudo janitorial member. -and a Guest relations CM required to know the most up to date information about a park that is changing every day. In short, if you are doing the job Disney wants you to do, then you aren't just working one definable role. You're whatever the Guest needs you to be in any given moment and you should be paid to match that. -and if you aren't, well, then you'd be less inclined to be everything they need you to be.
There will, of course, be instances where the Guest isn't always right. Just because you paid a premium to enter doesn't entitle you to violate any sort of safety rules like having your child stand on a trash can to watch Fantasmic!. Those situations will be unavoidable. But Guests can get combative in moments like this, too. I've literally seen CMs spat on working Guest Control because they were doing their jobs. If that's what they're faced with on a daily basis, then they deserve more than the minimum. Yes, it happens elsewhere. But I'd wager not at the rate it happens in the parks with the sheer amount of Guests who pass through the gates per day and what they paid to enter.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I whole agree the expectations of an employee are higher at Disneyland vs a regular fast food joint.
But Disney still fills their ranks while paying subpar wages for the work they expect of their employees. I blame the employees who voluntarily work for those reduced wages that enable the company to keep paying them.
The most effective way to get better pay is to not accept lower pay.
But Disney still fills their ranks while paying subpar wages for the work they expect of their employees. I blame the employees who voluntarily work for those reduced wages that enable the company to keep paying them.
The most effective way to get better pay is to not accept lower pay.
DavidDL
Well-Known Member
I both agree and disagree with this statement. It's weird. On one hand, you could argue that there's something to be said for trying to actually create change from within. Especially if it's a job you legitimately enjoy doing. As an artist who once achieved his dream job of working on VFX for film, I was paid pretty poorly for the work I did. So yeah, I could have just refused the job because of the pay.. but if nothing ever comes from my efforts, then I sort of just lose out on working my dream job to begin with, yeah? Someone else willing to work for less will get it, right? So why not take a job I actually love to do but try and try to fight for the best possible pay for myself and others while doing it?
*shrug* Or maybe I'm off base. Like I said, it's weird because I absolutely agree that your way of going about things can work in practice, too. If no one wants to hire in or everyone is leaving to go elsewhere and citing wages as a reason for doing so, then maybe employers will take a look at and adjust. Or maybe they'll just settle for subpar employees who are willing to take what they can get and say "screw it", regarding customer service.
There's definitely a shift happening post-COVID in the workforce, regardless. Employees are starting to awaken to the fact that they are worth more than the pennies most companies want to pay. Which why we see so many folks refusing to accept these wages and re-enter the work force even though the extra unemployment benefits have expired.
I currently work in a dental/medical field and in my specific department, sales dropped during COVID. Yet, despite having less orders to fill, I was getting paid an extra $5 an hour "hazard pay". Same happened to grocery stores, etc. -and when things started to normalize, our pay went back down. But hold the phone, we were selling less but the employer could afford to pay us more? That's not something employees just forget about. They see the game more clearly than they ever have before.
So yeah, good on the folks from both sides. Good on the ones working the job they love but demanding more out of it. -and good on the folks refusing to work for less than they're worth. Both are right to do what they're doing.
RobWDW1971
Well-Known Member
Of all of the jobs I've had in my entire life from childhood through retirement, my time as a DL attractions host was by far the easiest, most fun, least stressful, least accountable time of my life. YMMV
And you can entirely blame the Disney consumer (and AP's in particular) for the reason Disney doesn't feel there is any connection between low quality staff and the ability to charge luxury prices. The appearance, attitude, attentiveness, and talent of the DL cast has only been on the decrease for the past few decades and the crowds keep coming and paying even more.
Why would Disney think that there is anything a) wrong with their current cast or b) feel the need to increase the quality or pay of those cast members when there are 200 people lined up to buy a popcorn bucket?
What do you think is the percentage of Disney guests who when leaving the park go to Guest Relations or flag down the survey taker and tell them "this cast is so bad, I'm never coming back?"? I'd say pretty close to zero. Hence why Disney management thinks it's working beautifully (even without "living wages" whatever those are).
I used to go to a hotel for business on a regular basis and when the service declined, I both told management and took the hotel off of my company's approved hotel list.
If you keep going and pay the prices, you are validating their entire approach to hiring and pay.
flynnibus
Premium Member
You hit the critical point though - if other people are willing to do the work for less.. and you can't differentiate yourself to actually be worth more.. the market is saying that's what the job demands in pay. When workers keep doing the same job for subpar pay, they are perpetuating their own demise. If you have a crappy boss - or crappy environment and there is no desire to fix it - the best thing you can do is leave.
If you want more than what the market has determined that job can be fufilled with, then you're gonna have to offer more and find a need to fill.
What has happened in recent times is there isn't backfill available... the market is saying 'it takes more to fill this job' so wages go up. No one mandated 'you must pay more' - employers paid more because they knew it was necessary to retain or attract workers.
Yup - and then customers can influence behavior by speaking with their wallets. Disneyland was in the same spot you just described years ago... they had horrible turnover and as a result burning so much money on training and overhead. It's on disney to determine if they wanted to keep eating that cost, or adjust their employee strategies to mitigate it.
That's a very short sighted view of things though. Just because you did something temporarily doesn't mean it is sustainable. Many companies ran at losses just to reduce the amount they were losing... that doesn't mean those parameters are sustainable. It just means they made compromises or did things like run at a loss.
My point was still that employees are the ones that hold the obligation and power to decide where they are and what they will accept. It doesn't mean they get to DECIDE what they get, they get to decide what they are going to accept and what they will do about it.
In this market especially where there is far more work than willing bodies... if you don't like what you have, do something about it.
DavidDL
Well-Known Member
I mean, there's still something to be said for wanting to create change from the inside. Especially if it's a job you really, really love. I think your statements certainly hold more weight if the individual complaining about their pay also is more indifferent to their place of work than someone else.
Like, if someone just took a job at Disneyland because they wanted any ol' job and decided to then criticize the pay, I certainly understand the whole "then why did you accept this?" point of view. But if someone's dream is to work at Disneyland (or anywhere for the sake of discussion), should they really not pursue it because things aren't as good as they can be right now? Should they just let their dream pass them by gambling that enough people will do the same as them until there's more reason to apply?
I think, at the very least, employers should be subject to a living wage for the area which they are doing the work. Disney is a company that draws lots of long term employees in with their benefits packages (which, to my understanding, are very appealing to families) so if they're going to send the message that they're a source of stability for those willing to stay with them long term, why not pay whatever the cost of living in Anaheim is?
A few weeks ago, my employer let everyone know that we would be getting a "raise" to help combat the cost of living here in San Diego. The "raise" was for 26 cents. It was insulting, especially given what it costs to live here. Now, there were two options after feeling like we weren't getting what we deserved. We could quit and look for work elsewhere, or we could fight for a higher wage here, a place that we are already invested in and generally care for. We did the latter and now, my raise is for $3. I'm just saying that if there's a chance it can happen and you genuinely like the place you work for, then employees should at least try for it.
This won't be a perfect comparison, but saying people shouldn't fight to make where they're at better and should just go someplace else if they don't like it, sort of sounds like the argument some folks make regarding countries like the USA. Sure, if you don't like it, you could leave and go someplace else and there are certainly folks who have done that. But what if you believe in a place? What if you love it and want it to be the best possible version of itself that it can be? You stay and fight to make things better for you and everyone around you.
DavidDL
Well-Known Member
I guess at the end of the day, will it really matter if Disney is subject to a living wage or not if it passes for everyone else? Last time I checked (-and it's been a while), the starting pay there was $15? If the determined living wage outside the berm is determined to be, say, $18 and it passes for others, then Disneyland CMs making $15 an hour will be able to give themselves a substantial increase if they leave and do less work elsewhere.
This, in turn, will likely force Disney's hand once they start bleeding CMs to start paying the same. So they end up doing it, anyways. Only now, they just did it because they had to and they look worse in the public eye instead of looking like the beacon they want their employees to believe they are.
iirc, didn't they do this with the $15 increase? Didn't they make that leap before they were required to do so and before it was the norm? I suppose I wouldn't be so steadfast on the matter if this were some smaller mom and pop shop who clearly couldn't afford to make those kinds of payments to employees.
But this is Disney. They can afford to award their CFO $11 million dollars annually to fat shame Guests (even in the year of 2020 when things were shut down) but they want to fight against paying a living wage to the life blood of their parks? It's just a bad look. The investment in paying employees a living wage buys them an endless amount of good faith with the general populace and inspires CMs to create and provide the legendary Guest Service Disneyland is supposed to be known for. Instead, we've got CMs working food stands telling Guests, "no alternations whatsoever, take it or leave it."
This, in turn, will likely force Disney's hand once they start bleeding CMs to start paying the same. So they end up doing it, anyways. Only now, they just did it because they had to and they look worse in the public eye instead of looking like the beacon they want their employees to believe they are.
iirc, didn't they do this with the $15 increase? Didn't they make that leap before they were required to do so and before it was the norm? I suppose I wouldn't be so steadfast on the matter if this were some smaller mom and pop shop who clearly couldn't afford to make those kinds of payments to employees.
But this is Disney. They can afford to award their CFO $11 million dollars annually to fat shame Guests (even in the year of 2020 when things were shut down) but they want to fight against paying a living wage to the life blood of their parks? It's just a bad look. The investment in paying employees a living wage buys them an endless amount of good faith with the general populace and inspires CMs to create and provide the legendary Guest Service Disneyland is supposed to be known for. Instead, we've got CMs working food stands telling Guests, "no alternations whatsoever, take it or leave it."
flynnibus
Premium Member
Not indifferent - just willing to face reality and take action if necessary. Certainly there are unique jobs, but they are far far the minority. Especially in the segment we are talking about here.
There are lots of things in life I really love - but for one reason or another I can't have it the way I want. I have to face that reality and decide what I will do about it.. either do without or figure out how I'm gonna try to make it work. I don't cry to a 3rd party to try to force someone to make it happen for me. (unless we are talking university costs.. there I'll keep complaining about the systemic issues
)If you are in a position where you still must work to make ends meet - Dreams take a back seat to 'sustaining life'. And maybe this is the disconnect so many young people have? "if you dream it, you can be it..." is inspirational talk - it doesn't define reality.
You aren't owed anything. You aren't owed your 'dream job'. You aren't owed the luxury to 'do the job I want to do' - sometimes you do the job you GOTTA do to make ends meet. When you get established enough to be fiscally independent that you can do whatever you want... you can make those kinds of decisions. Everyone else? You gotta work through 'what I need to do' before you get to prioritize 'what I want to do'.
Yes, but did you go complain to some else to try to force your employer to give you that $3 raise or did you all handle it between employees and employer?
I'm not saying don't fight for your pay - its something everyone NEEDS to do when the time is right. But if you do that and you still aren't happy, or the job doesn't do what you need from it, it's on the employee to own their decision to stay there.
Again... Dreams and reality. Ultimately you have to prioritize your own well being and sustainability - if it's not workable where you are at, make it happen there or elsewhere. Don't just sit and pout about how miserable things are and how someone else should fix it.
Zero empathy for that crowd. Don't like something - what are you doing about it. Is it your choice? Then own it - both the good and the bad.
I would certainly love to do other kinds of work then what I am doing now - but those things don't meet my life needs right now, so they remain as 'dreams' and not something I get to complain someone should make viable for me.
DavidDL
Well-Known Member
Not indifferent - just willing to face reality and take action if necessary. Certainly there are unique jobs, but they are far far the minority. Especially in the segment we are talking about here.
There are lots of things in life I really love - but for one reason or another I can't have it the way I want. I have to face that reality and decide what I will do about it.. either do without or figure out how I'm gonna try to make it work. I don't cry to a 3rd party to try to force someone to make it happen for me. (unless we are talking university costs.. there I'll keep complaining about the systemic issues
If you are in a position where you still must work to make ends meet - Dreams take a back seat to 'sustaining life'. And maybe this is the disconnect so many young people have? "if you dream it, you can be it..." is inspirational talk - it doesn't define reality.
You aren't owed anything. You aren't owed your 'dream job'. You aren't owed the luxury to 'do the job I want to do' - sometimes you do the job you GOTTA do to make ends meet. When you get established enough to be fiscally independent that you can do whatever you want... you can make those kinds of decisions. Everyone else? You gotta work through 'what I need to do' before you get to prioritize 'what I want to do'.
Yes, but did you go complain to some else to try to force your employer to give you that $3 raise or did you all handle it between employees and employer?
I'm not saying don't fight for your pay - its something everyone NEEDS to do when the time is right. But if you do that and you still aren't happy, or the job doesn't do what you need from it, it's on the employee to own their decision to stay there.
Again... Dreams and reality. Ultimately you have to prioritize your own well being and sustainability - if it's not workable where you are at, make it happen there or elsewhere. Don't just sit and pout about how miserable things are and how someone else should fix it.
Zero empathy for that crowd. Don't like something - what are you doing about it. Is it your choice? Then own it - both the good and the bad.
I would certainly love to do other kinds of work then what I am doing now - but those things don't meet my life needs right now, so they remain as 'dreams' and not something I get to complain someone should make viable for me.
I’m certainly not advocating for folks to feel like they are “owed” anything egregious, if that’s what you think.
I’m simply saying any human being who makes the conscious decision to get up and work a 40 hour work week and contribute something to society (no matter how small) should be entitled to pay that is enough to put a roof over their head, feed their families and maybe give them just enough extra to get out and enjoy some life’s little pleasures (a movie, a video game, etc, etc).
I think employers should have to pay those kinds of employees whatever the determined living wage is for the area in which they are located. -and of course those who work harder and prove themselves should make more than whatever that standard is. I would like to think the incentive to be able to enjoy an even nicer home or more of what life has to offer with the additional funds would be enough for folks to still work for that.
But if the proven living wage for an individual who works full time in a given area is shown to be, say, $18 an hour, then I think employers should pay that at least. I think extending that most basic amount is fair for full time employees. -and maybe full time should be the stipulation for those wages. After all, they don’t offer benefits to part timers of the resort. Working your way to full time was sort of like “proving yourself” within the park because it wasn’t something you could just hire into (unless it was some higher up position) and instead had to earn.
I’ll just leave it at that. I think employers should pay employees who dedicate a full work week each week for them whatever the calculated wage is to afford the basics of life. I think that’s totally fair and if you disagree with me on that, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree and each fight for what we think is right.
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
What about the guy who starts a business, struggles to make the business pay, and works 60hrs a week and only takes home enough money to basically buy gas and food. Who owes him a 'living wage'? Who does he tap on the shoulder to make sure he gets his living wage for his conscious decision to try to make good on an idea? Who pays the mortgage he took to fund the business?
What about the work where I don't need someone full time? Is that work not going to be allowed anymore? Or will you just settle that there will be 'jobs that pay a living wage' and 'jobs that don't' ? What if someone wants to have a living wage at my non-living wage job? Then what?
The problem with your mindset is you think wages should be defined by what the employee needs instead of acknowledging people are hired to do a job. What the job pays is going to be a function of the job, not necessarily who fills it. People are hired to do a job - not to fulfill a social obligation
DavidDL
Well-Known Member
One, that individual is not the same as someone who hires in for a job. That individual is making the conscious choice to roll the dice, any startup business does. If this individual could work a job that pays a living wage to save up for their initial start up costs, then there would be less risk to them in case the business fails because they wouldn’t need to be putting up their entire livelihood as collateral. Literally any business that starts up is rolling the dice. It’s a risk you choose to take which can lead to something much greater than simply playing it safe and working a 9 to 5 job that will give you whatever the standard for your area is. High risk, high reward. But hey, at least if you fail (and many do) and you can find full time work of some kind afterwards, you know you’ll be making enough to stay off the streets.
Dreams versus reality, I guess? If your dream isn’t pulling in enough to make a living then I thought the answer was to abandon it and find something that pays the bills, right? At least with a living wage, the individual who fails knows if they find work, they’ll be okay.
-and as stated in my previous post, perhaps part time work need not have these limitations apply to them because anyone working part time isn’t putting a full work week in to begin with. Folks like students and individuals looking to add a little supplemental income are the kinds of people who’d be applying to this type of work anyways. Or folks interested in working their way into a full type position at a company like Disney (who hires in part time and allows you to go full time after you prove yourself).
-and this is all so silly of a comparison anyways. A mom and pop shop hiring a few part timers is not the same as a multi billion dollar corporation like Disney. To assume that the exact same constraints would be placed on both in any hypothetical I come up with would be folly. It’s never worked that way unless it’s a matter of general safety laws with all businesses have to adhere by.
Look man, whatever floats your boat. There’s nothing you’ll be able to say that’ll get me to think of a corporation as big as Disney, who demands what they do of their CMs and charges what they do of Guests, paying their employees enough to literally “live” as a bad thing. Likewise, I know there’s nothing I can say to you to convince you otherwise, either. I just don’t trust giants like these to have the best interest of those beneath them in mind and historically, taking the sort of Libertarian approach of “oh just them do whatever they want and the market will sort it all out” has led to companies doing some pretty disastrous things to peoples lives in the interest of saving a buck.
By the title of this thread, it sounds like the judge has already made their decision, anyways, yeah? Trying to change my mind won’t change a thing. Though I did see something over on Micechat about some kind of new vote taking place on the 17th of this month regarding wage negotiations? Guess we’ll see what happens over time.
Take care.
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
and if its your family business? Take away the startup and who makes sure those people make living wages?
or is it only employees who should be guaranteed a essential substance? Are business owners somehow less human?
what about the millions of self employed in this country… are they less worthy in your view? Who ensures they get this minimum living? How do you qualify if they do enough to get it?
how many more examples do we need to illustrate that this ideal is more than people think it is. The only way you get there is by having government assistance programs.
oh you mean like when people say they should be responsible for saving up and being responsible for their life choices like a family before taking that olunge? Hrmmm… sounds kinda familiar… you want people to be responsible….
most people will be ok - they guy complaining about disney attraction wages isn’t
so you agree not all work need be living wage work. So what do you do when people won’t work living wage jobs and then complain about wages? Tell them to get a better job?? Wait a trend is forming here…
You mean like…. Minimum wage laws??
or are tou now proposing a ‘rich company law’ that only applies to certain companies ?
what about all those people who don’t work for big companies? you gonna tell them go work for a big rich company if you need a liv
it’s a fine ideal… but the plans people have suck and don’t work… and then hide from it and juat keep repeating the same flawed rhetoric.
as you just laid out here… not all work should be living wage… not all employers should be pressed into it… and you’ve acknowledged people should be responsible for their choices and plan ahead.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Yes, the judge already made his decision. Because it was the same decision anyone who had read the Measure L ballot language knew would be made.
Disneyland receives no tax subsidy or rebate from the City of Anaheim, and thus is not regulated by Measure L ballot language. That was obvious years ago, but the union was so mad they'd written their own ballot measure so poorly as to not apply to Disneyland that they took it to court hoping for a miracle.
Last edited:
Life is about choices...
>>It could be called “diploma creep.”
At the dawn of the 20th century, an eighth-grade education was considered the norm in the United States. Fewer than 7% of public school students even earned high school diplomas in 1900 and tiny numbers went on to college.
By the late 20th century, however, anyone who lacked a high school diploma was deemed a failure and college degrees were entry level requirements for white collar jobs. School systems routinely minimized or eliminated vocational education in favor of requiring college prep curriculums for all students.
As bachelor degrees became commonplace, students increasingly sought to juice up their resumes with graduate degrees. Colleges responded accordingly and — one could argue — irresponsibly, hiking the costs of master’s degree programs and encouraging students to take on immense debt.
The absurdity of diploma creep is captured in recent newspaper articles about what’s happening in California.
The Wall Street Journal revealed that the University of Southern California used a for-profit company to recruit students for its on-line master’s degree program in social work.
“The nonprofit school used its status-symbol image to attract students across the country, including low-income minority students it targeted for recruitment, often with aggressive tactics,” the Journal reported. “Most students piled on debt to afford the tuition, which last year reached $115,000 for the two-year degree.”
The Journal continued, “Recent USC social-work graduates who took out federal loans borrowed a median $112,000. Half of them were earning $52,000 or less annually two years later (and) compared with other master’s-degree programs at top-tier U.S. universities, the USC social-work degree had one of the worst combinations of debt and earnings.”
The former dean of USC’s social work school, Marilyn Flynn, has been indicted for providing a full scholarship and teaching job in 2017 and 2018 to the son of a county supervisor, Mark Ridley-Thomas, in exchange for his help in steering county contracts to the university. Now a city councilman, Ridley-Thomas also faces charges in the scandal.
After the indictments were announced, the Los Angeles Times revealed that Flynn had also offered a full scholarship, worth $95,000, to Los Angeles Congresswoman Karen Bass for a master’s degree in social work. Bass, who is now running for mayor of Los Angeles, accepted the offer.
So USC was handing out social work master’s degrees like candy to local politicians while charging students $115,000 to obtain them, piling on debt for jobs that paid, at best, lower middle class salaries.
The syndrome is not confined to USC. The San Jose Mercury-News used data from the federal government’s College Scoreboard to point out the absurdity of spending so much to obtain jobs that pay so little.
“Students in Stanford University’s English program can expect to earn roughly $24,000 two years after graduating from the prestigious, private university,” the newspaper reported. “Just down the street, students who earn a two-year associate’s degree through Foothill College in allied health diagnostic, intervention and treatment professions can expect to make about $113,000.
“Philosophy majors at highly selective UC Berkeley can expect to earn about $21,000 shortly after graduation — after shelling out more than $15,000 a year for the degree. At Cal State East Bay, in Hayward, which costs about $11,000 a year to attend, students who earn a bachelor’s degree in construction management can bank on making about $80,000.”
Meanwhile, the men and women who opted out of college to become skilled workers such as plumbers, mechanics or electricians find themselves in demand and earn much more than college-educated contemporaries who are drowning in student debt.<<
www.ocregister.com
Let me share a program I love and support.
www.mikeroweworks.org
This Old House joined in, creating Generation Next with Mike Rowe
www.thisoldhouse.com
College is good, for some folks!
But there are other options.
Plenty of Health Care Workers are needed, and Community Colleges are a great low cost option. or you can go with trade like schools. West Coast College on Manchester next to the DLR is one option.
>>It could be called “diploma creep.”
At the dawn of the 20th century, an eighth-grade education was considered the norm in the United States. Fewer than 7% of public school students even earned high school diplomas in 1900 and tiny numbers went on to college.
By the late 20th century, however, anyone who lacked a high school diploma was deemed a failure and college degrees were entry level requirements for white collar jobs. School systems routinely minimized or eliminated vocational education in favor of requiring college prep curriculums for all students.
As bachelor degrees became commonplace, students increasingly sought to juice up their resumes with graduate degrees. Colleges responded accordingly and — one could argue — irresponsibly, hiking the costs of master’s degree programs and encouraging students to take on immense debt.
The absurdity of diploma creep is captured in recent newspaper articles about what’s happening in California.
The Wall Street Journal revealed that the University of Southern California used a for-profit company to recruit students for its on-line master’s degree program in social work.
“The nonprofit school used its status-symbol image to attract students across the country, including low-income minority students it targeted for recruitment, often with aggressive tactics,” the Journal reported. “Most students piled on debt to afford the tuition, which last year reached $115,000 for the two-year degree.”
The Journal continued, “Recent USC social-work graduates who took out federal loans borrowed a median $112,000. Half of them were earning $52,000 or less annually two years later (and) compared with other master’s-degree programs at top-tier U.S. universities, the USC social-work degree had one of the worst combinations of debt and earnings.”
The former dean of USC’s social work school, Marilyn Flynn, has been indicted for providing a full scholarship and teaching job in 2017 and 2018 to the son of a county supervisor, Mark Ridley-Thomas, in exchange for his help in steering county contracts to the university. Now a city councilman, Ridley-Thomas also faces charges in the scandal.
After the indictments were announced, the Los Angeles Times revealed that Flynn had also offered a full scholarship, worth $95,000, to Los Angeles Congresswoman Karen Bass for a master’s degree in social work. Bass, who is now running for mayor of Los Angeles, accepted the offer.
So USC was handing out social work master’s degrees like candy to local politicians while charging students $115,000 to obtain them, piling on debt for jobs that paid, at best, lower middle class salaries.
The syndrome is not confined to USC. The San Jose Mercury-News used data from the federal government’s College Scoreboard to point out the absurdity of spending so much to obtain jobs that pay so little.
“Students in Stanford University’s English program can expect to earn roughly $24,000 two years after graduating from the prestigious, private university,” the newspaper reported. “Just down the street, students who earn a two-year associate’s degree through Foothill College in allied health diagnostic, intervention and treatment professions can expect to make about $113,000.
“Philosophy majors at highly selective UC Berkeley can expect to earn about $21,000 shortly after graduation — after shelling out more than $15,000 a year for the degree. At Cal State East Bay, in Hayward, which costs about $11,000 a year to attend, students who earn a bachelor’s degree in construction management can bank on making about $80,000.”
Meanwhile, the men and women who opted out of college to become skilled workers such as plumbers, mechanics or electricians find themselves in demand and earn much more than college-educated contemporaries who are drowning in student debt.<<
Paying so much to earn so little
The absurdity of diploma creep is captured in recent newspaper articles about what’s happening in California.
www.ocregister.com
Let me share a program I love and support.
mikeroweWORKS Foundation
America is profoundly disconnected. We’re working to change that.
www.mikeroweworks.org
This Old House joined in, creating Generation Next with Mike Rowe
Generation NEXT: How to Get Involved
Learn more about how to share, participate, contribute and support our initiative to increase the pipeline of skilled tradespeople
www.thisoldhouse.com
College is good, for some folks!
But there are other options.
Plenty of Health Care Workers are needed, and Community Colleges are a great low cost option. or you can go with trade like schools. West Coast College on Manchester next to the DLR is one option.
Last edited: