-
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
TP2000
Well-Known Member
That's a great question for the Living Wage proponents here.
Although it still hasn't been explained to me how the following Living Wage! scenarios play out...
I wander in off Ball Road to TDA's employment center looking for a job as a churro vendor. I'm a 19 year old guy taking classes at Fullerton Junior College (Go Hornets!) and still living at home with my parents in Anaheim Hills. Do I get $24 per hour because that's the Living Wage for a childless adult in OC? Or do I get less because I don't have rent? But what if I get an apartment with my buddies a few months later?
I wander in off Ball Road to TDA's employment center looking for a job as a churro vendor. I'm a 32 year old unmarried woman with a 7 year old child living in a 2 Bedroom apartment in Santa Ana. Do I get $42 per hour because that's the Living Wage for a single parent with one child? What if I get married a year from now, does my Living Wage from Disneyland decrease because of my new joint income?
I wander in off Ball Road to TDA's employment center looking for a job as a churro vendor. I'm a 44 year old married man with a wife and two kids living in a 2 Bedroom apartment in Anaheim. Do I get $51 per hour because that's the Living Wage for a head of household with two children? What if my wife gets pregnant a few months after I start selling churros for $51 per hour? Do I automatically get an $8 per hour raise to keep my Living Wage appropriate for a married man with three kids instead of two?
How does it work for those who get paid on commission?
For example, H&R Block will pay you minimum wage, or if you work hard and upsell, you get a percentage of what you bring in. The more years you work, the higher the percentage is, which retains the employee and the customers who come back to that employee.
And then there is the Union take on Tips... Disney doesn't pay the tip/service charge, the guest/customer does!
But, Disney creates the opportunity to serve that guest, and brings in the type of guest that will tip a higher dollar than say, the Denny's.
Or say a Police Officer. Should the officer in charge of issuing parking tickets (small risk of losing their life) get paid the same as a SWAT officer, who has a much higher risk?
A window cleaner. One who does houses compared to the ones who work on Skyscrapers?
It isn't just your skill, but what times and places you will perform them.
For example, H&R Block will pay you minimum wage, or if you work hard and upsell, you get a percentage of what you bring in. The more years you work, the higher the percentage is, which retains the employee and the customers who come back to that employee.
And then there is the Union take on Tips... Disney doesn't pay the tip/service charge, the guest/customer does!
But, Disney creates the opportunity to serve that guest, and brings in the type of guest that will tip a higher dollar than say, the Denny's.
Or say a Police Officer. Should the officer in charge of issuing parking tickets (small risk of losing their life) get paid the same as a SWAT officer, who has a much higher risk?
A window cleaner. One who does houses compared to the ones who work on Skyscrapers?
It isn't just your skill, but what times and places you will perform them.
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
I don't have time to type the entire story right now, but when I get the chance, I'll relate why, when I lived in Germany, a small American manufacturing firm was in the process of winding down their stateside operations while expanding their presence in the small Hessian town where by coincidence I happened to live. The short answer- the owner couldn't recruit and maintain the type of skilled labor he needed in the US to keep up with his orders.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.<<
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 tradespeoplewww.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.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Teamster votes (covering Attractions/Parking) came back 75% no. By the way the contracts are split, DCA came back YES and DL came back No. Looks like Disney is going to have to pony up a better offer.
Why should someone have to pay for education in this country? You want to sit there and tout the benefits of education, how important it is to study hard and work hard to get a better job, and then deny people that opportunity just based on money alone?
Perhaps you just had it much better off than most, to not realize that some people have to make a choice dailyl between eating/staying alive and making any progress in the world.
Why should someone have to pay for education in this country? You want to sit there and tout the benefits of education, how important it is to study hard and work hard to get a better job, and then deny people that opportunity just based on money alone?
Perhaps you just had it much better off than most, to not realize that some people have to make a choice dailyl between eating/staying alive and making any progress in the world.
DavidDL
Well-Known Member
In a perfect world we'd have less folks drowning in debt to begin with but to throw a quick answer your way; arguably, no, as to maintain consistency with a previous statement of mine regarding risk vs. reward. I think a living wage should be a baseline for those choosing to play it safe but whom also choose to contribute something to society by working a full time job position.
Those who choose to spring for secondary education are either doing so for a position that certainly needs it and will pay well once it's completed (doctor, lawyer, etc.) or doing so with something riskier like an arts degree. In either case, students with debt actually have options to adjust how much they're made to pay each month, already. A living wage that they may or may not be forced to retreat to in the event of failure would just mean the option to pay more of that adjusted debt payment off at time than they would have before when their only option may be poverty level wages.
But, again, in a perfect world, we'd be educating individuals about the realities of the debt they'd be accruing for the degree they're attempting to achieve and not allowing so many for profits to sucker in folks who will be left destitute. Investing in secondary education to become something like a lawyer or doctor is a pretty solid investment provided you have what it takes to complete it.
Scenario 1) The 19 year old gets paid whatever the agreed upon living wage is OC provided they are hired to work a full time, 40 hour work week. Their status as a student has no bearing on the situation and doesn't raise or lower what they are paid (unless of course they end up using that education to move up in the company down the line). Them having the good fortune of having loving parents willing to let them live at home is unrelated to the situation at all. If this individual hires on for a part time position, then no. They'd be subject to whatever part time wage Disney is offering. Which sort of makes the entire scenario moot because Disney hires in part time for positions like a churro vendor. They would only offer this individual a full time role as a churro vendor or other outdoor vending CM once they've proven they're one of the better or most reliable vendors the resort has to offer (which is the way Disneyland has always handled part to full time conversions). At which point, they deserve the living wage.
Scenario 2) Again, wandering in off Ball road for a job as a churro vendor at Disneyland is at best, going to afford this individual a part time position. Which means whatever the minimum wage is or whatever Disney feels is appropriate for part time work. -and again, if this individual works for and earns the ability to go full time, they earn the individual, baseline living wage, at least. It's also impossible to know in this pretend scenario if this individual has worked hard enough to become full time and in the process, had their position promoted to something like a lead/manager or if they've remained a frontline outdoor vendor of some kind. But if a single parent is struggling in this scenario, then they'd probably be looking for more immediate full time work to begin with. Additionally, this individual has rental assistance and other programs available to them for which they may qualify for if they can't pay their bills with what they are making alone. If they get married and their total income is adjusted, then they'd simply not qualify for those assistance programs any longer.
Scenario 3) *insert comment once again about how wandering in off the street is likely to only yield a part time position to begin with* If they go full time, then they are paid whatever the appropriate individual living wage is for their newly acquired role (hint, it's probably not going to be $51). If it is effectively the same role as before without any additional tasks (no promotion), then they get whatever the agreed upon baseline living wage for the area is, for an individual. If they took on additional roles or were promoted in the process of going full time, then they get more than that. Regardless of the amount of children they have. Additionally, in this scenario, you have a wife who is capable of providing additional income, especially if child care options are expanded for those working full time (again, in a perfect world). -and if for some reason she is physically unable to or has another legitimate reason keeping her from helping to provide, then assistance programs should be made available to those who need it.
In short:
An individual works a full time job with minimum 40 hour work week at a company as large as Disney -> That individual should have access to basic benefits and should be paid, at least, whatever the calculated living wage is for that area, for one.
flynnibus
Premium Member
and if this is anyone at Disney… get the hell out of there. Anyone who gives up extra hours everyday just to work at disney while fighting for each meal needs freaking intervention. You don’t need disney in your life.
disney has so many requirements that drain from the employee that you don’t need at other jobs (offsite parking etc). If you fight to get 30hrs and are fighting for each meal…. Get the F away from disney.
el_super
Well-Known Member
Yeah but for what it's worth, that includes a lot of people not just at Disney.
All of that is true, but that should be enough cause for Disney to pay employees more than just the minimum to work there.
DavidDL
Well-Known Member
According to an update to from Micechat today, it looks like the vote that happened yesterday will fail. Is my understanding of the following image they posted correct?
Because my understanding of the above paper is that by voting "Yes", they would have received an immediate $2 increase, with a third dollar to follow in 2023. Does this mean CMs were unhappy with being a year behind? Ballot L promises that third dollar by 2022.
I also read into the Ballot a bit more and noticed that there are, in fact, exceptions that can be made for smaller hospitality businesses when it comes to steady increases that help combat the cost of living in the area:
"Under Measure L, a small business could apply for an exemption if compliance would be likely to "reduce its workforce by more than 20 percent, to curtail its Employees' total work hours by more than 30 percent, to close its business or to seek protection from its creditors under federal or state law." A business would be able to apply for an exemption with the city manager's office, and appeals could be made within 14 days of receiving a decision from the city manager."
-and of course, those smaller businesses probably employing a bunch of part timers and not receiving city subsidies aren't affected by it to begin with.
Because my understanding of the above paper is that by voting "Yes", they would have received an immediate $2 increase, with a third dollar to follow in 2023. Does this mean CMs were unhappy with being a year behind? Ballot L promises that third dollar by 2022.
I also read into the Ballot a bit more and noticed that there are, in fact, exceptions that can be made for smaller hospitality businesses when it comes to steady increases that help combat the cost of living in the area:
"Under Measure L, a small business could apply for an exemption if compliance would be likely to "reduce its workforce by more than 20 percent, to curtail its Employees' total work hours by more than 30 percent, to close its business or to seek protection from its creditors under federal or state law." A business would be able to apply for an exemption with the city manager's office, and appeals could be made within 14 days of receiving a decision from the city manager."
-and of course, those smaller businesses probably employing a bunch of part timers and not receiving city subsidies aren't affected by it to begin with.
DavidDL
Well-Known Member
Sorry for quoting you so late in the game, Josh. I'm late to this thread. But I just wanted to say, well said! Emphasis on the "full-time" and "individual" bits.
RobWDW1971
Well-Known Member
Cool. So you're saying if a single mother of 4 kids works 40 hours/week as a churro vendor and makes $19.22/hour, we are all happy here and nobody will complain to Disney about her wages, ability to pay for childcare, etc, etc. etc.? That is all on her, correct?
Just want to make sure I understand what you and Josh are saying: Anybody paid $19.22 in a 40 hours/week job is good to go, regardless of their education, student loan debt, family obligations, and other numerous personal choices and the "living wage" box is fully checked in terms of their employer?
Oh, and also, that $19.22 calculation assumes a wage only job. So we need to deduct the value of all benefits, park tickets, discounts, etc. to get the comparable wage.
Last edited:
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Okay, that's actually very helpful. Previously, for weeks here and from multiple people advocating for a "Living Wage", almost all of them refused to say what that wage actually was. Was it $20? Was it $51? We had no idea because no one would go on record saying what they thought a CM "Living Wage" was per hour.
I was starting to suspect that all the number keys on their keyboards had been removed.
According to MIT, the Living Wage for a single, childless adult living in Orange County is currently $22.44 per hour.
I will begin using that wage rate here for discussion purposes.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Measure L doesn't apply to Disneyland, so I'm not sure why it would be a factor in any of this current contract negotiation for this specific union.
Measure L only applies to two businesses in Anaheim; the new JWMarriott Hotel that employs about 250 people and the new Westin Hotel that employs about 400 people. No other business in Anaheim, large or small, is regulated by Measure L language or its law.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
So, according to Disneyland's job website, Attractions CM's currently start at $15.45 per hour. This contract proposal would give them the following wage rates, using the lowest paid Attractions CM's with almost no seniority as an example (higher seniority CM's would earn more);
- $17.45 per hour, effective immediately
- Backdated pay of $1 as of 6/16 (Ex; a check for $600 if you'd worked 30 hours a week since June)
- $18.45 per hour, beginning 18 months from now in June '23
- Bonus checks of betweeen $500 to $2,000, depending on seniority
RobWDW1971
Well-Known Member
Shhhhhhhhh.....
Isn't it eerily quiet in here once somebody actually posts "living wage" numbers and people realize that DL employees (adjusted for all of their benefits, discounts, etc.) are already in striking distance of this mythical target that will fundamentally transform their lives?
Apparently the issue is solved, these people are making their "fair" wage, have no more claims against their employers, and we can all move on.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
So what happened with this? I've lost track and can't find anything in the media for the last two weeks. Did the contract pass?
I honestly can't see Disneyland management improving what was already their "last and final" offer.
That's Negotiation 101 that you never change what was labeled as "last and final", or else you won't be believed again and enter into negotiatons in a weaker position when the contract gets negotiated again in a few years.
Apparently. Or not? I never saw any mention in the media that this particular contract for this particular union was ratified.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Quoting you again because it's such a valid point, and apparently in another thread this particular union still hasn't ratified their contract. There is another vote on the contract today (December 3rd), but I find it weird that no one is talking about it.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
So apparently the contract passed yesterday. Kids will be getting $18.50 an hour to be ride operators and street sweepers. Living Wage!
www.ocregister.com
Disneyland employees vote for union contract, avoid strike
The tentative agreement endorsed by Master Services Council leadership raises minimum pay from $15.50 to $18.50 per hour — a 19% increase.
www.ocregister.com
SuddenStorm
Well-Known Member
So apparently the contract passed yesterday. Kids will be getting $18.50 an hour to be ride operators and street sweepers. Living Wage!
Disneyland employees vote for union contract, avoid strike
The tentative agreement endorsed by Master Services Council leadership raises minimum pay from $15.50 to $18.50 per hour — a 19% increase.
So I guess we can wait another two years or so for the same conversation to start up again?