Disney Union Workers Rally for Better Pay

[PhotoDave219]

How can you say it should not include stock? Would you rather just have the top executive make a salary and not have any personal stake in whether the company does well or not?

Also it's revenue growth into a territory that the Disney brand could not be successfully introduced. They can utilize different brands across all their businesses, do you really think a Disney comic book can be introduced and compete with Marvel? There is no way, they are two totally different brands but they compliment each other. Its better to buy Marvel and then build Marvel rides in the the parks than to try and make Disney comic books targeted at that kind of market. We've seen this strategy be extremely successful with Lucas in the past and now that they own it and don't have to pay licensing fees we will see more.

You can tell by Bob's compensation package that he believes in the company's long term prospects - this is not a cut & run CEO, he has big bucks invested in the company well beyond his tenure. That's what you want to look for in a management team.

How can I say it?

Very easy.

I open my laptop. I push some keys and VOILA! I said it.

Thats how.

 

[BigThunderMatt]

The two errors that I see repeated in this thread are the mistaken belief that pay motivates employees and that Disney doesn't already have the ability to pull quality employees.

Pay may not be the sole motivator, but it's a lot easier to swallow a job that can be insanely stressful and challenging at times if you're at least getting paid enough to make a decent living off of it.

So many people on here decry what Cast Members do as easy work not deserving of anything more than what they're currently paid, but yet they expect (and rightly so for the prices Disney charges) service that you would expect at only the most world-class of establishments. I, for one, would like to see these same individuals spend a day doing what a Cast Member does. If you could honestly see the sense of entitlement and often unrealistic expectations of the guests they are put there to serve, along with the expectations of what these same Cast Members are to do which is often times deserving of a far higher pay grade than what many outsiders and Disney itself actually place them in, many opinions would likely change.

There is very much an internal conflict for many of these individuals who have to make a choice between making a solid living or working at a place that even during the most difficult times they actually enjoy being a part of. Disney is making money hand over fist, and much of it comes at the expense of people like those found on these forums. I don't think it's asking for much for Disney to share a little bit more of that wealth with these same people that so many of you expect to make your vacation extra MAGICal.

 

[Cesar R M]

While I feel some executives may be grossly overpaid, Bob Iger's pay is mainly options. AKA performance based pay. Ironically enough something unions are always fighting against for their workers.

I don't have any opinion on how much he gets paid, but you have to give credit where credit is due. In the past 10 years with his leadership the company has literally doubled its worth, and Disney wasn't exactly small when he became CEO. His plan with the studio alone has made the company so much more successful: by buying Pixar and Marvel, Disney has been cranking out hit after hit after hit and the box office revenues, DVD revenues, and merch revenues have made him worth it. And now orchestrating the Lucasfilm purchase as well it will be the same with Star Wars.
He has made Disney by far the biggest success story in Hollywood today and that's got to be worth something.

Marvel was going to be hit after hit, regardless if Iger obtained it or not.

For the amount of money he is compensated, we deserve better performance. His growth has been through acquisition, rather than growing the businesses he has.

Disney is not cranking out hits, Marvel Studios is.

This is why CEO compensation should not include stock.

Agree fully with you.

Unsure about the compensation.
But I think they should get normal salary and after certain amount of years.. stock.
this is to prevent those CEOS who want to sell quick buy quick and do things quick. All to artificially rise the stock market and cash "for the now", leaving the company in the ruin as soon they left with their hefty bonuses.

The two errors that I see repeated in this thread are the mistaken belief that pay motivates employees and that Disney doesn't already have the ability to pull quality employees.

You really think that those employees who work their and go above the line of duty (in their jobs), are just wanting hugs and backpats? They want to rise to get better pay and better jobs!!.

 

[xstech25]

"Marvel was going to be hit after hit, regardless if Iger obtained it or not."

Right, i'd say thats a good reason to buy something and deserves to be recognized for making a great decision.

 

[xstech25]

But I think they should get normal salary and after certain amount of years.. stock.
this is to prevent those CEOS who want to sell quick buy quick and do things quick. All to artificially rise the stock market and cash "for the now", leaving the company in the ruin as soon they left with their hefty bonuses.

Clearly you didn't read the part where I said

"You can tell by Bob's compensation package that he believes in the company's long term prospects - this is not a cut & run CEO, he has big bucks invested in the company well beyond his tenure. That's what you want to look for in a management team. People that just want to make a salary and have no ownership are the ones you need to look out for."

 

[PhotoDave219]

"Marvel was going to be hit after hit, regardless if Iger obtained it or not."

Right, i'd say thats a good reason to buy something and deserves to be recognized for making a great decision.

Thats like crediting someone for the sun rising.

I'm not going to repeat my criticisms of Iger. Theyre in here.... somewhere. They're legit and go across all business units from ESPN to consumer products.

Short version: We should be doing better.

And the theme parks only a mature business only due to a lack of reinvestment in them. (See @ParentsOf4 excellent explainer on that elsewhere)

 

[PhotoDave219]

Clearly you didn't read the part where I said

No I read it. I just find your opinion useless.

 

[xstech25]

I'm not crediting Iger for making Marvel movies, i'm crediting him for making a move that clearly has increased the companies value by a lot. It's not Iger's job to make movies, that's what people like JJ Abrams and Steven Spielberg do, it's Iger's job to manage people and capitol in ways that are going to make money and grow the company ethically & legally. And considering in 2014 Disney was the #1 most admired entertainment company in pretty much all publications, i'd say he's doing a pretty good job. The fact that the company makes a lot of money is healthy and you're trying to pawn it off as some big sin.

 

[dadddio]

Pay doesn't motivate employees? Really? I rather thought the reason most people had a job was indeed to bring home a paycheck at the end of the week.
So then - what

It's fairly well researched. I'm guessing that you were not a business major. Still, a quick google could walk you through it.

You really think that those employees who work their and go above the line of duty (in their jobs), are just wanting hugs and backpats? They want to rise to get better pay and better jobs!!.

It should also be noted that many people aren't arguing that employees be given the opportunity to work hard and earn advancement to better paying jobs. They are instead making the flawed argument that the employees should be paid more and that will somehow result in their doing better work.

 

[Matt_Black]

Disney is not cranking out hits

The success of Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, and especially Frozen might suggest otherwise.

 

[Cesar R M]

The success of Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, and especially Frozen might suggest otherwise.

Isnt Frozen and Wreck it Ralph more related to Lesseter and the Pixar influence than actually Disney Studios?

I mean, many people blasted both Tangled and Princess and the Frog ( I loved both ) for not being close to "Disney quality".

 

[xstech25]

Isnt Frozen and Wreck it Ralph more related to Lesseter and the Pixar influence than actually Disney Studios

Heres the thing: it doesn't matter...and who cares? They are Disney movies, everyone knows them as Disney movies, and Lasseter runs the Disney studio now as well as the Pixar studio.

I mean, many people blasted both Tangled and Princess and the Frog ( I loved both ) for not being close to "Disney quality".

I've never heard that from anyone, and Tangled is one of the most successful movies of all time from a consumer products standpoint.

 

[Matt_Black]

Isnt Frozen and Wreck it Ralph more related to Lesseter and the Pixar influence than actually Disney Studios?

I mean, many people blasted both Tangled and Princess and the Frog ( I loved both ) for not being close to "Disney quality".

Well, true, since Lasseter took over with Meet the Robinsons, Disney Animated films have been improving both commercially and critically. Still, many of those films had been kicked around Disney Animated long before the Pixar Brain Trust came in (Wreck-It Ralph was initially pitched in the late 80s). I think it would be both disingenuous and remarkably disrespectful to the long-time WDAS employees to suggest that the studio's current success is due solely to the Pixar merger.

 

[Cesar R M]

Well, true, since Lasseter took over with Meet the Robinsons, Disney Animated films have been improving both commercially and critically. Still, many of those films had been kicked around Disney Animated long before the Pixar Brain Trust came in (Wreck-It Ralph was initially pitched in the late 80s). I think it would be both disingenuous and remarkably disrespectful to the long-time WDAS employees to suggest that the studio's current success is due solely to the Pixar merger.

But pitched doesn't means that an script is done..
I mean.. they need the product to be finished, produced and with a winning combination made of director, voice actors, animators..etc..

Heres the thing: it doesn't matter...and who cares? They are Disney movies, everyone knows them as Disney movies, and Lasseter runs the Disney studio now as well as the Pixar studio.


I've never heard that from anyone, and Tangled is one of the most successful movies of all time from a consumer products standpoint.

Thats what baffles me. What is exactly "Winning Disney quality".
Remember that many times Pixar films won just because they were pixar.. (or disney) not exactly for their quality. (I remember we talked about this before in another thread, about how many voters voted for Frozen just because "it is disney" and they never gave the other films a chance).

 

[Matt_Black]

But pitched doesn't means that an script is done..
I mean.. they need the product to be finished, produced and with a winning combination made of director, voice actors, animators..etc..

Well, let's look at one of the two directors of Frozen, Chris Buck. His tenure with Walt Disney Animation goes back to The Fox and the Hound. As a director, he was responsible for Tarzan which, until Tangled, was the #3 highest money maker from WDAS, right behind Aladdin and Lion King.

 

[seascape]

Saying Disney can afford to pay more is not the point. I agree Disney can pay a little more than their 10.10 offer. So what. I do not to think they should pay a lot more just because they can afford if. They should pay more than Universal because they should have the best employees and treat them that way. What I would like to see them offer is free company paid vacations for cast members who provide exceptional service and get a certain amount of customer feed back. Cast members who receive constant positive complements should get a vacation just as great as the one they give us. I know this goes against what unions negotiate but it is what Disney should give it's best and most wonderful cast members.

 

[Chip off the Dale]

Kinda mute in the points offered but since Disneyverse is not investing in its parks...its life blood, its kinda pointless to think they would/could/should invest in its CM's too. Frustrating no doubt, but as pointed out the pay is consistant with industry, they have some perks for working for D, business is always gonna be business it is about the profits in the end, its how the world goes round...

 

[Figment2005]

Pay doesn't motivate employees? Really? I rather thought the reason most people had a job was indeed to bring home a paycheck at the end of the week.

So then - what in your view does motivate employees?

Pay will bring employees but by no means does it guarantee job performance. All that higher pay guarantees is the want for higher pay.

 

[rael ramone]

For the amount of money he is compensated, we deserve better performance. His growth has been through acquisition, rather than growing the businesses he has.

Disney is not cranking out hits, Marvel Studios is.

This is why CEO compensation should not include stock.

When I go to vote my shares for the various equities that I own, I look to see if they have 'stock-options' as part of compensation. If yes, then I don't care what else is in the 'executive compensation package' - I vote against it.

CEO's should be owners of equity shares of the businesses they lead - via purchasing those shares on the open market at full market price (following all laws regarding when legal insiders can buy those shares of course).

Little Johnny who has a single framed share of $DIS hanging on his wall shouldn't own more vested shares than the Weaterman...

 

[PhotoDave219]

When I go to vote my shares for the various equities that I own, I look to see if they have 'stock-options' as part of compensation. If yes, then I don't care what else is in the 'executive compensation package' - I vote against it.

CEO's should be owners of equity shares of the businesses they lead - via purchasing those shares on the open market at full market price (following all laws regarding when legal insiders can buy those shares of course).

Little Johnny who has a single framed share of $DIS hanging on his wall shouldn't own more vested shares than the Weaterman...

I think that when you have stock as the primary compensation for CEO, that leads to issues when it's a creative company.

When you're making quaker oats, that's fine. Are you looking at his return of investment, profit and loss, and the whatnot that goes along with it. Balance sheets and other things that MBAs talk about over there three martini lunches and power suits discussing which chick they roofied that weekend… but I digress.

When you're talking a creative company like Disney, you don't get an instant return on your investment. These things take time to build. It takes time for the company to grow organically and when you have nothing but layoffs, belt-tightening, and cost increases just to make your books look better, it's not going to give you a long-term return.

Disney should be positioning itself as a long-term growth stock, something that you're going to get a good return on your investment but not for a year or two. No more of this quarter to quarter & short term ROI guano. No more being Wall Street's lapdog.

That's not the CEOs best financial interest when his compensation is based solely on the stock price. You change the compensation, and it's now about the best interests of the company from a long-term perspective.