Disney Union Workers Rally for Better Pay

rael ramone

Well-Known Member
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.

Which is why I believe CEO's should have a mass quanity of fully priced vested shares in their portfolio - all acquired at market price according to SEC insider rules - none 'granted' as part of compensation.

Pay them an appropriate amount of compensation (in cash) in line with the entire corporate payscale. And expect them to spend some of that compensation in buying shares of said company on the open market - and hold them long term. Incentivise them supporting sustainable, long term growth built on a firm foundation.
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
Which is why I believe CEO's should have a mass quanity of fully priced vested shares in their portfolio - all acquired at market price according to SEC insider rules - none 'granted' as part of compensation.

Pay them an appropriate amount of compensation (in cash) in line with the entire corporate payscale. And expect them to spend some of that compensation in buying shares of said company on the open market - and hold them long term. Incentivise them supporting sustainable, long term growth built on a firm foundation.

Okay were totally heading for the same direction and wanting the same things…

One would think for a communication and entertainment company, the executives would do better job of communicating their goals to the public and Wall Street…
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
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?
Reward is the answer. If unions have a major flaw it is that they cannot do provisions that allow employers to reward individuals for outstanding service. In that line unions are Managements best friend.

Back in my time, the dark ages, an employer provided a job. The employee provided their own motivation based on if they do better (or more, if you like) then there would be a reward for that in the form of more pay or general promotion. That has switched around to the point where an employee says, "you pay me more money and I will give you a better attitude". That is what used to be the measure of an employees worth, not the employers. Employers in the past, looked at attitude as a basic part of the job description. Those who brought a good attitude to the game were spotlighted. Those with lousy attitude were checked off as slightly useful, but not worth fighting for. If they left, they left, no one cared. What most do not seem to understand is even though it is no longer used to promote, it still affects how they feel about individual employees.

Now, in this world of everyone gets a trophy, even if you have a highly motivated person, they cannot be recognized to any real degree without incurring the wrath of perhaps more seniority or those that just have an overdeveloped opinion of self-worth. So the result is a situation where everything is stagnant. No one can move unless they add something to their resume that changes the vision of what their skills might be. If no one makes that initiative then no one advances. Waiting for management to recognize them as special goes on unfulfilled.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Moderate

Well-Known Member
This attitude is a dangerous one for anyone that cares about the quality of the parks. If Disney equates their quick service workers, retail workers and housekeepers with those of "everyone else within the hospitality industry" (and pays accordingly), does that mean we should expect employees of a quality consistent with those of McDonalds, Walmart, and Motel 6? Disney certainly isn't charging prices consistent of those places, and they've built a national brand based on the idea of offering more.

Disney should pay more than these other places because they DON'T hire just anyone. They hire (or should hire) people capable of delivering the best in the hospitality field and should pay accordingly.


Damn good post and I agree with you here. His terrible, short sighted attitude would make the parks look and run like Six Flags and look how poorly they have been doing. Not just anybody can work the parks and resorts and you want quality people in those positions. Especially with the high prices Disney charges the guests and the promises they make about premium service from their people. I hate how some misguided posters throw around the term "burger flipper" and lump everyone who works in a service job, in that category. I'll bet the CM who maintains the high speed, complex ride he's getting on, appreciates being viewed as nothing more than a disposable person not worthy of respect.

Ya know there's a reason why Walmart is such a miserable place to work for or to shop in. The whole experience can be traced to the fact is that Walmart treats their employees like garbage and pays them like it too. The attitude from the top down is why the employees look miserable, customer service sucks, the stores look dirty, and it makes for an unpleasant experience. Yet Costco starts their new employees off at almost $12 bucks and hour and even the part timers are offered benefits. The stores are great looking, the experience is always pleasant, and I feel good shopping at a place where the employees aren't treated like the disposable "burger flippers".

Look at Aldi foods who are the original bargain, discount grocery chain, starts their employees off at $12 hour too, gives regular pay raises, and offers benefits as well. I've know people who work there and they have nothing but great things to say about the company. Hmm, Aldi still manages to keep their prices low, yet pays and treats their employees with respect.

Gee, I wonder if there's a correlation between how Aldi and Costco does business and why they're viewed as good places to work and the customers love their stores?
 

The Crafty Veteran

Active Member
A quick search through Craigslist and multiple job finder website and you can find literally hundreds of general labor- no/low experience jobs paying more than Disney in Orlando. I wonder if Disney is kidnapping people to work for them?

Also a second shift manager position with responsibility of other people starts at $8.75 with a national branded hotel chain much bigger than Disney in terms of built hotels. And this is considered Disney's fault?
 

wm49rs

A naughty bit o' crumpet
Premium Member
A quick search through Craigslist and multiple job finder website and you can find literally hundreds of general labor- no/low experience jobs paying more than Disney in Orlando. I wonder if Disney is kidnapping people to work for them?

Also a second shift manager position with responsibility of other people starts at $8.75 with a national branded hotel chain much bigger than Disney in terms of built hotels. And this is considered Disney's fault?
Who said anything was Disney's fault?
 

wm49rs

A naughty bit o' crumpet
Premium Member
It was said earlier, but someone, that Disney created Theme Parks and set the level for pay. Everyone else just followed them. I'm not sure I buy into that, but that is what was said.
Not sure how that applies to a "national branded hotel chain".....
 

CDavid

Well-Known Member
Also a second shift manager position with responsibility of other people starts at $8.75 with a national branded hotel chain much bigger than Disney in terms of built hotels. And this is considered Disney's fault?

It was said earlier, but someone, that Disney created Theme Parks and set the level for pay. Everyone else just followed them. I'm not sure I buy into that, but that is what was said.

As the largest single hospitality (and related) industry employer, Disney sort of sets an unofficial standard by which competitor pay scales may be judged. If Walt Disney World were, for instance, paying $12 an hour for a second-shift hotel manager, then the "national branded chain" would likely have trouble filling its positions at just $8.75 (assuming roughly equal job descriptions, benefits, and responsibilities).

That doesn't make anything Disney's fault; I think what was being suggested was that if Disney paid significantly better, then other employers might have to raise their pay scales (or other benefits) to keep up.


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


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.


Reward is the answer. If unions have a major flaw it is that they cannot do provisions that allow employers to reward individuals for outstanding service. In that line unions are Managements best friend.

Back in my time, the dark ages, an employer provided a job. The employee provided their own motivation based on if they do better (or more, if you like) then there would be a reward for that in the form of more pay or general promotion. That has switched around to the point where an employee says, "you pay me more money and I will give you a better attitude". That is what used to be the measure of an employees worth, not the employers. Employers in the past, looked at attitude as a basic part of the job description. Those who brought a good attitude to the game were spotlighted. Those with lousy attitude were checked off as slightly useful, but not worth fighting for. If they left, they left, no one cared. What most do not seem to understand is even though it is no longer used to promote, it still affects how they feel about individual employees.

Now, in this world of everyone gets a trophy, even if you have a highly motivated person, they cannot be recognized to any real degree without incurring the wrath of perhaps more seniority or those that just have an overdeveloped opinion of self-worth. So the result is a situation where everything is stagnant. No one can move unless they add something to their resume that changes the vision of what their skills might be. If no one makes that initiative then no one advances. Waiting for management to recognize them as special goes on unfulfilled.

Yes, people are or should be seeking a reward (raise, promotion, etc.) for being a model employee and doing a good job. However, the reason they want a promotion or a raise generally isn't for the recognition itself (though that can play a role) but rather for the increased pay (wages) which results from it. While the saying that hard work should be its own reward does hold wisdom, more often people are chasing monetary rewards.

If amount of pay (or salary) does not provide motivation, as claimed, then why do salesman who work off commission (almost literally) jump through hoops to make a sale (ever seen an ambivalent used car or timeshare sales person?), or why do tipped employees strive to provide superior service? Merely providing higher pay does not directly lead employees to produce better results or work more effectively, but the opportunity to earn higher pay can indeed be a powerful motivator to work harder or better to obtain the desired 'reward' (higher pay).
 
Last edited:

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Yes, people are or should be seeking a reward (raise, promotion, etc.) for being a model employee and doing a good job. However, the reason they want a promotion or a raise generally isn't for the recognition itself (though that can play a role) but rather for the increased pay (wages) which results from it. While the saying that hard work should be its own reward does hold wisdom, more often people are chasing monetary rewards.

If amount of pay (or salary) does not provide motivation, as claimed, then why do salesman who work off commission (almost literally) jump through hoops to make a sale (ever seen an ambivalent used car or timeshare sales person?), or why do tipped employees strive to provide superior service? Merely providing higher pay does not directly lead employees to produce better results or work more effectively, but the opportunity to earn higher pay can indeed be a powerful motivator to work harder or better to obtain the desired 'reward' (higher pay).
That was my point, yes, pay is a motivation. If the presence of a union (just want to make sure that people know that I am not anti-union, I was a teamster once) has created a system that is gridlike. With certain pay for certain positions and there is no provision for individual increases based on noticeable effort to do the best job they can, then there will never be motivation other then to not get fired. That was expressed very well in the movie, Office Space.

Straight commission people have to be motivated or the literally starve to death. They can work there butts off and not get a sale (meaning no pay). Is anyone coming to their defense and saying that they should have a minimum pay that allows them to pay their bills. I'll answer that... absolutely not. Their reason for motivations is far more basic then an hourly employee, that will get paid something even if they spent 90% of their time picking their noses. If employees and employers are governed by specific rules there cannot be individual reward. It's a group reward system. United they stand or united they fall. It has guarantee's that they will probably have a job even if they do the minimum effort, but, it requires the proper attitude on that employee to get that jump in status. And even if they do put the effort in there are a number of contractual hurdles to get over before advancement can happen. I'm not saying that it is an overall bad thing, but, it certainly comes with many limitations.

If, for example, the pay agreed to in the contract for front line CM's is 10.00 per hour. Everyone in that position will be paid that same $10.00. In order to achieve a higher rate, an individual must be moved to a different job description and that can cause many seniority and other issues to surface. If they have a time in service provision, then if someone reaches 2 years the pay goes to 10.50, everyone that reaches 2 years regardless of their status (good or mediocre employee) they will all get the same increase. In the mean time if someone is doing work worthy of $15.00 per hour and there are no positions open at that pay scale they are stuck there in the lower rate even though they are good. Why? Because the contract will not allow compensations different from everybody else. It all has to be negotiated. The negotiation is everyone or no one.
 

jensenrick

Well-Known Member
The O Sentinel says starting wages at Universal Orlando are going up a dollar an hour. WDW can either keep up or fall behind- and we'll see if the employees who feel they CAN advance will want to stick around.
(we should really have "shrug" emoticon)
 

wogwog

Well-Known Member
The O Sentinel says starting wages at Universal Orlando are going up a dollar an hour. WDW can either keep up or fall behind- and we'll see if the employees who feel they CAN advance will want to stick around.
(we should really have "shrug" emoticon)
No comment about union or management position in the negotiations but just information. For weeks now WDW has been hiring Full Time, Part Time and Seasonal front line cast in big numbers. I understand the hiring of Full Time is "new" and had not been common for 5 or 6 years. As usual they are also having thousands of CP and ICP every year property wide. Another interesting number passed on to me is the projected attendance for June is 50k plus on all but 8 days or so in the MK. That is a very big crowd if you have no way to judge that number. I won't be going to MK any time soon.
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
A quick search through Craigslist and multiple job finder website and you can find literally hundreds of general labor- no/low experience jobs paying more than Disney in Orlando. I wonder if Disney is kidnapping people to work for them?

Also a second shift manager position with responsibility of other people starts at $8.75 with a national branded hotel chain much bigger than Disney in terms of built hotels. And this is considered Disney's fault?

That you're searching for a job on craigslist? No, thats not Disney's fault.

That Disney sets the market rates for employment in Orlando? Yes, that is their fault.
 

John

Well-Known Member
Here is the thing about all of this....there was a time when Disney did pay their employees excellent wages and had great benefits. The jobs there were coveted by the locals. It was the "Disney difference". They respected their employees. There was upward mobility, they treated their employees as they would treat their guest. But like everything else it has slipped. Just another symptom of declining by degrees. People would make careers working for TDO....not anymore. Now its a mere stepping stone to bigger and better things. Where as Disney at one time was the bigger and better thing. My mother worked there for 20 years, they eventually squeezed her out. basically gave her an ultimatum, retire or get fired. She was topped out as far as pay scale is concerned. The last time there was a union negotiation the Cm's received a very modest raise and two new pair of shoes. Seriously!

Like everywhere else in the work place we as workers are actually making less then we did previously. With healthcare cost rising, taxes and the cost of living rising what we have to live on is less and less. Our wages are not keeping pace. Its just exacerbated in Orlando where the wages are very low. Todays corporations look at their P&L sheets and see where the highest cost are and where they can make cuts. Labor is number one. IMO unions are basically useless today.

If the unions are so great how did it get so bad? Where were they when the free fall was taking place?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom