Disney, Universal win insurance waivers.....

[Wilt Dasney]

Barf! Class warfare. Bob Iger makes a lot of money so he should give it away. Guess what? Bob Iger makes a ton more money then I do and I don't mind...he doesn't need to give me a dime.

Without getting too heated on the issue, my basic point is Bob Iger only makes a lot of money because the company's board of directors has chosen to compensate its top executive through massive bonuses.

I think it's debatable that an executive who pulls in a $30 million bonus is actually worth a thousand times more to the company than a park employee making $30,000. He certainly doesn't work a thousand times harder.

If you look at the recent financial crisis, all you needed to do to make a massive bonus at some financial firms was steer your company to the brink of insolvency and wait for the government to bail you out. Is this a sensible method of compensating executives...or is it just the "way things are done?"

All I'm saying is this is a choice the company has made — not an immutable law of nature — so why should it be a sacred cow in discussions like this? We can say the money has to come from somewhere, but it seems like some places the money actually GOES are "no go" areas. Why should they be?

 

[lax3358]

Wilt Dasney your comment is part of the issue....

"I think it's debatable that an executive who pulls in a $30 million bonus is actually worth a thousand times more to the company than a park employee making $30,000. He certainly doesn't work a thousand times harder"

Maybe running a company with 45,000+ employees, hundreds of millions in budgets, property, etc., etc. isn't as physically grueling as working the counter at Casey's Corner for 10 hours on a daily basis but mentally.....it is 1,000,000 times harder.

In addition, to prepare oneself to be able to run a business of that magnitude costs lots of time and money (college, certifications, etc.) I don't believe the deep fryer at Casey's requires a business degree? That is why they tend to pay more.

In addition, as long as the millionaire in the corner office at my place of business is happy...guess what? So am I. If it wasn't for his capitol invested in the company I wouldn't have a job....that is a fact most people forget.

And you are correct about the financial crisis but what you and many others have missed is the fact that you don't have the list of tens of thousands of successful companies that are run by millionaires who have run them properly. I don't believe Disney got a bailout? If you want to debate an AIG or GM bonus I agree...take it all.

I get it....your suggestion is to take the money from Bob Iger as opposed to increasing tickets prices or the like.....because he makes a lot of money.

If you make more money then me will you buy my annual pass this year?

We agree to disagree....have a Merry Christmas!

 

[Wilt Dasney]

If you make more money then me will you buy my annual pass this year?

We agree to disagree....have a Merry Christmas!

Having been smartly corrected for a comment of mine, I'll return the favor on this one.

There's an undercurrent in your comments suggesting that I want Bob Iger to open up his bank account and give his own money away. I don't. Once he's received a check for any amount, it's his, and what he does with it is his business.

But BEFORE then, it's the company's money to do with as they choose. If they choose to give it to their CEO instead of to help their part time employees afford healthcare, then so be it...but it's not automatically his money. That's really my only point.

A (sincere) merry Christmas to you and yours as well.

 

[lax3358]

Darn....no annual pass.

And thanks for the Christmas cheer.....that's for free and we all should give it.

 

[Fuzz]

But BEFORE then, it's the company's money to do with as they choose. If they choose to give it to their CEO instead of to help their part time employees afford healthcare, then so be it...but it's not automatically his money. That's really my only point.

A (sincere) merry Christmas to you and yours as well.

Technically it is the shareholders money. They appointed a board of directors to decide who runs the company. If they don't like the CEO getting huge bonus then it is up to them to remove who ever it is.

At the end of this, it is Disney's money and they will do whatever they want with it at the end of the day no matter what we say here. Left/right, conservative/liberal it won't make a difference.

Either way I am heading to Disney tomorrow so it is all good!!!

 

[Skipper03]

No need to turn this into a flame war. I just don't understand how this could possible be a shame on Disney or Universal. They applied for a wavier allowing them to keep their cheaper health care option and it was granted to them. Yes it would be nice if they gave better health care but then at the cost of what. Disney has to answer to shareholders, so profits must be maintained. What will they cut then, refurbishments, new projects, employees, maintenance, etc? Or will they raise ticket prices making it more difficult to afford? The money has to come from somewhere.

Thank you! Totally agree...

 

[sbkline]

Hopefully this will all be a moot point in a year or so. If we're lucky, once the law in question reaches the Supreme Court, it will either be declared unconstitutional, or Congress will succeed in defunding it and torpedoing it once and for all.

Things cost money, and those costs trickle down. Because of this ridiculous and unconstitutional mandate to force everyone to purchase insurance and to prohibit insurance companies from not covering pre-existing conditions, insurance companies naturally have to skyrocket their premiums to make up for those they are forced to cover. So now, the employers have much higher insurance costs that they have to pay which leaves them having to make up for those costs somewhere. Either by laying people off, not giving raises, cutting their contributions to employee health insurance premiums, or finding ways to not provide insurance. Some may even determine that they are better off paying the fine than to comply with the law and provide insurance.

Forcing insurance companies to take customers with pre-existing conditions is like me choosing not to purchase vacation insurance. And then when someone in my family gets sick and we can't go on vacation, I try to purchase vacation insurance after the fact and demand that they provide it to me. At that point, it's no longer insurance. It then becomes a charity handout.

 

[Tom]

I believe this thread just became "political".

Thread Closed.

:lookaroun

 

[AEfx]

The "shame" on Disney and Universal is that they are asking for special treatment. Of course, in Florida they write their own tickets so they get away with it.

Agree on the law, disagree, irrelevant. Disney and Universal are employers, in a non-essential industry (they aren't making vaccines or saving lives) yet they get special treatment because they bring many tourists to the area. It's such a "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" scenario.

They should be held to the same standards as all employers. If people disagree with the law, fine, work to stop/change it, but I cannot congratulate the companies for getting a "waiver" letting them give less benefits than other companies are required to.

 

[AEfx]

I believe this thread just became "political".

Thread Closed.

:lookaroun

Can we stop with these comments, please? (Not just you, the repeated people who have said the same thing.)

It's these types of posts that escalate a thread. This is a perfectly valid discussion as it directly relates to Disney and what is currently going on in Disney News & Rumors. No one has argued yet, no one has yelled at anyone. We just have people posting every third post, "OOOOOOH I SMELL A FIRE!" and that is the only thing escalating at this time.

One can have a discussion about this without going into bad territory, anticipating it with rapt attention and glee is just as bad as the discussion being led down that path itself.

 

[wishesjake]

Hopefully this will all be a moot point in a year or so. If we're lucky, once the law in question reaches the Supreme Court, it will either be declared unconstitutional, or Congress will succeed in defunding it and torpedoing it once and for all.

Things cost money, and those costs trickle down. Because of this ridiculous and unconstitutional mandate to force everyone to purchase insurance and to prohibit insurance companies from not covering pre-existing conditions, insurance companies naturally have to skyrocket their premiums to make up for those they are forced to cover. So now, the employers have much higher insurance costs that they have to pay which leaves them having to make up for those costs somewhere. Either by laying people off, not giving raises, cutting their contributions to employee health insurance premiums, or finding ways to not provide insurance. Some may even determine that they are better off paying the fine than to comply with the law and provide insurance.

Forcing insurance companies to take customers with pre-existing conditions is like me choosing not to purchase vacation insurance. And then when someone in my family gets sick and we can't go on vacation, I try to purchase vacation insurance after the fact and demand that they provide it to me. At that point, it's no longer insurance. It then becomes a charity handout.

Ok, this may get this thing shut down, but I have to bring up a major hole in your argument. While insurance companies will have to pay out more money for those people with pre existing conditions, their cost will be more than offset by the individual mandate for health insurance. They will be making way more money because people will be forced to buy insurance. The excuse that insurance companies have to raise premiums because they will be losing money to those patients with pre-existing conditions is silly. Also, the amount of people with pre-existing conditions that have signed up in the high-risk pool is 8,000, and at the most it will grow to 35,000. Now, compare that with the 32 Million people who are now paying premiums to insurance companies and those companies are making out like bandits.

I oppose the bill and it may very well be unconstitutional, but please don't pretend that the insurance companies are the ones that will be hurting.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

 

[Fuzz]

The "shame" on Disney and Universal is that they are asking for special treatment. Of course, in Florida they write their own tickets so they get away with it.

They should be held to the same standards as all employers. If people disagree with the law, fine, work to stop/change it, but I cannot congratulate the companies for getting a "waiver" letting them give less benefits than other companies are required to.

If all employers are allowed to apply for a waiver then why would it be shame on Disney for applying and getting accepted? They followed the rules and the government granted it to them. Now if you think that is because of all the tourism(money) that Disney brings in to the area is the reason they got this wavier then maybe you need to direct your shame to the government who wrote in the waiver ability and then granted it to Disney.

In general not every sector of business is held to the same standard. To apply a general statement saying all employers have the same standard is incorrect.

 

[wishesjake]

If all employers are allowed to apply for a waiver then why would it be shame on Disney for applying and getting accepted? They followed the rules and the government granted it to them. Now if you think that is because of all the tourism(money) that Disney brings in to the area is the reason they got this wavier then maybe you need to direct your shame to the government who wrote in the waiver ability and then granted it to Disney.

In general not every sector of business is held to the same standard. To apply a general statement saying all employers have the same standard is incorrect.

Well put. Some businesses are make the community a better place by offering jobs, raising property values or just plain old bringing in the tourist cash. It makes fiscal sense to give those companies a break to encourage more businesses to come to the area. It's just like tax breaks for filming movies in certain areas.

 

[AEfx]

If all employers are allowed to apply for a waiver then why would it be shame on Disney for applying and getting accepted? They followed the rules and the government granted it to them. Now if you think that is because of all the tourism(money) that Disney brings in to the area is the reason they got this wavier then maybe you need to direct your shame to the government who wrote in the waiver ability and then granted it to Disney.

In general not every sector of business is held to the same standard. To apply a general statement saying all employers have the same standard is incorrect.

I guess we'll just have to disagree with that last statement, though I'll clarify - Disney and Universal should be held to the same standards as any other employer in their business sector - which is entertainment, food, and hotel service. So, Disney shouldn't be any different than McDonalds - both offer low-paying jobs without many skill requirements in most cases.

It's very true that it's a systematic issue, because the reason the clause is in there is due to companies like Disney and Universal who hire lobbyists to make it so. But that goes into larger issues with government that are beyond the scope of this board.

Disney and Universal should be subject to the same standards as any other business, however. The whole situation is wrong. The fact that a waiver exists at all is ridiculous (so why even bother having a law to begin with if it can be waived??) but the shameful part is that they already give crappy pay for jobs and they are trying to skirt benefits even more. I can't believe either Disney or Universal could hold their collective corporate heads up and say, "Yes, we want to make sure our employees are not compensated like those of other companies."

It's just like above where people say, "Don't like it, get a better job". And you know what? That's just what happened. Welcome to why we have the Disney "College Program" (cheap, temporary labor masquerading as an educational program) . The same people who say, "Get a better job then" are very often the same type of people who complain about the decline of service and quality of CM's. How anyone cannot see a correlation between those two is beyond me.

When someone can go and get a McJob where they don't have to adhere to such strict standards, can park their car a 30 second walk from where they work, not be expected to be "magical" all day, make more money, and now, if they have a part time job will have better benefits at said McJob than they will at Disney/Universal since they got a "waiver"...well, it's easy to see why we have the situation people constantly complain about the lack of quality CM's at WDW.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool old-fashioned New England, take-care-of-your-own-crap, if-you-don't-like-your-life-change-it, therapy-is-for-wimps-who-can't-handle-their-own-issues, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps kinda guy, but even I roll my eyes with the "get a better job" posts we see on a topic like this. Disney's quality of CM has gone down because people have done JUST what is suggested - they go get employment elsewhere who pay better and aren't as demanding. And that's why you hear about as often around here, "CM's aren't what they used to be" more often than you hear anything else. This is such a direct connection the only thing I can think of is that it's so obvious that some people miss it?

 

[Fuzz]

I guess we'll just have to disagree with that last statement, though I'll clarify - Disney and Universal should be held to the same standards as any other employer in their business sector - which is entertainment, food, and hotel service. So, Disney shouldn't be any different than McDonalds - both offer low-paying jobs without many skill requirements in most cases.

Disney and Universal should be subject to the same standards as any other business, however. The whole situation is wrong. The fact that a waiver exists at all is ridiculous (so why even bother having a law to begin with if it can be waived??) but the shameful part is that they already give crappy pay for jobs and they are trying to skirt benefits even more. I can't believe either Disney or Universal could hold their collective corporate heads up and say, "Yes, we want to make sure our employees are not compensated like those of other companies."

It's just like above where people say, "Don't like it, get a better job". And you know what? That's just what happened. Welcome to why we have the Disney "College Program" (cheap, temporary labor masquerading as an educational program) . The same people who say, "Get a better job then" are very often the same type of people who complain about the decline of service and quality of CM's. How anyone cannot see a correlation between those two is beyond me.

When someone can go and get a McJob where they don't have to adhere to such strict standards, can park their car a 30 second walk from where they work, not be expected to be "magical" all day, make more money, and now, if they have a part time job will have better benefits at said McJob than they will at Disney/Universal since they got a "waiver"...well, it's easy to see why we have the situation people constantly complain about the lack of quality CM's at WDW.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool old-fashioned New England, take-care-of-your-own-crap, if-you-don't-like-your-life-change-it, therapy-is-for-wimps-who-can't-handle-their-own-issues, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps kinda guy, but even I roll my eyes with the "get a better job" posts we see on a topic like this. Disney's quality of CM has gone down because people have done JUST what is suggested - they go get employment elsewhere who pay better and aren't as demanding. And that's why you hear about as often around here, "CM's aren't what they used to be" more often than you hear anything else. This is such a direct connection the only thing I can think of is that it's so obvious that some people miss it?

I see the comparison between Disney and McDonald in regards to salary paid to lower income jobs. In general terms they are both service type jobs. While at McJob they don't have to be "magical" but I don't believe Disney has had problem staffing their parks from people wanting to avoid the mouse because of high work standards.

Now I understand that not every low income worker can work a McJobs, but lets just say that the most talented low income workers are, leaving Disney with lower quality CMs then. I don't think Disney would be to blame for this as people continue to spend their money there even with Disney's lower quality CM that they employ. Magic Kingdom is still the most visited theme park right?

I understand the "everyone plays by the same rules" and while in theory that is great and would be awesome if that happened, we both know it won't. But again that is politics, both sides of politics, and just won't be solved.

My point in all of this is Disney hasn't broken laws in this so what shame should be placed on them? If it is just the shame of lobbying to get this placed in the bill and then using it to lower their standards, then we all might as well just shame every company and be done with it and continue on with our daily lives. Every company lobbies to get things their way, it is the system we live in.

If we don't like that, how about we start shaming the government then....

 

[Wilt Dasney]

While insurance companies will have to pay out more money for those people with pre existing conditions, their cost will be more than offset by the individual mandate for health insurance. They will be making way more money because people will be forced to buy insurance.

Exactly. The insurance companies didn't lobby against the healthcare bill precisely because of the individual mandate.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Disney's quality of CM has gone down because people have done JUST what is suggested - they go get employment elsewhere who pay better and aren't as demanding. And that's why you hear about as often around here, "CM's aren't what they used to be" more often than you hear anything else. This is such a direct connection the only thing I can think of is that it's so obvious that some people miss it?

Preach it, brother! I say this with only the slightest *hint* of sarcasm, but I would be very interested in seeing a Venn diagram of fans who 1.) line up behind Disney every time a story about a wage/benefit dispute comes up, and 2.) complain about how the CM's there just aren't as "magical" as they used to be. I'd genuinely like to see how much overlap there actually is.

 

[jrlbc06]

I guess we'll just have to disagree with that last statement, though I'll clarify - Disney and Universal should be held to the same standards as any other employer in their business sector - which is entertainment, food, and hotel service. So, Disney shouldn't be any different than McDonalds - both offer low-paying jobs without many skill requirements in most cases.

Mcdonald's also asked for and received a waiver.

I don't know if we're allowed to post outside links but a simple Google search of Mcdonald's health care waiver will bring up plenty of articles.

In fact, 222 companies have asked for and been granted waivers as of 12/3. The list is available on the Health and Human Services website.

The problem is that for these companies it's not a choice between keeping the status quo of health care coverage and granting the coverage required by the law. If the companies complied with the law and offered the higher coverage required, something else would have to give. In addition to a vastly increased amount of the employee's paycheck being withheld to pay for premiums, the companies would have to let go some of their workers in order to compensate the increased costs. It wouldn't be worth it to them to hire another employee, the marginal benefit obtained in labor would not offset the increased costs of benefits.

The market has already decided what each employee's contribution is 'worth' in terms of salary and benefits. If some external force inflates this value by increasing the costs of each employees benefits then salaries will go down. If this is not possible, employees will be fired and no new employees will be hired in order to compensate for the increased costs.

Some people don't want the cast members running rides worried about financial difficulties. That's understandable. Offering better health care coverage is not going to prevent financial difficulties. People making minimum wage are going to have financial difficulties. I don't want one person being responsible for checking lap belts on Space Mountain instead of the 2 or so they have now. But that's exactly what will happen if Disney is forced to offer better health care coverage as directed by the law.

 

[mgf]

Delete.

 

[brkgnews]

Delete.

You chose... wisely :lol: