News Disney World Cast Member unions to begin week of negotiations for wage increases, healthcare costs and more

[lentesta]

At a very simple level, you have a company that needs to ensure that wages are low*. There really isn't anything wrong with that. It isn't any different from going into a negotiation expecting the unions want wages to be high.

* to clarify low in this context, the company needs to ensure that that labor rates are offering the maximum value per dollar.

For the love of God. What does "need" mean? What does "maximum value per dollar" even mean?

Let me put it another way, using a specific example. Jeff Green's compensation was $834 million last year. How did the company ensure that Jeff's labor rate maximized value per dollar? How do we know $834 million was the lowest possible compensation they could've offered anyone, for the returns they got?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’m not sure I understand this argument, rather than homes retaining value you think they should depreciate like cars and become worth less over time?

How would that help anyone?

This idea would discourage re-investing in your home and rather than having thousands of nice neighborhoods full of older homes you’d have thousands of neighborhoods full of falling apart or condemned homes, which would then need to be bulldozed and thrown in a landfill.

I’d hate for a home to be a depreciating asset like a car, you’d still have the never ending price increases (being a depreciating asset hasn’t prevented car prices from skyrocketing) and you wouldn’t have the value of your previous home to offset the increased price of the next home. You’d be stuck with ever increasing payments every time you bought a new one, just like with cars.

What you propose sounds like everyone renting a home, that sounds horrible to me.

It’s not necessarily that a home depreciates but more stabilizes along break even.

People would still need to invest in their homes to keep them functioning and make them comfortable places to live. Despite what HGTV would have us believe, updates to houses are not what really drives value increases.

The big increases we see in value are due to the very scarcity you acknowledge is a problem. Increasing the housing supply means some level of depreciation or slowing down of value escalation. That’s the root issue of why people oppose more housing, because if it’s easier to get housing then their property value goes down.

 

[el_super]

For the love of God. What does "need" mean? What does "maximum value per dollar" even mean?

You're over complicating this for no real reason. How about this as a thought exercise: what do you expect the final result of the current labor negotiation will be, and try to work backwards on why you think that makes the most sense for both sides.

Let me put it another way, using a specific example. Jeff Green's compensation was $834 million last year. How did the company ensure that Jeff's labor rate maximized value per dollar?

Not a great example really. His compensation was mostly in the exercise of stock options no? What was his base salary ... the one the board actually agreed to give him? Might be a little muddled since he was also the founder of that company.

 

[lentesta]

Len, the limit on paying employees less is not being able to hire employees because better paying positions are open and available. Right now this condition currently exists in Orlando. If after this round of negotiations the pay is not what those employees need then it is on those employees to leave and take those better opportunities.

That's not how the world works. People accept worse-paying positions all the time, for all kinds of reasons.

 

[lentesta]

You're over complicating this for no real reason. How about this as a thought exercise: what do you expect the final result of the current labor negotiation will be, and try to work backwards on why you think that makes the most sense for both sides.

You're the one who came up with the term. I asked you to define it.

Not a great example really. His compensation was mostly in the exercise of stock options no? What was his base salary ... the one the board actually agreed to give him? Might be a little muddled since he was also the founder of that company.

I checked the IMF's website to be sure: money made from selling stock spends exactly the same as money made from salary.

If it's not a great example, can you modify your original statement of "At a very simple level, you have a company that needs to ensure that wages are low*", to accommodate this one example?

 

[el_super]

You're the one who came up with the term. I asked you to define it.

You understand how money works right?

I checked the IMF's website to be sure: money made from selling stock spends exactly the same as money made from salary.

Ok good, so you do seem to know how money works. So how do you spend your money? Do you seek out the best value for your money or do yo always spend the most you can on everything? Do you always buy the most expensive cars or the imported butter? Or do you actually try to seek the best value for the money you spend?

Disney isn't any different. They NEED to seek the best value for the money they spend. That includes paying lower wages if possible.

If it's not a great example, can you modify your original statement of "At a very simple level, you have a company that needs to ensure that wages are low*", to accommodate this one example?

What was the value of the stock when he acquired it? Just because the market determined that the stock had X value doesn't mean that the company gave X value to him at the time that they gave it. Giving stock options can actually be seen as a cheap way of padding compensation packages, especially for new companies where the stock could be essentially worthless.

Are you suggesting that Disney should start giving CMs stock options instead of wages? Maybe that would work for them.

 

[MrPromey]

You're the one who came up with the term. I asked you to define it.



I checked the IMF's website to be sure: money made from selling stock spends exactly the same as money made from salary.

If it's not a great example, can you modify your original statement of "At a very simple level, you have a company that needs to ensure that wages are low*", to accommodate this one example?

This is all very frustrating, isn't it?

If you just give up trying to debate them since they will never acknowledge they're making up their own arbitrary goalposts to defend their own arguments, they'll take that as a sign that they're right and that they've "won" but trying to actually read their words and pin them down on anything is like trying to nail Jello to a tree since every time you call them on it and ask them to define their idea of an actual metric that can be used, they just try to change what they're saying into something else and act like you're the one who's confused and just somehow don't understand how a business works.

 

[lentesta]

Disney isn't any different. They NEED to seek the best value for the money they spend. That includes paying lower wages if possible.


What was the value of the stock when he acquired it? Just because the market determined that the stock had X value doesn't mean that the company gave X value to him at the time that they gave it. Giving stock options can actually be seen as a cheap way of padding compensation packages, especially for new companies where the stock could be essentially worthless.

For my own sanity I'm not going to question the use of "NEED" by asking what the consequences are if Disney doesn't seek the best value for the money they spend. I'm going to assume that if they end up with the second-best value (whatever that is, and by however much it's different than the best value), the company collapses.

Beyond that, you're using the term "value" here in two different ways:

• In the bottom section, you're saying "value" means "dollars"
• In the top, you're saying "value" means "best use"

Those are two different things and they're not interchangeable.

Just so we're clear on what's being asked:

• You need to explain how companies define "maximum value per dollar spent", which is your term that you introduced and used in "the company needs to ensure that that labor rates are offering the maximum value per dollar."
• You need to define "value" for your own use because you've used it above in two different ways, and potentially a third if it's different in "maximum value per dollar spent."

You can stop with the "Do you understand how money works?" stuff. You've expressed an idea and I'm asking you to defend it by explaining what you mean.

So, again, using the example of Jeff Green's $834 million in compensation, how would you and I determine if his company got maximum value per dollar they spent on him? Because what you're saying is that if they only gave him $830 million, or $800 million or $700 million, they would've been worse off by more than $4 million and $134 million, respectively.

If you want to stop now and say that:

• Companies make educated guesses about things like compensation all the time
• Those guesses are probably more aligned with "this would be an acceptable outcome to us" instead of "this is the exact optimal outcome that we must have or else"
• Many wrong guesses end up being non-fatal to the company

then I'm willing to stop at that too.

 

[el_super]

For my own sanity I'm not going to question the use of "NEED" by asking what the consequences are if Disney doesn't seek the best value for the money they spend. I'm going to assume that if they end up with the second-best value (whatever that is, and by however much it's different than the best value), the company collapses.

Really the company collapses? No one is suggesting that.

Saying the company needs to achieve shareholder value can be true, even while recognizing that sometimes they fail at that goal.

Beyond that, you're using the term "value" here in two different ways:

• In the bottom section, you're saying "value" means "dollars"
• In the top, you're saying "value" means "best use"

Those are two different things and they're not interchangeable.

Best use can also be translated into dollars. They are interchangeable. The company can decide that spending more money on staff provides more value, because they will reap higher revenue later on. But that also means the opposite can be true: that they cannot make more money from spending more on wages and labor.

So, again, using the example of Jeff Green's $834 million in compensation, how would you and I determine if his company got maximum value per dollar they spent on him? Because what you're saying is that if they only gave him $830 million, or $800 million or $700 million, they would've been worse off by more than $4 million and $134 million, respectively.

No I am saying that the market overall decided what his stock was worth, not the company. There is a critical difference there. There's also the difference in that he founded the company, and took it from a value of $0 to a market cap of $21B. Is a person making $21 billion in value fairly compensated by $834 million? Maybe. It's hard to peel apart how much of that $834 million is based on the market perception of the company's value versus what the company actually spent on their CEO (the base salary).

If you want to stop now and say that:

• Companies make educated guesses about things like compensation all the time
• Those guesses are probably more aligned with "this would be an acceptable outcome to us" instead of "this is the exact optimal outcome that we must have or else"
• Many wrong guesses end up being non-fatal to the company

then I'm willing to stop at that too.

Nothing you say here is really in question is it? The point you seem unwilling to accept is that Disney's interest is in keeping wages low. It's not really any different than saying it's in the union's interest to make sure wages are high. What difference is a need or a want from either position?

And again you really are making this out to be more complicated than it is: Disney and the union will mostly likely reach a compromise, the cast members will receive a meager wage increase and everyone will go about, business as usual, until the next time this comes up.

 

[eliza61nyc]

You’re just pointing out how our system is busted. Your friend chose to migrate from a high value property state to a lower value one in order to fund her retirement. Besides, enough people have done this lately that Florida is no longer a lower property value state, unless of course said land is on a flood plane (and sometimes not even then.)

Buy it still works, and you don't necessarily have to move to another state.
It's just downsizing. My sister sold her big one family house that she raised her family in (divorced, kids gone) and moved into a great condo, paid cash, lower monthly fees.
How is that a busted system??

 

[eliza61nyc]

That's not how the world works. People accept worse-paying positions all the time, for all kinds of reasons.

Sure they do but then why is it a companies responsibility to make sure they have a "livable" wage??

So a company offers 15/hr. A person accept the offer but they're upset because they wont offer 20/hr???

 

[lentesta]

Really the company collapses? No one is suggesting that.

You literally said "need":

Disney isn't any different. They NEED to seek the best value for the money they spend. That includes paying lower wages if possible.

And you capitalized it, so it must be super duper important.

Ignoring everything else, tell me what happens if this "NEED" isn't met.

ETA: Nevermind. I'm done here. You win. JFC.

 

[lentesta]

Sure they do but then why is it a companies responsibility to make sure they have a "livable" wage??

Can I substitute "minimum" for "liveable" and answer that question?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sure they do but then why is it a companies responsibility to make sure they have a "livable" wage??

So a company offers 15/hr. A person accept the offer but they're upset because they wont offer 20/hr???

You do realize that things change over time, right? The Orlando area has seen some rather dramatic rent increases in recent years. Why would someone not want to try and cover more expensive bills?

 

[eliza61nyc]

You do realize that things change over time, right? The Orlando area has seen some rather dramatic rent increases in recent years. Why would someone not want to try and cover more expensive bills?

Oh absolutely & you want to see crazy rent increase come to my neck of the woods (tristate nyc area). There's a reason why the northeast has a reputation as a high cost of living spot.

Full disclosure, I've always worked for global mega corps so maybe I'm cynical but sorry I can't imagine them increasing someone's salary when they could get the same employees at 3-4 hour less.
And once I hit my salary cap, the only way to get a substantial increase was to move to another position.
I literally heard them tell an employee they were not due an increase just because they had now had a family.

Listen I wished it worked that way, my cost of living increases in my pension in no way covers the real life cost increases

 

[lazyboy97o]

I can't imagine them increasing someone's salary when they could get the same employees at 3-4 hour less.

They can’t! Why is this so hard to understand? Walt Disney World is short staffed. Venues are still closed due to a lack of staff to be able to open them. The market is telling Disney they need to be more competitive but you and others just keep coming back with the same tired focus on the employees and blaming them for a lack of ethic.

 

[el_super]

They can’t! Why is this so hard to understand? Walt Disney World is short staffed. Venues are still closed due to a lack of staff to be able to open them. The market is telling Disney they need to be more competitive but you and others just keep coming back with the same tired focus on the employees and blaming them for a lack of ethic.

How do you know that increasing wages would resolve the staffing issues?

 

[eliza61nyc]

They can’t! Why is this so hard to understand? Walt Disney World is short staffed. Venues are still closed due to a lack of staff to be able to open them. The market is telling Disney they need to be more competitive but you and others just keep coming back with the same tired focus on the employees and blaming them for a lack of ethic.

We keep coming back because EVIDENTLY Disney is not suffering. The parks yesterday just had its busiest day of the busy holiday season
You keep coming back with this tired kumbaya, pie in the sky fantasy focus.

So I will totally admit, you are absolutely correct, in the perfect world fantasy, big corporations would make sure everyone was happy and successful, every employee from the pizza delivery boy to the ceo would make a great salary.

Let me ask though, in 2018 I believe we had a similar thread, are the front line employees any closer to that "livable wage"?? ( actual question, I have no idea what the average Disney world employee makes)

I do apologize if it seems like I'm "blaming " the employee. I think it's because I grew up with strong parents who embrace self determination and self reliance. I admit that if I was in a minimum wage position for 5,6 years, I'd be digging ditches to hawking peanuts to get the heck outta there
(A little ot but kinda makes me wonder about the whole illegal immigration thing, imagine walking hundreds of miles in hopes of finding a better life)

 

[Lilofan]

That's not how the world works. People accept worse-paying positions all the time, for all kinds of reasons.

Like the college educated RN from South America, brand new to our great country accepting a job in housekeeping because with her little to no English that’s all she can get as in terms of employment currently.

 

[lazyboy97o]

We keep coming back because EVIDENTLY Disney is not suffering. The parks yesterday just had its busiest day of the busy holiday season
You keep coming back with this tired kumbaya, pie in the sky fantasy focus.

So I will totally admit, you are absolutely correct, in the perfect world fantasy, big corporations would make sure everyone was happy and successful, every employee from the pizza delivery boy to the ceo would make a great salary.

Let me ask though, in 2018 I believe we had a similar thread, are the front line employees any closer to that "livable wage"?? ( actual question, I have no idea what the average Disney world employee makes)

I do apologize if it seems like I'm "blaming " the employee. I think it's because I grew up with strong parents who embrace self determination and self reliance. I admit that if I was in a minimum wage position for 5,6 years, I'd be digging ditches to hawking peanuts to get the heck outta there
(A little ot but kinda makes me wonder about the whole illegal immigration thing, imagine walking hundreds of miles in hopes of finding a better life)

What fantasy? Disney is not short staffed any more? All venues are now open? Disney squeezing people in one day doesn’t say anything about staffing or how much revenue they didn’t generate because capacity was not at its maximum.

Where have I said anything about pay being based on a living wage? I have rather consistently focused on Disney attracting and retaining employees. Why does

Walt Disney World and the greater Orlando tourism market are dependent on tens of thousands of employees worked full time, and even a lot of overtime. It is not sustainable as just a transitory job. If everyone did as you suggest then there just is no Walt Disney World. So many service industry places are short staffed because people did go elsewhere and they don’t want to come back.