LA Times: Is Disney Paying Its Fair Share In Anaheim

[Disney Irish]

http://www.anaheimblog.net/2018/05/22/14621/

>>The Resort unions’ proposed $18 minimum wage initiative is vaguely worded, broader than proponents suggest, contains weak protections for small businesses, is constitutionally problematic and promises to be a “litigation bonanza” is approved, one of the state’s leading election attorneys testified to the Anaheim City Council last night.<<

>>“I would really think of this as a litigation bonanza or maybe an attorney full employment act – and that goes for all sides of the equation: employee attorneys who are incentivized to sue employers,” said Hertz, as well as business attorneys.


Hertz also noted possible constitutional issues arising from transgressing the Contracts Clauses of both the federal and state constitutions, since certain Resort hotel projects would be subject to the Resort union initiative specifically because of contractual agreements between them and the city: “Ballot measures are not allowed to interfere with existing contracts,” said Hertz.


In effect, the initiative’s wage hikes would be imposed unilaterally, ex post facto by the city upon unwilling contractual partners.<<

>>The Resort unions are businesses. They are in the membership business. They need dues revenue to stay in business. The $18 wage initiative’s vague language is a membership building tool. UNITE-HERE Local 11 has no compunctions about playing hardball with hospitality businesses that don’t want the inflated labors costs and headaches that go with having UNITE-HERE representation. Does anyone think they and other members of the Coalition of Resort Unions would shrink from using the threat of expensive litigation to cow recalcitrant business owners?<<

The thing that baffles me is if the Unions are really for workers making a living wage, then why target just the Resort District? Why not put forth an initiative that increases the entire city's minimum wage?

Oh that's right, because the rest of the city's businesses don't use Union labor, so they don't care. All they care about is padding the union coffers and increasing membership. This is why Unions get such a bad rep, which overshadows they good they do.

 

[flynnibus]

A licensed, insured and bonded mechanic and plumber, who know their livelihood depends on their Yelp review and their ability to pass annual state licensing tests and inspections, can charge high wages like that because they are skilled tradesmen, who graduated high school and then a licensed trade school, and follow the rules of state licensing and labor laws. And because they are skilled, licensed, bonded, and insured, they can not be easily replaced by a newly arrived illegal immigrant from Honduras with a 5th grade education and no English language skills.

The context of the reference was that these costs from local trades/services have gone up significantly - and not just because of some favorable corporate/richman policies like Old Mouseketer suggests with his comments:

"For thirty or forty years our government has enacted policies that steadily eroded the buying power of working people's wages while increasing the concentration of wealth for the top 1%. For the most part, the mega-rich didn't get richer because they worked harder or were more productive. It was because the system was rigged in their favor"

The types of justifications you outline for why a tradesman can charge for his services has nothing to do with why those costs have skyrocketed in the last 10-15 years. My point was it's not greedy billionaires in the back office of your auto body shop and policies favoring them that are driving prices up.

And as for 'not easily replaced' - that's what many people in Europe thought before open borders brought all the cheap eastern european labor flooding all over markets that used to be far more sheltered. The "polish plumber" or whatever is undercutting the domestic trades people like crazy. Much like cheap mexican labor has flooded many trades here.

For Licensed/bonded/etc, people will turn a blind eye to those protections when prices get so obscene they are willing to take a risk on someone they believe will do good work.

 

[SuddenStorm]

And if a ride operator with a decade of tenure is making $30 an hour, what should Disneyland pay the skilled machinist maintaining roller coasters and Omnimovers who currently makes $22? Or what about the tenured and skilled electrician who currently makes $24 an hour? Or what about the pyrotechnic foreman with multiple licenses he paid for who makes $25 an hour? The 23 year old computer software engineer with 4 years of college education at UCLA who just started at a salary of $70,000, the equivalent of $30 per hour which is what the tenured lady dispatching boats at Pirates of the Caribbean makes? What do you pay that software engineer with a 4 year degree and specialized skills then?

Excellent point. And to take it a step further, what happens to those unskilled attraction, food, and merchandise CM's when Disney replaces most of them with kiosks and other new innovations to save on the high labor cost that these higher wages would cause?

 

[Deleted member 107043]

Dr Hans for one...

You're getting it twisted. As it relates to cast members wanting higher wages at Disneyland, I support it, period.

I've not stated a position on ways to solve the broader problem of wage inequality and the shrinking middle class beyond DLR. IMO that's a topic for a separate discussion.

 

[Travel Junkie]

The issue of income inequality and how to fix it is complex. No one is suggesting you just raise wages. Whether or not Disneyland is paying what they should to the city and to their employees is the topic, so that is and should be the extent of the discussion for this thread. Dismissing the idea of a higher wage as emotional is simply ridiculous and an example way too commonplace in today's world by some who don't want to consider other points of view.

Disney would pay their employees with company scrip if they could. A company that made $4.4 billion in profit for a 3 month period should be paying employees that are struggling to meet basic needs like a roof over there head or food more money than they do. You can't rely on them to do pay employees more. There must be regulations that set laws to ensure for the betterment of the entire citizenship that employees are paid a fair wage. For too long corporations including Disney have dictated the regulations.

 

[Disney Irish]

The issue of income inequality and how to fix it is complex. No one is suggesting you just raise wages. Whether or not Disneyland is paying what they should to the city and to their employees is the topic, so that is and should be the extent of the discussion for this thread. Dismissing the idea of a higher wage as emotional is simply ridiculous and an example way too commonplace in today's world by some who don't want to consider other points of view.

Disney would pay their employees with company scrip if they could. A company that made $4.4 billion in profit for a 3 month period should be paying employees that are struggling to meet basic needs like a roof over there head or food more money than they do. You can't rely on them to do pay employees more. There must be regulations that set laws to ensure for the betterment of the entire citizenship that employees are paid a fair wage. For too long corporations including Disney have dictated the regulations.

However as some have tried to point out, Disney and their employees don't exist in isolation. So without looking at the larger issue you don't see what effect or lack there of it'll have on the CMs lives and the region as a whole.

Also I don't think anyone here has ever said CMs shouldn't get a raise in wages. But there is a larger complex issue going on that warrants a larger discussion. From socioeconomic ones to political ones. This is the discussion that some of us have been trying to have.

 

[flynnibus]

The issue of income inequality and how to fix it is complex. No one is suggesting you just raise wages. Whether or not Disneyland is paying what they should to the city and to their employees is the topic, so that is and should be the extent of the discussion for this thread. Dismissing the idea of a higher wage as emotional is simply ridiculous and an example way too commonplace in today's world by some who don't want to consider other points of view.

Disney would pay their employees with company scrip if they could. A company that made $4.4 billion in profit for a 3 month period should be paying employees that are struggling to meet basic needs like a roof over there head or food more money than they do. You can't rely on them to do pay employees more. There must be regulations that set laws to ensure for the betterment of the entire citizenship that employees are paid a fair wage. For too long corporations including Disney have dictated the regulations.

Its as if you feel employees have no free will.... employers pay what is needed to draw talent.

 

[flynnibus]

You're getting it twisted. As it relates to cast members wanting higher wages at Disneyland, I support it, period.

I disnt twist anything. Raising wages is the only path you will accept start or finish. So my statement is true.

 

[Travel Junkie]

Its as if you feel employees have no free will.... employers pay what is needed to draw talent.

Never said that. Keep trying to to tear other people's argument's down by making stuff up other than making your points. It only proves you have nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation.

 

[flynnibus]

Never said that. Keep trying to to tear other people's argument's down by making stuff up other than making your points. It only proves you have nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation.

You put the burden of wages completely on the government and the employer.

That's not how it works. The employee is a willing participant in this engagement. The reason garbage men get paid more than a burger flipper is not because Waste Management Inc cares for their employees more than McDonalds... it's because that's what it takes to attract employees to do the job.

The reason low paging jobs pay low is... because it can be filled by anyone and there is someone willing to do it.

If you don't like the pay from one evil corporation... DON'T WORK THERE.
Said evil corporation dominates your town you claim? THEN MOVE

No one is forcing these people to work for these horrible wages.

 

[Phroobar]

You put the burden of wages completely on the government and the employer.

That's not how it works. The employee is a willing participant in this engagement. The reason garbage men get paid more than a burger flipper is not because Waste Management Inc cares for their employees more than McDonalds... it's because that's what it takes to attract employees to do the job.

The reason low paging jobs pay low is... because it can be filled by anyone and there is someone willing to do it.

If you don't like the pay from one evil corporation... DON'T WORK THERE.
Said evil corporation dominates your town you claim? THEN MOVE

No one is forcing these people to work for these horrible wages.

Waste Management has unions too.

 

[flynnibus]

Waste Management has unions too.

It was a 'fill in the blank' situation - the company mentioned is not critical to the point.

 

[Phroobar]

It was a 'fill in the blank' situation - the company mentioned is not critical to the point.

But the unions had something to do with the high wages that trash men enjoy. McDonalds employees don't belong to unions.

 

[flynnibus]

If your aim is "my boss pays me more because he/she really cares about me" - you are going to be disappointed in your future.

Your goal must be "my boss pays me more because I am better than the rest" - you will be driven to keep that position and empowered to argue for your better pay.

Employers NEED to care about their employees because better employees = greater success. However, the business is not about charity. Your boss isn't going to give you a raise simply because your kids are coming of age and your expenses are going up. They can emphasize with you, but that life planning is on the employee. Don't expect your job to change because your personal life changes.

Your pay ultimately is dictated by the WORK YOU DO not WHO YOU ARE. Ultimately businesses at scale must make tough financial decisions, and the way you stay ahead of the curve is by delivering VALUE. The more unique value you deliver, the more you will be be able to demand pay for.

I am all for employers who build incredible cultures and REWARD their employee's success. The key to greatness is vested employees who push themselves for their internal motivations. Compensation is part of that puzzle, but it is not really the biggest piece.

But the mentality that "the job owes me..." or similar are destined to be disappointed. Because at the end of the day, you are doing a JOB - not exercising an entitlement.

 

[flynnibus]

But the unions had something to do with the high wages that trash men enjoy. McDonalds employees don't belong to unions.

Ok, would you feel better if I said "Moving guys"?? The company cited is not the point of the analogy, nor does it depend on it. The point being is wages are a reflection of what is needed to attract qualified and willing employees.

Need work that less people are willing to do? You will pay more for them
Need work that anyone can do? You will be able to pay less

 

[Phroobar]

Ok, would you feel better if I said "Moving guys"?? The company cited is not the point of the analogy, nor does it depend on it. The point being is wages are a reflection of what is needed to attract qualified and willing employees.

Need work that less people are willing to do? You will pay more for them
Need work that anyone can do? You will be able to pay less

I agree with what you are saying. I'm just trying to get you to give a better analogy. Moving guys is better example except for the teamster driving the truck. I don't know if you will find very many unskilled blue collar jobs that are not union run and therefore artificially increased their pay. White collar jobs don't usually have unions but you have to go to college for those. Retail might work out better as a non-union example.

 

[flynnibus]

I agree with what you are saying. I'm just trying to get you to give a better analogy. Moving guys is better example except for the teamster driving the truck. I don't know if you will find very many unskilled blue collar jobs that are not union run and therefore artificially increased their pay. White collar jobs don't usually have unions but you have to go to college for those. Retail might work out better as a non-union example.

That was more the case 30-40 yrs ago... now except in strong union cities it's largely the opposite. I live in a At-Will state... unions are barely a blip on the radar. As long as people are licensed... that's all that matters. Union hold on business is pretty much an employer-by-employer situation... not across the board for a trade like it used to be.

Moving guy being union? hrmph... just hope he's at least passed a background and has a CDL. Migrant workers dominate all construction... who knows their guild or union status. It's not even a general subject here because of the at-will state. It would be part of certain contracts tho.. and often is.

Of course the union strongholds in some cities, or trades in other states is stronger. But none of that matters to the actual point.

Unions are just collective bargining in this context. They can't bargin for higher pay if their job is a role that easily filled by just about anyone. Which is why Grocery Clerks are union... yet still make low wages. And a skilled trade is also union, but demands higher pay.

Union or not is immaterial to the point. Wages for a job are related to what it takes to attract qualified and willing employees.

 

[Travel Junkie]

You put the burden of wages completely on the government and the employer.

Once again a completely fictitious statement. It's not worth have a discussion with someone who is either purposely concocting false statements to discredit anyone not sharing your view or you simply lack reading comprehension skills.

Employees bear the responsibility of where they work. However, government is responsible for the general welfare of the people. The government plays an important role in encouraging businesses to behave in an ethical manner by encouragement and regulation. Part of this is ensuring safe working environments and through laws like minimum wages. The minimum wage has not kept up with the rate of inflation and should be adjusted.

 

[Disney Irish]

Once again a completely fictitious statement. It's not worth have a discussion with someone who is either purposely concocting false statements to discredit anyone not sharing your view or you simply lack reading comprehension skills.

Employees bear the responsibility of where they work. However, government is responsible for the general welfare of the people. The government plays an important role in encouraging businesses to behave in an ethical manner by encouragement and regulation. Part of this is ensuring safe working environments and through laws like minimum wages. The minimum wage has not kept up with the rate of inflation and should be adjusted.

I think the point trying to be made was the employee does also bear responsibility in the wage they are paid. The responsibility does not lie solely with the government and the employer. So while I agree the minimum wage should go up, and in this case I think it should be done across all of Anaheim not just the Resort District. So while I do agree on this, its up to the employee to find a new job if they want to earn more money and their current job doesn't provide a way to earn more money.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I think the "Employees have to sleep in cars and are struggling to make rent, so Disney should pay them more" feel good answer is a great sentiment, but not necessarily how it works.

Disney views labor as a resource- and expense (like utility bills, food costs, attraction maintenance costs). It's not an expense that they're going to increase the cost of unless the value of the labor also goes up. People are paid according to the value they provide to the company.

Which means- if these employees start getting $18 an hour instead of whatever the current rate is, Disney's gonna expect $18 an hour worth of work from each and every one of them. And those that aren't worth that? They're gonna be out a job. And better applicants will start applying since the job pays more than most other entry level jobs.

And if Disney deems that the increased labor cost of an individual location isn't yielding enough benefits- they're gonna start cutting labor at that location, to keep labor the same as it was.

Any raises need to be carefully considered and negotiated between the workers and Disneyland management- crunching the numbers and finding that sweet spot of increased pay for the workers while increasing the value of the labor for Disney.

An argument I've seen online is that since Disney expects more from their workers than a Mcdonald's, they should pay more. But to flip this, if a worker feels that their work is more valuable then their pay, why are they not applying to jobs everywhere when the internet (available for free at any public library) makes it so easy to do so?

From wikipedia:

If a higher minimum wage increases the wage rates of unskilled workers above the level that would be established by market forces, the quantity of unskilled workers employed will fall. The minimum wage will price the services of the least productive (and therefore lowest-wage) workers out of the market. … the direct results of minimum wage legislation are clearly mixed. Some workers, most likely those whose previous wages were closest to the minimum, will enjoy higher wages. Others, particularly those with the lowest prelegislation wage rates, will be unable to find work. They will be pushed into the ranks of the unemployed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

I think it's fair to say that the people who have spent a decade+ working at the resort and haven't been promoted at all fall into this category- which is why they should be wary of forcing Disney to increase their pay.

It's a double edged sword- forcing Disney to increase pay will allow quality workers to benefit, but the people who need it most will likely be hurt in the long run.

That said- Disney is a huge company with lots of excess resources. A possible route they could consider is offering more Disney ran management and leadership courses made available to their employees at a reduced cost- helping to promote from within, and providing workers with the skills necessary for them to become competitive in the work force. This could be a potential win win for Disney- it allows them to train a new generation of management the Disney way, and helps their entry level job employees become a more valuable resource for the company.