Layoffs at Walt Disney World and other divisions of WDC

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
Youre not suggesting that closing one of the best gaming studios in the business (LucasArts) was the wrong move when Disney's own gaming studios have sucked for years, are you?
Disney is looking at this acquisition from a "Balanced Scorecard". Is LucasArts a high investment/high return prospect? or a low investment/high return prospect? With the direction console gaming is going and the history of Disney console games, I bet they see it as a high investment/high return with an unacceptable degree of risk. Disney wants to find the low investment/high return prospects.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
Mostly true. It's fairly easy to order the termination of 1000 nameless faces at a remote corporate site but significantly harder to do so to an incompetent peer who happens to be a member of the same country club. It creates for some uncomfortable social situations that most senior executives don't have the stomach for.

At the highest levels, senior executives have lucrative contracts that need to be bought out. Hence, completely incompetent executives often receive golden parachutes to leave, announcing their plans to either move on or "spend more time with the family" with the millions they receive for performing so badly.

Sadly, it happens all the time.
Yes it happens and I have experienced this from both ends. I had the opportunity to fire 300 persons in one day. Some faces were nameless and others were not but it was needed in order to try to keep the remaining 250 people employed. There comes a time when a product/service/position is outdated/obsolete/redundant and changes need to be made. After the 300 were gone, it was my turn to "spend more time with my family"
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
Disney is looking at this acquisition from a "Balanced Scorecard". Is LucasArts a high investment/high return prospect? or a low investment/high return prospect? With the direction console gaming is going and the history of Disney console games, I bet they see it as a high investment/high return with an unacceptable degree of risk. Disney wants to find the low investment/high return prospects.
Low investment with a high return does not exist in the real world.

It might in Vegas when you bet on that 100 to 1 longshot but I have to wonder where these budgetary panelists inside the company are coming from. They just Werline seem as if their head is firmly entrenched elsewhere.
 

yensid67

Well-Known Member

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
None of this is surprising. What's haven't seen in this thread is the roots of this going back at least 18 months. Disney's bankers and major investors have been pressuring for cost reductions in its P&R division. Those groups made it clear that they felt operational costs were too high. The monorail and EMH cutbacks haven't given the cost reductions those two groups demanded. So, management is now looking at other ways to address this. And yes, to operate Disney must bow to this kind of pressure. They do heed to borrow from the banks for projects and large investors (tens of thousands of shares) can cause significant problems for senior managers.

Stuff like the above used to happen in Walt's day too. And Walt would generally tell the bankers and investors to go to hell. *sigh*...
 

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
Yes it happens and I have experienced this from both ends. I had the opportunity to fire 300 persons in one day. Some faces were nameless and others were not but it was needed in order to try to keep the remaining 250 people employed. There comes a time when a product/service/position is outdated/obsolete/redundant and changes need to be made. After the 300 were gone, it was my turn to "spend more time with my family"
The ethical dilemma does not arise when a company is forced to lay off part of its workforce in order to survive. The dilemma occurs when a company makes record profits and rewards its executives with tremendous bonuses and then lays off its workforce anyway, even though their departure damages what remains.

Using TWDC as a simplistic and partially made-up example, after a successful year financially, Iger’s compensation increased from approximately $32 to $40 million. That $8M could have been used to keep another 300 or so CMs at WDW. Instead, the company might decide to pay Iger the $8M while simultaneously laying off those same 300 employees, creating increased workloads for those remaining resulting, ultimately, in declining customer service which, over the long run, leads to reduced revenue due to declining guest satisfaction.

WDW’s success was driven not by Iger but by the pool of employees working together to accomplish common objectives. It was those extra 300 CMs who helped make WDW successful. However, instead of rewarding them, the company terminates them. The company does not do this because the $8M is better spent increasing Iger’s compensation. After all, is Iger going to work 25% “better” because he’s paid 25% more? No. Instead, it does this because Iger and his cronies call the shots and, ultimately, make decisions that are best for them personally, not what’s best for the company as a whole.

I’m not suggesting this is what actually is happening at WDW, only what happens all too often at many companies. This sort of behavior used to be the exception to the norm but, with the post Wall Street “greed is good” mentality, it’s now all too common.
 

SirLink

Well-Known Member
Well, I guess this is what happens when you keep buying antique non-Disney-originated properties that the company doesn't need. And didn't we just get a news story about how people in the WDC wanted Iger to stay on????

Truth is indeed a female dog, isn't it, Bobby boy?

Disney bought properties and struck license agreements for IP which he didn't own ... so let us stop with that line of thinking ... the problem is when they do new IP -Disney just wastes their potential...
 

FrankLapidus

Well-Known Member
Wow. A lot of hay made from a standard, healthy business practice of adjusting staffing levels, releasing lower performing CMs and attempting to keep the highest performing employees.

To be fair, as Lee said in another thread, it does stick a little in the gut when Iger just took home a $16 million bonus because the company is performing so well. In the past few days LucasArts has been closed and everyone there laid off, there have been lay-offs at ILM and now they're laying off CM's. That's quite a lot of people losing their jobs and when the CEO is being rewarded so extravangantly for a year's work there is going to be criticism. It's not just a practice at the Walt Disney Company but nevertheless you have to feel sympathy for those who have lost their jobs so abruptly. A member of this forum posted in the Spirited Observations thread about their own experience of a member of their family losing their job today and, from what they've said, the way Disney has gone about these lay-offs is completely lacking in class and common courtesy.
 

Tonka's Skipper

Well-Known Member
Greetings everyone,

For anyone who asks, yes, I still stand by my previous posts about Avatar not having a strong shot at becoming reality. But as long as Disney keeps perpetually pushing back the opening date (now 2017!), how will any of us ever get proved wrong?

However, I'm here today to talk about the exact opposite of new additions. Indeed, Disney's best kept secret going into 2013 is really about how hard it is about to take the meat cleaver to its workforce. Various sources in the media today will be reporting about a "cost savings review" that was initiated by Jay Rasulo after Disney's earnings miss to close their fiscal year. Today some of the results of that review will start tricking down below upper management to the people who will ultimately be responsible for carrying out the suggestions from that "review."

The bottom line is that P&R has been asked to find a way to eliminate 10% of its labor. This is inclusive of WDI to the cruise ships to the front line CMs at the parks. How they bring this about is up to them. Hiring freeze/layoffs/tighten part time and seasonal standards/etc. They have more than one tool at their disposal than merely firing people. But layoffs will be a part of this financial review and they are likely going to hurt. One such example is the dramatic reduction in operating hours for MK in 2013. MK basically has to have four shifts worth of personnel for every one position they have because of the nature of its holiday parties, EMH, and guest demand on weekends. Pare those hours back to where it is more manageable to only have three CMs on the payroll for every one position and you just saved yourself a lot of money.

I should also note that other divisions of WDC are going to be nailed a lot harder than P&R. The Studio in particular has a large number of redundant positions in a post-Lucasfilm environment.

I'll post more as it becomes available.


seems odd......what about this?


http://www.wdwinfo.com/news/General_Disney_News/Walt_Disney_World_holding_online_job_fair.htm

Seems they are hiring not firing............for the CM's I hope in this case I am right!

PS I agree about Avatar, the dates moving back and back and the fighting with Cameron is pretty good evidence it will never happen. I am happy it will not happen. I enjoyed the movie, but its just not a Disney fit!

AKK
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
Wow. A lot of hay made from a standard, healthy business practice of adjusting staffing levels, releasing lower performing CMs and attempting to keep the highest performing employees.
If you have ever taken part in an RIF, you will know this not not necessarily the case. Often those retained only have the perception of belonging to the higher performing caste. The "high performers" are often those that are the most connected not the best performing.
 

Tonka's Skipper

Well-Known Member
If you have ever taken part in an RIF, you will know this not not necessarily the case. Often those retained only have the perception of belonging to the higher performing caste. The "high performers" are often those that are the most connected not the best performing.

It does happen that way sometimes and other times its 180 degree the other way. Been in both!

this still does not have the markings of nothing more then the usual staff changes after big changes within the organization and buyouts of other companies.

JMHO


AKK
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Well, I guess this is what happens when you keep buying antique non-Disney-originated properties that the company doesn't need. And didn't we just get a news story about how people in the WDC wanted Iger to stay on????

Truth is indeed a female dog, isn't it, Bobby boy?

Like a lot of large companies Disney seems like it is becoming very risk averse. Much safer to buy a proven property then to try to invent new ones that may or may not succeed.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
It does happen that way sometimes and other times its 180 degree the other way. Been in both!

this still does not have the markings of nothing more then the usual staff changes after big changes within the organization and buyouts of other companies.

JMHO


AKK
I agree. LucasArts was acquired and as such brings along redundant positions and departments that are high investment non producers. Thus, a large percentage RIF at LucasArts. As for WDW, the new president has come in and has been focused on a top down review of operations and has made his list. This list is now being acted upon.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom