News New Changes Coming to the Disney Look 2021

[_caleb]

You're agreeing with me without even knowing it. You've just said.. the employer assesses the value of THE JOB - not the individual.

It’s both—the job AND the employees’ role in filling that position.

If you want more money than the job is deemed worth paying - you'll need to find another job. Where as trains struggles to accept that you can't just keep doing the same job forever and expect an employer to keep giving you raises to increase your buying power.

I understand your argument, I’m saying the inverse is true: if an employer wants the same productivity than the job was originally deemed worth paying, they’ll eventually either need to renegotiate with the employee or commit to the expenses of finding and training a replacement.

You're mixing things together to suit your purpose. The 'value of that job to the company' isn't likely to change.. it's structural.

Huh? What gives you this idea?

Then you mix in 'the market value of labor is likely to increase' - which is a relative factor not really tied to the job at all. This is mixing entirely different concepts. And besides, the 'market value of labor' tends to go down over time as the job becomes more commodity, or is replaced by progress/tech... inflationary pressures over time can not be intermixed with the idea the job somehow gets more valuable to the business.

No, I’m mixing things together because employment isn’t as simple as you seem to make it out to be. The value of a role to a company is quite likely to change over time! Sometimes it increases (try to find a licensed and competent plumber these days), sometimes it decreases (as your next paragraph explains, using the case of technology/automation).

A dishwasher is still a dishwasher... and overtime you will likely need less of them as technology improves and you find it's more affordable to replace that labor... reducing the # of them in the market.

If an employee shows up on time, works hard, requires little oversight, and it easy to manage, and yet does not take on any additional responsibility, her value will eventually exceed the top of the pay band that was originally negotiated. You’re saying she should then look for a different job if she wants more money. I’m saying the employer should sweeten the pot if they want to keep her.

I’m speaking from experience here: a company that thinks it’s pay schedule is fixed and shouldn’t be subject to renegotiation according to changes in the market, economy, and an individual’s performance is a company that (whether they realize it or not,) has a difficult time attracting and keeping reliable, motivated, and loyal workers who provide a consistent productivity and service.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

It’s both—the job AND the employees’ role in filling that position.

I understand your argument, I’m saying the inverse is true: if an employer wants the same productivity than the job was originally deemed worth paying, they’ll eventually either need to renegotiate with the employee or commit to the expenses of finding and training a replacement.

Huh? What gives you this idea?

No, I’m mixing things together because employment isn’t as simple as you seem to make it out to be. The value of a role to a company is quite likely to change over time! Sometimes it increases (try to find a licensed and competent plumber these days), sometimes it decreases (as your next paragraph explains, using the case of technology/automation).

If an employee shows up on time, works hard, requires little oversight, and it easy to manage, and yet does not take on any additional responsibility, her value will eventually exceed the top of the pay band that was originally negotiated. You’re saying she should then look for a different job if she wants more money. I’m saying the employer should sweeten the pot if they want to keep her.

I’m speaking from experience here: a company that thinks it’s pay schedule is fixed and shouldn’t be subject to renegotiation according to changes in the market, economy, and an individual’s performance is a company that (whether they realize it or not,) has a difficult time attracting and keeping reliable, motivated, and loyal workers who provide a consistent productivity and service.

You seem to be assuming there aren’t already incremental increases. Not one person is suggesting that. We’re not talking about a quarter here or 50 cents there. We’re talking about significant structural pay increases.

The person who hits the upper end of the range is likely to either a) still get minor increases as the range changes with time, or on an exception basis b) get fired c) quit.

If either b or c happen, the employer was likely willing to let it happen.

So if the employee making the most noise about wanting to break the dress code quits, the problem has solved itself.

 

[Brian]

You seem to be assuming there aren’t already incremental increases. Not one person is suggesting that. We’re not talking about a quarter here or 50 cents there. We’re talking about significant structural pay increases.

The person who hits the upper end of the range is likely to either a) still get minor increases as the range changes with time, or on an exception basis b) get fired c) quit.

If either b or c happen, the employer was likely willing to let it happen.

So if the employee making the most noise about wanting to break the dress code quits, the problem has solved itself.

To your point, in 10 years, the minimum wage at WDW has increased $10/hour. That's far more than a COLA increase.

 

[JD80]

Is the issue here that there is a lot of small business owners comparing their payroll to that of the operational payroll of the busiest theme park in the world?

I don't think you can compare the two at any level of detail. And this whole conversation without detail going back and forth between different people is getting everyone confused.

Here's the base line imo:

Like a lot of corporations, with hundreds and thousands of hourly employees, you have an hourly rate of min and max that a position can pay. That min and max increases periodically through cost of living increases or union negotiations.

Corporations have a certain threshold of turnover rates. Once your employee turnover rate gets to a certain point it should trigger an assessment of current pay scales and adjust to the market. Once adjusted, often the lower end of the pay scale gets an automatic bump in pay.

(That lower rate needs to be adjusted for the cost of living in the area of the job in order to attract new employees given whatever turnover rate you have)

The other conversation that we are having is about earning more or getting raises. Often a corporation has internal "ranks" or job levels that allow growth within the organization. It's HR's job to help funnel the better employees up whatever ladder they have in order to decrease turnover and allows the employee a chance earn more money.

Cross-training is another opportunity for employees to earn a pay bump while essentially doing the same job. An employee that is training to work the Jungle Cruise, Tiki Room and Pirates is more valuable than a an employee that can work just one of those. That employee often makes more money because they can be used to fill in spots when needed. HR and management often look for candidates that can do this.

Long post is long. However, the majority of this conversation is not even anchored in reality. So it's silly. So many different elements are missing.

 

[JD80]

You seem to be assuming there aren’t already incremental increases. Not one person is suggesting that.

Emphasis is mine, but I can see where people could have made the assumption that was part of your argument. Hence a lot of talking passed each other.

Conversely, I don't think anyone on the other side of the debate was saying that people doing a $20/hr job should have the ability to work their way to earning $35 for the same work. Like a dishwater or someone in housekeeping.

 

[Lilofan]

Is the issue here that there is a lot of small business owners comparing their payroll to that of the operational payroll of the busiest theme park in the world?

I don't think you can compare the two at any level of detail. And this whole conversation without detail going back and forth between different people is getting everyone confused.

Here's the base line imo:

Like a lot of corporations, with hundreds and thousands of hourly employees, you have an hourly rate of min and max that a position can pay. That min and max increases periodically through cost of living increases or union negotiations.

Corporations have a certain threshold of turnover rates. Once your employee turnover rate gets to a certain point it should trigger an assessment of current pay scales and adjust to the market. Once adjusted, often the lower end of the pay scale gets an automatic bump in pay.

(That lower rate needs to be adjusted for the cost of living in the area of the job in order to attract new employees given whatever turnover rate you have)

The other conversation that we are having is about earning more or getting raises. Often a corporation has internal "ranks" or job levels that allow growth within the organization. It's HR's job to help funnel the better employees up whatever ladder they have in order to decrease turnover and allows the employee a chance earn more money.

Cross-training is another opportunity for employees to earn a pay bump while essentially doing the same job. An employee that is training to work the Jungle Cruise, Tiki Room and Pirates is more valuable than a an employee that can work just one of those. That employee often makes more money because they can be used to fill in spots when needed. HR and management often look for candidates that can do this.

Long post is long. However, the majority of this conversation is not even anchored in reality. So it's silly. So many different elements are missing.

Back in the day I met a CM that was cleaning the streets at MGM. He was very friendly and he was describing his full time job was a mechanic fixing the rides. The young guy said he enjoyed his overtime job of cleaning the streets because it allowed him to interact with guests.

 

[Tom P.]

I understand that many of you on here are not fans of the updated Disney Look, but lets not feign ignorance to the cultural difference between the US & Japan. Banning (non-offensive) visible tattoos in 2024 is ridiculous. The updated Disney Look (if enforced as is written) is a perfectly normal dress code policy for 2024.

I work at a college and see lots of efforts related to job placement. I assure you that a large percentage of employers still ban visible tattoos of any kind in 2024.

 

[Nubs70]

I agree - I also think maybe the minimum wages should go up based on company profits - we need to protect and support small businesses for sure.

Will wages be decreased based on lower profits?

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I don't think you can compare the two

You have to. Both share the same economy. They are bound by the same minimum wage laws and subject to the same labor market conditions.

Too many people think only in terms of the huge corporations where CEO’s are paid mega millions. Many Mom & Pop owners just get by, like anyone with a job, depending on the business. They just have more theoretical freedom (and much more debt/liability/responsibility.)

 

[JD80]

You have to. Both share the same economy. They are bound by the same minimum wage laws and subject to the same labor market conditions.

Too many people think only in terms of the huge corporations where CEO’s are paid mega millions. Many Mom & Pop owners just get by, like anyone with a job, depending on the business. They just have more theoretical freedom (and much more debt/liability/responsibility.)

You can't. The scale is vastly different. It's not even the same conversation.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Will wages be decreased based on lower profits?

Yes, but it wouldn’t change on a regular basis. A company like Disney would stay with a set minimum wage that wouldn’t change unless their profits drastically changed.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

You can't. The scale is vastly different. It's not even the same conversation.

Again, you have to. If the discussion is about things that affect both, you have to address both. You can’t make rules for Disney that don’t apply to Joe’s cupcake shop. They will apply, with the exception of certain regulations that only apply to big businesses, which is not what we’re discussing here.

 

[Lilofan]

Yes, but it wouldn’t change on a regular basis. A company like Disney would stay with a set minimum wage that wouldn’t change unless their profits drastically changed.

You can't. The scale is vastly different. It's not even the same conversation.

In regards to pay rates, a non union environment , its the owner that sets the rate increases through the employee career. With a union environment , company mgt and union sit down with tense negotiations hashing out pay rates among many other CM related items. Then union members have to approve contract presented to them by mgt .

 

[Nubs70]

Yes, but it wouldn’t change on a regular basis. A company like Disney would stay with a set minimum wage that wouldn’t change unless their profits drastically changed.

Are we talking $DIS profits or PR&E profits?

 

[JD80]

Again, you have to. If the discussion is about things that affect both, you have to address both. You can’t make rules for Disney that don’t apply to Joe’s cupcake shop. They will apply, with the exception of certain regulations that only apply to big businesses, which is not what we’re discussing here.

What rules are you talking about? Large corporations with 1000s of employees are different from mom and pop companies with 5 employees or 20.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

What rules are you talking about? Large corporations with 1000s of employees are different from mom and pop companies with 5 employees or 20.

In my state you don’t even need workman’s comp if you have less than 5 employees.

 

[JD80]

In regards to pay rates, a non union environment , its the owner that sets the rate increases through the employee career. With a union environment , company mgt and union sit down with tense negotiations hashing out pay rates among many other CM related items. Then union members have to approve contract presented to them by mgt .

Regarding the underlined comment, you make it seem like employees never ask for a raise and get one.

 

[JD80]

In my state you don’t even need workman’s comp if you have less than 5 employees.

Are we discussing laws or business practices? When you say rules, I assume it's business practices otherwise he would have stated laws.

 

[Lilofan]

Regarding the underlined comment, you make it seem like employees never ask for a raise and get one.

Poor assumption

 

[Nubs70]

Those are REALLY specific degrees that in a capitalist system - like the one we have in the US - are effectively sales support positions that help drive business (in a non-capitalist system, the same skillset gets redirected for propaganda)

Unfortunately they're an intangible as they don't specifically generate revenue, but instead drive potential customers to departments that specifically generate revenue.

As a leadership creative professional, one of my constant projects has been teaching my direct reports to quantify the market value of the work they create in order to justify their raises. I want to give them their raises, but I have accountant types above me who need numbers.

In your experience, what is the wage multiplier that serves as a benchmark for a raise?