Perks being reduced for some CMs

[rucifee]

That's a logical fallacy. If you're actually doing "an honest amount of work," you won't be at the bottom for long, so it's irrelevant. "The bottom" are the people who can't or choose not to do "an honest amount of work."

How do you live while you are there? It's very relevant. The people who stay at the bottom are people who can't or won't do an honest amount of work? How sad that you believe that. Some, yes. All? No way. Some blame falls squarely on the corporations who refuse to promote.

That's the beautiful thing about free market capitalism. Corporations compete with one another. If you're a super awesome employee, and I'm a business owner, I want to hire you. So I pay a premium for the best and the brightest employees because they're worth more. If nobody is offering you more, then maybe you need to realize that you're not, in fact, worth more. But again, that's not a permanent condition. Maybe you're only worth $8.50 today because you've never had a job. But once on the job your boss sees you have a super positive attitude and people skills so you start training new employees. Then you become a manager. And on and on.

Until they collude. Disney and Universal new hires earn within $.25 of each other, or they did the last time I looked. I guess you've never worked for a boss who refused to promote you because his buddy was his buddy. I guess we should blame the person who didn't get promoted rather than the employer here too.

You'll see it yourself soon enough.

Willingness to pay.

Employer: I'll pay you $8.50 to do one hour of work.
Employee: Agreed.

It's as simple as that. If the Employee feels he's worth $12.00 an hour, then he shouldn't agree to work for $8.50. If he's correct that he actually is worth $12.00, then he'll have an offer in no time. If he doesn't get any offers at $12.00 per hour, then he isn't worth it.

You grossly misunderstand the market and how corporations constantly compete to deflate employee value to increase their bottom line.

You basically said you don't think your children have any chance at economic success in this world because corporations and the government are out to get them. People who don't think they have any chance at success don't bother trying. I don't think that's what you're saying about your kids, but it's true for a lot of people.

The current economic climate means they live at home longer, we buy their cars, we put gas in their cars, and the corporate overlords refuse to give them raises, and since all of the companies in the area all pay about the same, there's little opportunity for improvement.

That doesn't mean it's impossible, it means if they didn't have someone with the financial clout to help they would probably fail. That doesn't mean they would give up, they've been taught to never give up.

Obviously it's not a 1:1 impact. It wouldn't perfectly follow a 25% increase in prices for a 25% increase in wages, but the impact is directionally correct.

Fuel prices deflate this. The major driver of inflation in the last 10 years has not been increases in pay, it was fuel costs.

Exactly my point above! Supply and demand doesn't only drive the market for goods and services. It also drives the market for labor. Serious question. It 100 equally-qualified people apply for a job with your company and they're all equally qualified to do the job, but some of them demand $12.00 and others demand $8.50, which are you going to hire? You can afford to pay either wage and still make a profit, and the candidates are exactly alike in every single way.

You're not arguing supply and demand, you're arguing people are only worth what they're worth because of a single metric of willingness to pay. That's not even remotely supply and demand.

 

[rucifee]

A "need" that clearly failed like most of his other "necessary" actions.

I don't disagree with you, not even a little. Mandating a wage did not fix the root cause, otherwise we wouldn't still be talking about this in 2015.

 

[rucifee]

This has been a good conversation, I've enjoyed it. Sadly I have to get off the ferry here, at least for a while. Duty calls.

 

[ford91exploder]

I'm not pro-union by any stretch but if CMs are joining a union when they sign onto TWDC, it means TWDC is not providing enough incentive for CMs to not join the union. Seeing the way TWDC treated some of their IT staff earlier in the year, CMs joining a union does not surprise me and I can't blame them for it as much as I dislike unions. I have to disagree that it would be better for the CM if they did not, unfortunately.

Companies tend to get the unions they deserve, Interestingly enough Southwest is heavily unionized yet because of the mutual trust union contract negotiations generally take minutes or hours without the drama seen in so many other companies and you see the results in both the companies financials and the attitude of the employees.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

How do you live while you are there? It's very relevant. The people who stay at the bottom are people who can't or won't do an honest amount of work? How sad that you believe that. Some, yes. All? No way. Some blame falls squarely on the corporations who refuse to promote.

Until they collude. Disney and Universal new hires earn within $.25 of each other, or they did the last time I looked. I guess you've never worked for a boss who refused to promote you because his buddy was his buddy. I guess we should blame the person who didn't get promoted rather than the employer here too.

You're acting like a promotion is only good for the employee. A company doesn't promote the employee for the employee's sake, but for the corporation's sake. The company will WANT to promote you if you show traits that indicate you'll make the company better if put in a more senior position.

 

[ford91exploder]

"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." - FDR

Look as I've said many times my politics are to the right of Attilla the Hun, However I've always felt that there should be a 'public benefits recovery tax' on companies who have more employees (full and PT) than the national average on public assistance programs (yes WalMart and Disney I'm looking at you) because in these cases the taxpayer is directly subsidizing the companies bottom line.

Corporate welfare is indefensible as it's using money taken under the threat of imprisonment from the citizens and given to a private entity to enhance it's bottom line.

And at least in my version a 'public benefits recovery tax' should not be offsettable or paid with 'tax credits' it should be a cash payment to the governments to offset public benefits paid to employees (it's easy enough to avoid - pay a wage which extinguishes the need for public benefits) or convert large numbers of PT to FT.

 

[ford91exploder]

And what is the "market wage" in a town where one of the biggest employers doesn't let the "local market set the price for labor." They simply fly in thousands of cheaper workers from colleges around the US, and recruitment drives from the islands in the Caribbean. Where's that in the economic theory? If WDW, had to rely only on workers from Central Florida, wages would be higher. They found a way to "short circuit" the local market forces and so it feels disingenuous to claim "but theory." We're already working outside of that playbook, and in a different game.

Exactly - this is why the mega corporations want unlimited immigration it vastly expands the labor pool forcing wages downward short circuiting the laws of supply and demand for labor.

The megacorporations in the US want what Foxconn has in China, Employees paid starvation wages living 6 to a room in a company dorm working 18 hour days 7 days a week. Is this REALLY what we want here in the US...

 

[Andrew C]

The below link is an interesting read from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the first two pages specifically. Characteristics of minimum wage workers. I know WDW CM's make above this, but still found this insightful in the context of this conversation.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/characteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

A few excerpts:

"Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up nearly half of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 15 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and older"

"Occupation. Among major occupational groups, the highest percentage of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage was in service occupations, at about 10 percent. Almost two-thirds of workers earning the minimum wage or less in 2014 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food preparation and serving-related jobs"

"Industry. The industry with the highest percentage of workers earning hourly wages at or below the federal minimum wage was leisure and hospitality (18 percent). Over half of all workers paid at or below the federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, the vast majority in restaurants and other food services. For many of these workers, tips may supplement the hourly wages received"

 

[rucifee]

You're acting like a promotion is only good for the employee. A company doesn't promote the employee for the employee's sake, but for the corporation's sake. The company will WANT to promote you if you show traits that indicate you'll make the company better if put in a more senior position.

Promotion is generally but not always mutually beneficial. Sometimes it's to the benefit of the company promoting, sometimes it's for the benefit of the manager's buddy, and sometimes it's for the benefit of the employee because if that employee leaves it harms the company. It's certainly not black and white. Many companies operate on the mantra of "you and everyone around you is easily replaceable" even when the employee is not, they shoot themselves in the foot all the time. Disney proved this with their big IT cut. My former company cut their entire development staff because a VP convinced a C level that they could outsource it for less. That company is no longer in business. Fortunately it had no impact on me because I am at a high enough level to have been in those conversations trying to get them to abort and I left before they sunk. You're making a bad assumption, one that companies always do things for the good of the company. That's not always true, people don't always operate in their companies best interests because people have self serving interests and bias.

Don't read from the script, you'll get burned if you do.

 

[ford91exploder]

Promotion is generally but not always mutually beneficial. Sometimes it's to the benefit of the company promoting, sometimes it's for the benefit of the manager's buddy, and sometimes it's for the benefit of the employee because if that employee leaves it harms the company. It's certainly not black and white. Many companies operate on the mantra of "you and everyone around you is easily replaceable" even when the employee is not, they shoot themselves in the foot all the time. Disney proved this with their big IT cut. My former company cut their entire development staff because a VP convinced a C level that they could outsource it for less. That company is no longer in business. Fortunately it had no impact on me because I am at a high enough level to have been in those conversations trying to get them to abort and I left before they sunk. You're making a bad assumption, one that companies always do things for the good of the company. That's not always true, people don't always operate in their companies best interests because people have self serving interests and bias.

Don't read from the script, you'll get burned if you do.

These days with the 1990's era eliminations of rules at public companies relative to 'self-dealing' and compensation it's much more likely that decisions will be made which benefit the decision maker directly instead of the company. The rules need to come back to provide a enforceable firewall for the cupidity of the individual decision makers. There is a term of art referring to this 'Moral Hazard' google it - It explains a LOT of corporate bad behavior these days.

 

[French Quarter]

I don't think any reasonable person wants wages legislated.

I don't understand this comment. You think companies should be legally allowed to pay their employees $1/hour? I think most reasonable people think there should be laws around this stuff.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I don't understand this comment. You think companies should be legally allowed to pay their employees $1/hour?

I absolutely do. Even if it was legal to pay $1/hour, it doesn't mean anyone actually would. If a company tried that, they'd have zero employees. Any company that pays a dime more than minimum wage today (i.e. the vast majority of even fast food jobs) is paying a market rate. An elimination of the minimum wage would have zero impact on those workers.

ETA: It's like legalizing drugs. If heroin was legal, it doesn't mean everyone would run out and start doing heroin.

 

[rucifee]

I don't understand this comment. You think companies should be legally allowed to pay their employees $1/hour? I think most reasonable people think there should be laws around this stuff.

The implication was this: In a perfect world, we wouldn't need legislation for companies to take care of their employees as every business / employee relationship would be equally mutually beneficial. Should companies be legally allowed to pay their employees $1 per hour? In a perfect world, yes, because if companies were self governing such a law would be unnecessary. Legislation only exists because companies abuse people given the opportunity, and people abuse companies given the opportunity. There is no self governance which mandates formal governance. It's not a desired state, it's a required state.

 

[French Quarter]

My Dad has no college either. Makes good money because he busted his tail. Things were different then. It's not so simple anymore. Look around you. Small businesses are disappearing left and right under the crush of mega corporations, who post massive profits while the plebes that do the work make proportionately less and less. It's not my opinion here, it's a fact.

Read the article I linked you to.

As to the applications to openings, I'm telling you from personal experience, both in hiring, and in job searching. I wanted to be a cop, but it just wasn't happening. 30,000 people applied to the Port Authority when they opened up hiring 3 years ago. 14000 qualified to get hired. They hired 200. Do the math on that.

I only know my area of the country, maybe things are different in the flyover states.

I actually think you are both right.

On the one hand, I think it is arrogant to say that people shouldn't have these jobs but temporarily and if they just work harder and don't do drugs that they will be making 70,000 a year in no time. We obviously need unskilled workers in minimum wage jobs...and lots of them...for the world to go around. That and, even if someone is motivated and works really hard, it can be very difficult to move up the ladder. There are so many educated, experienced people who end up having to get low paying jobs outside their fields or no jobs at all. It is a difficult time.

But on the other hand, there is a sense of entitlement that has taken hold of our world. Generations ago, people expected to work hard for the money they earned. Today, there are a whole lot of people who expect to put in minimal effort and live the lifestyle of someone who makes much more money. For instance, a lot of people think they should be able to own a car and Internet at home and fancy cell phones and a nice home, etc. even if these things are outside of their price range. There are people who could be trying harder and doing better. And these are the people who complain the loudest and expect their employer to take care of them as if they were their parents and not their bosses. Going above and beyond in your job is not nearly the norm any more.

I know this isn't directly related to CMs, just general comments. But it seems like you are both arguing extremes when the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[French Quarter]

I absolutely do. Even if it was legal to pay $1/hour, it doesn't mean anyone actually would. If a company tried that, they'd have zero employees. Any company that pays a dime more than minimum wage today (i.e. the vast majority of even fast food jobs) is paying a market rate. An elimination of the minimum wage would have zero impact on those workers.

ETA: It's like legalizing drugs. If heroin was legal, it doesn't mean everyone would run out and start doing heroin.

Do you forget the history of where minimum wage came from? Companies could pay whatever earthly wanted and they did. And people worked those jobs because they had no choice. It's not the same as the drug analogy at all. People don't have to do drugs. People have to earn an income.

 

[French Quarter]

The implication was this: In a perfect world, we wouldn't need legislation for companies to take care of their employees as every business / employee relationship would be equally mutually beneficial. Should companies be legally allowed to pay their employees $1 per hour? In a perfect world, yes, because if companies were self governing such a law would be unnecessary. Legislation only exists because companies abuse people given the opportunity, and people abuse companies given the opportunity. There is no self governance which mandates formal governance. It's not a desired state, it's a required state.

But why would we be talking about a perfect world? We don't live in one. Let's talk about the real world.

 

[rucifee]

I absolutely do. Even if it was legal to pay $1/hour, it doesn't mean anyone actually would. If a company tried that, they'd have zero employees. Any company that pays a dime more than minimum wage today (i.e. the vast majority of even fast food jobs) is paying a market rate. An elimination of the minimum wage would have zero impact on those workers.

ETA: It's like legalizing drugs. If heroin was legal, it doesn't mean everyone would run out and start doing heroin.

Many people have been forced to take a sometimes significant reduction in pay or leave their company with nothing. If the minimum wage was removed, you can guarantee that some companies paying at or close to minimum wage would start trying to find ways to demote or reduce their employees pay to improve their bottom line. How many companies cut their employees hours to avoid Obamacare, that's a similar scenario. They would certainly struggle to find new employees, but that wouldn't stop them from abusing the employees they already have. History is littered with this sort of behavior. It's not a sound long term strategy, but newly promoted management tends to not have the experience to see long term.

But why would we be talking about a perfect world? We don't live in one. Let's talk about the real world.

I was simply explaining the difference between required and desired. Nobody wants legislation, but it's a necessary evil.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Do you forget the history of where minimum wage came from? Companies could pay whatever earthly wanted and they did. And people worked those jobs because they had no choice. It's not the same as the drug analogy at all. People don't have to do drugs. People have to earn an income.

Should part time work now be illegal? Some people need to work more hours than offered.

 

[rucifee]

Should part time work now be illegal? Some people need to work more hours than offered.

We might see this in our lifetime. Should it be illegal, no. Will it legislated because companies are cutting hours to avoid regulation, yeah probably.

 

[lazyboy97o]

We might see this in our lifetime. Should it be illegal, no. Will it legislated because companies are cutting hours to avoid regulation, yeah probably.

The regulations being avoided are mostly around legislated wage increases via legislated benefits. Removing part time work would only make things worse and we'll again be waiting for a legislative fix to rising costs and high unemployment.