Proper CM Conduct Off Stage

[Hakunamatata]

Ok, I get you now...no hard feelings..

At least someone finally gets him.:lookaroun

 

[mkt]

Ok, I get you now...no hard feelings..

You may now ride my unicorn.

 

[progroupie]

You are a reflection of your employer. Not just when you are at work but all the time. It doesn't matter if you work for Disney or if you work for Wal-Mart or if you work for the government
If they need to vent they should do it without mentioning the name of their employer. It would probably still be more than obvious that they work at WDW but it would at least show a modicum of respect for the company.
When I was at Disney there were several examples of people losing their job for similar issues. Granted this was in the earlier days of facebook/myspace and before twitter was even a "thing" so to speak. I can remember being nervous posting on here!
I'm not even allowed to have my current employer listed on my facebook profile per our companies social media policy. And I just work in retail, at a clothing store!

 

[cymbaldiva]

I would imagine Disney has a social media policy and it's likely this violates it.

Having read no farther in this thread to this post I have to agree - at my former job it was absolutely forbidden to vent about work on any social media site.


ETA - MKT, your avatar is beyond creepy - just sayin'...

 

[Club Cooloholic]

The guy is risking losing his job to vent, maybe even legal action if they ever wanted to do that. That said, I have no problem with him doing it, he's taking the risk and it's his right to voice his opinion(as well as take the consequences).

 

[wizards8507]

I live in a "right to work" state and I don't know of many employers who take advantage of this to terminate employees. While it is true that they can do this. They usually don't want the unemployment claim that will be associated with a "no cause" termination. Also many employees would welcome the free pass to collect unemployment benefits.

"Right to work" has nothing to do with "at will" employment. Right to work means you can't be forced to join a union to work. "At will" means you can quit or be fired for any reason. In an "at will" state, there's no such thing as a "no cause termination suit." The case would be dismissed on its face.

 

[njDizFan]

I personally have no hard feelings about people wanting to vent about their day at work. Tweet away, if I don't want to read it, I can just stop following.

All I know is my job has a really stict code of conduct policy. We are not allowed to post any pictures of employees in their work attire, pictures of the work place, anything negative about the company or any details about promotions or offers.

 

[yeti]

It could be worse. It could be wingdings.

 

[Rowdy]

Just my opinion - slavery in the US ended in the mid 19th century. When one is given a JOB, a company RENTS you - they do not OWN you. However, just about every US Company I know of seems to have conveniently forgotten all this... they appear to be deadset on regulating the behavior of their employees 24x7.

Knock it off. If you want to regulate behavior 24x7, then PAY for it. Here's the deal: I work for you eight hours a day, then you leave me alone. If you want me to work for you 24 hours a day? PAY ME.

Wisdom.

 

[mkt]

This is one I HAVE to comment on -

First, I don't believe this has anything to do with Disney, or being a CM. Rather, it has to do with the fact that one has a JOB.

Just my opinion - slavery in the US ended in the mid 19th century. When one is given a JOB, a company RENTS you - they do not OWN you. However, just about every US Company I know of seems to have conveniently forgotten all this... they appear to be deadset on regulating the behavior of their employees 24x7.

Knock it off. If you want to regulate behavior 24x7, then PAY for it. Here's the deal: I work for you eight hours a day, then you leave me alone. If you want me to work for you 24 hours a day? PAY ME.

Now - I understand how Disney, and OTHER Companies feel. It's not nice to bite the hand that feeds you. But I also understand that these are PEOPLE (not "Human Assets"). I've done everything from picking fruit in a field to working in a restaurant to getting a Doctorate and performing Research at a fortune 500 for 27 years. EVERY job es people off. I don't think a WDW CM is any different. God knows that I would just HAVE to say something if I had eight year olds throwing up on me on a regular basis....

Hi, Trotsky.

I'm a big fan of your work. Sorry to hear about your assassination. In Mexico no less? At least you kicked the bucket somewhere warm. It's nice to see you're still posting from the great beyond. Send my regards to Lenin.

Anyway, about your post. I agree with it completely. But I'm salaried, and subject to the odd mix of US and Puerto Rican labor laws. Which means I can work 10 hours, or I can work 100 hours in a week. And I'm going to earn the same amount.

It's great for budgeting and flexibility; but otherwise I'd prefer OT. So boo to me.

 

[ABigBrassBand]

People should be able to say what they want outside of being a CM, as long as they don't reveal anything that only a CM would know...

 

[progroupie]

This is one I HAVE to comment on -

First, I don't believe this has anything to do with Disney, or being a CM. Rather, it has to do with the fact that one has a JOB.

Just my opinion - slavery in the US ended in the mid 19th century. When one is given a JOB, a company RENTS you - they do not OWN you. However, just about every US Company I know of seems to have conveniently forgotten all this... they appear to be deadset on regulating the behavior of their employees 24x7.

Knock it off. If you want to regulate behavior 24x7, then PAY for it. Here's the deal: I work for you eight hours a day, then you leave me alone. If you want me to work for you 24 hours a day? PAY ME.

Now - I understand how Disney, and OTHER Companies feel. It's not nice to bite the hand that feeds you. But I also understand that these are PEOPLE (not "Human Assets"). I've done everything from picking fruit in a field to working in a restaurant to getting a Doctorate and performing Research at a fortune 500 for 27 years. EVERY job es people off. I don't think a WDW CM is any different. God knows that I would just HAVE to say something if I had eight year olds throwing up on me on a regular basis....

There's a bit of difference in being asked to represent your employer with a certain amount of dignity, and being asked to work for them 24 hours a day.

A CM's behavior outside of work doesn't matter to a certain extent, no one is saying they can't go to the bar and a have a few drinks or even that they can't do illicit drugs. It's just a matter of the company's name coming into play.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

First off, I understand CM's have to put up with a lot. It's not easy to always put a smile on when dealing with many who demand so much, or expect the flawless utopian vacation of a lifetime. I get it, and respect CM's that much more for putting up with all that gets thrown their way on many occaisons.

However, is it appropriate to blast paying customers online...when it is apparent that you are a CM? I know an individual (whose identity shall remain 100% concealed to protect his/her job, and this is not a rat-out thread anyway. So don't ask) who has been a CM for several years. He/she has a Twitter account, and posts some very degrading comments (not frequently, but from time-to-time) against visiting WDW guests. And I'm not talking about random venting about being yelled at, treated bad, etc by a rude customer. I'm talking about very judgmental comments, or complaints about the parks being busy, etc.

A recent Tweet ridiculed how people were dressed (referring to "Toddler Sluts" due to lack of clothing). Others mocked a man's hairstyle at DTD. A recent one made a comment about wanting to swat a kid across the face with an autograph book. Though despite it all...this person seems to love his/her job as a CM. And granted, there are a lot of good/positive Tweets from this user. But a few just make you go

Like said before, I'm not trying to rat out anyone, but isn't it more appropriate if this individual leave off his/her Twitter account that they work for Disney? Not only does it make guests feel like they are secretly mocked off scene, but if mgmt ever found this account...geez.

Maybe I'm just old-school and "don't get" the underground world of being a CM. But public venting like that seems to defeat the purpose of your job to begin with.

Seems to me there is a little thing called freedom of speech in this country......:sohappy:

And to be honest..........I am not sure I disagree..I have seen some pretty strange guests in WDW!!!!..........(and before anyone says it.I am sure I am not perfect either)!


AKK

 

[stratman50th]

Just my opinion - slavery in the US ended in the mid 19th century. When one is given a JOB, a company RENTS you - they do not OWN you. However, just about every US Company I know of seems to have conveniently forgotten all this... they appear to be deadset on regulating the behavior of their employees 24x7.

Knock it off. If you want to regulate behavior 24x7, then PAY for it. Here's the deal: I work for you eight hours a day, then you leave me alone. If you want me to work for you 24 hours a day? PAY ME.

Interesting. I believe you are correct about slavery, or lack thereof. I also think you are correct about it being a "Job". The interesting thing is, I don't have to employ you either. I don't "owe" you a job, which is really great that I can let you go, and find someone else who can agree to follow the policies that I set for the people who represent me and my company. Not being a slave, you have every right to go find employment elsewhere. There is definitely someone out there that has jobs, and agrees with your line of thinking. By the same token, there's someone else out there that needs and wants the job I have to offer.
(Disclaimer: The terms "you" and "I" used in this discussion are generic and not to be construed as being directed at any one individual. )

 

[Club Cooloholic]

I don't think the problem is with the CM complaining. Everyone complains about their job. It's that they are putting it out there in a public and electronically documented way. As was said before Disney doesn't own the CM and they can do what they want in their off time, but at the same time, to do things that damage their business is also something the company frowns upon. This is not a case of the CM hanging out in his local bar telling stories to friends, he is posting on the net and telling EVERYONE, including, possibly some of those guests with the funny haircuts.

Again I think that is the CMs right but it's also Disney's right to fire that person if they find out about it.

 

[stratman50th]

I don't think the problem is with the CM complaining. Everyone complains about their job. It's that they are putting it out there in a public and electronically documented way. As was said before Disney doesn't own the CM and they can do what they want in their off time, but at the same time, to do things that damage their business is also something the company frowns upon. This is not a case of the CM hanging out in his local bar telling stories to friends, he is posting on the net and telling EVERYONE, including, possibly some of those guests with the funny haircuts.

Again I think that is the CMs right but it's also Disney's right to fire that person if they find out about it.

Agreed!

You have a right to say whatever you want, through whatever medium you choose. You also will have to be willing to take the consequences of those actions. Nothing out there in this big ole world is free....

 

[wizards8507]

Agreed!

You have a right to say whatever you want, through whatever medium you choose. You also will have to be willing to take the consequences of those actions. Nothing out there in this big ole world is free....

Exactly! People like to talk about "freedom" but always seem to forget that business are owned by people who are also free. You have a right to say whatever you want and the Company has a right to fire you for whatever they want.

 

[Since1976]

Reminds me of the time a famous celebrity was having lunch in the quick service dining area of the resort where we were staying. Everybody did their best not to gawk at him, but you couldn't ignore his commanding presence, or the fact that a CM was getting his quick service lunch on a tray for him.

I considered Tweeting the celeb-sighting, but instead of doing so, I did a search for his name on Twitter. Amazingly, the CM who had just served the VIP had tweeted: "I just served effing-********* lunch!! Holy **** ****!!" A quick peruse of the CM's tweets showed all sorts of nasty comments about guests, but, to his credit, it didn't appear he ever mentioned where exactly he worked.

After the VIP left, the CM started cleaning up his table. I approached him and said: "effing-***********, huh?" The CM froze for a second, smiled, and continued on. I don't know if he realized what I was referring to, but I decided not to go forward and let him know. Our little secret, I guess!

My opinion? CMs can vent all they want off-stage, but I have no sympathy if they are careless enough to give details that can get them caught. Same with any job, really.

 

[s8film40]

"Right to work" has nothing to do with "at will" employment. Right to work means you can't be forced to join a union to work. "At will" means you can quit or be fired for any reason. In an "at will" state, there's no such thing as a "no cause termination suit." The case would be dismissed on its face.

Well in my experience the two usually go hand in hand. Regardless I live in a "right to work" and an "at will" state. I think that you missed my point though. I'm not talking about a "no cause termination suit". The point I was making was that although people will usually bring up the fact that employment is "at will" in certain states, in my experience that is completely irrelevant. Most employers while they have every right to terminate someone with no cause at all, if they want to avoid an unemployment claim will need to cite a reason for the discharge otherwise they are giving that employee a free pass for unemployment benefits.

 

[stratman50th]

Well in my experience the two usually go hand in hand. Regardless I live in a "right to work" and an "at will" state. I think that you missed my point though. I'm not talking about a "no cause termination suit". The point I was making was that although people will usually bring up the fact that employment is "at will" in certain states, in my experience that is completely irrelevant. Most employers while they have every right to terminate someone with no cause at all, if they want to avoid an unemployment claim will need to cite a reason for the discharge otherwise they are giving that employee a free pass for unemployment benefits.

This is true. My earlier point was you can get rid of somebody even if you don't like the color of their tie. Would they? No besides the unemployment claims, you can still be sued as an employer. Would they win? Probably not, but lawsuits are expensive, unless you're Disney and fight everything in court. Smart move because they win a lot, and it does keep others from filing frivolous suits. Not everybody, but a lot.