Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter

[fosse76]

Asking people to work off the clock ("donating time") is murky at best and illegal at worst. I don't work for Wage & Labor, but I'm sure they would know.

No. It is illegal. Point blank.

 

[MattM]

Exactly, and what is stranger is the most vitriol is saved not for those who completely disagree, but those with only slight disagreement.

Agreed. It is funny (or sad) how much someone's...umm...."spirithood" gets threatened when someone disagrees with them. Ironically, he accuses everyone who disagrees with him of having an agenda, even though he has stated here that it is basically his intention (read: agenda) to bring down the social media dept. at WDW/TWDC (since you work for TWDC while working at WDW). It is mind numbing trying to keep up with the double standards.

 

[fosse76]

Possible, I guess, but that would be state rules and not federal. Unless, it changed recently...federal labor rules state 40 hour week. But, anything is possible. I would guess that if they had any jurisdiction concerning money earned out of country, they would lean toward the customs of the country and, at best, federal guidelines. I know that many times the 8 hour day was more a result of union negotiation than established law.

Other than the federal minimum wage, there is no federal regulation with regards to wages. Overtime is a state issue.

 

[fosse76]

You are wrong.

It is a BIG deal.

And you're missing the point. It's the others here who keep defending her who focus on a technicality.
And it doesn't matter much. It's the big picture stuff that does. Oh, they know it as well. But they're playing games.

Exactly. Back in college I worked at Six Flags, which was owned by Time-Warner. And to be even more accurate, Six Flags was a subsidiary of Warner Bros., which was a subsidiary of Time-Warner. Do people honestly think I could tell people that back in college I worked for Warner Bros.? Or Time-Warner? I mean, seriously? I didn't. Your employer is the one who hired you and benefits most directly from your work product. Even if you can stretch the truth and say, yes, I worked for Time-Warner, it is completely misleading. It conjures images of me having worked in the corporate offices. Does anyone honestly believe that if the parent company of the NYT was named "Media Company Holdings" that she would have listed that as her employer? She obviously did it to mislead people into thinking she published in the New York Times.

 

[George]

I told you exactly what my agenda is in this. I do not believe your end justifies your means. I was repetitious because nobody would answer my inquiries in a straight manner, instead The New York Times Company and The New York Times were repeatedly used interchangeably because that is what created the most effect. That is where the thinking was done for others. It was not enough to point out that the accepted practice in journalism is to reference your specific paper instead of the parent company, it had to be framed as a specific claim to be writing for another paper.

That is exactly what she did. If this is a discussion of ethics and honesty, then those claiming to stand for that should engage in such a manner. No stretch of information, even if it is what the original mischaracterization hopes people assume. Because doing that is the same. It's a slight stretch that should be ignored because it is "small" and still technically true. Your the one who started playing the semantics game and getting y at those who recognize it as such.


Is your reading comprehension really that bad? I already said I think she lied. My issue is YOU lying about her lie and then justifying it with what would likely be a similar reason, that your statements are technically true and make a bigger impact.


Then why doesn't Mr. Straight and Honest say exactly what these agendas are, who has them and why? This is your MO. You make these suggestions so you can't get called out for being wrong since you're "only asking questions." It is exactly the sort of sleazy reporting you claim to dislike.


I think this is what I've been getting at, the end (a good lawn) has justified the means (the embellishment). To me, that is important.


It does carry weight, but instead of clearly explaining industry practice he too jumped onto those who asked and would not be straightforward without using names interchangeably.


That is exactly what would be said in defense of the embellished résumé. In this discussion there should be no place for playing the very sort of games one is attacking.


Exactly, and what is stranger is the most vitriol is saved not for those who completely disagree, but those with only slight disagreement.

I agree with some of this. What I long for is a big picture discussion about WDW the good and bad. I'd like someone to frame this whole thing so we can judge how big the picture is. Is this indicative of a lack of morals or quality control company wide or is this something to be expected (there has been some discussion of this)? Is the mouse aware of JFB's resume enhancement and do they care? Will this have impacts on other parts of the company? Did someone look at how they do social media and decide they were going to change how they do PR on the web? Maybe, other parts of the Disney theme parks have looked at the theme park social media they pay for and are questioning its structure, hiring practices, and whether or not it should exist?

Personally, I wish you guys would bury these very odd (to me) specific hatchets and move on. I feel like a lot of smart people have gotten lost in an argument they want to win...For full disclosure, I wasn't lying when I said lying in my line of work could cause death, so I am reasonably close to opinion free on the details of JFB's resume (I really don't know if everyone who works for part of the New York Times Company would put that on their resume or not, even though I would think saying Lakeland Ledger which is a lot more specific is more honest and helpful to a potential employer. Nor do I know if @WDW1974 wanted to draw more attention to her resume mis-representation by initially leaving the company off or if he felt that it was all the same so it didn't matter). Really, I'd like a few step backs and some analysis of the big picture so I can understand if Disney will take my employment offer of a few pages ago seriously. :lookaroun

 

[djlaosc]

I agree that it doesn't fit in Hollywoodland (a Muppet's Studios miniland would be better), but i can't see how would fit better in Fantasyland, lol

Because a monster in your closet is fantasy? Of course, it wouldn't really fit in DL's European themed Fantasyland either in terms of look...

 

[the.dreamfinder]

Meanwhile at Walt Disney Animation...
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/s...d-but-films-director-says-he-didnt-80806.html

 

[djlaosc]

Monsters has absolutely nothing to do with CA or Hollywood (other than it being a movie), but that hasn't stopped additions to DCA since it opened in 2001. What does Mermaid have to do with CA? Honey badger Disney don't care

The Little Mermaid is in an aquarium in DCA, isn't it? So it does slightly fit, but it would obviously fit better in Fantasyland.

 

[George]

She gets clicks on the Disney Parks blog and he gets clicks on this forum. Hilarious!

No one on this board has submitted a resume or CV asking Steve for a professional posting position.

Agreed. It is funny (or sad) how much someone's...umm...."spirithood" gets threatened when someone disagrees with them. Ironically, he accuses everyone who disagrees with him of having an agenda, even though he has stated here that it is basically his intention (read: agenda) to bring down the social media dept. at WDW/TWDC (since you work for TWDC while working at WDW). It is mind numbing trying to keep up with the double standards.

He shouldn't accuse people of having an agenda if he doesn't know for sure, but if he has stated that his intention is to bring down the social media department, then kudos to Mr. 74 for honesty.

 

[flynnibus]

Since I don't work there, I have no idea how the OT is paid incrementally (i.e., 15 minute- blocks, 30-minute blocks?)

Exactly - you don't know. It's common practice to round the hours like that - you don't get paid to the minute.

In other words, it says even if you work until 9:10, sign out at 9:00

No, it's not suggesting to alter your timecard - it's saying take the time on that side of the rounding point. This language is clear to those familiar with the process at hand.

There is nothing illegal nor unethical about what the memo is saying. It's simply saying 'don't push for OT' and uses the example of 'you are getting close by already being past the hour.. don't keep pushing the job and end up on the other side of the rounding point and end up with a half hour of OT'

It's simply saying 'be aware - even avoiding the fractional OT helps'

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

The Little Mermaid is in an aquarium in DCA, isn't it? So it does slightly fit, but it would obviously fit better in Fantasyland.

Kiiiiiiiiind of. The exterior is supposed to look like a seaside aquarium, but that's a real flimsy way into the theme IMHO. My only point was that fitting the CA theme has never been a huge concern of Disney's, probably because it's an incredibly limiting theme.

 

[flynnibus]

Other than the federal minimum wage, there is no federal regulation with regards to wages. Overtime is a state issue.

You might be interested in this law
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-flsa.htm

It should be posted at the work place actually. Now there are specific requirements on who it covers (due to the Federal limits on being able to regulate only interstate commerce) - but it very clearly defines overtime as work over 40hrs in a week and requires premium pay for it.

 

[Funmeister]

I see a really bad case of what I call the "Howard Stern Syndrome" with some folks reading the forum. If you do not like what the "Spirit" has to say or how he/she (he did mention man in one post) says it...then turn the station...read a different blog. The last time I checked my computer did not require me to read his posts before I could power up.

I will say this...the "spirit" knocks it out of the park on most occasions. I really wish everyone reading his posts could work for the company for any significant amount of time (in certain positions of course...selling Mickey Premium Bars in Tomorrowland does not cut it) because you would be amazed how much deeper his comments really go and how true they are. I would love to enlighten everyone on what I am saying but it would literally take hours and hours of back story for some of it to make sense.

I myself hate to read some of the things "Spirit" has to say not because of him but because what he says is true. I hate to see what the company has turned into (try getting .99 prime rib today in the Fantasyland cafeteria) but it is a corporate machine that no longer cares about anything but $$$.

Continue to be critical about what the "Spirit" has to say...it is your right. Just remember he is a GREAT resource of information beyond what most will ever know. If you do not like it...read a different forum.

**the defense of the "Spirit" has nothing to do with liking Perkins or possibly being his love child and is solely the expression of Funmeister Inc., Funmeister Magic Bands, Funmeister Magical Hat Removal and Funmeister's Bring Back Buffalo Junction movement.

 

[Lee]

I'm gonna throw in a couple points about the "Blondie Situation." (Since I'm posting from my phone, I'm not going to go back and quote a bunch of stuff.)

Imagine a guy who wants to be a baseball coach at an major college.

On his resume, he indicates that he spent two years with the Seattle Mariners organization, when in fact he only spent two seasons riding the bench for the Jackson Generals, Seattle's Double-A team in Tennessee.

You can make a case that he didn't outright "lie", since there is a business connection between the two teams. However, his statement was used to intentionally present a misleading image of himself to his prospective employers and the outside world.

This, if discovered, should certainly cause the school to seriously rethink hiring him, or if caught in time, to toss his resume in the trash.

Now, while to an average person on the street it may seem like nothing, a little fudging to improve this guy's image, to people in the actual sports world (especially players) it is a tremendous breach of ethics. You don't lie about who you play for to other athletes and not expect them to be highly offended
.
By the same token, journalists and media professionals are similarly offended by such behavior in their world. It just isn't ok, and may for some reach the level of outrage.

It is also a media and journalism no-no to work in a public relations position while also holding a position with a news-gathering organization. It just isn't done.

What will come of all of this? Don't know.
Disney (Burbank) is aware of it now, as is The Times. It's up to them.

On the subject of agendas (again...), I have one, 74 has one...almost everyone does. Some of us have stated that we are unhappy with how the Disney Social Media department works, and would like to see some wholesale changes made. No secret there.
In the immortal words of Nicholson's Joker, "This town needs an enema!"

 

[flynnibus]

That is exactly what she did. If this is a discussion of ethics and honesty, then those claiming to stand for that should engage in such a manner. No stretch of information, even if it is what the original mischaracterization hopes people assume. Because doing that is the same. It's a slight stretch that should be ignored because it is "small" and still technically true. Your the one who started playing the semantics game and getting y at those who recognize it as such.

+1

My issue is YOU lying about her lie and then justifying it with what would likely be a similar reason, that your statements are technically true and make a bigger impact.

[...]This is your MO. You make these suggestions so you can't get called out for being wrong since you're "only asking questions." It is exactly the sort of sleazy reporting you claim to dislike.

+1
+1

Well said - the 'flair' is necessary to fan the flames and the convenient dancing back and forth across the line is just as filthy as the ones he claims to be outting.

 

[Californian Elitist]

The Little Mermaid is in an aquarium in DCA, isn't it? So it does slightly fit, but it would obviously fit better in Fantasyland.

Mermaid would look out of place in DL's Fantasyland.

 

[freediverdude]

Actually the company I work for a while back did change to paying people by the minute. Actually it's expressed as X.xx hours out to two decimal places, lol. I really wonder whether that actually increased OT, because a lot of people used to be real careful not to go over, and now that it's by the minute, it's very difficult to get it exact, so often you end up a little over and get paid for it.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

Mermaid would look out of place in DL's Fantasyland.

Oh I dunno - if they did like WDW's they could make it work, there's just no great place to put it unless you take out the motor boat lagoon and some Autopia.

 

[fosse76]

Exactly - you don't know. It's common practice to round the hours like that - you don't get paid to the minute.

I'm aware of that...however, non-exempt employees are required by law to be paid for all time worked. So it MUST be rounded up, because employees must be paid for ALL time that they work. If the employer only pays in increments, then they will need to eat the additional amount of time since this is their policy.

No, it's not suggesting to alter your timecard - it's saying take the time on that side of the rounding point. This language is clear to those familiar with the process at hand.

You're wrong. As you stated, they are telling them to "round down," which means they will not get paid for any overtime they worked that is under 15 minutes (I'm going to assume the pay OT in 30 minute increments, since that was the example the memo used). As I said above, the law requires any non-exempt employee (which if you are paid hourly, you are) to be paid for ALL time that is worked.

There is nothing illegal nor unethical about what the memo is saying.

Wrong. The suggestion was clearly to not claim OT worked if it falls under 15 minutes . That's illegal. The law requires an employer to pay their employees for OT. Employers are not allowed to tell employees not to report time. Wal-Mart is constantly getting in trouble for that behavior.

It's simply saying 'don't push for OT' and uses the example of 'you are getting close by already being past the hour.. don't keep pushing the job and end up on the other side of the rounding point and end up with a half hour of OT'

Being past the hour triggers the requirement of the employer to pay OT. They are free to fire employees who frequently do this, but they still have to pay for the overtime.

It's simply saying 'be aware - even avoiding the fractional OT helps'

That may have been the intended spirit of the memo, but as far the OT statements, they're telling people explicitly not to claim it if under a certain amount of time...which IS illegal.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Oh I dunno - if they did like WDW's they could make it work, there's just no great place to put it unless you take out the motor boat lagoon and some Autopia.

Neither facades would work, that's for sure. Mermaid doesn't fit the European theme as much as the other stories represented in Fantasyland. I like its placement in Paradise Pier, though technically Mermaid has nothing to do with California.