Wait, so they can get not an outrageous increase and you mean still do the responsible job they are supposed to do?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Splash Mountain retheme to Princess and the Frog - Tiana's Bayou Adventure
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
- Status
FantasiaMickey2000
Well-Known Member
Their job is not to work for the Walt Disney Company. They are independent directors. Why are you trying to compare apples and oranges?
Ill try to put this in layman’s terms. If you are looking for a job and Walmart says we are only willing to pay $10 an hour and Target is willing to pay $25, where are you and everyone else going to try to work for? It’s the exact same concept here.
If you only want to pay Disneys executives $14M then you won’t get talented individuals running the company. Comcast’s CEO made $32.7M last year. His subordinates at NBCUniversal each made more than $20M. Do you really think talented people are going to work as CEO at Disney for significantly less than the 2nd in command at their competitor?
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
This is why there need to be caps on executive compensation.
FantasiaMickey2000
Well-Known Member
Certainly a fair comment. But those aren’t the rules right now, so Disney has to pay market rates for executive compensation.
Regardless of the pay of Chapek, even if you paid Chapek and the executives $0 for the last 2 years, the parks division lost $12 billion in profits and cash flow compared to if you held pre-pandemic levels flat. That money would have funded projects like the retheme. Since the money isn’t there, certain projects have to be delayed/cancelled.
They will start investing again soon, but I don’t understand why people expect them to keep spending like it’s 2019. That’s all I’m trying to say. They have taken a big hit financially any way you slice it the last 2 years. Once things get better, you’ll see more investment into the parks.
I know what independent means. They are not captive. They could go somewhere competitive that would pay their skills more. That was one of your original points.
And to your other post. The Board of Director's do have weight in what the decision for the wage negotiation is for the CEO. Back to the point of they can all get millions a year increase, why would they say no?
FantasiaMickey2000
Well-Known Member
That’s not what independent means. It means they don’t work for the Walt Disney Company. They already work somewhere else. Bob Chapek is not independent of the Walt Disney Company. Mary Barra is independent of the Walt Disney Company. No matter what Bob and other C suite Disney employees are paid, Mary will not make millions in her role as a director.
Look, we are going in circles here. Bob Chapek making $0 a year ever since he’s been CFO wouldn’t be enough pay for the re-theme. The bottom line is the Company has lost billions of dollars of lost profits and operating cash flow during the pandemic. Therefore, they are making cuts to significant non-essential capital expenditures like the re-theme. It’s the right thing to do in the short and long term for their shareholders which are whom their foremost responsibilities are held. As things improve, reinvestment will resume and projects like these will get underway. I’ll leave it at that.
91JLovesDisney
Well-Known Member
How do you know it hasn't been cancelled? That's all I'm asking
91JLovesDisney
Well-Known Member
LMAO
Maybe you didn't catch my statement, "So don't take anybody's word for it, but I HEARD from a source that he heard from a source that.."
and
"But obviously IDK, just something I heard."
what's your point?Two different sentences there. They are independent from the company. They are also not captive. Any person on that independent committee could get a job somewhere else. Just like you said Chapek could do if he was not permitted to 32 million a year instead of what was about half of that. It is a circle of people making sure THEY are taken care of. They benefit from those shares too.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
The bolded is basically what I said earlier - big egos feeding big egos...and is part of the problem at the core of America's income disparity issues.
Brer Oswald
Well-Known Member
Abigail Disney’s documentary about Disney paying their workers poorly is about to drop. The company is going to be under fire from the Twitter crowd. So if it was cancelled (it wasn’t), it’s sure as hell back on now for good PR.LMAO
Maybe you didn't catch my statement, "So don't take anybody's word for it, but I HEARD from a source that he heard from a source that.."
and
"But obviously IDK, just something I heard."
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Because it hasn’t been
And there are teams actively working on it
Teams actively work on things all of the time.
It is shocking how far some things get before pulling the plug. I mean, we were not too far from having an Animatronic that wasEddie Murphy and Frankenstein's Monster characterized in MGM Studios.
If anything. Disney is going to see how this Tiana Disney Plus stuff plays out.
True... but that doesn't have anything to do with a grain-of-salt rumor that it has already been completely cancelled.
People are working on it now. It hasn't been cancelled for now. It can be cancelled in the future. It's unlikely it'll be cancelled, tho.
It's anonymous source v. anonymous source.
Difference is that @peter11435's sources have been proven track record for being mostly right (and the times they weren't were mostly likely due to the mercurial nature of Disney's ""plans.""
91JLovesDisney
Well-Known Member
I have no track record at all. Maybe this will be my first score
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Oh absolutely. That’s why when I said the project hasn’t been cancelled or significantly delayed I followed that up with… at least not yet.
Dear Prudence
Well-Known Member
Musicians work a lot harder and have to have a lot more skills than any CEO.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Well that's not necessarily true of, say, a pop star. Some of them don't have to do anything but sing (and maybe learn some choreographed dance moves). They often don't write any of the songs or perform any of the music -- not that I have any problem with the money they make. People like it and pay for it, so they deserve to get their share (although they may get an outsized share compared to the studio musicians etc. who actually play on the record).
I also think that downplays how much CEOs work. A lot of them regularly work 12+ hour days.
Last edited:
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
I deleted my previous response because how I feel about athletes and entertainers is far more nuanced than how I feel about CEOs and huge corporations.
Corporations work extremely hard to ensure that wages stay as low as possible for their front-line employees, without whom the company couldn't function. They use their influence to ensure the laws passed are in their favor whenever possible (which, lets face it, is almost always). Look at the anti-union movement started during the Reagan years...it's still ongoing, and many people in my parents generation and even in my own generation deeply believe that unions are bad (even though every person I know who is a union member thanks God for them). The actions of big corporations and their CEOs affect MILLIONS of people's daily lives and life outcomes.
Do I think athletes are paid ridiculous amounts of money? Yes...when ticket prices have gotten to the point that going to a game is no longer something that can be enjoyed by the majority of Americans, yes. However, I also think athletes deserve to earn enough so that they don't need to worry about any potential medical consequences they may face after retirement. Professional athletes also now have MANY off-field opportunities to earn massive wealth through corporate sponsorships, etc. that didn't exist until fairly recently (recent in the history of sports)...not to mention so many now making the career shift from sports to film. Athletes also aren't responsible for making sure the pay of others stays as low as possible, and they aren't responsible for setting ticket prices at stadiums, either. They aren't "self-employed" or "in charge"...they work directly for the teams that hire them.
Actresses, actors, and musicians are similar to athletes in that they're not "in charge" of the wages of others (for the most part)...but they also spend huge amounts of time away from their families with often grueling schedules and employment requirements (lose weight, gain weight, get muscular, you need to look "this" way, etc.), many have difficulty dealing with the loss of privacy (or have to work extraordinarily hard at keeping their privacy) and they also have access to many other opportunities in their fields (producing, directing, writing, composing, etc.). I see these people as more "self-employed" than athletes, as once they've reached a certain point, they can pick and choose which songs to play or scripts to accept. But again, these "employees" aren't the ones setting ticket prices for movie theaters or concert venues.
So...do I think these types of careers need salary caps the same way executive compensation needs to be capped? Yes and no. I wouldn't mind seeing a "per contract" lump sum limit, but back end earnings, bonuses, side-gigs (advertising deals and the like), etc. should remain separate because these are the people actually producing the "product"...without them the product wouldn't exist at all. The same can't be said of CEOs...they make their money entirely on the sweat of others and put great effort and resources towards ensuring that those at the lowest end of the totem pole stay there.
Last edited:
- Status