kcw
Member
Well, as for good/bad show, you clearly haven't seen their crappy broadway shows and their extremely lax safety standards on them
Really? That's funny, I've been in them. I'll try not to take offense.They do take quite a few precautions when it comes to safety, and they are always trying to present good show.
Not sure how it is ironic.
Because those to whom the standards actually apply are better judges of whether they are discrimanatory or not. I don't think that someone who doesn't work for the company can really have fair opinion on something like that, that doesn't apply to them.
However, it's amazing how everyone is quick to defend Disney.
I work for them, and they've never given me reason to distrust. Besides, it's a big corporation vs a random magazine article that has already proven to have some mistruths....I'll take the former
Apparently, he was hired for parade and atmospheric performances. He claims to have been removed from the atmospheric performances, and after complaining to HR, he was informed that he was never hired for atmospheric performances.
If he was hired as a toy soldier playing an instrument, then that was all he was hired to do. Those are strictly musicians and they don't do "atmospheric" performances. It's a completely separate deal. The writer of the article is either quite misinformed, or this guy is just making things up
Clearly, something happened with regards to this guy's employment. Assuming his allegations are true, then indeed Disney violated the law.
From what I can tell, it's clear that his contract ended, and he was upset when he wasn't rehired the following year. That isn't "something happening with his employment," that's life.
I based my arguments on the assumption that he isn't lying (or exxagerating), and other people, for argument's sake, did as well.
...and others base their arguments on the assumption that Disney isn't lying. You can't get upset at them for doing the same that you did- it goes both ways
In this case, we don't know what the real truth is. Is it possible he is merely exploiting a religious belief for personal gain? Possibly. Is it possible that Disney didn't like the way he looked and fired him? Possibly. Instead of jumping to conclusions that Disney has the right to hire and fire anyone they please based on appearance (which to a degree they don't), why not let the case play out.
If you had phrased things in this way from the get-go, people might not have gotten as fired up.
If we never hear about this case again, chances are Disney's legal team determined the case had merit and settled.
Why? If they determine the guy is just a nutjob, I doubt we'd hear about it either.
How they run it and how they are supposed to run it are never the same thing.
That's subject to opinion...
Clearly the extent at which the grooming policy is enforced varies based on who your manager is
You just stated that nobody knew all of the facts, so how can anything be clear? In my department, we don't really know our managers well, but I'm sure someone else in a different dept would probably be able to give a better opinion on this claim.
And for those that keep claiming that the "show" excuse wouldn't hold water- I'm not racist at all, and I'm very accepting of others' cultures, beliefs, religions, etc. However, if I walked into Frontierland, and saw a guy in a cowboy costume, with a full beard and turban, I'd stop and go "huh?" Sure, you might think that you don't really notice the CMs and how their appearance might distract from theming, but that's because they don't distract. That's how it was intended to be. By making sure they all look the same, and there are no "extremes" sticking out, it allows CMs to almost fade into the backdrop. Whether people like it or not, it is a show, and they most definitely can typecast.