The end for refillable mugs?

[dreamfinder]

We usually are at the BWV as we are DVC, and at the Bakery there, you have to show them the mug and then they give you your drink in a paper cup for refill. Maybe other locations would do this and it would certainly reduce the "theft"

I haven't used that particular location, but is the soda machine behind the counter? If so, it's more a hygiene issue than a theft issue. Soda from a fountain in the middle of a food court into a cup has little contamination issues. But if the fountain is behind the counter, they now have to worry about food contamination issues. Since they haven't cleaned the mug themselves, they must assume its dirty and not let it near food/food prep areas.

 

[sbkline]

Another interesting food for thought regarding the ethics of "mug abusing", is to think of some of the principles of real estate law. For good or for bad, there is a thing in real estate called an "easement". Let's say that I own a piece of land and someone else owns the piece behind me. They can access their land by going around, but it's quicker and easier to cut across my land. I don't have to allow this, since it is my property, and I can put up "no tresspassing" signs, and it is up to me to enforce it. If, however, my neighbor cuts across my property to get to his, even with the signs, and I continually look the other way and don't enforce my "no trespassing" policy, eventually the law regards this as a tacit consent for him to cut across my property. And if I then decide after a certain amount of time (say 2 years, 4 years, or whatever the law or a court determines to be the right amount of time), to start enforcing my no tresspassing signs, the other guy can take me to court and claim that I have given him an "easement" insofar as I have allowed him to cut across my property for this amount of time, and that amounts to a defacto consent for him to do so, regardless of the "no trespassing" signs on the property.

If I own an empty piece of land and someone decides to build a structure on my land, I, of course, can shut him down since it's my land. However, if I tacitly allow him to build his structure on my land by my choice not to stop him from doing it, then I can't come back a year later and tell him that he can't have that there.

There are certain principles in the law which state that you have to enforce your ownership or else you forfeit it after a certain amount of time.

Similarly, I think we can look at Disney's mug policy and conclude that after this long, if they were really concerned about mug abusers, they would have done somthing about it long ago. And their failure to do so constitutes a tacit approval of people bringing their old mugs in.

Sure, it may not be a perfect analogy...few analogies are. But the point is that there are certain principles that are pretty well embedded in our society, that you must claim and enforce your rights over something, or else eventually, one can reasonably assume that you have forfeited your claim. If I am sharing a house with someone and I move out and leave all my belongings, I am only allowed a certain amount of time to claim my stuff until it is legally considered abandoned and fair game for anyone to sell, to keep, or whatever. Again, perhaps not QUITE the same, but I think the principle could still be considered to apply here. Disney has an official policy of not refilling last year's mug for free. It is up to them to enforce it, and if they consistently choose not to do so, then isn't it reasonable after a certain amount of time, to conclude that their choice not to enforce it essentially constitutes an approval of mug reuse?

 

[wm49rs]

And here I was worrying that this thread may drift too much......

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

And here I was worrying that this thread may drift too much......

Its floating away on all the spilled stolen coke

 

[wm49rs]

Its floating away on all the spilled stolen coke

I'll try not to spill or drift any onto your property.....

 

[Phonedave]

Another interesting food for thought regarding the ethics of "mug abusing", is to think of some of the principles of real estate law. For good or for bad, there is a thing in real estate called an "easement". Let's say that I own a piece of land and someone else owns the piece behind me. They can access their land by going around, but it's quicker and easier to cut across my land. I don't have to allow this, since it is my property, and I can put up "no tresspassing" signs, and it is up to me to enforce it. If, however, my neighbor cuts across my property to get to his, even with the signs, and I continually look the other way and don't enforce my "no trespassing" policy, eventually the law regards this as a tacit consent for him to cut across my property. And if I then decide after a certain amount of time (say 2 years, 4 years, or whatever the law or a court determines to be the right amount of time), to start enforcing my no tresspassing signs, the other guy can take me to court and claim that I have given him an "easement" insofar as I have allowed him to cut across my property for this amount of time, and that amounts to a defacto consent for him to do so, regardless of the "no trespassing" signs on the property.

If I own an empty piece of land and someone decides to build a structure on my land, I, of course, can shut him down since it's my land. However, if I tacitly allow him to build his structure on my land by my choice not to stop him from doing it, then I can't come back a year later and tell him that he can't have that there.

There are certain principles in the law which state that you have to enforce your ownership or else you forfeit it after a certain amount of time.

Similarly, I think we can look at Disney's mug policy and conclude that after this long, if they were really concerned about mug abusers, they would have done somthing about it long ago. And their failure to do so constitutes a tacit approval of people bringing their old mugs in.

Sure, it may not be a perfect analogy...few analogies are. But the point is that there are certain principles that are pretty well embedded in our society, that you must claim and enforce your rights over something, or else eventually, one can reasonably assume that you have forfeited your claim. If I am sharing a house with someone and I move out and leave all my belongings, I am only allowed a certain amount of time to claim my stuff until it is legally considered abandoned and fair game for anyone to sell, to keep, or whatever. Again, perhaps not QUITE the same, but I think the principle could still be considered to apply here. Disney has an official policy of not refilling last year's mug for free. It is up to them to enforce it, and if they consistently choose not to do so, then isn't it reasonable after a certain amount of time, to conclude that their choice not to enforce it essentially constitutes an approval of mug reuse?

But, to go back to your easement example. If I tell you you can cross my land, for now, but I may revoke that permission at any time, then you cannot claim a fair use easement if I revoke that permission at a later date. WDW still says mugs are for lenght of stay, even if they do not enforce it.

You also get into the area of them 'approving' the use of ALL 'illegal' cups, not just their free refill ones. It would be quite a stretch to say WDW has allowed me to fill my 7-11 Slurpiee cup.

It really is a giant mess, and I think the proposed RFID solution would put the clamps down on what must have become an annoying problem for resort food court managers.

-dave

 

[sbkline]

But, to go back to your easement example. If I tell you you can cross my land, for now, but I may revoke that permission at any time, then you cannot claim a fair use easement if I revoke that permission at a later date. WDW still says mugs are for lenght of stay, even if they do not enforce it.

I agree that you can put the condition that you may revoke permission at any time regarding crossing your land and that the person would then be unable to claim an easement. But I don't think that's the proper analogy for what Disney is doing, and has been doing. Basically, they have a printed rule that the mug is for THIS stay only. Yet they consistently choose not to enforce the policy. They haven't given any official permission to reuse your mug, and hence no condition that they can revoke said permission at any time. They have an official policy which they don't enforce. So to get back to the easement example, I think this would be more comparable to me telling my neighbor not to cross my land, putting up a "no trespassing" sign, yet then standing there and waving at him every time he drives through. After a certain point, it's going to be legally regarded as an easement since I knew he was violating my signs yet willfully chose not to do anything about it.

 

[fosse76]

...I know the CM's look the other way either because they are told to or because they don't care.

Do we REALLY believe that the Company would ever allow this, though? Refilling old mugs MUST be sanctioned by Corporate. Disney as a Company would never let this kind of widespread apathy continue if they felt it was costing them money. I mean come on! This is a company where if someone attacks a costumed character and the CM within screams "owww" they fire the CM and give the attacker free admission on their next trip! Do we really think they would allow their CMs to "not care" if guests were "stealing" soda? At least on the widespread level it occurs.

If there evidence where refilling old mugs only seemed to occur at one resort, and that people with old mugs are approached and told not to refill old mugs, then maybe I could buy CM apathy. But it occurs at EVERY resort, and very frequently.

Now I know you are indifferent to the debate, Master Yoda. I'm speaking in general.

 

[Master Yoda]

Do we REALLY believe that the Company would ever allow this, though? Refilling old mugs MUST be sanctioned by Corporate. Disney as a Company would never let this kind of widespread apathy continue if they felt it was costing them money. I mean come on! This is a company where if someone attacks a costumed character and the CM within screams "owww" they fire the CM and give the attacker free admission on their next trip! Do we really think they would allow their CMs to "not care" if guests were "stealing" soda? At least on the widespread level it occurs.

If there evidence where refilling old mugs only seemed to occur at one resort, and that people with old mugs are approached and told not to refill old mugs, then maybe I could buy CM apathy. But it occurs at EVERY resort, and very frequently.

Now I know you are indifferent to the debate, Master Yoda. I'm speaking in general.

What is sanctioned by corporate is a non confrontational policy towards guests. That policy extends from guests being able to abuse CMs, shoplifting all the way down to reusing mugs.

I am confident that Disney knows how much they are technically "loosing" due to guests reusing mugs or flat out stealing soda. I also know that they deliver the profits from soda sales at WDW to the banks in dump truck loads. They will continue to turn a blind eye until a solution costs less than the amount of loss for one simple reason....It is easier and costs less to turn a blind eye in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

If nothing else, sbkline's real estate analogy has me looking forward to the possibility of some guy with a 1995 Dixie Landings cup taking Disney to court over the RFID tech because his ability to use the cup for the last 15 years amounts to tacit legal approval of the practice.

Admit it, all the rest of you want to see it happen too.

 

[Master Yoda]

If nothing else, sbkline's real estate analogy has me looking forward to the possibility of some guy with a 1995 Dixie Landings cup taking Disney to court over the RFID tech because his ability to use the cup for the last 15 years amounts to tacit legal approval of the practice.

Admit it, all the rest of you want to see it happen too.

I would much rather see them put up Vegas style slot machine lights and alarms that go off when an unauthorized cup is used.:lol:

 

[MegaPowersPT]

I've created a monster!

 

[Master Yoda]

I've created a monster!

It is not that hard to do around here. Here are a few other monsters you could have created.

"When will they expand the monorail?"
"Do you rent a scooter to avoid the lines?"
"Should people not be allowed bring babies to WDW?"
"How do they check the age of a child?"
"Can I park at a resort to avoid paying for parking?"

 

[Thorpyness]

Regards the easment discussion. You cant steal something with the justification that you've been stealing and getting away with it for ages.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

:lookaroun

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 314
User Name Posts
PurpleDragon 28
Master Yoda 23
Wilt Dasney 20
Pumbas Nakasak 18
Fractal514 11
Lucky 8
sbkline 7
zweltar 7
Kamikaze 7
unkadug 6
fosse76 6
LoriMistress 6
bradk 6
Bluewaves 6
DisneyMusician2 6
Eyorefan 5
Timmay 5
Phonedave 5
Dwarful 5
fyn 4
njDizFan 4
wm49rs 4
cdunbar 4
bjlc57 4
DisneyDadof5 4
harryk 4
DMC-12 3
xdan0920 3
trr1 3
MegaPowersPT 3
TimNRA757 3
VillanovaBlue 3
Mouse Man 3
princessmelinda 2
Evil Genius 2
dreamfinder 2
heartodisney 2
DisneyCanadian 2
GarryandLindy 2
Nick_A 2
RiversideBunny 2
kimmychad 2
jakeman 2
drossjr 2
tigger248 2
Chape19714 1
gallerie 1
Buried20KLeague 1
rodman1369 1
JimboJones123 1
mickeysshoes 1
hrcollectibles 1
Jimmy Thick 1
cblodg 1
stuart 1
brent2124 1
happykid25 1
SulleyanBoo 1
Disney05 1
ginnymack 1
ulto22 1
PHSCoach 1
bgraham34 1
mousefanwhat? 1
Cindy'sBruno 1
mp2bill 1
asianway 1
Thorpyness 1
TinkerBelle8878 1
Sr Cara de Papa 1
The "Pro" 1
CRO-Magnum 1
Monsterfan99 1
Tigger#1 1
threebeesatdisn 1
muteki 1
nbodyhome 1
jonnyc 1
LordHelmut 1
DisneyRunner 1
Cynderella 1
mamamouse 1
sittle 1
maggiegrace1 1
Bender! 1
SnowWhiteMomma 1
DisneyCane 1
m&mmom 1
techiegsy 1
blackthidot 1
rcapolete 1
GrumpyFan 1
Tater48 1
goofyoverdisney 1
Uncle Lupe 1
DisKid 1
Korfar 1
zipoff 1
kasey1988 1
dizzney 1
MrsJackSparrow 1
Show Thread & Close Window

I think a good chunk of this monster is a handful of us (yours truly included) going back and forth over who cares less about the original topic. :lol:

 

[Dwarful]

It is not that hard to do around here. Here are a few other monsters you could have created.

"When will they expand the monorail?"
"Do you rent a scooter to avoid the lines?"
"Should people not be allowed bring babies to WDW?"
"How do they check the age of a child?"
"Can I park at a resort to avoid paying for parking?"

You forgot my favorite:
"Is fourteen too old for WDW Stroller?"

 

[domndebs]

You forgot my favorite:
"Is fourteen too old for WDW Stroller?"

Not if they're holding an old cup with stolen soda:ROFLOL:

 

[sbkline]

Regards the easment discussion. You cant steal something with the justification that you've been stealing and getting away with it for ages.

That's true if we're talking about sneaking something out of Walmart without being caught. Just because you can succeed in SNEAKING it out (meaning that they simply don't know you're doing it because, trust me, they DO enforce their shoplifting policies) and get away with it for years, doesn't make it right.

However, if you go over to your neighbors yard on a regular basis and pick apples off his apple tree right in front of him and he waves and smiles at you everytime he sees you do it, then you can hardly call that "stealing". His knowledge of your actions and lack of attempts to stop you pretty much becomes understood by both of you as meaning that you're welcome to pick apples from his tree.

In the case of mug reuse, we're not talking about sneaking a mug in, pouring a drink when no one is looking, then sneaking the mug out under your jacket. We're talking about doing it right in front of CMs who say nothing and walking right by them with your old Dixie Landings mug in plain sight. This is more akin to picking the apples off your neighbor's tree while he sits on his porch watching, than it is to shoving DVDs under your jacket at Walmart when no one is looking.

And I don't want to try to argue that blatant stealing is okay just because it doesn't really hurt the bottom line any. With all the money Walmart makes, I'm sure it doesn't really hurt them that much in the grand scheme of things when someone steals a DVD. That 25 bucks or so is grains of sand on the beach in terms of their profit. Yet it's still wrong. But again, an important part of the ethics discussion in this case is Disney's knowledge of it happening and the fact that they seemingly have no interest in stopping it, even to the point of having multiple CMs over different time periods telling people that they're welcome to bring their mugs back.

 

[Eyorefan]

I agree that you can put the condition that you may revoke permission at any time regarding crossing your land and that the person would then be unable to claim an easement. But I don't think that's the proper analogy for what Disney is doing, and has been doing. Basically, they have a printed rule that the mug is for THIS stay only. Yet they consistently choose not to enforce the policy. They haven't given any official permission to reuse your mug, and hence no condition that they can revoke said permission at any time. They have an official policy which they don't enforce. So to get back to the easement example, I think this would be more comparable to me telling my neighbor not to cross my land, putting up a "no trespassing" sign, yet then standing there and waving at him every time he drives through. After a certain point, it's going to be legally regarded as an easement since I knew he was violating my signs yet willfully chose not to do anything about it.

For what its worth I just recently sat in on a Labor arbitration in which the Union argued that because the Company previously did not enforce a certain employee rule, the rule was void. The arbitrator didn't buy that argument and denied the grievance.

Also, for what its worth, laws governing what business do with their merchandise and what people do with their real estate are in no way related. So while it works as an analogy on a discussion board its not a valid legal argument.

 

[fosse76]

For what its worth I just recently sat in on a Labor arbitration in which the Union argued that because the Company previously did not enforce a certain employee rule, the rule was void. The arbitrator didn't buy that argument and denied the grievance.

That depends how and why all of a sudden the employee rule was suddenly being enforced. Was the lack of enforcement resulting in employees abusing the system, or was it applied discriminatorily (i.e., to get rid of an employee protected by Anti-discrimination laws).

However, Disney can tell people at any time they cannot re-use their mugs. Personally, I don't think they will. Some members on this board make a huge ordeal out of this topic, and though refilling old mugs IS widespread throughout the resort, I doubt it even adds up to 1% of resort hotel guests. Since the break even point on a mug (for the consumer) is 400 or so refills, there is no real "loss" for Disney to be concerned about.

I remember when they switched from the Year of a Million Dreams mugs to the current ones. I stayed at the All Star Movies resort, and saw MAYBE 2 old mugs during my entire stay. Now that's not to say in other trips I haven't seen more people with older mugs, I can say that of the 9 times of visited WDW, I can count on two hands the number of old mugs I've seen being refilled at the resort. Personally, I have no problem with it. The only problem I have is that I ALWAYS forget my mug at home! At the same time it doesn't really matter, the mug really is inconvenient unless you're hanging out in the food court for a while.