Union Members Reject Preliminary Disney World Proposal

[TravisMT81]

OK I see a lot of you have quoted me. The problem is you guys are taking what I said the wrong way. If the union gets their way the cast members will be limited to 8 or less hours a day to avoid being paid overtime. That will stop double shifts and lead to more work days per week to make the same money. I prefer to work more hours in less days and have more time off. Three 12 hour days are better than six 6 hour days IMO.

:wave: ACE

um no we already get paid OT anything over 8 hours. We get doubles all the time at work. My location doesn't care about paying overtime they just don't like paying double.

 

[ACE]

um no we already get paid OT anything over 8 hours. We get doubles all the time at work. My location doesn't care about paying overtime they just don't like paying double.

So you already get "time and a half" for anything over 8 hours in a day. For example, say you make $5 an hour and you work ten hours today. Do you get $5 an hour for the first 8 hours and $7.50 an hour for the last 2 hours? If so then WDW is mismanaging the payroll big time.

:wave: ACE

 

[TravisMT81]

So you already get "time and a half" for anything over 8 hours in a day. For example, say you make $5 an hour and you work ten hours today. Do you get $5 an hour for the first 8 hours and $7.50 an hour for the last 2 hours? If so then WDW is mismanaging the payroll big time.

:wave: ACE

yes if I work a double, first 8 hours is my regular pay then the last 6 are time and a half. (double 14 hours)

 

[wannab@dis]

So you already get "time and a half" for anything over 8 hours in a day. For example, say you make $5 an hour and you work ten hours today. Do you get $5 an hour for the first 8 hours and $7.50 an hour for the last 2 hours? If so then WDW is mismanaging the payroll big time.

:wave: ACE

How would that be considered mismanaging the payroll? If they need a worker for more time than scheduled, they pay them overtime. If they only need the worker for an extra 2 hours, it would be better to pay them overtime than to bring on more workers. Keep in mind that most companies are restricted to minimum hours by law or union. So if they "sometimes" need employees for a little extra time, it is cheaper to pay OT than hiring more people with minimum hours and benefits. Even if an employee is part-time, there are still "costs" involved in that employee above the actual wages. You are already paying for the benefits for the first employee and only paying (in your example) an extra $5 for those 2 hours. To me, that is very good management and keeping costs down. If the employee is happy to get the OT, then everyone is happy.

Now, the opposite is true when you start getting into a case where people are making time and a half for 20 or more hours. In that case, it's better to bring in more workers, pay the benefits on the new employee, then work them up to 40 hours. It's really a juggle and a resource management trade-off. The norm is to use OT up to a certain level then hire when the benefit costs are less than the necessary OT costs.

 

[BriJul]

Does anyone else out there have a job where overtime is based on your hours per day? If you do, let me know how you got it so I can work that into my next job when I'm negotiating salary.

:wave: ACE

Post office.

 

[Dopey Dave]

There were generally two ways pay schedules were set up.

One was the traditional 40 hour work week where you worked Monday through Friday with weekends off. You are only paid over-time if you work over 40 hours.

The second way was set up originally for hospital workers since weekends were a required part of the job. It is set up on an 8 and 80 system. Anything over 8 hours in a day or 80 hours in a two week pay period was paid over-time.

Those were Federal Wage & Hour rules.

That was then and this is now. I'm not sure if this is still in force.

 

[ACE]

How would that be considered mismanaging the payroll? If they need a worker for more time than scheduled, they pay them overtime. If they only need the worker for an extra 2 hours, it would be better to pay them overtime than to bring on more workers. Keep in mind that most companies are restricted to minimum hours by law or union. So if they "sometimes" need employees for a little extra time, it is cheaper to pay OT than hiring more people with minimum hours and benefits. Even if an employee is part-time, there are still "costs" involved in that employee above the actual wages. You are already paying for the benefits for the first employee and only paying (in your example) an extra $5 for those 2 hours. To me, that is very good management and keeping costs down. If the employee is happy to get the OT, then everyone is happy.

Now, the opposite is true when you start getting into a case where people are making time and a half for 20 or more hours. In that case, it's better to bring in more workers, pay the benefits on the new employee, then work them up to 40 hours. It's really a juggle and a resource management trade-off. The norm is to use OT up to a certain level then hire when the benefit costs are less than the necessary OT costs.

I totally agree if we're talking one or two people working 2 hours overtime. But if you have 5 employees getting "time and a half" then it might be cheaper to bring on another worker. It's a delicate balancing act.

But if the employee is getting 6 hours at "time and a half" like TravisMT81 says he's getting then it is a bad practice. Especially since it's probably not limited to just TravisMT81. If this is happening all over WDW then it will really add up.

Also, do all the employees get benefits? Some places I have worked only give benefits to folks who are full time or to part timers who have been with the company for a certain length of time.

:wave: ACE

 

[TP2000]

From Orlando Sentinel:

"This is just the first serve of the tennis match," Bob Harris, a bus driver represented by Teamsters Local 385, said after dropping his "No" vote into the ballot box.

"If the cast members treated the guests like management treats us, the guests would never come back."

Perhaps this bus driver should find someplace else to work if WDW has such an unpleasant work environment? He obviously has a specific skill; driving a commercial bus. He should try and find a job with another operation that employs bus drivers, like municipalities, or civic infrastructure such as airports or convention centers.

If the work environment is so horrible, and the compensation is not comparable to the rest of that region of the country, then that person needs to take his learned skill and find a new job with a better employer.

 

[cm1988]

Advance token to Boardwalk

If the work environment is so horrible, and the compensation is not comparable to the rest of that region of the country, then that person needs to take his learned skill and find a new job with a better employer.

I wonder where that wonderful employer might be? Where is it that a person can be paid a living wage for doing a good day's work?

It's hard to see this if you're in Management, or have a technical specialty. But pretty much any company that employs a lot of "entry level" human resources pays them less than they need to provide food, shelter, clothing and transportation for themselves... and certainly not for a family. Then it turns out, "entry level" is not like a 1-year status... for most, it goes on for decades because opportunities are scarce unless someone has subsidized your education.

Employment has become like a Monopoly(tm) game where four players sit down, and everyone gets their little $2000 bank. But then, one player gets to start with hotels on Boardwalk, Park Place and the three "green" properties next to them (Pacific Ave.?... whatever) As the game starts, everyone's doing the same thing, rolling the same dice. It looks like they're playing the same game, but when they get around to the fourth side of the board... with those green and blue properties, you see that they are not.

In the 90's, the gap between the "have's" and the "have-not's" grew enormously. The have's invested in the booming market. Now they have hotels all over the board...

Equal opportunity is not equality, or fairness. Fairness is everyone is compensated according to their true contribution. There's a country mile between that concept and "what the market will bear" because the market is skewed and controlled by those players with hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place.

Yes, you can suggest that those three other players get into another game. But wherever they go, they'll again find the same rules are in play.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Hence the ugliness of a union/management fight

Perhaps this bus driver should find someplace else to work if WDW has such an unpleasant work environment? He obviously has a specific skill; driving a commercial bus. He should try and find a job with another operation that employs bus drivers, like municipalities, or civic infrastructure such as airports or convention centers.

If the work environment is so horrible, and the compensation is not comparable to the rest of that region of the country, then that person needs to take his learned skill and find a new job with a better employer.

To an extent you are right, but as I said in a much earlier post, this level of "negotiations" while human, is so much a departure from Disney. Of course the union paints the worse possible picture, and staff/CM's get fanned into a percieved desperate situation, while management holds firm as long as it can. The result is always that both sides get some, but the bad feelings, and perception of unfairness linger...ie Loose-Loose.

Yes, these "lower level" folks can always go elsewhere...but this population is expected to be something different. Even average CM's have a different attitude that the average worker (so many threads on this here). My feeling is that all CM's have somewhat of an actors role, so the job description is not just bus driver, janitor or ride operator. We expect more from them, the company expects more, and they should be paid accordingly. They are not common laborers...at least not yet.