Union Recommends Voting Against Disney Contract Proposal

mwc1996

New Member
"Now, as for your comments on supply and demand. Yes, you are correct. The marketplace will set the price on products. And thru CAPITALISM, another bad word on this thread (apparently), and thru competition, those prices are set. But here's where we disagree. In your example of baseball, you mentioned that if the players agreed to lower their salaries by 50%, that the owners would NOT lower their prices. I respectfully disagree. If we as consumers KNOW the players have taken that cut, we will EXPECT lower costs to be passed on to us. Just like when oil prices drop, we expect to pay less at the pump. If not, we shop elsewhere. Well, especially in the case of discretionary income, (i.e. baseball games, golf, etc.), if we realize that even though the players are making much less, but the owners choose not to lower their ticket prices, that discretionary income goes elsewhere. To assume that people would continue to frequent these events like lemmings, without regard to price, is to assume a lot of ignorance on the part of people. And the AMERICAN PEOPLE are MUCH smarter than that. You need look no further than all of the businesses out there competing for your dollar thru specially priced products, (2/1 dinners from restaurants, "Value Season" at theme parks, 4tix for $80 at Lowe's Motor Speedway this past week for the Nextel Cup Race, 4 pak tickets for baseball games: 4 tix, 4 hot dogs; 4 sodas), to KNOW that the business world is VERY aware of the intelligence of the buying public. "

I'll grant you one thing. It would be a PR nightmare if the players agreed to take a pay cut and the owners didn't lower prices. That is the only reason prices would decrease. I also purposely used an example of 1 ticket at 1000 dollars instead of 50 tickets at 2 dollars because of the dollar disparity. Of course you would rather have 10 at 1 dollar than 1 at 10 dollars because of the reasons that you listed. If you could make the same amount of money (all things included) off of 1 person as you could off of 100 then they would. Back to why I think that supply and demand set prices and not expenses. Back to the baseball example. Lets say that the players took the big pay cut and all the owners lowered prices as an act of good will. Baseball stadiums across the country would sell out as many more people could afford it (discresionary income?). The baseball owners would then raise prices to maximize income. If the stadium sells out at 10 dollars a ticket lets see what happens at 12 dollars a ticket. If it still sells out then they would go higher until the demand for game tickets met the supply that the stadiums could give. Obviously baseball has other factors involved like team performance, weather, ect. but you get the idea. Promotions are held to use up excess supply. Here in Houston there was a promotion for every Tuesday game (I think it was Tuesday) to bring more people to the park. Why was this done? Because Tuesday's are not a good day for games. Disney has the same capacity all year and thus the same supply. They offer discounts and "Package deal" when demand isn't up to supply. That is why packages are offered during the off season. You don't see big discounts being offered during Christmas do you? Now, if Disney raises prices then Demand will go down. The question is how much can they raise the prices without significantly decreasing demand. Can they raise it enough to offset the additional payroll without decreasing demand? I don't know but I would be willing to conduct the study if they paid for it. It's about time I use that Marketing degree I earned.


Heck, I already bought my tickets. Let them raise prices all they want. The CM's deserve it. Raise prices so high that only 100 people a day go to teh parks during my stay. Just don't raise prices on concessions and souvineers before my trip. We leave in 22 days!!! :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
Okay Space and MWC

Okay Space, let's discuss real issues: I'm all for it.

(1) How much do the union members pay in monthly dues?

(2) What's the average salary of the 23k being represented?

(3) How much are the union leaders being paid?

(4) How much are the union attys billing the union?

(5) How much money is in the union coffers? Assuming that some 23k have been paying "into the system" for the last several years of the current contract, there ought to be a load of money in the till.

(6) What is the current proposal that is being offered by the union?

Now, Space. As soon as someone with knowledge can give me answers to those questions, I'll be glad to discuss the "real" issues with you.

Now, on to MWC. I think I can sum it up best by the comments you made in your last paragraph, referencing let them raise the prices so that only 100 people can attend the parks. While I understand that your comment IS tongue in cheek, it speaks to a larger issue that CAN become reality if things continue in their current direction.

Again, I fully support the cast members here. But there are some HARSH realities that we all must face here.

(1) Disney is not going to lose money in this deal. No matter what the outcome is. They WILL get their money back one way or the other. For anyone to think otherwise is foolish. Who and how much is the real question.

(2) IF Disney is backed into a corner you can bet that they will reduce payroll, as it's the first place that companies cut from. I don't like it, or agree with it, but it's REALITY!!! That being said, if cms are given less hours, that's less pay. Shorter park hours, seasonal operation of certain attractions, etc.etc.

So, who REALLY Wins in the end? You got it, the union leaders, and the attys. on both sides, who bill out for outrageous fees, which affectively accomplish NOTHING POSITIVE for the cast members.

I'm curious. Why is it that our culture seems to have such a grudge against rich CEO's, but not attys? Why is that? One of the richest professions in the country, for the least work. Hmmmm. Interesting. Notice I haven't heard much comment on that on this thread.

Again, as soon as someone can prove me wrong, or debate me head to head on this, I'll be all ears. (so to speak). No disrespect to the Head Mouse.

Hehe
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
And one more thing:

If this is SUCH an important issue, why is it there was only a 20% turnout for the vote on this contract proposal? Doesn't sound like it's very important to the cms or the union!!! If it were I'm SURE the union LEADERSHIP would make sure that its members had ample time to vote.
 

wannab@dis

Well-Known Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
If this is SUCH an important issue, why is it there was only a 20% turnout for the vote on this contract proposal? Doesn't sound like it's very important to the cms or the union!!! If it were I'm SURE the union LEADERSHIP would make sure that its members had ample time to vote.

Sounds familiar! :lol:
 

Thelazer

Well-Known Member
The union leadership does not decide when the vote will be. Disney is the company that decides on the vote. In the last vote, Disney also withheld and changed the contact at the very last moment, giving the union leadership NO TIME to get the word out to everyone.

Next time a vote comes up; you can bet there will be more notice. Why? Disney will offer a marginally better deal, and will assume that we as cast members will accept it. After all, Christmas is coming and that bonus sure will look good. Disney will make sure PLENTY of time is given to get the word out.

I pay $6.00 per week in dues. That’s $24.00 a month.
Avarage salery of the 23k. I'd have to guess that about 70% of them are in the $6.00 - $8.00 range. The other 30% would be from $8 to $18 a hour.
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
Hey T, Thanks

First off, let me Thank You Sincerely for the information. You're the first to give me what I feel is credible info. Now let me raise some more questions.

(1) If we average those dues out across the board for 20k people, that's nearly 6 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR in dues. Question: Where is all that money? Who controls it? How much is paid out to union leadership and the union attys?

(2) So Disney controls when the vote occurs, and your union is POWERLESS to do anything about when they get the contract info or how quickly they can get it to you? So tell me again, HOW exactly is the union helping you?

We've established they have NO control over the vote of its own members on contracts offered by the employer. (referring to your comments on timing)

(2) They take in AT LEAST 6 MILLION DOLLARS a year in dues. Wonder where all that money is. If the last contract was a 2 year deal, that's at LEAST 12 MILLION floating around somewhere.


I'm truly trying to understand what YOU as PAYING members, are getting for your investment?
 

wannab@dis

Well-Known Member
I thought I saw the last vote posted here a couple of days before it happened with the union saying to vote no.

Guys, that union is taking in about a half million bucks a month based on $24 per month and 23,000 represented employees!

Are the dues a percentage of the wage? If so, then that number is probably low.
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
Again, I fully support the cast members here.

....

Again, as soon as someone can prove me wrong, or debate me head to head on this, I'll be all ears. (so to speak). No disrespect to the Head Mouse.

Hehe
How can you say you fully support the cast members all the while insulting and disrespecting them with everything you've said?
 

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
as anti-union as I am (something about not having the teamsters fight for me when I needed them jaded me on union workplaces altogether), I have to say that Hennie's way of pushing his beliefs on others has alienated me from him. As much as I agree with most of what you've said, I don't support you at all with the way you alienate everyone... just like I don't support obnoxious picketers who are trying to scare away business by scaring away the clientele.
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
Please show me MY comments, any of them, where I said ANYTHING that was disrespectful to the Cast Members. I have been in full support of the cms, to the extent that I have said that I beleive in them as individuals. That they are smart enough, powerful enough, bright enough, to fight for themselves. How is THAT being disrespectful. Moreover, HOW IN THE WORLD am I alienating myself from ANYONE? DID I SAY YOU MUST BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE? The answer is an emphatic NO!!!!!! I simply have stated my position, backed it up with facts, and NO ONE has been able to dispute those views, or to provide any information which would lead me to believe that I should think otherwise.

This is an old liberal trick of turning the conversation off the FACTS, and onto an individual. Oh, you're mean-spirited, your being disrespectful. Just because my views don't mesh with others' views, doesn't mean I'm being disrespectful, obnoxious, or pushy. It means I'm exercising my right to voice my views on this issue.

I've been the champion of the cms touting their power as INDIVIDUALS.

Question is, why aren't YOU DAVE?!!!

OR YOU MKT??
 

Thelazer

Well-Known Member
I don't think all 20k CM's pay into the union. The union is broken up into many different unions. All of them under one collective agreement.

I know that our union does have a strike fund, as well as other cash put aside. They DO offer a pension plan and that plan BTW is far and above BETTER than the plan Disney offers. As far as what the other unions being represented offer, I'm not sure, nor am I going to waste my time in finding out. You can do a google search, find the union local number and call them directly and ask those questions.

I've seen a cast member who never signed up for the union, get fired after working for the company for 5+ years for a crap reason. I've seen another cast member who only worked for 2 years have his job saved because he WAS in the union when a guest falsely accused him of doing wrong.

That alone is enough to convince me that being in the Union at Disney is worth it.
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
Hey again T

Again, Thank You for the response. I won't argue the point that you make regarding specific circumstances where the union has been able to defend someone falsely accused. There's no doubt that the world is full of injustice.

Moreover, I'm glad to hear you say that they provide a pension plan for its members, as well as cash set aside for a strike fund. That's how it SHOULD be for your paying into the system.

But would you agree that there are times that people working for unions are sometimes protected, when they may not deserve that? I mean, if they are substandard in their work ethic. Is there a way by which the company has recourse, thru the union, to get rid of bad employees?

Again, I sincerely appreciate your efforts to answer some of my questions. You are the first to do so, and I'm learning as I obtain this information.

Thank You.
 

Thelazer

Well-Known Member
Disney would be far better off to "re-train" those that do not fit into a role, rather than fire them just because they aren't good at it. If it's a case of an employee outright doing things he shouldn't, then union or not Disney can get rid of them. For example, someone who calls in sick all the time and gets fired, the union never has been able to win that won. Also, stealing from the company, saying bad words to guests, etc. The union has no say when it comes to that stuff.

I also checked on the 20k, of that 20k, half are due paying members The other half get the benefit of being represented by the union and covered under the contract, but don't pay. However, should a dispute come up, they do not get the unions best representation.
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
Hey there T

How does it work out that those who don't pay dues don't get the "same" representation? Are they not allowed to cast votes on issues? Is it something like that?
 

Yen_Sid1

New Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
How does it work out that those who don't pay dues don't get the "same" representation? Are they not allowed to cast votes on issues? Is it something like that?

I guess you don't know how "right to work" states actually work. The contract covers all employees. The union must represent all employees even if they are union members or not. Because it is not mandatory that you join the union like in other states that are "Closed shops" (which means you must be a union member to work there)

But non-union members are not allowed to vote on the contract, just union members.
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
Ya know Yen

You just can't resist attacking me can you? What is your problem? Get on with your life and stick to the issues.

While admitting that I may not know all of the rules/regulations of right to work states, it is because I've never had a NEED to be represented by a UNION in order to work for a living.

Again, take your personal attacks elsewhere, or I will be forced to contact the site administrator about your activity.

Unlike others who like to attack people for not supposedly, and I stress, SUPPOSEDLY knowing everything, I like to ask questions of those with first hand knowledge, to not only educate myself, but to also be able to more intelligently speak on said issues.

Having said that, it seems odd to me that people who don't pay into the system (union dues) get the same representation that those who DO pay get. Sounds a little like socialism to me. Where those who could be referred to as the (for the purposes of this excercise we'll call them the "haves"), get to pay for the "have nots."



Thank You
 

Yen_Sid1

New Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
You just can't resist attacking me can you? What is your problem? Get on with your life and stick to the issues.

While admitting that I may not know all of the rules/regulations of right to work states, it is because I've never had a NEED to be represented by a UNION in order to work for a living.

Again, take your personal attacks elsewhere, or I will be forced to contact the site administrator about your activity.

Unlike others who like to attack people for not supposedly, and I stress, SUPPOSEDLY knowing everything, I like to ask questions of those with first hand knowledge, to not only educate myself, but to also be able to more intelligently speak on said issues.

Having said that, it seems odd to me that people who don't pay into the system (union dues) get the same representation that those who DO pay get. Sounds a little like socialism to me. Where those who could be referred to as the (for the purposes of this excercise we'll call them the "haves"), get to pay for the "have nots."



Thank You

So you are not sure how things work here. That's okay. I'm trying to educate you! And if someone tries to tell you the truth and you think that is a personal attack? You then you have some serious problems!!
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
No Yen, I DO know how things work

You see Yen, life is about choices. For example, you choose to work, or not to work. Unless you are governed by an outside agency which TELLS you when you will or won't work, and under WHAT conditions you will work. (i.e. pay, benefits, workplace conditions, etc.). When you GIVE UP those choices to an outside agency, you give up some of your PERSONAL freedoms to work where ever it is that you work. I'm NOT OKAY with that which is why I choose to work somewhere where there isn't a union. Now, to tie this together for you.

Where this becomes a problem with personal attacks is this. I voice my opinions and views, and try to get people to see the other side of this issue. But when people choose to use name-calling and labeling as a means of furthering their views, it does nothing to further the debate on the ISSUE, and becomes about personalities and personal attacks.

I don't claim to know everything about this situation, which is why I had asked repeatedly for those with knowledge to provide some information, so that we could ALL more intelligently debate the issues. But what I DO know is that again, life is about choices. You choose to work, or you choose not to. Simple as that. Anything else becomes fodder for attys, and the media.
In all of this those who will make the MOST out of this will be the attorneys. Imagine that.

And given the rift that now exists between the unions themselves, I believe that I am being proven correct in my views. See, I thought this was about getting a better deal for the CMS? Well, they were offered the better deal, and what happened? Because some stuffed shirt with a couple of the unions didn't get a PS to the big dance, they're not going to play. Still think this isn't about the UNIONS???
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom