Union Recommends Voting Against Disney Contract Proposal

Yen_Sid1

New Member
Ever notice that the same states that are right-to-work were also the same states that had slavery? It must be that they are used to cheap labor!!
 

jcraycraft

Member
Original Poster
Union Takes Protest Of Disney Contract To NYC Store Opening

http://www.wftv.com/news/3785669/detail.html

Union Takes Protest Of Disney Contract To NYC Store Opening

POSTED: 5:14 pm EDT October 5, 2004

ORLANDO, Fla. -- About 60 union leaders handed out pink leaflets complaining about protracted contract negotiations with Walt Disney World outside the grand opening of the World of Disney store in New York on Tuesday.


As a worker dressed as Cinderella rode up to the New York store in a carriage, the union officials crossed the street and passed out the leaflets that read, "Disney cast members need your help!" The leaflets urged people waiting in line outside the store to contact Disney's chief negotiator "and tell him what you think of the company's treatment of their employees."

Union leaders also chanted, "People who work shouldn't have to be poor."

The goal of the leafleting was to raise awareness about the contract talks in front of a large number of reporters covering the store's grand opening and to pressure Disney World officials to improve wage increases and benefits being offered, union leaders said.

"We knew we had to do something to get the company's attention," said Juleeann Jerkovich, secretary-treasurer of the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Local 1625, which is one of six unions that make up the Service Trades Council Union. "It's time to take this out of Orlando."

The Service Trades Council Union represents about 22,000 workers ranging from hotel maids to park ticket-takers to costumed characters at the Disney parks and hotels in Florida, whose work force has more than 50,000 people.

Last week, members rejected a contract proposal from Disney that union officials said eliminated some overtime provisions, increased health care insurance significantly and got rid of a pension plan for new hires, offering them a matching 401k plan instead. Starting minimum wage in the first year of the contract would increase 10 cents to $6.80 with 10 cent increases in each of the next two years, union officials said.

Disney and union officials have been negotiating the three-year contract for six months. Talks resume next week.

Disney World spokeswoman Jacquee Polak said the contract offer was competitive.

"We're disappointed that the union decided to protest in New York City," Polak said. "A better use of their time would have been spent at the negotiating table. We were prepared to return to talks this week but they went to New York City."

The World of Disney store opened in the same spot where a Disney Store closed its doors in May. The revamped store, based on ones at Walt Disney World in Florida and Disneyland in California and offering entertainment experiences such as jewelry-making, marks a new direction in Disney's retailing efforts.

Polak said the grand opening was a success.
 

Dopey Dave

New Member
Someone needs to study their history. Many Northern states are Right to Work. I live in Iowa and am happy to say that any time I am not happy with my working conditions or salary, I can get out of my seat and look for another job.

While it is shameful what wages are like at Disney. I think it still comes down to the fact that most of us, including Disney management, feel that Disney cast members are there for something other than the money. How many $$$$ does it equate to simply for the priviledge of working for Disney?

How many folks would chose to work for $6.50 an hour at Disney rather than $10.00 an hour sacking groceries at the local store? Seems like quite a few.
 

Ron_Odoski

New Member
Contract..Oct.1998

In the past I have worked for the Disney Co.

Working in Tomorrowland at the WDW Resort-<O:p</O:p

I remember voting out a contract once and then voting in a tentative contract in that gave us a raise (I forgot how much, I think it went from 5.50 to 6.25) and they raised the price of health care then as well. Cast Members wanted to strike and there was allot of talk about that but the union did not have the support then, and since overtime was still in abundance no one complained to much.. If they take the overtime away the whole deal is not worth the continued effort, eisner simply does not care for the Cast Members! he did not then and he still doesn't . He is the worst CEO any company could be forced to endure anywhere,
Ron_Odoski.
<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p
 

Invero

Well-Known Member
Dopey Dave said:
How many folks would chose to work for $6.50 an hour at Disney rather than $10.00 an hour sacking groceries at the local store? Seems like quite a few.
Last I checked, the retail stores were paying near the same as Disney... they figure if Disney can get away with it, so can they. So then, why Disney? Disney has (soon that might be 'had') better benefits, and more room for growth.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Dopey Dave said:
How many folks would chose to work for $6.50 an hour at Disney rather than $10.00 an hour sacking groceries at the local store? Seems like quite a few.

Wow, what grocery store do you shop at.
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
Yen Sid and PhotoDave

I'm mystified at how the conversation, for your part, turned back the clock to slavery. But then again, ignorance will do that. The fact that some states are right to work states speaks to the fact that those states choose not to be governed by the federal government when it comes to work policies within their own borders. It's a term called states-rights. You might want to look into that before you make ignorant and old-play book political commentary.

Once again, allow me to say that those who agreed to work for Disney, did so, knowing what the pay scale was at that time. Why did they do that if they now consider that wage to be unfair? Could you answer that question for me? As well, they knew what the working conditions were, and what benefits they would be eligible for from Disney, given the level they were hired at.

This is another example of someone other than the ownership group of a company, trying to tell a company what is and what isn't a fair wage. Again, I don't disagree that the wages should be higher, but if you'll refer to my earlier post on this thread, I speak about the fact that this is an issue within each state, where voting correctly will speak more loudly than anything else we can do as citizens with regard to policies on hourly wages.

Let me ask you this. If you were a private business owner, would you want someone telling you how to run that business? I mean, you only invested your own money, your time, your energy, your life to that business. So, I guess you'd be okay with the federal govt. coming in and telling you how to run your business from top to bottom huh?
 

TheDisneyGirl02

New Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
Once again, allow me to say that those who agreed to work for Disney, did so, knowing what the pay scale was at that time. Why did they do that if they now consider that wage to be unfair? Could you answer that question for me? As well, they knew what the working conditions were, and what benefits they would be eligible for from Disney, given the level they were hired at.
In response to what was said above, I know that when I started working for Disney, I knew that the pay wasn't that great, but at the same time I expected that I would eventually get a raise. I know for one, that working for Disney was my first job and now that I have to 'pay the bills' in the real world, I would appreciate for my employer to give me a raise to reflect the the rising cost of living. I can also tell you that my friend, who is at the top of the pay scale at Disney, had to borrow money in order to pay her electric bill this past month since they charged 'the average of users' since they couldn't get out to read everybody's meters.
That's just my opinion though...

TheDisneyGirl02
 

waltdisny

New Member
10 min. to wdw said:
I fully support the union as well on this. Walt disney once said something to the effect of disneyland isn't about money. I don't remember the exact quote but Eisner needs to try to live off of what a CM makes for takehome pay for 3 months and I think he would have a new appricaition for every CM out there.
Sadly, this wouldn't help his attitude. Look at Paris Hilton.:rolleyes:

As a union member myself, who is currently involved in an ugly contract negotiation, I back the Disney Union 110%.

This nonsense about it "just being a business" is the type of rhetoric that created labor unions in the first place. The corporations have both a moral obligation to ensure that their employees are justly compensated for their work. In addition, it is in their finanicial best interest to do so.

Looking at the long term, if Disney continues to drive down wages, there will come a time when they cannot get good QUALITY people for their jobs. I've already seen it at Disney and at my present employer first hand. Others in this thread have taken notice that many jobs aren't being filled as quickly. Over the long-term, the product will suffer through lost productivity, lost quality, and loss of repeat business. Ultimatly this will kill a short sighted company.

However, and this is at the core of the problem, business managers focus on the short term. They think in 90 day cycles, and do not think about the downstream consequences. The current condition of the parks is a testament to this type of thinking. No doubt, if the business plans involved had been presented in an MBA class they would have all gotten A's.

If the company invests in it's PEOPLE first, then even-though the short term may hurt, in the long term they will WIN. That's what most of today's managers fail to see: HAPPY EMPLOYEES MAKE MORE MONEY FOR THE COMPANY.

Don't believe me? Look at SouthWest Airlines. A union shop that has NEVER lost money, not ever after 9/11.

Increasingly, over the last 24 years, we've seen a shadowy repeat of the last century's labor strife. Right now we've created a corporate aristocracy similar to the robber-barron's in the late 1800's. If those people are not careful, unions will start striking back in new ways and in new fourms.

Our nation is increasingly becoming a 2 class society. Karl Marx described this quite acurately (although he was wrong on the solution). Government needs to act now to protect workers rights, and restore the middle class or else we will have major problems down the line that will hurt everyone.

The labor unions of WVA are not representitve of all unions. Their mismanagement cannot be applied to all labor unions. In addition to wages, unions go a long way in protecting workers from management and protecting workers from themselves. This is especially important in a safety sensitive industry, or other industries where the laborers are easily exploited, such as the stage-crafts. The best thing about a union is having a legally binding contract. And the best thing about a contract is that it makes BOTH sides play fair.
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
I think that its perfectly fair and reasonable for the workers of a company to collecvily agree together to work to convince managment that they need better wages, benefits and working conditions - in any company, not Just Disney.

Historically, companies fair better long-term through growth, expansion and retention of talented employees rather than through short term economioc gains with cutbacks and using cheap, unskilled labor. Look at the recent trend of exporting Jobs to India. I know with SallieMae (Student Loan Marketing Assocation), theyre running into major problems because the computer programers may be speaking english, but they havent a clue as to what theyre doing, and is resulting in cost overruns, etc. Had those jobs been kept in America, it would have been cheaper in the long run.

Now extrapolate that to the current situation with Disney - What is the one thing that sets Disney apart from every other company in the free world? Guest Service. If the current pay situation doesnt drastically improve, the people who give the quality guest service will eventually have to leave, paving the way for people who are either in College (and for at least a sizable proportion, dont give a darn about guest service) or are people who are just there to "push a button" (so to speak) and probably not giving guest service.

All in all, is Disney willing to risk alienating its Customer base by cheapening its Guest Service? Because thats whats invaluable, that which cant be quantified - Guest Service. If im going to make someone's vacation to be the best ever, i should at least be making a wage that makes me happy.
 

SpaceRacer2003

New Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
Once again, allow me to say that those who agreed to work for Disney, did so, knowing what the pay scale was at that time. Why did they do that if they now consider that wage to be unfair? Could you answer that question for me? As well, they knew what the working conditions were, and what benefits they would be eligible for from Disney, given the level they were hired at.

When the contract was ratified in 1998, the pay scale was based on a 1998 cost of living. Now in 2004, six years later can you honestly expect to still be working at a 1998 pay scale and live on 2004 prices. Yes we knew what we hired into, we also knew that there are contractual raises included in the bargianing agreement.

However it is our right to stand together and say pay us whats fair, the cost of living has increased, look at the price of housing and transportation. Where rent was once $500 it is now pushing $950+, it has doubled, am I saying the pay rate should double (yeah it would be nice), maybe not, but should it come more inline with the local economy.

And if you are putting more money into the hands of locals, you are not as dependant on the tourist market. Someone mentioned the tourism fallout after 9/11. What kept things afloat?? The locals, the people that could drive to the parks and did not have to worry about flying. If the locals (and the 22,000 people covered by this CBA) can not afford to support your business and others, what do you do? Why should your employees at the Vacation Kingdom of the World, not be able to afford a trip there themself??
 

waltdisny

New Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
I'm mystified at how the conversation, for your part, turned back the clock to slavery. But then again, ignorance will do that. The fact that some states are right to work states speaks to the fact that those states choose not to be governed by the federal government when it comes to work policies within their own borders. It's a term called states-rights. You might want to look into that before you make ignorant and old-play book political commentary.

Once again, allow me to say that those who agreed to work for Disney, did so, knowing what the pay scale was at that time. Why did they do that if they now consider that wage to be unfair? Could you answer that question for me?.....

This is another example of someone other than the ownership group of a company, trying to tell a company what is and what isn't a fair wage. Again, I don't disagree that the wages should be higher, but if you'll refer to my earlier post on this thread, I speak about the fact that this is an issue within each state, where voting correctly will speak more loudly than anything else we can do as citizens with regard to policy....

Let me ask you this. If you were a private business owner, would you want someone telling you how to run that business? I mean, you only invested your own money, your time, your energy, your life to that business. So, I guess you'd be okay with the federal govt. coming in and telling you how to run your business from top to bottom huh?
Hennie, I'll bet you listen to Rush L. and the EIB Network, right?

Let me take on the first and last 2 paragraphs first: You contradict yourself here. In paragraph one, you say it's OK for us to vote at the state level and for the states to regulate wages. Yet in the next paragraph, you don't want the Federal government telling you how to run your business. You can't have it both ways, government interference is government interference. I fail to see the difference between the state, and the federal gov't. meddling in your business.

As for the States Rights question, you're wrong. This solution belongs at the Federal level, as dictated in the Congresses' power to regulate inter-state commerce, and to promote the general welfare. If each state is alowed to run amuck and set their own labor laws, some states will enevitabily enact laws which favor labor, and some will enact laws which favor management. The result is that you will have jobs migrating from one state to another to take advantage of one. Right now we see this on the international scene when American companies send jobs to other countries to save on labor costs.

Again in the long term, this is bad for the American economy over-all. If all the jobs, and job growth centered on one particular state, soon there wouldn't be any jobs in the other states, would there? Look at your WVA, a poor state that has ALWAYS been a poor state. Why? Why hasn't there been new industry, and meaningful growth in WVA? Why hasn't WVA bvecome the Colorado of the east? Because there are more favorable business climates elsewhere, that's why.

Federal regulation levels the playing field, and benefits everyone on the principle that a rising tied lifts all boats.

And it is usually not good for the ownership group to set labor rates alone, as history has shown. Success comes from having labor and management work together to set the wages. Left to itself, management will exploit the workers, and left to itself, labor will sink the company. This is why collective barganing, when done correctly, can be wildly successful for everyone.

Don't believe me? Look at SouthWest Airlines. They make money hand over fist, and they are a union shop.

As to the question, why did people go to work for Disney if they knew the pay-scale? First, when a person takes a "real-job", one that you hope is more than a short-term gig, you do so with the expectation that you will have the oportunity to grow as a person, and that you will be rewarded for your loyalty and hard work with better wages in the future. This is not just wishful thinking, this is an image companies project when they try to hire. When the company fails on it's promise, the worker becomes angry, especially when they see higher-ups pulling in rediculous salaries. Remember, just a few years ago, Eisner pulled down close to 100 million in pay and stock options.

Second, circumstances change. Despite propaganda to the contrary, the economy stinks. Gasoline, the basis of our economy, has nearly doubled in price over the last 4 years. That means everything is more expensive. So what was a respectable amount of money 5 years ago, is nothing today. In my case, according to my banking software I'm spending 125% MORE on groceries alone than I was 4 years ago. My salary has increased by roughly 3% a year over that same time period. The net result is I'm worse off than I was then financially. My eating habits haven't changed significantly in that time. it just costs more. NO amount of excellent money management can cover that loss, unless I eat half as much.

And Groceries are but the begining, everything costs more than it did.

The bottom line is that Disney needs to invest money in it's people, because it's a good business decision in the long run. HAPPY WORKERS MAKE MORE MONEY, PERIOD.

Hennie, to say that all unions are bad, and that the injustice of pay scales in this country can't be fixed is ingnorant on your part. Furthermore, simply accepting that the rich are rich and deserve it, is a very un-american point of view. That is a frame of reference that accepts corporate feudalisim as an acceptable form of society. It smacks of what Karl Marks refered to as the mesmerization of the proletariat. I personally find corporate feudalisim as abhorent as Communisim, or facisim.

In fact, to quote Ferris Beuhler, "-isims in general are bad. I don't believe in any -isim, I just believe in myself."
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
First of all, who I do or do not listen to on the radio doesn't shape me or my opinions. Funny thing is, for you to make that comment tells me that you listen to Rush, or you wouldn't try to make the comparison.

Where to start. NO, I don't contradict myself. States Rights are just that. States rights. And the federal govt. and state govt. are NOT the same thing. You can spew on all you want about the injustice of the haves and have-nots, but the bottom line is this. If you want something badly enough, you will work as hard as needed to achieve it. You're going to try and convince me, and others reading this thread, that those who went to work for Disney at 5.35 an hour, somehow thought that would springboard them to 50k or 100k a year in wages? Are you serious? They thought they'd get rich by starting at min. wage as a ride technician or a greeter? You can't be serious in this thought process. And we all can see the envy in your words when you speak about the rich here. And no, I am not rich. Not even close. But what I do understand about my financial situation is this: It's not the fault of the govt. that I am where I am financially. The responsibility is mine, based on personal choices that I've made over the course of my life. There's an interesting phrase. Personal choices. The left waxes on and on about personal choices when it comes to certain political agendas, (ahem), but when it comes to wages, you look to the govt. to level the field for you.

That isn't the role of govt., nor should it be. If you take a job paying ,min. wage, the fault is yours. And I'm not completely against unions. What I am against is unions whose only purpose is to serve those in charge OF the union. And the reason that WVA is such a poor state, is because that's what the people of that state allow it to be. Now, I don't know if you've ever lived there, but I have. For nearly 3 years. And the state is run by the coal mines and the unions that run those mines. As the union goes, so goes the cities, and by extension, the state. And let's see, I believe that a Dem. has been running that state for quite some time now hasn't he? Why can't he fix it with big govt.? The reason is that it can't be fixed with big govt. What that state needs is capitalism. It needs the influx of businesses other than coal to compete for the dollar of the citizens of that state. It needs to offer something other than coal mining as a lifelong career. If other businesses come into that state, people will be needed to fill the jobs of those companies. As those people begin to move away from the coal mines and into other fields, the coal mines will control less of the overall ecnomy of the state. Now, I wonder why those in charge of the state govt., legislature wouldn't want more businesses to move to WVA.? Could it be the campaign donations of those mines to those in power that keeps the state down? Hmmmm. I wonder.

Lastly, class envy is NOT the way to improve things on a state, or national level. It's the reason why things are the way they are now. Those on the left seem intent on pitting us all against each other, based on our income levels.

No, there's no ignorance here. I didn't raise the spector of slavery to somehow connect right to work states with slavery and lower wages.

What I do believe in is freedom. I believe that companies should have the right to determine the wage scale for their companies. The reason you pay more for groceries these days is thanks to more government regulation over the importing of goods from foriegn sorces, and more regulation of farmers as regards the production of goods/foods to meet stronger epa regulations. As it costs more for grocery chains to buy products, that cost gets passed along to you. You can't increase regulation each time someone gets sick or dies from bad meat. But that's what we do. Instead of investigating why it happened, we just have a knee-jerk reaction, increase regulation, make the process more difficult, and we pay more at the cash register.

Yes, some oversight is always going to be needed to protect the general public. But you can't, nor should you, regulate everything, all the time. If the govt. continues to wittle away our freedom of choices, are we really free?

I for one don't want to wake up one day with only one choice for a grocery store. Or one choice for a gas station. You think you're paying a lot for food now? Just wait till that day comes, and the fed. govt. tells you how much you can make at your job, how much you will pay for gas, food, etc.

No, your attempt to further the class envy campaign won't work here. I love this country, and I love the fact that if I don't like how much I make, I can go work elsewhere. And I like the fact, that I can negotiate my wage during the interview process.

Please peddle your class envy elsewhere sir.
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
Just a couple more thoughts

(1) I'm curious: Who negotiated, and agreed to, the last union contract? Didn't the union membership have to vote on it? How long was that contract? What were the guarantees by Disney? Has Disney lived up to those agreements? How much of an increase is the Union, and its membership now asking for? What is the percentage increase for this proposal versus the last? What, if any, concessions were made by either side during the last negotiation?

The reason I ask all of these questions is that it's easy to tell one side of a story, thereby painting a picture that makes Disney look like a greedy corporate giant. Maybe they made concessions during the last negotiation. Maybe they didn't. Regardless, the union leadership brought it to the table and the membership agreed to it. So, who's really to blame here?

(2) And lastly, the comments made my waldisny in his last post assumes that we are all too stupid and ignorant to negotiate our own wage for a job. I for one, believe in myself, and in the American people to care for themselves, and thereby, to negotiate their wages for any given job.

Once again, do I believe that the wages should be higher across the board for Disney? Yes. But he also made reference to Michael Eisner and his salary/bonuses. Well, if that were an issue when you were hired, why work there? I'm having a problem understanding why, if you don't like the pay scale, don't like the benefits and insurance programs, and don't like how much the boss makes, you take the job? Am I missing something here? Not to mention the fact that Disney is the single largest employer in the country.
If they raise wages across the board, you can count on the prices for everything going up. Is that what we all want? I mean, come on, good ole waltdisny pays %125 more for his groceries now versus 4 years ago. He should probably shop elsewhere. Anyway, if the rates for everything continue to escalate, won't attendance go down? If that happens, then those union members will have their hours cut, as negotiated at the table by leadership, then they will need other jobs to make ends meet. Last I was informed, the rolls totalled over 50k for payroll for Disney overall. Can you imagine the ripple effect?
 

Hakunamatata

Le Meh
Premium Member
waltdisny said:
This nonsense about it "just being a business" is the type of rhetoric that created labor unions in the first place. The corporations have both a moral obligation to ensure that their employees are justly compensated for their work. In addition, it is in their finanicial best interest to do so.

Corporations have a obligation to their stockholders and owners. Corporations yes, should treat their employees with respect and dignity, however, to say that corporations have an obligation to ensure their employees are justly compensated is an excuse for the employee to not be educated about the value of the work he/she is providing and the value of the skill they provide.

If you are working somewhere where you think you should be paid more, dont blame the corporation if they are not willing to pay you more money for the service you provide. Get off your laurels and find someone who will pay you more.

Just cause the cost of a gallon of gas goes from 1.35 to 10.00 doesnt mean the corporation is obligated to subsidise your travel expense. It is simple, if the work force in the Orlando dropped by a significant %, and Disney could not get enough CP to fill the positions, they would have to pay more for the labor. But, unfortunate for some, there is an ample pool of labor to draw from, thus wages will not be overly competative.

Alot of this is basic economics. Remember, corporations are in business to make money, not be a branch of the wellfare state created by our government.
 

Atta83

Well-Known Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
(2) And lastly, the comments made my waldisny in his last post assumes that we are all too stupid and ignorant to negotiate our own wage for a job. I for one, believe in myself, and in the American people to care for themselves, and thereby, to negotiate their wages for any given job.

Well sometimes you cant, and when you do it just might cause you your job. Some companies figure if you can not be hired with what they are going to offer you at first then you are not worth having for the job, they will go out and find someone else who is happy with the pay.
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
Not worth having for the job? Are you serious? Have you ever heard of being qualified and/or having the work experience for the job? I'll give you an example. I just interviewed for a position within our company in Orlando. Now, when and if they make me an offer, it's up to me to try and negotiate with them what we both believe to be fair for both sides. I understand that. For example, the position I am interviewing for include moving expenses. Now, as was told to me, I am competing against others already in the Orlando area, albeit, people from outside our company. But, they won't require travel expenses. This will be part of the negotiations, should I be offered the position. I have some choices here. I can either accept this fact, and press on, or I can take my ball to another court. If we were a union run company here's what would happen. Instead of getting a pay increase for the position, which is a step up the corp. ladder from my current position, I would have to give away that increase in exchange for the company paying my moving expenses. Sound fair? Not to me. Glad we don't have a union representing us. Now, I know what you are all thinking out there. You're thinking, no you wouldn't, cause the union would require the company to pay both the moving expenses as well as the pay increase. So, you're saying that the company would negotiate away its right of refusal to let the employee have his/her cake and eat it to. You think so huh? Ever run a business before? I have. Let me tell you, that doesn't happen. It's one or the other. It was even hinted at that if I would be willing to forego having the company pay my moving expenses to Fla, that it would give me an even bigger advantage over other applicants.

So don't try to tell me that if someone isn't willing to take whatever the pay is that they aren't worth hiring. For one, you don't know every situation, and it's garbage to try and generalize the entire working public in that way. You are the master of your own destiny.

Unless you're part of a union.

Then, you're half the master of your destiny. (so to speak)
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
And about MORAL OBLIGATION

And if I might add, waldisny making the comment that corporations have a moral obligation to their employees is funny. I'm guessing that he and others like him, probably don't see the moral obligation as it relates to personal behavior and choices.

Corporations bare NO moral obligations to us as employees whatsoever. Where is that written? Is that clause right next to the Roe v Wade law?
 

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

Back
Top Bottom