TravisMT81
Well-Known Member
imagineer boy said:
me too!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Union Recommends Voting Against Disney Contract Proposal
- Thread starter jcraycraft
- Start date
me too!
HennieBogan1966
Account Suspended
The thought occurs
If someone could/would answer some of the many questions that I have posed, the points wouldn't have to go on and on and on. But it seems that I have to continually defend my position on this issue, since no one will answer the questions.
It really makes me think that there's something to hide here, if it's so difficult to speak on this subject. I mean, as much "expertise" as people on these boards seem to have on all things Disney, you would think that something so public there would be a piece of cake.
I haven't at all hidden my opinions/views on this, and have taken a great deal of grief for it. But that's okay. It's the beauty of debate. I enjoy the debate and the back and forth of it.
If someone;anyone, would provide answers to the questions I have posed, I feel that would open up a whole other branch of debate on this issue. The fact that NO ONE will, tells me all I need to know about what's REALLY going on here.
If someone could/would answer some of the many questions that I have posed, the points wouldn't have to go on and on and on. But it seems that I have to continually defend my position on this issue, since no one will answer the questions.
It really makes me think that there's something to hide here, if it's so difficult to speak on this subject. I mean, as much "expertise" as people on these boards seem to have on all things Disney, you would think that something so public there would be a piece of cake.
I haven't at all hidden my opinions/views on this, and have taken a great deal of grief for it. But that's okay. It's the beauty of debate. I enjoy the debate and the back and forth of it.
If someone;anyone, would provide answers to the questions I have posed, I feel that would open up a whole other branch of debate on this issue. The fact that NO ONE will, tells me all I need to know about what's REALLY going on here.
ArchiDanDisney
Member
Give your 1-3%...sorry, you'd have to be a member of this particular union to understand...
waltdisny
New Member
Hennie, the term is MOOT, meaning in this context, irrelevant or having no significance.HennieBogan1966 said:
Mute means refraining from making speech or vocal sound, which is what most people would like you do on this topic.
When your mooted (to debate a point of legal significance) arguments drag in disconnected topics such as Roe v. Wade, personal effrontery, and the upcomming election, while ignoring the salient points that myself and others have made, you've stopped having intellegent discourse. Hennie, you are doing nothing but beating the conservative drum with the tennacity of the Energizer Bunny, trying to prove a non-existant liberal conspiracy. Here I agree with you Hennie, it is indeed getting deep, and I will again remind you denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Your questions about the member's dues, and your not so subtle attempts to connect it to your conspiracy fantasy are themselves moot. Union financial spending is fully disclosed under federal law, and most are available on the internet. Those who don't comply are fairly raked over the coals by a hostile congress, as the Teamsters were in 1998. Since you won't take MY word for it, here is a link to a document explaining the IRS requirements for non-profit groups:
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~ekeatin/finassess.pdf (Pg.20)
Out of respect for the others in is fourm, I will refrain from further comment.:zipit:
Disney unions craft response
Ok here is the lastest update....
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...9,1,7005594.story?coll=orl-business-headlines
Disney unions craft response
Negotiations set to resume Wednesday after little progress was made last week.
By Sean Mussenden
Sentinel Staff Writer
October 19, 2004
Given a choice between his old job in a West Virginia coal mine and his new one on the Magic Kingdom's midnight cleaning crew, Leroy Sprouse quickly offers a favorite. He vastly prefers sweeping up pixie dust to choking down black coal dust.
"I have no qualms with the company, really," he said, smoking a cigarette outside a rally last week where a few hundred unionized workers had gathered to protest Walt Disney World's latest offer on raises and retirement and health-care benefits.
Except this: "The company used to treat us employees with respect. It's not that way anymore. The bottom line is the almighty dollar," said Sprouse, a six-year veteran.
Leaders of the Service Trades Council, the group of six unions that represents Sprouse and more than 20,000 of his colleagues, says that the company has drawn a harder economic line this year than during previous contract negotiations.
The union has voted down Disney's first two offers, and its leaders will meet today to discuss a counteroffer to the company's most recent proposal. The two sides are expected to return to the negotiating table Wednesday after making little progress last week. The old contract expired in May.
Disney has maintained that its offers have been fair and competitive with other local tourism outfits. Union leaders say the proposed increases in health-care premiums, wage hikes and pensions are far too unpalatable to accept.
"We have a lot of bargaining left to do," said Jerry Montgomery, a Disney senior vice president handling the negotiations. "We'll spend as much time as it takes. . . . It may take two days, it may take two weeks, it may take two months."
After seven months of negotiation, three main issues are preventing the two sides from reaching an agreement: the structure of wage increases, the future of a pension plan, and health-care premiums.
The contract would run for three years. Disney is offering a 4 percent hourly pay increase to some employees during each of the three years. For others, it is offering a one-time bonus, between $1,500 and $1,800 depending on seniority, for each of the first two years -- and a 2.5 percent increase in the third year. Union leaders want to see some sort of wage increase and a piece of the bonus in the first year.
"We're close on wages. It's just the structure we're talking about now," said Joe Condo, president of the Service Trades Council.
The two sides appear to be further apart on the other issues.
For new hires, Disney wants to do away with an existing pension plan and replace it with a 401(k) plan. The company would match contributions up to 2 percent. Workers already with the company would keep the pension.
Union leaders want to keep the pension plan intact for new hires. They argue that low-wage workers living paycheck to paycheck will not actually contribute to the new plan.
"They need a pension. They need something fixed," Condo said.
In an industry known for high turnover, Montgomery said, the 401(k) plan makes sense. Unlike the pension, workers can take their 401(k) earnings with them when they leave Disney. And, he said, Disney's workers must contribute to the pension plan, which shows they would contribute to a 401(k) plan.
According to Condo, Disney's workers pay 7 cents an hour to the optional pension plan. They need contribute only in their second through fifth years with the company; after that, Disney pays for the contributions.
Under Disney's current health-care plan system, Service Trades Council workers pay much smaller premiums than managers and other salaried, nonunion workers. Under the current proposal, by 2007 the company wants to fix the union premium at 95 percent of the premium for salaried workers. Under one level of coverage, Condo said union workers could see their premiums more than double.
Disney said increases are necessary to cover rising health-care costs. And, Montgomery said, the move would bring them in line with the other tourism companies that Disney competes against.
Becky J. Cherney, president of the Florida Health Care Coalition, said very few companies in Central Florida have different health-care premiums for different parts of their work force. Disney must strike a balance in finding the right premium level -- too high or too low can lead to problems, she said.
"You don't want your premiums so high that you lose talented employees. But you don't want them so low that you become the employer of choice for people with chronic health problems," which leads to higher insurance costs, she said.
Condo said that Disney's pinning the need for an increase on competitors is disingenuous. The company historically has offered higher pay and better benefits than other theme park companies to have an advantage in recruiting.
"Disney never wants to be compared to the competition. They do it only when it suits them. It doesn't really matter to them what the others are doing," he said.
Sean Mussenden can be reached at 407-420-5664 or smussenden@orlandosentinel.com.
Get home delivery - up to 50% off
Ok here is the lastest update....
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...9,1,7005594.story?coll=orl-business-headlines
Disney unions craft response
Negotiations set to resume Wednesday after little progress was made last week.
By Sean Mussenden
Sentinel Staff Writer
October 19, 2004
Given a choice between his old job in a West Virginia coal mine and his new one on the Magic Kingdom's midnight cleaning crew, Leroy Sprouse quickly offers a favorite. He vastly prefers sweeping up pixie dust to choking down black coal dust.
"I have no qualms with the company, really," he said, smoking a cigarette outside a rally last week where a few hundred unionized workers had gathered to protest Walt Disney World's latest offer on raises and retirement and health-care benefits.
Except this: "The company used to treat us employees with respect. It's not that way anymore. The bottom line is the almighty dollar," said Sprouse, a six-year veteran.
Leaders of the Service Trades Council, the group of six unions that represents Sprouse and more than 20,000 of his colleagues, says that the company has drawn a harder economic line this year than during previous contract negotiations.
The union has voted down Disney's first two offers, and its leaders will meet today to discuss a counteroffer to the company's most recent proposal. The two sides are expected to return to the negotiating table Wednesday after making little progress last week. The old contract expired in May.
Disney has maintained that its offers have been fair and competitive with other local tourism outfits. Union leaders say the proposed increases in health-care premiums, wage hikes and pensions are far too unpalatable to accept.
"We have a lot of bargaining left to do," said Jerry Montgomery, a Disney senior vice president handling the negotiations. "We'll spend as much time as it takes. . . . It may take two days, it may take two weeks, it may take two months."
After seven months of negotiation, three main issues are preventing the two sides from reaching an agreement: the structure of wage increases, the future of a pension plan, and health-care premiums.
The contract would run for three years. Disney is offering a 4 percent hourly pay increase to some employees during each of the three years. For others, it is offering a one-time bonus, between $1,500 and $1,800 depending on seniority, for each of the first two years -- and a 2.5 percent increase in the third year. Union leaders want to see some sort of wage increase and a piece of the bonus in the first year.
"We're close on wages. It's just the structure we're talking about now," said Joe Condo, president of the Service Trades Council.
The two sides appear to be further apart on the other issues.
For new hires, Disney wants to do away with an existing pension plan and replace it with a 401(k) plan. The company would match contributions up to 2 percent. Workers already with the company would keep the pension.
Union leaders want to keep the pension plan intact for new hires. They argue that low-wage workers living paycheck to paycheck will not actually contribute to the new plan.
"They need a pension. They need something fixed," Condo said.
In an industry known for high turnover, Montgomery said, the 401(k) plan makes sense. Unlike the pension, workers can take their 401(k) earnings with them when they leave Disney. And, he said, Disney's workers must contribute to the pension plan, which shows they would contribute to a 401(k) plan.
According to Condo, Disney's workers pay 7 cents an hour to the optional pension plan. They need contribute only in their second through fifth years with the company; after that, Disney pays for the contributions.
Under Disney's current health-care plan system, Service Trades Council workers pay much smaller premiums than managers and other salaried, nonunion workers. Under the current proposal, by 2007 the company wants to fix the union premium at 95 percent of the premium for salaried workers. Under one level of coverage, Condo said union workers could see their premiums more than double.
Disney said increases are necessary to cover rising health-care costs. And, Montgomery said, the move would bring them in line with the other tourism companies that Disney competes against.
Becky J. Cherney, president of the Florida Health Care Coalition, said very few companies in Central Florida have different health-care premiums for different parts of their work force. Disney must strike a balance in finding the right premium level -- too high or too low can lead to problems, she said.
"You don't want your premiums so high that you lose talented employees. But you don't want them so low that you become the employer of choice for people with chronic health problems," which leads to higher insurance costs, she said.
Condo said that Disney's pinning the need for an increase on competitors is disingenuous. The company historically has offered higher pay and better benefits than other theme park companies to have an advantage in recruiting.
"Disney never wants to be compared to the competition. They do it only when it suits them. It doesn't really matter to them what the others are doing," he said.
Sean Mussenden can be reached at 407-420-5664 or smussenden@orlandosentinel.com.
Get home delivery - up to 50% off
HennieBogan1966
Account Suspended
Once Again WaltD
You're steering the conversation away from the topic, and onto me. I, sir, am NOT the topic. I don't really care what IRS regulations the union has to follow. Why not give me the link to what the union members pay in dues, what the leadership makes, attys make, etc. etc. Why don't you have that link?
And your personal attack against me for the misuse of (1) word in the english language shows your clear desperation to steer the conversation away from my questions. Why are my questions going unanswered? What's the harm in answering them? I'm only asking for some simple #'s here. What gives? Got something to hide?
I read where the union has walked away from 2 offers, citing it's the structure of the deal. The way I'm reading comments from the union rep., they want to have their cake and eat it too!! (to paraphrase). They also cite that Disney is being disingenious when comparing the changes they are asking for to those of competitors in the market. This due to the fact that they don't like to be compared to competitors, except when it suits them.
Ummm, question. Who do you think they compare their numbers to at the end of each fiscal cycle? Target? WalMart? Come on people. Quit insulting our intelligence here. It's business. Get a grip. I read the comments of (1) and I repeat ONE cm who says it's about respect. So how much will this "RESPECT" cost? And believe me, I understand their position. I would want to be paid what I thought was a fair living wage. Problem is, I would never have taken the job at minimum wage to start with. Now, exactly who's fault is that? You take it for the "love" of the company. Fine. But shouldn't you somewhere along the way, CONSIDER?, how much you are being paid. Are we to believe that people accept jobs each day WITHOUT regard to pay?
Again, don't insult our intelligence. You want more pay? Fine, I'm all for it. But don't sit behind the facade of "respect" when you KNOW it's about money. Just admit it's about money. JUST BE HONEST.
I've also read where people think businesses like Disney (i know they already do this), and other companies, should be required to release ALL financial documents with regard to situations like this. When they do, many of them are summarily accused of hiding and witholding information as a tactic to avoid having to part with profits. I'm wondering, how many of you out there, whether as individuals, or small business owners, would like to have to do the same thing. Or would a lot of you out there see is as an invasion of your "privacy?"
Now, someone asks why don't I do some of the research myself on this issue?
Well, I would refer to the local papers there, but seems mostly what they print is just what Disney is offering, not what the unions are asking for. However, in reading the post previous to mine I see where some of the unions requests are mentioned. (please refer to earlier comments in this post for my views on those).
The bottom line is this. NO MATTER WHAT the union gets for its members, prices WILL GO UP. Count on that. Whether that's the cost of health care for the members, no pension for new hires, or ticket prices for us guests.
Now, again, I'm FOR THE MEMBERS GETTING A PAY RAISE!!! I just don't believe they need a union to accomplish this. And again I ask, why aren't ANY OF YOU talking about your support FOR THE CMS?!!!! I find that FACT veyr interesting. Here's what I think:
I believe that what you REALLY support is the "idea" of unions and what they "historically", if I may, represent. So it isn't really about the cms but about a cause. So you see, the actual PEOPLE involved in this get lost in the CAUSE. The cause being bigger than the people in it, so to speak. I've got a problem with this view, should it be the case. Here's why:
Isn't the reason that groups such as unions are formed is for the betterment (again, if i may) of the PEOPLE in the union? And not about the constant back and forth of the haves and have nots? Of bashing big companies for having the nerve to make money, and to pay the people at the top a lot of money for helping the company make that money? If a company is only as good as its people, don't the people at the top count too? Or is there some unwritten rule that says after a certain pay grade, that certain people DON'T count? What I'm trying to understand here is WHY there is a need to seperate people, based on their economic backgrounds? Don't we all want to be judged by quality of our character, rather than our skin color, ethnic background, or paycheck? I know I know, I'm just being unrealistic to actually EXPECT human beings to treat each other with that kind of uh oh, here it comes, RESPECT. Hmmm, where did I read that word?!! Was it someone who?.....Well, nevermind.
I'm not disagreeing that Disney ought to pay more. I've said that repeatedly. But to expect them to do so by strong-arming, or at gunpoing is umm, what's that word again? Unrealistic!!! They may give in to certain demands, but those compromises won't come without a price tag. Now, who wants to be the first to pay for those compromises? Do I have any volunteers out there? Shall we raise prices across the board for guests by 4%. Let's put that out there for a poll. I'm wondering what the result of that poll will be. And I'm talking non-Disney employed guests. Or shall we raise the cost of health insurance. Sure give me a pay raise of 4%, then take it back in health care costs. Or should we raise the cost of monthly union dues. (which we still don't know what the cms pay monthly on that one.)
Anyone out there think I"m wrong about that?
You're steering the conversation away from the topic, and onto me. I, sir, am NOT the topic. I don't really care what IRS regulations the union has to follow. Why not give me the link to what the union members pay in dues, what the leadership makes, attys make, etc. etc. Why don't you have that link?
And your personal attack against me for the misuse of (1) word in the english language shows your clear desperation to steer the conversation away from my questions. Why are my questions going unanswered? What's the harm in answering them? I'm only asking for some simple #'s here. What gives? Got something to hide?
I read where the union has walked away from 2 offers, citing it's the structure of the deal. The way I'm reading comments from the union rep., they want to have their cake and eat it too!! (to paraphrase). They also cite that Disney is being disingenious when comparing the changes they are asking for to those of competitors in the market. This due to the fact that they don't like to be compared to competitors, except when it suits them.
Ummm, question. Who do you think they compare their numbers to at the end of each fiscal cycle? Target? WalMart? Come on people. Quit insulting our intelligence here. It's business. Get a grip. I read the comments of (1) and I repeat ONE cm who says it's about respect. So how much will this "RESPECT" cost? And believe me, I understand their position. I would want to be paid what I thought was a fair living wage. Problem is, I would never have taken the job at minimum wage to start with. Now, exactly who's fault is that? You take it for the "love" of the company. Fine. But shouldn't you somewhere along the way, CONSIDER?, how much you are being paid. Are we to believe that people accept jobs each day WITHOUT regard to pay?
Again, don't insult our intelligence. You want more pay? Fine, I'm all for it. But don't sit behind the facade of "respect" when you KNOW it's about money. Just admit it's about money. JUST BE HONEST.
I've also read where people think businesses like Disney (i know they already do this), and other companies, should be required to release ALL financial documents with regard to situations like this. When they do, many of them are summarily accused of hiding and witholding information as a tactic to avoid having to part with profits. I'm wondering, how many of you out there, whether as individuals, or small business owners, would like to have to do the same thing. Or would a lot of you out there see is as an invasion of your "privacy?"
Now, someone asks why don't I do some of the research myself on this issue?
Well, I would refer to the local papers there, but seems mostly what they print is just what Disney is offering, not what the unions are asking for. However, in reading the post previous to mine I see where some of the unions requests are mentioned. (please refer to earlier comments in this post for my views on those).
The bottom line is this. NO MATTER WHAT the union gets for its members, prices WILL GO UP. Count on that. Whether that's the cost of health care for the members, no pension for new hires, or ticket prices for us guests.
Now, again, I'm FOR THE MEMBERS GETTING A PAY RAISE!!! I just don't believe they need a union to accomplish this. And again I ask, why aren't ANY OF YOU talking about your support FOR THE CMS?!!!! I find that FACT veyr interesting. Here's what I think:
I believe that what you REALLY support is the "idea" of unions and what they "historically", if I may, represent. So it isn't really about the cms but about a cause. So you see, the actual PEOPLE involved in this get lost in the CAUSE. The cause being bigger than the people in it, so to speak. I've got a problem with this view, should it be the case. Here's why:
Isn't the reason that groups such as unions are formed is for the betterment (again, if i may) of the PEOPLE in the union? And not about the constant back and forth of the haves and have nots? Of bashing big companies for having the nerve to make money, and to pay the people at the top a lot of money for helping the company make that money? If a company is only as good as its people, don't the people at the top count too? Or is there some unwritten rule that says after a certain pay grade, that certain people DON'T count? What I'm trying to understand here is WHY there is a need to seperate people, based on their economic backgrounds? Don't we all want to be judged by quality of our character, rather than our skin color, ethnic background, or paycheck? I know I know, I'm just being unrealistic to actually EXPECT human beings to treat each other with that kind of uh oh, here it comes, RESPECT. Hmmm, where did I read that word?!! Was it someone who?.....Well, nevermind.
I'm not disagreeing that Disney ought to pay more. I've said that repeatedly. But to expect them to do so by strong-arming, or at gunpoing is umm, what's that word again? Unrealistic!!! They may give in to certain demands, but those compromises won't come without a price tag. Now, who wants to be the first to pay for those compromises? Do I have any volunteers out there? Shall we raise prices across the board for guests by 4%. Let's put that out there for a poll. I'm wondering what the result of that poll will be. And I'm talking non-Disney employed guests. Or shall we raise the cost of health insurance. Sure give me a pay raise of 4%, then take it back in health care costs. Or should we raise the cost of monthly union dues. (which we still don't know what the cms pay monthly on that one.)
Anyone out there think I"m wrong about that?
imagineer boy
Well-Known Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
Good Grief, you post very long posts.
HennieBogan1966
Account Suspended
What's your point Imagineer?
So, what's your point imagineer boy?
By the way, I see by a previous post that the current contrac offering calls for a 3 year deal. Was the length of the previous deal 7 years? If so, what was the starting pay of that contract for union members, who work the park attractions/ticket booths, etc. etc.?
So, what's your point imagineer boy?
By the way, I see by a previous post that the current contrac offering calls for a 3 year deal. Was the length of the previous deal 7 years? If so, what was the starting pay of that contract for union members, who work the park attractions/ticket booths, etc. etc.?
Ok. I've been waiting to say this for a while because I can't respond from work and My computer at home was down for a few days.
First off I have sais that I support the CM's and that they deserve more money so don't say that none of us have becasue like so many other things you are wrong.
Secondly you are sadly mistaken if you think that unions drive up costs for consumers. It just isn't so. There is this little thing called the law of supply and demand. That is what sets prices, not costs. I'll use baseball as an example because you see to think that the baseball union is the reason that ticket prices are so high. You have said that businesses are in business to make money. I agree. They are not there to make thier employees feel good. They want to make as much money as possible. You would have to agree with me on that. Now, lets just say for arguments sake that all of the baseball players were to agree to play for half of what they are playing for now (I know that will never happen but lets just go with this for argument sake). Do you honestly think that the baseball owners would slash ticket prices? If you do then you are not very business savy. Teams set ticket prices to try to maximize revenue. They try to bring in as much money as possible not as many people as possible. More people doesn't necessarily mean more money. The Yankees would rather have 1 person pay 1000 dollars for a ticket than 100 people pay 2 dollars per ticket. Yes I know that if there are more people they will spend more on concessions and all of that other stuff but more people doesn't always equal more money. The same thing goes for Disney. Yes they would like to keep their profit margins up but if they thought they could make more money by charging more money right now then they would. It is supply and demand. They might try to justify higher ticket prices by saying that it is because they had to pay their CM's more but that is just a PR game trying to make the union look bad just like the union members picketing Disney events. I do agree with you that if the Disney employees aren't making whatthey think they are worth then they should seek other employment. If they are being treated like they think they should then they should seek other employment. In general I do not think that Unions are necessary but there are some instances where they are. Whether Disney is one or not I don't know. In industries like Airlines where Safty could be compromised without a union then it definetly is. One of my employees has a husband who is a pilot. Without a union teh pilots would be pressured to fly more hours. They would be pressured to make flights when it may not be safe. I don't know about you but I would much rather have well rested pilots who don't fear disciplinary action for holding up a flight because there is a problem than tired pilots who will fly a plane that might not be safe because the company feel sthat it is safe. Capitalism says that if a company was to run it's business like teh second example above that eventually it will go out of business because the Pilots will not want to work there meaning the company would have less qualified pilots. The more qualified pilots would be working a better companys. 1 other thing, the poorly run airline would probably have accidents causing hundrends of people their lives. A couple of accidents wouldn't help business either. eventually that airline goes out of business which is what happens in a purely capitalistic market. I believe that it is better to have unions and save the lives thna to let capitalism weed out the weaker businesses.
OK, enough of that. Bottom line, supply and deand sets prices not Unions.
First off I have sais that I support the CM's and that they deserve more money so don't say that none of us have becasue like so many other things you are wrong.
Secondly you are sadly mistaken if you think that unions drive up costs for consumers. It just isn't so. There is this little thing called the law of supply and demand. That is what sets prices, not costs. I'll use baseball as an example because you see to think that the baseball union is the reason that ticket prices are so high. You have said that businesses are in business to make money. I agree. They are not there to make thier employees feel good. They want to make as much money as possible. You would have to agree with me on that. Now, lets just say for arguments sake that all of the baseball players were to agree to play for half of what they are playing for now (I know that will never happen but lets just go with this for argument sake). Do you honestly think that the baseball owners would slash ticket prices? If you do then you are not very business savy. Teams set ticket prices to try to maximize revenue. They try to bring in as much money as possible not as many people as possible. More people doesn't necessarily mean more money. The Yankees would rather have 1 person pay 1000 dollars for a ticket than 100 people pay 2 dollars per ticket. Yes I know that if there are more people they will spend more on concessions and all of that other stuff but more people doesn't always equal more money. The same thing goes for Disney. Yes they would like to keep their profit margins up but if they thought they could make more money by charging more money right now then they would. It is supply and demand. They might try to justify higher ticket prices by saying that it is because they had to pay their CM's more but that is just a PR game trying to make the union look bad just like the union members picketing Disney events. I do agree with you that if the Disney employees aren't making whatthey think they are worth then they should seek other employment. If they are being treated like they think they should then they should seek other employment. In general I do not think that Unions are necessary but there are some instances where they are. Whether Disney is one or not I don't know. In industries like Airlines where Safty could be compromised without a union then it definetly is. One of my employees has a husband who is a pilot. Without a union teh pilots would be pressured to fly more hours. They would be pressured to make flights when it may not be safe. I don't know about you but I would much rather have well rested pilots who don't fear disciplinary action for holding up a flight because there is a problem than tired pilots who will fly a plane that might not be safe because the company feel sthat it is safe. Capitalism says that if a company was to run it's business like teh second example above that eventually it will go out of business because the Pilots will not want to work there meaning the company would have less qualified pilots. The more qualified pilots would be working a better companys. 1 other thing, the poorly run airline would probably have accidents causing hundrends of people their lives. A couple of accidents wouldn't help business either. eventually that airline goes out of business which is what happens in a purely capitalistic market. I believe that it is better to have unions and save the lives thna to let capitalism weed out the weaker businesses.
OK, enough of that. Bottom line, supply and deand sets prices not Unions.
HennieBogan1966
Account Suspended
Well MWC
Let me start of by saying Thank You for agreeing with me on some of my points. You're the first to say so. Secondly, I am sure there ARE those out there who support the cms. My comments are directed at those on this forum who, for whatever their motives, continue to rail against me for my opinions of unions, and in this particular situation, the union leadership representing the cms. Those people have yet to mention their support of the cms. They've also yet to acknowledge the power and intelligence of the individuals in this situation, but rather continue to speak about how they are "powerless" without the aid of a union. I also spoke from some experiences that I had while living in a state where unions controlled the "core" business of that state, and the effect that strikes had on local economy, as well as the inflated membership dues that the members there paid. With respect to that line of questioning, I have asked repeatedly about union dues, what the leadership of this union is paid, what their attys. are paid. etc. etc. Those questions have gone unanswered by ANYONE with direct knowledge of this situation. And if you read back thru this thread, you will see comments that have been made my cms, or those who are very close to this situation. I've also asked repeatedly on this, and on another thread, for the information on EXACTLY what the union is asking for. And I've gotten NO response to that as well. I've actually gotten more info from the local papers there, (which people claim are very unreliable), than I have from anyone connected to the situation. So, my suspicion is that there are REASONS no one wants to answer any of my questions. Care to guess why that is?
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.
Now, allow me to connect the dots here as it relates to Disney, the unions, and the price at the gate. IF Disney compromises on hourly wages, benefits, pension, etc. who do YOU think will pay in the end? Disney ISN'T going to give in to these demands without getting their money back somewhere. NOTHING in life is free. Now, either the cms are going to pay thru loss of some pension, higher insurance premiums, loss of hours, etc. Or, Disney is going to pass those costs along to the buying public thru higher ticket prices, higher resort prices, consumables, etc. To say otherwise, again respectfully, is niave (spelled correctly). And as has been pointed out to me soooo much on this thread, I"m not REALISTIC enough for SOME PEOPLE here. So okay, the REALITY is that Disney is NOT going to take less profit in the end. That's why businesses, as a rule, look to make 15 to 20% more this year than last, on a yearly basis. Otherwise, what would the goals be? To make sure you have HAPPY employees, while making less profit? Good luck with that one. So for these and many other reasons that I've stated on this thread, I don't believe that unions are good for the whole or for the long term. In my personal experiences, I went thru 2 union strikes where I lived, and our business suffered severly for it. And in the end all they did was drive UP the cost of not only the product THEIR members provided, but it also forced businesses to raise prices on their products as well. ( I refer to your comment about 1 person paying 1000/ticket, rather than 100 at $2). Guess what, if I have less traffic, I have to maximize each sale. Do you agree? So guess what, if the union WINS in this case, and Disney raises costs, which they WILL do, and traffic is down in the parks, who REALLY WINS? Let's see. The union gets their people more money, the leadership gets a fatter bonus/fees, the ATTORNEYS get paid, (don't even get me started on Attys.), and Disney charges all of us more. Yes, Disney will make more per person at the gate, but the volume will suffer. And how can you say that volume doesn't matter? I'd much rather have 10 people who paid $5, rather than one who paid $50. Know why? Well, that ONE person can only eat so many hot dogs/hamburgers, can only drink so much soda, can only afford to spend a certain amount on extras. BUt those TEN people? YOU GOT IT. I'm going to make TEN TIMES the amount of money. And in areas where I am MAXIMIZING profit margins. As well, that ONE person can only ride one ride at a time. Why do I want to spend my money on payroll for all the rides to be manned by cms, when I could have one person just follow him around to each ride? That's what I would do. And save a BUNDLE on payroll. Still like that idea? I'm guessing, NO.
In closing (whew), I would just like to reitereate that I have YET to have ANY of my questions answered on the union dues, atty fees, leaderhip fees, what the union is asking for (exactly), and the difference between what they want and what Disney is offering. Or how long the last contract was and what the minimum wage negotiated was. I guess no one wants to answer for obvious reasons of bolstering MY views on this whole situation. I'll take the silence as victory for me.
Lastly MWC, I very much appreciate ALL of your comments, and the clarity and DIGNITY with which you made them. Please know that I appreciate healthy debate on these and many other issues.
Oh, and one other thing, I BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF THE CMS. YOU GUYS DON'T NEED A UNION TO FIGHT YOUR BATTLES FOR YOU.
Let me start of by saying Thank You for agreeing with me on some of my points. You're the first to say so. Secondly, I am sure there ARE those out there who support the cms. My comments are directed at those on this forum who, for whatever their motives, continue to rail against me for my opinions of unions, and in this particular situation, the union leadership representing the cms. Those people have yet to mention their support of the cms. They've also yet to acknowledge the power and intelligence of the individuals in this situation, but rather continue to speak about how they are "powerless" without the aid of a union. I also spoke from some experiences that I had while living in a state where unions controlled the "core" business of that state, and the effect that strikes had on local economy, as well as the inflated membership dues that the members there paid. With respect to that line of questioning, I have asked repeatedly about union dues, what the leadership of this union is paid, what their attys. are paid. etc. etc. Those questions have gone unanswered by ANYONE with direct knowledge of this situation. And if you read back thru this thread, you will see comments that have been made my cms, or those who are very close to this situation. I've also asked repeatedly on this, and on another thread, for the information on EXACTLY what the union is asking for. And I've gotten NO response to that as well. I've actually gotten more info from the local papers there, (which people claim are very unreliable), than I have from anyone connected to the situation. So, my suspicion is that there are REASONS no one wants to answer any of my questions. Care to guess why that is?
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.
Now, allow me to connect the dots here as it relates to Disney, the unions, and the price at the gate. IF Disney compromises on hourly wages, benefits, pension, etc. who do YOU think will pay in the end? Disney ISN'T going to give in to these demands without getting their money back somewhere. NOTHING in life is free. Now, either the cms are going to pay thru loss of some pension, higher insurance premiums, loss of hours, etc. Or, Disney is going to pass those costs along to the buying public thru higher ticket prices, higher resort prices, consumables, etc. To say otherwise, again respectfully, is niave (spelled correctly). And as has been pointed out to me soooo much on this thread, I"m not REALISTIC enough for SOME PEOPLE here. So okay, the REALITY is that Disney is NOT going to take less profit in the end. That's why businesses, as a rule, look to make 15 to 20% more this year than last, on a yearly basis. Otherwise, what would the goals be? To make sure you have HAPPY employees, while making less profit? Good luck with that one. So for these and many other reasons that I've stated on this thread, I don't believe that unions are good for the whole or for the long term. In my personal experiences, I went thru 2 union strikes where I lived, and our business suffered severly for it. And in the end all they did was drive UP the cost of not only the product THEIR members provided, but it also forced businesses to raise prices on their products as well. ( I refer to your comment about 1 person paying 1000/ticket, rather than 100 at $2). Guess what, if I have less traffic, I have to maximize each sale. Do you agree? So guess what, if the union WINS in this case, and Disney raises costs, which they WILL do, and traffic is down in the parks, who REALLY WINS? Let's see. The union gets their people more money, the leadership gets a fatter bonus/fees, the ATTORNEYS get paid, (don't even get me started on Attys.), and Disney charges all of us more. Yes, Disney will make more per person at the gate, but the volume will suffer. And how can you say that volume doesn't matter? I'd much rather have 10 people who paid $5, rather than one who paid $50. Know why? Well, that ONE person can only eat so many hot dogs/hamburgers, can only drink so much soda, can only afford to spend a certain amount on extras. BUt those TEN people? YOU GOT IT. I'm going to make TEN TIMES the amount of money. And in areas where I am MAXIMIZING profit margins. As well, that ONE person can only ride one ride at a time. Why do I want to spend my money on payroll for all the rides to be manned by cms, when I could have one person just follow him around to each ride? That's what I would do. And save a BUNDLE on payroll. Still like that idea? I'm guessing, NO.
In closing (whew), I would just like to reitereate that I have YET to have ANY of my questions answered on the union dues, atty fees, leaderhip fees, what the union is asking for (exactly), and the difference between what they want and what Disney is offering. Or how long the last contract was and what the minimum wage negotiated was. I guess no one wants to answer for obvious reasons of bolstering MY views on this whole situation. I'll take the silence as victory for me.
Lastly MWC, I very much appreciate ALL of your comments, and the clarity and DIGNITY with which you made them. Please know that I appreciate healthy debate on these and many other issues.
Oh, and one other thing, I BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF THE CMS. YOU GUYS DON'T NEED A UNION TO FIGHT YOUR BATTLES FOR YOU.
Yen_Sid1
New Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
SO, nobody answers your questions. So, you don't have a clue what is really going on between the company and the union. But, you have made a decision already that the union is bad because you didn't get what you wanted in WV. Just what Disney CM's need, people making uninformed decisions about things they don't know about. And you wonder why no one wants to talk to you!!
HennieBogan1966
Account Suspended
Ya Know Yen:
IF you BOTHERED to read any of my previous posts regarding my experiences in WVA, you would KNOW that I was NOT part of any union, but worked in a city which was impacted by 2 coal mine union strikes within a 3 year period. Additionally, you would know that I had business acquaintances that WERE union members who did business with me. So, in a manner of speaking, I had some first hand knowledge of negotiations, union dues, etc., since we spoke on a weekly basis while I was there.
Now, I would ask you to refrain from YOUR UNINFORMED comments until you do further research. I for one KNOW what I am talking about. UNLIKE YOU!!!!
IF you BOTHERED to read any of my previous posts regarding my experiences in WVA, you would KNOW that I was NOT part of any union, but worked in a city which was impacted by 2 coal mine union strikes within a 3 year period. Additionally, you would know that I had business acquaintances that WERE union members who did business with me. So, in a manner of speaking, I had some first hand knowledge of negotiations, union dues, etc., since we spoke on a weekly basis while I was there.
Now, I would ask you to refrain from YOUR UNINFORMED comments until you do further research. I for one KNOW what I am talking about. UNLIKE YOU!!!!
Yen_Sid1
New Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
You may know about WVA coal miners union, but not being a union member, probably not much and second hand at the most.
So why don't you find a WVA coalminer's newsgroup and complain about the union to them!!
In case you didn't notice, this a Disney newsgroup which is talking about WDW and STCU contract negotiations, which you don't know anything about. And if you did know anything you wouldn't be asking all those questions!!
ZHoyt
New Member
I haven't read this enitre thread, but it seems like it can be simplified pretty easily.
There is a finite ammount of money and power. These commodoties are fought for. Everyone wants as much as they can get. Capitalism is not about living wisely and making enough money to survive as some of our founding father's dreamed. Instead it is a giant game of hungry hungry hippos with everyone jamming on the buttons as hard as they can trying to get those little white balls. Unions vs management is just one of the many examples of this game. But it needs to happen, because if one side wins everything will probably fall apart.
As for unions in general. Yes they have become bloated, but they are neccessary. If you look historically, you can see the absolute need for them. If workers are not organized, they will be exploited. It's as simple as that. Workers are cogs in a machine, and it is the managements job to get the most out of those cogs while expending the littlest ammount possible. If you don't think workers without unions get exploited, just take a look around at certain places in the world that have had no labor reform.
Ok, maybe this really doesn't simplify things at all. I just had an urge to put my 2 cents in, and as usual I ended up rambling fairly nonsensically.
There is a finite ammount of money and power. These commodoties are fought for. Everyone wants as much as they can get. Capitalism is not about living wisely and making enough money to survive as some of our founding father's dreamed. Instead it is a giant game of hungry hungry hippos with everyone jamming on the buttons as hard as they can trying to get those little white balls. Unions vs management is just one of the many examples of this game. But it needs to happen, because if one side wins everything will probably fall apart.
As for unions in general. Yes they have become bloated, but they are neccessary. If you look historically, you can see the absolute need for them. If workers are not organized, they will be exploited. It's as simple as that. Workers are cogs in a machine, and it is the managements job to get the most out of those cogs while expending the littlest ammount possible. If you don't think workers without unions get exploited, just take a look around at certain places in the world that have had no labor reform.
Ok, maybe this really doesn't simplify things at all. I just had an urge to put my 2 cents in, and as usual I ended up rambling fairly nonsensically.
HennieBogan1966
Account Suspended
You just don't get it do you YEN?!!!
Let me see if I can explain this clearly to you YEN, since you obviously don't get it.
I'm asking questions of those in the know, so that I can further buttress my views on this subject. I used my experiences in WVA to say that I have an idea of what goes on with unions. I never said, as some others on this thread have TRIED to do, that all unions are the same. I realize they are not.
But the questions I have asked are legtimate questions which I believe would provide a clearer picture of what's REALLY going on here, with regard to the real motives of the unions involved.
Now, the real question here Yen, is why doesn't anyone want to answer those questions? I'll tell you why. First, and foremost, because they KNOW I'M RIGHT!!!!! And that bothers them more than anything. Secondly, because it will prove one of the MANY valid points I've made on this subject, which is that hard-working people are handing money over to union leadership who then do next to nothing for them in return. So, HOW MUCH DO THEY PAY IN DUES? What's the harm in answering that question? Is it some sort of trade secret? I don't want to know where the Keys to the Kingdon are hidden. The questions I'm asking are valid and legitimate questions. How much are the union leaders there paid? Another trade secret I suppose? How much are the attys for the union paid? Oops, now I KNOW that's a trade secret. Just ask John Edwards. I know, these are such DIFFICULT questions to answer. Maybe you'll want to consult with your atty first. Oops, where's the money going to come from to pay those fees? Oh yeah, I forgot, the union dues.
Yen, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what's going on. And while YOU may think that a lot of us out here can't possibly understand what's going on, let me assure you of one thing. YOU DON'T KNOW ME!!!! Don't assume you can read me by what I write. I'm merely debating this issue at its very core. And you know what? No one wants to touch it. Why is that Yen? Have they got something to hide? Wait, maybe they took the secret documents out in their pants with them huh?
I'm all for healthy debate, but no one can prove me wrong. THAT'S why no one will respond.
Now, on to the next comments I read about Disney raising prices. True, they're going to do that anyway on a yearly basis. Cost of business. What I am SAYING is that IF they lose at the negotiating table, rest assured they WI get that money back. Whether thru the loss of pension to new hires, higher insurance premiums, higher ticket prices, loss of overtime, shorter park hours to reduce payroll. You name it, Disney IS NOT going to lose money in this deal. BANK ON IT!!
In the end, here's my point. The people involved in this; the cast members, deserve better than they're getting. From both Disney and their union. Now, in all the negotiations, all the hand-wringing, etc., who continues to get paid? Hmmm, let's see. That would be the attys., and the union leadership. Imagine that. Meanwhile the cms are held hostage at both ends. Which again proves my point that they are more powerful as INDIVIDUALS, than having a union or anyone else, have to fight their battles for them. By joining a union, they give up some of their freedom of choice, for that of the majority. Some will call that democracy. IT IS NOT!!! In a democracy, you get to choose how much you will work for. Yes, a company will tell you what they will pay. But guess what? You don't have to accept it. Turn the job down. Negotiate on your own, based on your skills and experience. I, for one, don't need a mouthpiece to do the work for me. I CAN HANDLE IT. Who's going to be the first one to say on here that THEY believe that the cms can't do the same for themselves? Any takers? I BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF THE INDIVIDUAL.
HOW ABOUT YOU?
Let me see if I can explain this clearly to you YEN, since you obviously don't get it.
I'm asking questions of those in the know, so that I can further buttress my views on this subject. I used my experiences in WVA to say that I have an idea of what goes on with unions. I never said, as some others on this thread have TRIED to do, that all unions are the same. I realize they are not.
But the questions I have asked are legtimate questions which I believe would provide a clearer picture of what's REALLY going on here, with regard to the real motives of the unions involved.
Now, the real question here Yen, is why doesn't anyone want to answer those questions? I'll tell you why. First, and foremost, because they KNOW I'M RIGHT!!!!! And that bothers them more than anything. Secondly, because it will prove one of the MANY valid points I've made on this subject, which is that hard-working people are handing money over to union leadership who then do next to nothing for them in return. So, HOW MUCH DO THEY PAY IN DUES? What's the harm in answering that question? Is it some sort of trade secret? I don't want to know where the Keys to the Kingdon are hidden. The questions I'm asking are valid and legitimate questions. How much are the union leaders there paid? Another trade secret I suppose? How much are the attys for the union paid? Oops, now I KNOW that's a trade secret. Just ask John Edwards. I know, these are such DIFFICULT questions to answer. Maybe you'll want to consult with your atty first. Oops, where's the money going to come from to pay those fees? Oh yeah, I forgot, the union dues.
Yen, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what's going on. And while YOU may think that a lot of us out here can't possibly understand what's going on, let me assure you of one thing. YOU DON'T KNOW ME!!!! Don't assume you can read me by what I write. I'm merely debating this issue at its very core. And you know what? No one wants to touch it. Why is that Yen? Have they got something to hide? Wait, maybe they took the secret documents out in their pants with them huh?
I'm all for healthy debate, but no one can prove me wrong. THAT'S why no one will respond.
Now, on to the next comments I read about Disney raising prices. True, they're going to do that anyway on a yearly basis. Cost of business. What I am SAYING is that IF they lose at the negotiating table, rest assured they WI get that money back. Whether thru the loss of pension to new hires, higher insurance premiums, higher ticket prices, loss of overtime, shorter park hours to reduce payroll. You name it, Disney IS NOT going to lose money in this deal. BANK ON IT!!
In the end, here's my point. The people involved in this; the cast members, deserve better than they're getting. From both Disney and their union. Now, in all the negotiations, all the hand-wringing, etc., who continues to get paid? Hmmm, let's see. That would be the attys., and the union leadership. Imagine that. Meanwhile the cms are held hostage at both ends. Which again proves my point that they are more powerful as INDIVIDUALS, than having a union or anyone else, have to fight their battles for them. By joining a union, they give up some of their freedom of choice, for that of the majority. Some will call that democracy. IT IS NOT!!! In a democracy, you get to choose how much you will work for. Yes, a company will tell you what they will pay. But guess what? You don't have to accept it. Turn the job down. Negotiate on your own, based on your skills and experience. I, for one, don't need a mouthpiece to do the work for me. I CAN HANDLE IT. Who's going to be the first one to say on here that THEY believe that the cms can't do the same for themselves? Any takers? I BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF THE INDIVIDUAL.
HOW ABOUT YOU?
SpaceRacer2003
New Member
This is not the Power of One vs. the Power of Many.... it is the Disney CMs represented by there unions (that is not going to change) bargaining with TWDC. Can we either focus on the real issues or just drop this all together.