WDI/IT Layoffs Revealed

[CapnStinxy]

Disney doesn't want to keep dead weight, which is why they have layoffs like these. Imagineers are very expendable, unfortuate to say, but true. They are only needed for the projects that they are assigned to, then discarded. Only the Joe Rhodes stay, which is the way it should be.

Spoken like a true MBA. Throw a few lines in there about "paradigms," "stakeholders," and "revenue streams," and they'll make you president of WDI.

P.S.: JP Morgan Chase is sending investment banking and business analyst jobs to Bombay, so the axe will be coming for the "Master of the Universe" moneymen soon.

 

[mraw]

I think the greatest potential for future attractions is out sourcing. Disney doesn't want to keep dead weight, which is why they have layoffs like these. Imagineers are very expendable, unfortuate to say, but true.

That's a very cold statement to make being that people are losing their jobs. People tend to say that when they have a job. If you are ever laid off, I doubt that you'd still be making statements like this.

As far as the Joe Rohde's go, he's a great guy, and I can't make an example out of him, but each WDI project is spearheaded by a show designer. Any and everything that goes into that attraction is approved by that one person (from construction to paint patterns to Cast Members Only signs). When an attraction bombs (i.e. Journey Into Imagination and Stitch's Great Escape!), only the people that were told what to do get laid off, while the person that called all the shots that made the attraction a catastrophe gets to move on to the next project - even if the project cost the company millions of dollars. I don't think that's right at all.

I never make a point to consider someone's job useless, because I could lose my job tomorrow. I know that and I respect everyone who works hard for a living.

 

[Lynx04]

That's a very cold statement to make being that people are losing their jobs. People tend to say that when they have a job. If you are ever laid off, I doubt that you'd still be making statements like this.

As far as the Joe Rohde's go, he's a great guy, and I can't make an example out of him, but each WDI project is spearheaded by a show designer. Any and everything that goes into that attraction is approved by that one person (from construction to paint patterns to Cast Members Only signs). When an attraction bombs (i.e. Journey Into Imagination and Stitch's Great Escape!), only the people that were told what to do get laid off, while the person that called all the shots that made the attraction a catastrophe gets to move on to the next project - even if the project cost the company millions of dollars. I don't think that's right at all.

I never make a point to consider someone's job useless, because I could lose my job tomorrow. I know that and I respect everyone who works hard for a living.

First, I never stated that their jobs are useless, nor the contributions. I think their contributions are just as important and in some cases, more important than everybody else on the project. My point was not about the imagineers, but about their occupation. Their job is really a contracting job, they are only needed for the projects that they are working on. If there are no projects in the pipelines, what is the point on keeping these people around. There isn't, sad, but true. If you had a company, would put more people on project then you need, no, or even worse, pay someone to sit around and not do much at all. It is not fair to the imagineer, nor is it fair for the company. That is why I said it is great that some of these people come together and create their own companies, such like ITEC Productions, amoung other things they work on production designs for theme parks. A company like this can put their talents toward more things then just Disney, and because there are more potiental clients, job security is better. My comment about Joe Rhodes again I was trying to point out his postion with the company, not his general work, or contibutions. Disney will keep key imagineers that will create the basics for new concepts, but will bring people in to fill in the gaps, these are the people that make it happen, so to be honest, I have more respect for these people, because of what they bring to the table. But the fact that they are not needed any further then what the project consists of, they are the first to go. Basicly they are seasonal employees, only needed for the busy times, but in this case busy = project.

I think you guys are just misunderstanding my point, or maybe I could have done a better job at stating it. I was trying to make a case for imagineers breaking off and starting their own company. pointing out the job security as the main reason. I may have sounded cold, but reality is cold some times and when it comes to job security, there really isn't a warm way of saying it.

 

[FatBoy976]

I guess I'm glad WDI didn't hire me.

 

[colliera]

IT Outsourcing trend - but not cure

They are only needed for the projects that they are assigned to, then discarded. Only the Joe Rhodes stay, which is the way it should be. Keep the people that come up with the main concept, then hire the company that specializes in the fields that will crystalize the goals.

Linda Dillman said it best in an article where she was named CIO of the Year, "We would be crazy to outsource!" In the article the Wal-Mart CIO pointed out that outside companies role was to earn income from selling what they intended to make profit. Be that consulting, project management, or actual manpower applied to the work. The role of inside IT was to address the business needs of the company and add value to its clients inside or external.

While outsourcing is a trend MBA's have taken to for their own objectives of RIO or short-term profit boosting it only takes a call to outsourced support to see the difference in the quality when they are not true steakholders with something to gain when the company does well.

While compensation is a part of employment of quality IT, the key to keeping them has been shown in countless surveys over the years these workers need to be motivated by encouragement, praise, and recognition. How would Disney address this to to a group of non-Disney employees, (even former Disney employees)?

Disney's statement that they are focusing on their core business of entertainment and hospitalitity rings amazingly close to Gaylord Entertainment's behavior when closing down Opryland. They divested themselves of their only profit center of the TNN/CMT satellite network to focus on their hotels and build up the shoping experience only to sell out their share of the mall they build two years later.

Do I think Disney is closing down the Theme Park Division? No, but their lack of investment at DL until the recent turnaround amounted to the same thing. All the while proping up the Disney Store Division with theme park profits. While we may not directly see the effects on stage you can be sure the back office that depends on IT support will feel it.

 

[thedisneyfan]

I think that outsourcing is a disaster. The outsourcing leads to less productivity and loyalty. If you outsource something to a company that has 20 other clients, then you don't get their entire dedication and loyalty necessary to produce the best result. More and more company secrets are lost, and your new product may be a copy of what the outsourced company also gave to another client. Thus, you lose your uniqueness and competitive edge over the competitors. This is not Disney.

First they outsource (okay sell) thier retail stores, and now more of this. What's next? Outsourcing the mundane jobs at the theme parks themselves? :hurl: No offense to anyone that works or knows a worker at Wal-Mart, but a major difference exists between the cast member that assists me with my purchases at the Emporium versus the cashier at Wal-Mart in blue jeans and a t-shirt that sighs everytime a customer approaches.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Outsourcing these types of jobs can be good (telecom, WAN, etc.) but the day-to-day stuff... usually not a good idea. You need people who know the systems and the people. Having been laid off three times in my IT career, I can say with certainty that it sucks. A small company, I can understand outsourcing IT functions. A big company, however, I cannot. I understand the idea of saving money, but will Disney save in the long run? I'd put my money on "probably not".

BTW, Gateway Computers outsourced to ACS, then brought their IT back in-house. And IBM's Global Services is known for 50-60 hour workweeks.