ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
It seems appropriate that a felon created the Wall St Casino destroying everything in its path and not fulfilling its initial purpose of capital formation and profit distribution
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
WDW IT Layoffs 1/30/2015
- Thread starter wogwog
- Start date
It seems appropriate that a felon created the Wall St Casino destroying everything in its path and not fulfilling its initial purpose of capital formation and profit distribution
NelsonRD
Well-Known Member
You stated the problem in your response. The position post has a pay associated with it. We have seen qualified people apply, however, we cannot just pay them whatever they want, or whatever they were making at another job that may have been doing well before they were let go. Also, many large businesses are struggling with all the bad press about unequal pay, and diversity, and therefore, are unwilling to negotiate higher salaries. Call it cheap, call it fair, either way, nobody is winning. I am experiencing this first hand.
Do you know a good Mechanic? Plumber? Roofer? Are they all the best, or are some of them dishonest? Are some better performers than others? Are the ones that cost the most the best and most qualified? You know the answer to that is no. Why would the IT industry be any different? Management typically lacks the knowledge in this area so they rely on others, or contractors.
I have suggested a few points. If you are qualified in what you do, you should find employment. Second, not every worker is the best fit for your company, and it can be a challenge sometimes to find a good fit. Third, when you are hired by a company, you are paid to do a job, you are not being adopted into the family. Forth, sometimes work just sucks, and this idea of working the perfect job to be happy is not working. Again, I am sympathetic to those who are out of work, but employment is not guaranteed.
Having discussions about the IT layoffs with aquaintences who work for the Mouse they pointed out another area where Disney appears to squeeze the money relating to employees at the theme parks in Florida. The outsourcing in IT, at the higher end of pay or at the least decent for Florida, is getting the attention.
At the other end of the pay scale, front line theme park cast, a similar pay and benefit squeeze seems to be in place. I am told this has been going on for years. It is one of those things locals and probably a lot of frequent visitors know but it has come more to my thoughts after the IT moves by Disney.
I am talking about the college and international college students who Disney brings in to work for short periods of time for beginning level wages and very limited benefits. I believe I heard WDW has three month, six month and one year programs. I am not familiar with all of the details or if it is another visa loop hole situation but have learned these young people work full time, are housed in Disney owned housing and pay Disney rent. Some are "cultural representatives" as at Epcot WS, which sounds justifiable to me, but most are simply front line cast in the theme parks and hotels. Meanwhile I believe WDW only hires part time front line cast from the local job hunters. Then they wait in line for a full time position to be offered. The cast I talked to about the program think the number of students in this program must be in the hundreds or even a thousand or more at some times of the year.
Granted these are not well paid positions but I am sure some local citizens would take a full time job with at least some benefits over part time. I am not saying labor and benefit cost is the only reason for this program and perhaps someone on this forum knows other reasons but it does seem to be a similar situation to me.
At the other end of the pay scale, front line theme park cast, a similar pay and benefit squeeze seems to be in place. I am told this has been going on for years. It is one of those things locals and probably a lot of frequent visitors know but it has come more to my thoughts after the IT moves by Disney.
I am talking about the college and international college students who Disney brings in to work for short periods of time for beginning level wages and very limited benefits. I believe I heard WDW has three month, six month and one year programs. I am not familiar with all of the details or if it is another visa loop hole situation but have learned these young people work full time, are housed in Disney owned housing and pay Disney rent. Some are "cultural representatives" as at Epcot WS, which sounds justifiable to me, but most are simply front line cast in the theme parks and hotels. Meanwhile I believe WDW only hires part time front line cast from the local job hunters. Then they wait in line for a full time position to be offered. The cast I talked to about the program think the number of students in this program must be in the hundreds or even a thousand or more at some times of the year.
Granted these are not well paid positions but I am sure some local citizens would take a full time job with at least some benefits over part time. I am not saying labor and benefit cost is the only reason for this program and perhaps someone on this forum knows other reasons but it does seem to be a similar situation to me.
Most of the kids that live in Disney housing work late at night to early in the morning. With 3 parks that are open late and over 15 massive resorts there is no way they could staff that kind of 24 hour operation with people who just live in the area.
Also much of Disney's management has been recruited with that internship program and it has opened up a lot of doors for people to get their foot in the company. My sons college roomate started in the college program, worked in management in the park, and now works for project management and makes over 60 grand a year. They actually require completion of the college program internship and/or a certain amount of time of front-line experience to apply for middle-management roles.
It's a perspective thing: most jobs at WDW are naturally going to be low income entry level and I think it's great that they employ young people because they need the work experience (which is more difficult for kids to get these days than in the past). I've been to the intern housing at Disney and it's like a country club, I certainly would not consider it exploitative. I've also been to the employee housing at Cedar Point and those are awful (granted this was years ago and they may have been renovated since then). But really how important is that to an 18-20 year old anyway? What's important is the experience and the line on the resume.
Also considering how much it costs to carry full time employees these days it shouldn't surprise anyone to see a squeeze on full time employment. Simple supply & demand at work: when you have tens of thousands of service jobs legislation is going to play a major role in how the business is ran. I have no idea if the interns and seasonal workers who work more than 40 hours a week are covered under the affordable care act, but if they are it wouldn't surprise me to see them scale that back and hire more part time. Obviously Disney has a responsibility to the community to be operating ethically but the government also needs to be careful when they try to strong arm employers to do what fits their agenda, it makes no sense to try and kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Also much of Disney's management has been recruited with that internship program and it has opened up a lot of doors for people to get their foot in the company. My sons college roomate started in the college program, worked in management in the park, and now works for project management and makes over 60 grand a year. They actually require completion of the college program internship and/or a certain amount of time of front-line experience to apply for middle-management roles.
It's a perspective thing: most jobs at WDW are naturally going to be low income entry level and I think it's great that they employ young people because they need the work experience (which is more difficult for kids to get these days than in the past). I've been to the intern housing at Disney and it's like a country club, I certainly would not consider it exploitative. I've also been to the employee housing at Cedar Point and those are awful (granted this was years ago and they may have been renovated since then). But really how important is that to an 18-20 year old anyway? What's important is the experience and the line on the resume.
Also considering how much it costs to carry full time employees these days it shouldn't surprise anyone to see a squeeze on full time employment. Simple supply & demand at work: when you have tens of thousands of service jobs legislation is going to play a major role in how the business is ran. I have no idea if the interns and seasonal workers who work more than 40 hours a week are covered under the affordable care act, but if they are it wouldn't surprise me to see them scale that back and hire more part time. Obviously Disney has a responsibility to the community to be operating ethically but the government also needs to be careful when they try to strong arm employers to do what fits their agenda, it makes no sense to try and kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
Last edited:
NelsonRD
Well-Known Member
Didn't Disney try this about 8 years ago with employing high school kids? I seem to remember something similar occurring around 2006 when front line cast members were filled with high school interns, and it failed miserably due to the lack of education, excitement, and experience these kids had. Most were too busy talking about what their plans were for the night instead of assisting guests. Again, the blame is not solely on Disney, but what occurred also speaks volumes of our younger work force.
And that is one of the main problems in today's corporate world. When the company shows absolutely no loyalty to it's employees, how are they going to expect the employees to show any loyalty to them? The best companies do treat their employees like family, and the employees reward those companies by sticking around, even during the lean times. I have worked for such a company and would have stayed had they not gotten bought out by a larger company that couldn't care less about it's employees. It was a hostile takeover, and nobody that worked there wanted to work for the new company, because they knew what was coming. Pretty much every single person with experience in the company and how things worked there left within 6 months. 6 months. Some had been with the older company for going on 20 years, and knew that a giant pay cut was coming, so better to get a new job while they still had one. Within a year, pretty much anyone left was told to take a 20% pay cut, or get out. Of course, upper management was completely excluded from all of this. It was only the regular working people that had to take a cut. Really?!?!? But yes, that's how it was.
If a company treats me like nothing but a number, and thinks that there are a bunch of people just waiting to do my job at a lower rate than they hired me at, well, then I am going to jump ship the first time that another company comes calling with a better deal. Why would I stay?
If I had worked for Disney, and was one of the employees that was told to train my replacement, I would have told the company to pound sand, and kiss my a$$, and I would have left immediately. No job is worth that kind of humiliation.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Oh yes they are, That's how the body shops in this part of the world work, "I can get you 'equivalent' workers for 2/3's of your current workforce's salary' As an exec what's not to like.
NelsonRD
Well-Known Member
While I agree that you will get more out of your employees with respect, I am suggesting that not all employees are worth that respect. Therefore, high level management then resorts back to the lowest common denominator, and to keep things 'fair' they have decided to not go above and beyond. If you want to be treated like family, large business like Disney may not the place for you. Large businesses spend money training you, background checks, etc... then people quit because of some demand the employee has (like wanting Friday off - I have see it) is not fair to the business either. Companies invest in their employees, but this thread is all one sided about the employee, without any consideration of any other possibility of why things are other than cheep greed.
Again, I am sorry, but this is not about loyalty or love, work is a job. This is the line I think is being blurred. 80 years ago, people lined up to work on the Bolder Dam project because they needed a job to support themselves. Not because they liked dams, and this project would give them a nice warm fuzzy feeling from their inner most intimate feelings. Not that they needed constant validation and kind words from their boss. It was a job, it was hard work, and people sucked it up and did it. I do not want my boss to be my friend, I want my boss to be a SOB that is going to get things done. I would rather work for a mean boss that kept business strong and kept my positions healthy, than work for a nice pushover guy that really cared about me, but had to let me go.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Re-read what I said. The contractor is not going to charge the customer LESS than what they are paying the actual employee (the guy hired by the contractor). That would be operating at a loss. The data I linked was what the contractors are paying... not what they are billing.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Flynn, I read what you posted,
There is NO WAY those guys are paying that much to the actual workers, I'm sure they are paying at least a couple that just so they can quote those figures, But I've dealt with enough body shops to know that's not reality is 15-30,000 and a company dorm.
NelsonRD
Well-Known Member
We typically budget 1 Man -Year to be around 250K a year for experienced engineer.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Sorry, this is the same crap thinking that ruins companies. If you have bad employees, GET RID OF THEM. Do not punish the 99% to fix the 1%. Treating people like family doesn't mean 'turn the cheek' it means mutual respect, valuing their work, and enabling them to deliver the best possible outcome for you.
When you use that thinking to justify how you treat employees... you can only go one direction... to treating them like meat. If you don't look at employees as assets... you will only ever get from them what you allow them to do. If you want to stay status quo... and constantly struggle with why people don't live up to your ideals... then this is the business model for you. You can sustain a company like this for a long time.. as long as you have a fresh queue of people that need work. But you probably won't become a great company.. and you probably won't do much more than what you already do.
This topic has nothing to do with coddling or being soft on bad employees or even having to make tough business decisions. You're oblivious to what the core is.
And kudos for turning to the GREAT DEPRESSION as a analogy on why 'a job is just a job' and why people should just punch the clock. Winning...
NelsonRD
Well-Known Member
Flynnibus, I hate to tell you, that is what layoff are. Most of the time, it is a way of getting rid of people without firing them.
That is exactly what this topic is about right now - that you are not happy with not being recognized enough at work. And I am suggesting I do not need a gold star to keep doing my job. You think people do. And I say if you give some a gold star, the ones that don't receive it will complain, and the ones that did get it will want more.
NelsonRD
Well-Known Member
No, I am just suggesting that not all employees are angels, and these decisions are never easy, but trying to shine a little light on why they are made. Small businesses always are better for recognition then large businesses will be.
The company that I worked for had over 25,000 employees. Not small by any stretch.
What you seem to fail to realize (or maybe you do, and don't care) is that it is the companies attitude over the last several years that has caused this behavior with employees. When you think that your position might be outsourced tomorrow to some flunky that isn't anywhere near experienced, and is willing to work for half the salary, it colors your judgement and your decisions. When a company values it's employees and treats them like human beings instead a piece of meat to do a job, all aspects of that employees job will increase. Productivity, moral, etc.
You don't layoff 250 people at Disney, and tell them to train your replacements if you care AT ALL about your employees. Everyone that is left is now wondering when their job is next, and you can bet that hundreds of resumes are silently going out to other employers. They will lose all continuity just for the sake of a few bucks on the bottom line. For a company making RECORD profits, it is shameful that they have done this.
And you are absolutely right that not all employes are angels. That's why we fire them. Not outsource a whole bunch of people.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I'm not going there because its too situation specific... but that's not the majority. Significant site impacting layoffs tend to be one or more of the following
- resizing (downsizing..)
- changing direction (getting out of a business)
- redundancy (getting rid of duplication)
- Optimizing/reducing cost (get by with less)
Once those higher level things are set in motion, how people get selected can very much be about getting rid of those you don't want... if you are given a headcount or percent to cut... vs simply saying "that group is gone"
No one says "Hey, Bob in receiving sucks.. lets lay off 10% of the company so we can get rid of Bob and those like him". You get "we have to cut 10%, lets get rid of Bob"
Huh? Not even in the same area code.. Respect != recognition. Value != recognition. You clearly are not getting any of this.. and frankly I'm not getting paid to run a seminar here so I'm not going to keep running into this brick wall.
Great companies succeed through their employees - not because a handful had a concept and just filled the slots with warm bodies they churned through as needed.
NelsonRD
Well-Known Member
I agree that it is good for morale to not layoff employees, and give some outlook to job security. What I do not agree about is this idea of constant recognition and rewards to employees to give the illusion they care. My point exactly was stated in the article that even employees that were recognized in the past were among the ones let go. That just makes it sting that much more if I was in that position, and prove these methods are meaningless.
Firing and finding people is not as easy as it sounds. That is why some business now are outsourcing to contractors, which brings us back full circle.