Workers want pay boost

[CentralFLlife]

Sorry, but money is one driving factor in employment decisions. One of several.

Thats what I said

 

[Andrew C]

Thats what I said

You said money IS the driving factor. Fair enough though, I get your point.

 

[slappy magoo]

Any job? Some jobs will never generate enough revenue to pay such wages.

Yes. Any job. Not every job deserves to be a six-figure job, but whatever the poverty line is in your neck of the woods, if you're working any job 40 to 50 hours a week, you deserve to at least be a dollar ahead of that. If you're not, if you have to use federal assistance because you can't pay your rent and keep food in your kids' bellies, then we've done something wrong.. I find the "hey if you don't like your job quit, find something better" a cop-out for people who want to justify their greed and callousness. And as much as I enjoy going to WDW, I'd prefer if all their employees at least made the poverty line. They get a bit of slack because so many of the people they wind up hiring are kids who have parents willing to subsidize them so they can have the experience of Making the Magic Happen, but generally speaking people deserve to make a livable wage, no matter who they work for or what work they do. If you're working your butt off, you deserve the dignity of knowing no one is giving you a handout.

 

[slappy magoo]

That assumes that all jobs do or can generate enough revenue to support such wages.

And if it doesn't, the business owner has a bad business model.

 

[Andrew C]

Yes. Any job. Not every job deserves to be a six-figure job, but whatever the poverty line is in your neck of the woods, if you're working any job 40 to 50 hours a week, you deserve to at least be a dollar ahead of that. If you're not, if you have to use federal assistance because you can't pay your rent and keep food in your kids' bellies, then we've done something wrong.. I find the "hey if you don't like your job quit, find something better" a cop-out for people who want to justify their greed and callousness. And as much as I enjoy going to WDW, I'd prefer if all their employees at least made the poverty line. They get a bit of slack because so many of the people they wind up hiring are kids who have parents willing to subsidize them so they can have the experience of Making the Magic Happen, but generally speaking people deserve to make a livable wage, no matter who they work for or what work they do. If you're working your butt off, you deserve the dignity of knowing no one is giving you a handout.

These entry level jobs you are referring to are not intended to support a family of 4 and pay your rent long term. It is called entry level so you can get your foot in the door with a company and gain experience. They are not intended to be something you can support yourself for the rest of your live. It is a low-skill job. I appreciate how hard people work in entry level positions for not much money. I have been there and sometimes still feel like I am there. But I never expected to be able to support myself or a family long term on my entry level positions. And no, I do not have a cold heart but thanks for asking.

 

[slappy magoo]

These entry level jobs you are referring to are not intended to support a family of 4 and pay your rent long term. It is called entry level so you can get your foot in the door with a company and gain experience. They are not intended to be something you can support yourself for the rest of your live. It is a low-skill job. I appreciate how hard people work in entry level positions for not much money. I have been there and sometimes still feel like I am there. But I never expected to be able to support myself or a family long term on my entry level positions. And no, I do not have a cold heart but thanks for asking.

I know more people (in a position to make these sorts of decisions) feel the same way you do. But I still disagree. But I also will dispute the use of the term "entry level," which often seems to be code for "we don't have to pay you." It is, admittedly, extremely rare for someone in their 60s to be doing exactly the same job they were doing in their 20s, but if someone were to be doing that job for 4 decades plus, then the employer sees value in keeping that person in that job, and they should be expected to compensate them enough that they don't need a SNAP card. If that person is a cashier and decides they want to buy 500 points in the Villas of Grand Floridian, yeah, Disney's not obligated to give them a raise or bonus to cover it, but if they need a hospital visit, they shouldn't have to think about what bill they're going to not pay to cover the ER copay, either.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes. Any job. Not every job deserves to be a six-figure job, but whatever the poverty line is in your neck of the woods, if you're working any job 40 to 50 hours a week, you deserve to at least be a dollar ahead of that. If you're not, if you have to use federal assistance because you can't pay your rent and keep food in your kids' bellies, then we've done something wrong.. I find the "hey if you don't like your job quit, find something better" a cop-out for people who want to justify their greed and callousness. And as much as I enjoy going to WDW, I'd prefer if all their employees at least made the poverty line. They get a bit of slack because so many of the people they wind up hiring are kids who have parents willing to subsidize them so they can have the experience of Making the Magic Happen, but generally speaking people deserve to make a livable wage, no matter who they work for or what work they do. If you're working your butt off, you deserve the dignity of knowing no one is giving you a handout.

And if it doesn't, the business owner has a bad business model.

This then requires increased cost for everybody, including those who are just a dollar ahead. Take it from the owners or high earners is not a universal possibility and not a healthy long term strategy. It really requires acknowledging the larger sense of entitlement that is becoming cripplingly pervasive. What constitutes an appropriate rent when we're wanting, and even demanding through policy, ever larger living spaces? Does every bedroom need a corresponding bathroom? Should we be more accepting of extended families living together? It is a discussion that has to go beyond wages and must take into account societal and individual conceptions of appropriate decisions some of which cannot be forced by regulation.

 

[flynnibus]

First you're assuming any given job would be done better or faster by a 20-year-old, which can be a dangerous assumption depending on the job in question. What do you have against old people, against experience, that makes you think America's workforce is weighted down by battalions of Abe Simpsons too busy shaking their fists at clouds to be a vital member of the workforce?

Now you're using strawmen and ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the point. My example does not assume anything about people and ages - it's simply an example of how do you explain to one employee who works harder than another the slacker is justified more pay simply because he's happy sitting in the same job forever and morality says we should pay him more even tho he works less than someone else. You advocate a 'living wage' for people, yet fail to acknowledge how such guarantees penalize people when comparing workers and disincentives others.

That's only true if your entire workforce feels that way, and you know that's not the case. There are always people who want to advance, who want to become management or better, always people who see their job as transitory and they're outta there as soon as they find the job they really want

Today yes, but under your model you condition people to not desire advancement. You give them incentive to do nothing and still stay afloat.

But if Sally the Costco cashier is happy being a cashier, winds up being a Cashier Supervisor but otherwise doesn't want to move up in management, and management sees value in her experience and her job satisfaction, she might not ever make 6 figures but they might not just cut her off from further compensation either

Then all you do is create even more incentive for the employer to flat out fire Sally because she makes too much money and her work can be done by someone much cheaper... still earning a 'living wage'. Paying people more than they are worth to the business just creates incentive to get rid of those people.

Quite frankly, the way you think about workforces, I'm surprised you have the opportunity to stop beating the drum long enough to type a response without the slaves on the oars losing their rhythm.

*yawn* - yet another attack vs addressing the topic. I'm a slave driver to look at compensation as something that should reflect an employee's contribution and one that incentivizes people to actually achieve? Funny... it's the same type of attitude that build a billion dollar company full of people personally invested in the success of the company that achieved more than companies 3x it size could do. Funny how things work when people are actually driven and everyone contributes.

 

[rob0519]

If my take home pay had not increased in 10 years, I would br living in a cardboard box outside of Penn Station.

It's all a matter of timing. If that happened between 25-35 years of age, my family and I might be living in boxes on lower Wacker Drive. Fortunately, it was later, as the kids were getting out of school and we could keep cutting back on expenses. Let's just say the golden years are looking more like tin or aluminum at this point.

 

[flynnibus]

And in NYC people practically knife each other for a turn on them. When you're looking for a job, especially if you're looking for a professional, career-type job, you need to be accessible all the time.

Great, so your exaggeration about NYC disqualifies the idea for the entire country. Got it.

In other words, once I get a taste of depriving people of a living, I'll think it's great? Thanks. I'll pass but I'm glad not having a soul hasn't deprived you of enjoying your upward mobility.

Or you put the sensationalism down and face the reality of having manage both incomes and expenses. But yeah, your soul jerking commentary is so much more convincing and moving...

No, I'm arguing (apparently to myself) that if you're willing to work a job, any job, and you're willing to keep showing up and doing that job and someone profits from your doing that job, you deserve to earn a living that doesn't require government assistance. The only people who seem to conflate these topics are the sorts who would spend their free time collection Atlas Shrugged character baseball cards.

More attacks.. you're stacking them up now. So someone deserves to earn a living that doesn't require government assistance.

Does that mean if I hire someone who can only be available part time, I need to pay them twice as much as someone who has full time availability?

Does that mean the minimum I must pay someone depends on what phase someone is in on their life? Do I have to pay someone more because they have dependents? Or do you propose we punish people for having dependents because their 'living wage' is tied to someone else's definition of family?

I merely acknowledge that it's not always an easy thing to do, especially if it involves giving up anything you do have for The Great Maybeitwillallworkout

I look forward to your society that rots in place because their life sucked so bad... they were paralyzed to do anything about it. Thankfully generations before me didn't just wallow in their sadness and instead drove themselves for better lives and handed me a great country to live in.

It's easy for people to say "Just Do It" if they either were successful in doing it or never really had to do it

Not everyone succeeds in life - but you will never succeed if you never try.

 

[flynnibus]

Flynn you have no idea how to manage employees, as this discussion has made clear, Money is the driving factor in employment decisions. If you want someone to stay you pay them more, you treat them better. Thats how you value them. Yes the growth opportunity is a big deal, but money talks.

If you think simply paying people better makes them better employees - you are miserably wrong. Yes, at the bottom end of the spectrum you need people to be able to afford to work for you - and no I don't think Disney does a good job in how it treats its employees.

F
And Disney's jobs do require skills, they require people skills which its very clear most of you on here don't have.

Yah.. another personal attack instead of credible discussion. Keep it up.. it makes you so much more convincing.

 

[flynnibus]

And if it doesn't, the business owner has a bad business model.

By bad you mean one that can't afford to hire employees? Or one that doesn't radically boost the prices of everything to offset the labor costs? Oh wait... if costs all go up... you've just erroded my 'living wage'. I guess we should increase that wage again... oh wait... now my costs go up..

Someone said 'labor is a fraction of costs' - it all depends on your industry and type of business you are in. But 'living wage' advocates don't like to acknowledge the huge variations in industries.

 

[Nubs70]

You value those people by giving them job growth opportunity... not by just paying them more and more and more for doing the same thing forever. A topic you seem to keep missing. If that guy is so good at his job, I want him as my shift manager so he can train and develop the other employees, and ensure they do their job up to that same standard. Not forever wish "man, if I just had 10 Joes.. how great would life be.. instead I only have one Joe and all he does is that same space every day".

If I pay that guy to stay in that job forever... you also forget there is never opportunity for someone else. You end up with the union seniority situation... no one has any incentive to move up or on, so there is never space for new people. Instead you only have the entry level positions, which people get disinterested in over time.. and LEAVE because they know they have no growth potential as long as the seniors sit back, fat, happy, and complacent. So you end up with too high of turnover at the entry level, all while your top ranks stagnant and you can't do anything to move people on or out.



No, higher than EXPECTED turnover is indicative of bad management.. not turnover in itself. If I hire a junior sales person... I expect if they are good, they will move on and I hire another junior sales person in their place. That is turnover. if I hire a level 1 TAC engineer to do menial tasks, I do not expect that person to stay in that job for more than a year. If they do, they are probably a crappy employee anyway and have no potential.

A healthy organization always has a feeder network... and you also need to get rid of employees that won't make the cut... these things require turnover.



Actually people were quite happy.. because everyone was HUNGRY to grow and do more. Those that added more value were compensated more. Those that 'were just there' or drug other people down were sent packing. No one expected to be paid more for simply being there longer. Compensation was reflective of what people put put out. This actually leads to happy employees because people feel rewarded for their work and there is a atmosphere where everyone knows everyone is contributing to the success. No dead weight.

In my field the opportunity for growth is what is lacking. Many companies do not have any formal succession plan in place. If someone moves up, leaves,or dies, it seems the next terson in seniority gets the job by default rather than ability. Then corporate wonders why margins suck.

 

[Nubs70]

Flynn you have no idea how to manage employees, as this discussion has made clear, Money is the driving factor in employment decisions. If you want someone to stay you pay them more, you treat them better. Thats how you value them. Yes the growth opportunity is a big deal, but money talks.

Disney does give its cast members growth potential, tremendous potential if you know what to do. the problem is they don't pay enough for many CM's to stick around long enough.

And Disney's jobs do require skills, they require people skills which its very clear most of you on here don't have.

And if you have read any of a number of motivational studies, money Is about fourth or fifth down the list of motivational factors of high potentials.

 

[Nubs70]

And if it doesn't, the business owner has a bad business model.

Then the business model is flawed in either price is too low, labor cost is too high, or SG&A is too high. This can be fixed by a combination of raising prices and reducing employees.

 

[flynnibus]

In my field the opportunity for growth is what is lacking. Many companies do not have any formal succession plan in place. If someone moves up, leaves,or dies, it seems the next terson in seniority gets the job by default rather than ability. Then corporate wonders why margins suck.

Yup - this is an area many companies are poor in (career development) and then wonder why they have poor retention. As employees evolve and grow, they need a role that enables that. Union shops also critically neuter these systems making things like seniority dominate and making it difficult to remove dead weight, which holds more competent people back.

Back when I worked grocery and cashier in a union shop people had little incentive to stay long because the top 4 pages of cashiers was dominated by lifers. This means anyone who had been there for less than 10+ years were still working till 8-9pm on most nights.. and the noobs (less than 3 years) would all be working the shifts till midnight.

 

[jprieur]

I hate to say it, but with all the cutbacks on the entertainment options and the lack of new 'E' ticket rides and experiences over the past few year, the production that the CMs put on are one of the (albeit several) reasons I continue to go to Disney as often as I do. They were the front line in the 'rollout' of MM+ and FP+ and have bore the brunt of the disgruntled and frazzled customers on their vacation. They are the ones wearing the thick heavy Mickey and Minnie outfits in the searing humidity and heat of FL that go above and beyond to put a smile on the kids faces - they are the 'brand' that is disney. Sure they have rides, attractions and parks that have such a high level of detail and immersion that created the theme park brand, but they are the face of the company that provide that tangible interface with the paying customer base.

Everyone on here can argue for days on the merits of supply and demand, and I can as well, I have a degree in economics, but the fact of the matter is Disney did not get to where they are today by running a balance sheet shifted toward short term profit margin. They got to where they are because they ran a COMPANY and created a BRAND by investing a little more in the things that mattered than their competition. Attention to detail on the buildings, fully immersive environments with detailed backstories and of course, a workforce that they referred to as 'cast members' not employees. Why, because they were putting on a show and were part of the experience. People throw around supply and demand all to often, sure it has its place in the economy but business principles like that cannot always be applied blindly without regard for externatlities. If you truly believe that, then why not go sell drinkable water for $100 a gallon the next time a disaster strikes a populated area and wipes out natural resources, after all supply and demand right . . . Lets all face reality, most of us on this board can be replaced in our current lines of work by SOMEONE in this world who would be willing to work for less till eventually we are in a race to the bottom.

I am not advocating that they raise the pay of all the CMs by a massive percentage and raise the SG&A of the Parks and Resorts division to untenable levels, but I for one think they deserve the small incremental increase they are asking for. Of course, just paying them more doesn't necessarily mean they will perform better, but its a start in the investment that is your employee workforce.

I am have been a long term stockholder of DIS, and I want to see more long term growth strategy implemented, and if that means investing in the very workforce that puts on that disney smile every time they are in front of customers, at the expense of slightly smaller short term profits that I am ok with that. Why? Because a happy workforce makes for a better workforce, and I want Disney to always have that edge, both as a customer and a stockholder.

SIDE NOTE: I just figured out how to do the countdown timer, pretty excited about that.
My Next Trip to WDW  

 

[John]

I am going to put my toe in this pool, I actually have relative knowledge where it relates to Disney and CM wages....my mother worked for them for almost twenty years. She started as a bottom rung CM. She made the minimum. She never graduated high school, raised four children. In her later years she found herself a empty nester with no skill set other then raising children. She wanted more. SHe came to us and said, "I am moving to Florida and I am going to work for Disney" She knew no one. She had only been there once many years before. SHe packed up and moved 800 miles away. She lived in a motel room till she could find someone who was kind enough o rent her a room. She worked for Disney and loved it. She started at the bottom. Disney allows you to change jobs every six months if you want to, she did just that. Why? because she wanted to find out which job had the most ability to advance. She ended her career topped out as far as Disneys pay scale goes. She retired with a decent benefits package.

Me? I am one of those blue collar workers...ie plumber, electrician types. College was never an option for me. I started at the bottom and worked hard. I have made six figures. My job does not require college....just hard work. Anyone who has the motivation can do my job. They can learn the skill set needed. But most importantly they must be willing to work hard. In my job there is the opportunity to open your own business with enough hard work and good decisions. It is nearly impossible to find a young person who wants to start out at the bottom. All of you can argue till your blue in the face but I am on the ground in this battle field. The work ethic of todays youth stinks.


Whats my point to all of this? First I believe Disney CMs do deserve an increase. Their last contract they received a very modest increase and a new pair of shoes for every Cm. I kid you not. That's what they got. But a "living wage increase"? What is that? Who determines what a "living wage" is? They deserve to have a "dinner out once in a while" are you kidding me? When I was first married we were happy to have a box of macaroni and cheese to eat for dinner.

No one should be entitled to anything. No living wage....nothing. When you are born no one says....you don't have to worry someone will take care of you no matter what your needs are. The only thing we are guaranteed is the opportunity to pursue whatever we want to. There are jobs in this country. Yes you may have to move and sacrifice. But its all in what you want in life. You want a better life? You want higher wages? The opportunities are there. I know my stance is not going to be popular. I don't care, my family is living proof that if you work hard and want to sacrifice the American dream is still possible.

 

[Matt_Black]

Who determines what a "living wage" is?

If nothing else, it should be the ability to pay for the average rent in your area on a 40-hour work week. In far too many places across the country, a minimum-wage job requires 50 or more hours just to pay rent, and that doesn't begin to take into account other expenses.

 

[John]

If nothing else, it should be the ability to pay for the average rent in your area on a 40-hour work week. In far too many places across the country, a minimum-wage job requires 50 or more hours just to pay rent, and that doesn't begin to take into account other expenses.

So let me get this straight? Someone right out of high school with no skill set should get a wage that can pay rent for an apartment? 50 hours? poor thing......