Workers want pay boost

[rael ramone]

Let's look at this from a non-political way. (besides, politics is 'naughty talk' here)....

We, the guests, are paying for a Premium Experience.

Premium Service.

Premium Cleanliness.

Premium Maintenance.

Premium Safety.

Etc, etc, etc.

Part of doing that is providing a work force - 'Cast Members' as they like to call them - that is capable of doing this. Full of Energy. Service with a Smile. Attention to Detail. Etc...

For a workforce to be able to do this, they need to be adequately compensated. Able to afford 3 squares a day. Able to afford living space that allows them to have their own bed in their own room so they can get sufficent rest. Able to enjoy their life so they can be the Cast Members that one expects to see at Disney.

The costs to provide such a workforce is included in the price of a ticket. The price of food & drink. The price of the rooms. The price of the souvenirs. And the price of the other amenities available. Why else would a premium price be attached?

But much of what we are paying for is being diverted away from the Cast Members who provide the service we paid for to increase the 'precious' profit margin.

We, the guests, are being ripped off.

 

[TubaGeek]

I said many posts ago that maybe it would make more sense for the minimum wage to gradually move up slightly every couple of years rather than a big bang move all at once which is what it usually seems to do... that would make it easier on everyone... employees and business it would seem

You are 100% correct. It would be the best for everyone. Unfortunately, we have a lot of catching up to do.

 

[John]

Funny that we are talking about a minimum wage hike when talking about Disney and the rest of the world. Again, Disney should give their CMs a nice bump. The profits are there for all to see. But its much different when you ask for a sweeping wage hike across the country. The country runs on small business. This is where a wage increase would hurt the most. These companies don't run on margins like Disney does. In todays world many businesses are running month to month like many Americans.

Another argument most people refuse to acknowledge is that when there is a sweeping price hike the cost of living goes up which will basically wipes out any gain made. If your a business and your labor cost go up you have to raise the price of your goods. Its basic business 101.

So you raise the minimum to $10.00 an hour, now what about the next level employee who was making ten bucks an hour before the wage hike? You raise them to $12.00? Now what about those who made twelve? You see where this is going. For every action there is a reaction. I always find it fascinating when people spend other peoples money.

Again, I know my position isn't popular.....again...I don't care. But I thought I would never lived to see the day where internet access and a cell phone is a necessity of life. No matter what utopian society you create there will ALWAYS be haves and have not. There will ALWAYS be poverty. So where does it stop?

 

[slappy magoo]

I'd just like to go off topic and let WDWDad13 know that roughly a third of all the likes I've ever received is from this thread alone! I'm gonna be somebody someday, mark my words! Am I pretty now, Momma?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I "get" that you can't successfully complete your own challenge. How sad.

Oh,it sunk in that that's how you feel. And clearly you're not alone.


I actually have no desire to reply to this because honestly, after that comment about my comment-to-like ratio, I really pity you. That came across as such a high school thing, such a Shannen-Doherty-in-Heathers thing, such an Amanda-Bynes-at-the-height-of-her-mental-illness-replying-to-all-comments-about-her-with-"shut-up-you're-ugly"-tweets thing, that I have nothing but sadness for you. And to think someone that petty is someone's dad. Shame, really.

Nobody is saying that. My (unanswered) question to you was how to live for $1,000 per month at a very basic level of existence. Essentially just rent, electric, water, food, and transportation. We may each interpret "basic" slightly differently and certainly it varies from one region of the nation to another, but the point remains that to survive on $1,000 is very, very difficult if not impossible. Nobody has to have "HD cable tv with dvr, smartphone with unlimited plan, high speed internet, ipad, xbox, playstation, nice car, etc." (though many people think they do). You probably will need some kind of simple house or cell phone, and outside of larger cities where there is public transportation you have to have a car, which means a car payment. I'd argue you need to plan on affording a 1-bedroom apartment on your own if necessary - but that means the smallest, cheapest one available, rather than the one you really want. And again, don't figure a food budget of noodles or macaroni every day, because its not realistic.

I'm going to argue that even an entry-level full-time (40+ hrs) job should allow an individual to survive at a very basic level (without SNAP (food stamps) or other assistance). It probably won't be the life you want, but that will come as you advance in a job, get raises (hey - the thread topic!), and generally better yourself.



You could survive on $0 if you live with your parents, and if you have a second job, you aren't making $1,000 a month anymore! What i want to know is how you expect low wage earners to do so when they have only themselves to depend on - and take sole responsibility for themselves - rather than expecting (or worse - actually needing) someone else to help them. Working hard and moving up is what people should do, and will better themselves for it, but there will always be people in entry level positions.

The discussion of $1000 per month is pointless if we are also limiting discussion to those working 40 hours per week. Such a scenario requires a wage that is less than minimum wage.

 

[jakeman]

Funny that we are talking about a minimum wage hike when talking about Disney and the rest of the world. Again, Disney should give their CMs a nice bump. The profits are there for all to see. But its much different when you ask for a sweeping wage hike across the country. The country runs on small business. This is where a wage increase would hurt the most. These companies don't run on margins like Disney does. In todays world many businesses are running month to month like many Americans.

Another argument most people refuse to acknowledge is that when there is a sweeping price hike the cost of living goes up which will basically wipes out any gain made. If your a business and your labor cost go up you have to raise the price of your goods. Its basic business 101.

So you raise the minimum to $10.00 an hour, now what about the next level employee who was making ten bucks an hour before the wage hike? You raise them to $12.00? Now what about those who made twelve? You see where this is going. For every action there is a reaction. I always find it fascinating when people spend other peoples money.

Again, I know my position isn't popular.....again...I don't care. But I thought I would never lived to see the day where internet access and a cell phone is a necessity of life. No matter what utopian society you create there will ALWAYS be haves and have not. There will ALWAYS be poverty. So where does it stop?

Fun with math incoming!

Profits: $1.39 billion
Number of workers: 166,000

Profit per employee: $8373.50

Profit per employee per pay period (weekly): $161

Profit per employ per hour (assume 40 hours/week): $4

A $4/hour wage increase for all employees would consume all of the profits of The Walt Disney Company.

Do with this math what you will. I'm not getting into this discussion beyond this post.

 

[slappy magoo]

Fun with math incoming!

Profits: $1.39 billion
Number of workers: 166,000

Profit per employee: $8373.50

Profit per employee per pay period (weekly): $161

Profit per employ per hour (assume 40 hours/week): $4

A $4/hour wage increase for all employees would consume all of the profits of The Walt Disney Company.

Do with this math what you will. I'm not getting into this discussion beyond this post.

Are all Disney employees making minimum wage?

 

[flynnibus]

A $4/hour wage increase for all employees would consume all of the profits of The Walt Disney Company.

Do with this math what you will. I'm not getting into this discussion beyond this post.

Payroll costs are not simply your employee's hourly rate. (and why companies still pay people under the table..)

 

[slappy magoo]

The discussion of $1000 per month is pointless if we are also limiting discussion to those working 40 hours per week. Such a scenario requires a wage that is less than minimum wage.

WDWDad13 boasted that he, himself, could pare down expenses and live on minimum wage by cutting out essentials. Generously affording him $1000 a month net salary we asked him to prove his numbers, and thus far he hasn't. It's not meant to be an all encompassing guide for everyone to live. Just him, and we're even not taking the fact that he's a dad into consideration. All he has to do is make those numbers work for one person, himself. And thus far, he hasn't.

 

[jakeman]

Oh geez, here we go.

Are all Disney employees making minimum wage?

Does it matter? Or in your opinion are only minimum wage employees deserving of a raise?

Payroll costs are not simply your employee's hourly rate. (and why companies still pay people under the table..)

Yeah I didn't have a factor for corruption and HR cost, sorry.

It was just to put some real world figures around the argument of "They made profits! They should pay more!" to demonstrate in a extremely general way how far their profits would go.

 

[Hyperspace Hoopla]

It comes down to this: companies will pay you as little as possible. If they can find someone to do your job for less, guess what?
People flock to this country because we have an abundance of low paying jobs that Americans don't want to do. We have a government that will pay you to stay home and do nothing. Why clean hotel rooms for a living?
Everyone is talking about changing immigration policies, and raising the minimum wage. What we need to do is stop paying people not to work. When congress failed to extent long term unemployment benefits earlier this year, 700,000 people miraculously found a job. It's not a coincidence.
When we start filling these positions with the formerly unemployed, we won't have an influx of people immigrating to our country (legally or otherwise) who are willing to work for less. Then companies will have to start paying a living wage.
FYI - Australia is one of the toughest countries in the world to immigrate to - they only let in people they feel will benefit Austrailia. The minimum wage in Australia is $15/hr.

I post this knowing full well that I'm about to be torn apart.

 

[Magenta Panther]

It comes down to this: companies will pay you as little as possible. If they can find someone to do your job for less, guess what?
People flock to this country because we have an abundance of low paying jobs that Americans don't want to do. We have a government that will pay you to stay home and do nothing. Why clean hotel rooms for a living?
Everyone is talking about changing immigration policies, and raising the minimum wage. What we need to do is stop paying people not to work. When congress failed to extent long term unemployment benefits earlier this year, 700,000 people miraculously found a job. It's not a coincidence.
When we start filling these positions with the formerly unemployed, we won't have an influx of people immigrating to our country (legally or otherwise) who are willing to work for less. Then companies will have to start paying a living wage.
FYI - Australia is one of the toughest countries in the world to immigrate to - they only let in people they feel will benefit Austrailia. The minimum wage in Australia is $15/hr.

I post this knowing full well that I'm about to be torn apart.

Yeah, stop with all that stupid logic and common sense!

 

[lazyboy97o]

WDWDad13 boasted that he, himself, could pare down expenses and live on minimum wage by cutting out essentials. Generously affording him $1000 a month net salary we asked him to prove his numbers, and thus far he hasn't. It's not meant to be an all encompassing guide for everyone to live. Just him, and we're even not taking the fact that he's a dad into consideration. All he has to do is make those numbers work for one person, himself. And thus far, he hasn't.

You agree with him when you say a person should be able to be earn more than the federal poverty line. $1000 per month is more than the federal poverty line for an individual and less than minimum wage at full time. The law is already at the objective benchmarks you have set.

 

[flynnibus]

Yeah I didn't have a factor for corruption and HR cost, sorry.

It was just to put some real world figures around the argument of "They made profits! They should pay more!" to demonstrate in a extremely general way how far their profits would go.

Inaccurate numbers based on ignorance of the facts really doesn't demonstrate anything except you don't understand the scope of the problem.

 

[slappy magoo]

Yep.. and we're still waiting to hear how your theory is to be applied to the practical examples you skip over to focus on your comedy routine.

To be honest you've written so many eyeroll-inducing sentences I've lost count. Are you talking about the theory where one person with seniority is exactly as productive as a new hire so he essentially costs more money for the same output how do I justify keeping the person with seniority?

Is that it?

I'd just like to make sure this is what you're cyberwhining about.

Because if it is here's my answer - assuming I'm still in business and turning a profit when I hire the new guy, I am in business, in part, because of the contributions of the guy with seniority, so I value his contribution by paying him more and promising the new hire if he contributes to my bottom line, he will get paid more, too. And if I'm not successful I'm not making any new hires in the first place. And if I can only be successful by firing people with longevity but who haven't advanced (assuming we're talking about a company where advancement is possible, nothing worse than a company where the honcho-to-peon ratio is high) and replacing them with hungry young go-getters who will work for less, then I'm more than likely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, putting off an eventual closing of my business so why would I even be on a Disney forum, I can't afford to go, I've got employees to pay.

 

[slappy magoo]

You agree with him when you say a person should be able to be earn more than the federal poverty line. $1000 per month is more than the federal poverty line for an individual and less than minimum wage at full time. The law is already at the objective benchmarks you have set.

I know I was being generous by "paying" him more than M.W.

And he's still unable to explain how he'd budget his pay, despite claiming that he could with no problem.

 

[jakeman]

Inaccurate numbers based on ignorance of the facts really doesn't demonstrate anything except you don't understand the scope of the problem.

Whoa there buddy. It was, as I said, an extremely general example of how far profits could go.

I don't really care about the "problem", but the two variables I used are indeed facts. The profit for the company came from the annual report and the number of employees came from Forbes. Unless I've lost the ability to use a calculator to divide everything is accurate.

They made "x" amount and in theory they could distribute that amongst "y" employees at "z" rate. It's basic algebra, or do they not teach that at Pompous Academy?

 

[slappy magoo]

Inaccurate numbers based on ignorance of the facts really doesn't demonstrate anything except you don't understand the scope of the problem.

 

[flynnibus]

Whoa there buddy. It was, as I said, an extremely general example of how far profits could go.

I don't really care about the "problem", but the two variables I used are indeed facts. The profit for the company came from the annual report and the number of employees came from Forbes. Unless I've lost the ability to use a calculator to divide everything is accurate.

Their profit divided by the number of anything is accurate if you used your calculator. The problem is if it actually means anything or not. Profit divided by # of labor hours != available pay raise.

You can make up fact equations all you want... it doesn't do anything except stroke emotions.

 

[flynnibus]

It's ok, I didn't need to see your last job review.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I know I was being generous by "paying" him more than M.W.

And he's still unable to explain how he'd budget his pay, despite claiming that he could with no problem.

Again, why does it matter when you have stated it is an acceptable level of wage earning? You are refusing to define objective benchmarks. Federal minimum wage at 40 hours per week places an individual above the only objective standard you have mentioned, the federal poverty line.