No, no, not a jab a small business owners. I was referring these multi billion $$$ corps that pay their executives $40 million/year, and then get apoplectic when someone suggests that they should actually pay their employees.
That's a good point. Truthfully, I am not very familiar with the housing market near WDW. In my area there are some former motels in run down areas that have been converted to essentially budget apartments. People living there are mainly people who can't afford first and last months rent in advance and probably a criminal element as well. I was assuming some of that might be going on at WDW too since it would be tough to afford rent on $8/hr. That comes out to about $1,000 a month after taxes. After paying for food, gas and necessities needed to live that doesn't leave much for rent. I guess if you have a few roommates it could work, but that gets tough if you have a family. Maybe Disney should consider stepping in and building housing developments for its employees. Maybe dorm style buildings that could house a lot of people inexpensively. They should subcontract the construction though...we all know how much things they build end up costing.
I was thinking about this and I think part of the reason we don't see commercial developers try more to build cheaper apartments is that there is probably a good chance the builder would be called a slum lord and face obstacles from neighbors, planning commission, etc. based on that accusation. I also wonder if low interest loans, through something like Disney's credit union, could be designed to help cover the up front costs of renting an apartment, but that too could probably raise more negative publicity.
They have plenty of land. Just build a complex on property somewhere. Having affordable living would also lead to more employee loyalty and possibly better productivity. Fear of losing your job and getting kicked out of your apartment too could be a big motivator. I am way out of my league here and have no clue about the logistics of actually doing this, but it seems there is a need and even if Disney just broke even it would be a benefit to recruiting and employee retention. At those income levels some of the people may even qualify for government assistance. Disney could build a giant section 8 housing project. Imagine the bad press that would bring.
These types of ideas are what I think would get the slum lord title. The housing would be smaller and cheaper. It would be Disney admitting they exploit. Oddly enough though, it would be a return to why there is so much land at Walt Disney World.
What @Belowthesurface replied is so true. I have many neighbors and friends working at WDW at various levels of authority. This is what I have learned from them. WDW does house the college program employees from US and overseas colleges now. Dorm like living in converted apartment complexes near DT Disney. Disney pays them the lowest legal rate I am sure and packs probably two to a bedroom and charges them rent. Next time you are at the World start reading name tags. If it has a US university below the name or a foreign city like Shanghai or London the cast member is in the program. I believe the time with WDW is as little as three months and at the most a year. That is who WDW thinks can give you multiple Star service. Some of them struggle with conversational English and our culture. They are more than a small group. I will guess several hundred at nearly all time across WDW. A good experience for them and fun while they are here but not the best in three months at knowing the business. Then replaced by another student when they rotate.
That's an interesting plan. It definitely has some merit. The only problem is you would be indirectly providing an incentive for employers to fire workers after a year or two of service to avoid paying the increased wage. It's the concept of someone pricing themselves out of a job. If I can hire someone else to do the job for 30% less than you there is a lot of incentive for me to do just that. In an ideal world the top performers would stay at the increased wage and be worth the extra expense and the bottom rung of employees would be let go, but that wouldn't always be the case. If the company has a large number of minimum wage employees it may also be hard to quantify who they want to keep and who should be let go. Could lead to a policy of just letting everyone go after a year or 2.
A big hole in this is employers could just not move employees up to full time status, something we are seeing right now in regards to health insurance coverage. Two people working 20 hours per week would be cheaper than one person working 40 hours per week. Work could even be split between different companies. I personally do not think the government should be playing such a level of social engineering. If companies want more loyal employees with lower turnover they have the resources and means, many of which you have mentioned, to create such a work environment. The regulations necessary to enforce such a scheme just incentivizes the worst aspects of the union system where duration, not skill, is rewarded.
