Workers want pay boost

[Andrew C]

When we used to stay on site, we would tip $2.00 to $3.00 a day. Are you telling me that no one tips their housekeepers any more?

I do, but at least 50% of people do not. At least.

 

[CDavid]

I know.. but the problem is if you set out to define a LAW (which MUST be adhered to uniformly) that intends to insures EVERYONE a minimum... this is where the ideal of 'living wage' falls down in practice. As you say, you can't make a system that accommodates everyone.. which is precisely what is being illustrated with these examples. This ideal is a fantasy - it can't be defined in law and stay within the consequences people pitch it as.

And you should never define a law with 'well, we'll just hope for the best..' and ignore the consequences. California's constiutional amendement process illustrates how this 'ignoring consequences just to pass a feel good law' can have far reaching consequences (see Cali prop 13 and property taxes)



See there is a huge difference you left out. I'm not against a minimum wage...or increased wages. I'm against defining a minimum wage as a wage defined to sustain a certain minimum standard of living for all people. A very different definition than simply defining a minimum wage. The former's aspirations are not feasible with a single wage definition for all people. We have people saying a certain wage is insufficent because it doesn't support a certain lifestyle or individual's needs... that problem only gets WORSE when you try to define the law as explicitly providing for every individual's needs.

I'm still a big believer that jobs are opportunities... not something that exists because citizens are entitled to work.

Certainly if we are talking about setting a minimum wage (or a living wage) at the same rate for the entire nation it cannot meet the needs of every last person without being raised to truly ludicrous levels. Which is one reason I've argued not to try to define specific expenses so precisely, but rather set a wage where the vast majority of persons could meet the most basic necessities of living. Some individual situations are always going to need assistance (single parents, unusually high cost of living regions, etc.). We would still need a methodology to determine expenses for shelter, clothing, food, transportation, and perhaps a miscellaneous budget, but we have to do that anyway in determining public assistance or other benefits. Better to have some factual basis (even if its not perfect) for setting a wage than just deriving a number from the political horse-trading needed to get the increase through Congress. I'm sure $15/hour sounds good to fast-food employees, but where did that number come from? They'll get farther with their efforts if they can specifically explain how that figure was determined.

I suspect we're not as far apart on this issue as it sounds - we need a sound basis for making law. Philosophically I believe people should be able to earn sufficient income from a full-time job to pay their own way and not have to rely upon public assistance. Jobs are indeed opportunities, but then everyone has to eat, and thus everyone needs a job.

 

[englanddg]

Certainly if we are talking about setting a minimum wage (or a living wage) at the same rate for the entire nation it cannot meet the needs of every last person without being raised to truly ludicrous levels. Which is one reason I've argued not to try to define specific expenses so precisely, but rather set a wage where the vast majority of persons could meet the most basic necessities of living. Some individual situations are always going to need assistance (single parents, unusually high cost of living regions, etc.). We would still need a methodology to determine expenses for shelter, clothing, food, transportation, and perhaps a miscellaneous budget, but we have to do that anyway in determining public assistance or other benefits. Better to have some factual basis (even if its not perfect) for setting a wage than just deriving a number from the political horse-trading needed to get the increase through Congress. I'm sure $15/hour sounds good to fast-food employees, but where did that number come from? They'll get farther with their efforts if they can specifically explain how that figure was determined.

I suspect we're not as far apart on this issue as it sounds - we need a sound basis for making law. Philosophically I believe people should be able to earn sufficient income from a full-time job to pay their own way and not have to rely upon public assistance. Jobs are indeed opportunities, but then everyone has to eat, and thus everyone needs a job.

You have just explained the reasons why there should be no federal minimum wage legislation at all.

If a state wants it, let them do it. Many have already.

Plus, it's much easier for a state to gauge a rate that's best for them, and make adjustments according to the local pressures and opportunities available.

Pretty hard to do that staring strictly at BLS data from the cold marble halls of DC.

 

[jaklgreen]

It's a slippery slope. The Disney workers asking for more money isn't explicitly about minimum wage. Disney could just offer higher wages without being required to by federal law. The part that will get your posts deleted are the political attacks against the president.

The average employee is likely above $10.10. That doesn't help the people making less. The union in question stated that 20,000+ employees are under $10.10. Not all of these people are kids working summer jobs. When is the last time you saw a teenager cleaning your room at a Disney hotel?

FYI Disney does not hire anyone under 18. It has been a rule since Disneyland started I believe because they are still "children" and they did not want the magic ruined. That is what I was told years ago when I worked at our local Disney store.

 

[Nubs70]

In respect to working at WDW, one really needs to think long and hard if a career at minimum wage is worthy of being a life goal or something to be used as a stepping stone to further one's income potential. The pixie dust factor draws one into initial employment. However, after a finite period of time, the pixie dust factor will impede your income potential. It is best to use WDW as a resume builder.

 

[englanddg]

FYI Disney does not hire anyone under 18. It has been a rule since Disneyland started I believe because they are still "children" and they did not want the magic ruined. That is what I was told years ago when I worked at our local Disney store.

For insurance purposes, I could see this. But, I'm not sure (note...not sure) if it's been policy since the days of the founding of Disneyland.

I applied for a job at WDW and went all the way through the application and interview process (which, even in 1994, was rather lengthy...practical exam, questions obviously geared to judge your guest service skills, math problems with no calculator allowed...we had a presentation and watched a few videos...all for an INTERVIEW!)

Anyhow, this was when I was 16. I didn't get the job, but I chalked it up to me only being there for a few months (stayed with Grandparents 3 months out of the year).

You would think that they would have told me before applying that they didn't hire under 18 if that was the case, rather than waste their time and mine.

 

[Andrew C]

In respect to working at WDW, one really needs to think long and hard if a career at minimum wage is worthy of being a life goal or something to be used as a stepping stone to further one's income potential. The pixie dust factor draws one into initial employment. However, after a finite period of time, the pixie dust factor will impede your income potential. It is best to use WDW as a resume builder.

Or you can just move up the ranks within the company, like any other company.

 

[flynnibus]

Or you can just move up the ranks within the company, like any other company.

something that is more of a tale of 'old disney' than 'current disney'.

I don't know why anyone would aspire to work there today... in your retirement years? Sure, why not. But looking to work there out of HS? eek

 

[Andrew C]

something that is more of a tale of 'old disney' than 'current disney'.

I don't know why anyone would aspire to work there today... in your retirement years? Sure, why not. But looking to work there out of HS? eek

Shortly after my wife and I got married, we were thinking for dropping everything, including our careers, and moving out there to take our chances. Then we found we were having a baby...haha

But for any company you usually start from the bottom and work your way up. Not sure why the Disney Company would be any different.

 

[Nubs70]

Shortly after my wife and I got married, we were thinking for dropping everything, including our careers, and moving out there to take our chances. Then we found we were having a baby...haha

But for any company you usually start from the bottom and work your way up. Not sure why the Disney Company would be any different.

Today's hr departments are not like years ago. Even if your boss thinks you are the best since sliced bread, if you are not determined to be high potential, you can and will only rise so far. It is, not determined by how well you produce results but by less tangible things such as psychometric testing and perception. This leads to what is seen as a preference for "yes men" and the do not rock the boat mentality.

 

[slappy magoo]

FYI Disney does not hire anyone under 18. It has been a rule since Disneyland started I believe because they are still "children" and they did not want the magic ruined. That is what I was told years ago when I worked at our local Disney store.

can't speak for current policy but Steve Martin worked in DL from the age of 10 selling guide books then moved to the Magic shop. He cites Wally Boag as a huge early influence. It's in his autobiography.

 

[Andrew C]

Today's hr departments are not like years ago. Even if your boss thinks you are the best since sliced bread, if you are not determined to be high potential, you can and will only rise so far. It is, not determined by how well you produce results but by less tangible things such as psychometric testing and perception. This leads to what is seen as a preference for "yes men" and the do not rock the boat mentality.

I am sure glad I do not work for whatever company you are referring to.

 

[Nubs70]

I am sure glad I do not work for whatever company you are referring to.

These HR practices are what is being taught in grad school with more and more companies are gravitating towards this practice. For example, the Environmental Engineer at a company I service was scheduled to retire Jan 31. They had interviewed several prospects with each over 15 years of experience some with Professional Engineering certification. Those that passed the interview were subjected to the Klein Test. All failed the psychometric test and were disqualified. This interview process has been going on for almost a year. Had the existing Environmental Engineer not postponed retirement, the company would have not been able to complete federal and state yearly environmental reports.

So when you hear about companies not being able to fill positions, it's bs. The failure to find suitable employees is not that they are not available, it's because HR departments insist on distilling people to numbers and if you do not score you are not capable of doing the job. HR departments have metastasized into something far more powerful than they were intended.

 

[Andrew C]

These HR practices are what is being taught in grad school with more and more companies are gravitating towards this practice. For example, the Environmental Engineer at a company I service was scheduled to retire Jan 31. They had interviewed several prospects with each over 15 years of experience some with Professional Engineering certification. Those that passed the interview were subjected to the Klein Test. All failed the psychometric test and were disqualified. This interview process has been going on for almost a year. Had the existing Environmental Engineer not postponed retirement, the company would have not been able to complete federal and state yearly environmental reports.

So when you hear about companies not being able to fill positions, it's bs. The failure to find suitable employees is not that they are not available, it's because HR departments insist on distilling people to numbers and if you do not score you are not capable of doing the job. HR departments have metastasized into something far more powerful than they were intended.

Again, sure glad I do not work for a company like this and I was able to work my way up through different positions in my company over the last 9 years. I guess I am just that good; or high potential as you referred to!

 

[Animaniac93-98]

FYI Disney does not hire anyone under 18. It has been a rule since Disneyland started I believe because they are still "children" and they did not want the magic ruined. That is what I was told years ago when I worked at our local Disney store.

I actually started working at the Disney Store when I was 17, but I think they did that because they knew I would be turning 18 in a few months time.

 

[jaklgreen]

Huh, I worked at the Disney store in 1999/2000 and that is what they told me.

 

[wogwog]

FYI Disney does not hire anyone under 18. It has been a rule since Disneyland started I believe because they are still "children" and they did not want the magic ruined. That is what I was told years ago when I worked at our local Disney store.

Only mostly true. Disneyland hired my daughter and most any other teen between 16 and 18 in the 90's, at least with the very narrow restriction of cashier at fast food type places and a few other "safe" positions. Severe daily and weekly restriction on hours as well. They also could not work later than 8 or 9 if my memory is correct. We lived about 15 minutes from DL and most of her friends worked there. Current policy may be different.

 

[flynnibus]

But for any company you usually start from the bottom and work your way up. Not sure why the Disney Company would be any different.

Because it depends on the management of a company - where they look for people and what they value. If the bosses don't value actual theme park experience, they are likely to pick from say... A college grad instead of a attractions cm looking to move up.

 

[ford91exploder]

Back to the original idea on this post. Maybe the exact numbers are in the news some place but an estimate from a cast member follows. As best she could remember from her union rep. She told me today that the first offers from Disney in the contract negotiations are something like this..

A reduction in the number of days cast can call in without discipline.

An increase in discipline for calling in with less than 2 hours before shift start.

Reduction of one paid holiday.

Reduction of guarantee of 32 hours a week to 30 for full time cast.

Disney is offering about 2 to 3% increase in wage.

Again, I do not no how accurate this is but maybe a cast member can verify or adjust.

Does not sound generous to me. Maybe they want cast to contribute to cover the cost of MM minus like the guest are doing through increased prices.

In addition to this Disney has already made it more difficult for cast to use comp admissions for family and friends.

Made getting a cast discount on a DCL more difficult and increasing the price to cast.

Increased the number of days per year the use of cast comp days are blocked.

Does not sound like a generous employer to me.

Company reports record profits and has a proposal like THIS!!!!,

This is why companies get the unions they deserve I know Disney is partially unionized - this is an incentive to go full on union with an aggressive union like SEIU and TWDC will deserve what it gets when it happens and TWDC will WISH for the good old days

 

[ford91exploder]

Certainly if we are talking about setting a minimum wage (or a living wage) at the same rate for the entire nation it cannot meet the needs of every last person without being raised to truly ludicrous levels. Which is one reason I've argued not to try to define specific expenses so precisely, but rather set a wage where the vast majority of persons could meet the most basic necessities of living. Some individual situations are always going to need assistance (single parents, unusually high cost of living regions, etc.). We would still need a methodology to determine expenses for shelter, clothing, food, transportation, and perhaps a miscellaneous budget, but we have to do that anyway in determining public assistance or other benefits. Better to have some factual basis (even if its not perfect) for setting a wage than just deriving a number from the political horse-trading needed to get the increase through Congress. I'm sure $15/hour sounds good to fast-food employees, but where did that number come from? They'll get farther with their efforts if they can specifically explain how that figure was determined.

I suspect we're not as far apart on this issue as it sounds - we need a sound basis for making law. Philosophically I believe people should be able to earn sufficient income from a full-time job to pay their own way and not have to rely upon public assistance. Jobs are indeed opportunities, but then everyone has to eat, and thus everyone needs a job.

This is why the minimum wage needs to be set at the STATE level and in some states even a regional level, One size does not fit all, The irony of this is minimum wage would probably be highest in the nation in DC!