PDA

View Full Version : Are Disney World wage scales fair?


crazy4wdw
03-20-2007, 07:12 AM
Are Disney World wage scales fair?

According to a study, a 2-tiered pay system adopted by labor unions in 1998 hurts workers -- and the economy.

Scott Powers and Harry Wessel | Sentinel Staff Writers
Posted March 20, 2007

As Walt Disney World and its biggest group of labor unions plunge into contract negotiations this month, one of the unions is heralding a new economic study that claims workers have been underpaid and Central Florida's economy has suffered as a result.

UNITE HERE Local 362 released a study Monday, commissioned by economics professors at Rollins College and Florida International University, that shows full-time wage employees earned $19.4 million less last year than they would have received if the company's wage scales hadn't changed in 1998.

Union officials said the lost pay is a result of an unfair and unexpectedly harsh two-tiered pay system that Disney used for a few years, preventing new workers from getting the same pay that some of their counterparts receive. The economics professors, Eric Schutz of Rollins and Bruce Nissen of Florida International, argue that the pay difference hurts all of Orange and Osceola counties, leading to at least $24 million in lost spending, lower sales-tax revenue and higher social-service demands.

Morty Miller, president of UNITE HERE Local 362, said his union and others now negotiating for a new master labor contract are committed to restoring the wage scales that they bargained away in 1998. He said union officials are "cautiously optimistic" that Disney World will agree to new wage scales, because the company is having a hard time attracting and retaining workers with its current pay and a local unemployment rate hovering near 3 percent.

"Yes, we have made a proposal to accomplish that," Miller said. "That is one of our goals."

Disney World spokeswoman Jacquee Polak pointed out that the 1998 contract, as with all labor contracts, was a mutual agreement between the company and the unions, not a unilateral decision. She said the two-tiered pay system was abolished with the 2004 contract, so workers hired since then are not at any disadvantage. She also took issue with the notion that the wage scales are prompting workers to leave.

"The average tenure of cast member is eight years, compared to the industry average of two years," Polak said.

The current contract expires April 28 for Local 362 and five other unions, which combined represent 21,000 of Disney's 39,500 full-time workers. Full-scale negotiations started last week.

Scott Powers can be reached at spowers@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5441. Harry Wessel can be reached at 407-420-5506 or hwessel@orlandosentinel.com.

doombuggy
03-20-2007, 07:41 AM
Interesting article. I will, however, refrain from discussing my compensation on an open forum.

TheRustyScupper
03-20-2007, 11:01 AM
1) Maximum pay in a grade many times isn't too bad.
2) However, the starting rates are pretty skimpy.
3) it used to take about 7-yrs to max out.
4) Now, it takes almost 15-yrs to max out.
5) It is hard for folks to make if on $7.00-$7.50 starting pay.
6) And this from a company making record huge profits.


NOTE: I know several people who work for WDW that also get food stamps and subsidized housing - and that includes some that I know where both husband and wife work at MK. It is just too bad that the union is so weak that they can't do anything for the people. A good example of wasted union dues - or where union dues benefit the union and not the employee. The union can't even strike, because so many employees can't afford to be on the street.

DisneyBaby!
03-20-2007, 11:55 AM
I would have to ask, what is the actual wage that people receive, both starting and actual and how it compares to other jobs in the area. I live and work in the Chicago area in the restaurant business and can not get 17 yo kids to take a host job for less than $8.00/hr. I also know people who are on assistance of some form or the other, but refuse to either work more hours or claim more tips because the will not get the free government insurance and foodstamps that the rest of us pay for ourselves (sorry, not angry or bitter about that). But is it fair that both my wife and I have to work full time so we can make it where we live? I'm sorry, but the keys to success and prosperity is not simply your employer giving you more money. Want to get paid more, get an education, go to college, finish high school, get a learn a trade. Being in management, don't get me started on unions. But with such a vague question, I can't answer that.

raidermatt
03-20-2007, 11:55 AM
"Fair" is a loaded term. If both sides agree to it, it's hard to call it unfair. You can even go a step further and say that no matter what wages Disney offers, it can't be "unfair" because nobody is forced to work there. As a practical matter though, its not that simple.

I do think its a mistake for a company like Disney, who supposedly prides itself on providing high quality customer service, to have such low pay scales for its frontline workers. This goes for both WDW and DLR.

As the old adage says, you get what you pay for. That's not a knock on CMs. I know most do their best, and considering what they do get paid, they do a comendable job. Its just a fact of business that if you are going to low ball on compensation over the long haul, the quality is going to follow. "Nature rule, Daniel-san, not mine".

DisneyZell
03-20-2007, 12:02 PM
I agree with the poster above. Plus the interesting thing is that Disney is paying what was negotiated by the Unions in 98 based on what I read, right?

it's the Catch-22 of a Union. They negotiate and get a higher rate at the beginning, and lock in for a long term, which then doesn't let market forces affect the pay...how can you hold the company accountable for this?

If you sign a contract, you have to live with the results...unfortunately the only place that doesn't seem to apply is sports!

look at it this way...if Disney had signed a contract and it was paying above the average, would the unions be negotiating down? I don't think so.

Mickmse2002
03-20-2007, 12:11 PM
It can be a very difficult balance to strike. Living here in Michigan and watching the slow bleeding death of the auto industry can give an interesting perspective on what is "fair" and where the "fault" is. If the facts listed are accurate then the Union shouldn't be so public in advertising the adverse impact they agreed to in historical contracts. I'm not sure I would want my clients to know that I agreed to a contract that lost them 19 Billion in potential wages. Markets drive wages and sustainability of profits pay for contracts. The auto companies are seeing that here and now. They agreed to outrageous wage and benefit packages when they were flush with cash and are now paying a stiff price. Ultimately it will be individuals that pay the price for ill-advised contracts that both the union and management agreed to. There is plenty of blame to spread on both sides and I am sure the situation with Disney is no different.

raidermatt
03-20-2007, 12:19 PM
I would have to ask, what is the actual wage that people receive, both starting and actual and how it compares to other jobs in the area.

This is all I could find in a quick search. I'm sure somebody else can find more. This was from an Orlando Sent article in May of 2006.

Universal Orlando raised its minimum wage this month by 50 cents to $7.25 an hour as a way to remain competitive in the hiring game in a market with low unemployment. In March, SeaWorld Orlando went to $7 an hour.

Disney's starting wage is $6.90.



If you sign a contract, you have to live with the results...

From a simple management/union perspective I agree. There is nothing unfair about living up to a contract. No argument from me on that point.

But since this is a Disney board, and we try to look at things from a "what's best for Disney" point of view, I don't think we can just leave it at that.

If the union negotiates a poor contract, and Disney's workers are paid less than the competition, or at best, the same, who is that going to hurt in the long run? Only the workers? Of course not, its going to hurt Disney as well since the quality of its workforce is going to suffer.

The question is, what kind of service do you expect from Disney? If I read the general tone of the boards correctly, most expect service that is far better than average.

Compensation is not the only component in determining the kind of service Disney is able to offer, but it is a significant component.

DisneyZell
03-20-2007, 12:24 PM
[QUOTE=raidermatt;17657495]
If the union negotiates a poor contract, and Disney's workers are paid less than the competition, or at best, the same, who is that going to hurt in the long run? Only the workers? Of course not, its going to hurt Disney as well since the quality of its workforce is going to suffer.

QUOTE]

when they negotiated it...was it bad? I'll bet it was very good. And I'll bet they locked it in for so long because they were giddy that it was so good. That's the problem with Unions...they just don't consider the long term impact of what they do.

IMHO Unions just don't serve the purpose that they used to. Market forces today will force the salaries to be at certain levels...Union contracts that keep the artificially low or high end up hurting both the companies and their employees.

Someone above referenced the auto unions. Airline unions are the same. They expect the companies to give when they are flush with cash...but aren't willing to give back when the opposite happen, driving companies into bankruptcy where they are forced to break contracts, and then we hear about the evil companies.

While I understand where Union's came from, the bottom line is that if someone will work for a certain wage, why shouldn't a company hire them? If no one will work at that rate, the company will raise it until they will.

raidermatt
03-20-2007, 12:40 PM
While I understand where Union's came from, the bottom line is that if someone will work for a certain wage, why shouldn't a company hire them? If no one will work at that rate, the company will raise it until they will.


That wasn't the bottom line before unions, but I get your point, which is essentially that unions have grown beyond their true usefullness.


But again, if we make this a union bashing thing, we are missing the point. It might be fun, but it still misses the point.

From Disney's point of view, it shouldn't be about fairness. If Disney's compensation does not match the quality they exepct from their workforce, acheiving their service-related goals is going to be extremely difficult. That's their bottom line.

Unless of course, they don't intend to offer customer service that is any better than average.

DisneyZell
03-20-2007, 12:52 PM
That wasn't the bottom line before unions, but I get your point, which is essentially that unions have grown beyond their true usefullness.


But again, if we make this a union bashing thing, we are missing the point. It might be fun, but it still misses the point.

From Disney's point of view, it shouldn't be about fairness. If Disney's compensation does not match the quality they exepct from their workforce, acheiving their service-related goals is going to be extremely difficult. That's their bottom line.

Unless of course, they don't intend to offer customer service that is any better than average.


That's a catch-22 thing...they have a contract and if they pay below OR above that, isn't that an issue? even if they had wanted to...I just don't think they have the option. Unions are VERY strict about what you can do...you have to follow the rules.

Agree, we don't need to be Union bashing (and agree it would be fun), but I just think they lock in the contract, I don't think they have a choice. anyone know for sure?

raidermatt
03-20-2007, 12:59 PM
You're right, what's done is done. Obviously some of this stuff being leaked out is part of the union's negotiating tactics.

What Disney can do is make sure that the new contract reflects what best matches their strategic goals, and not just the lowest they can get from the union.

Unless of course, one of their strategic goals is to merely get the lowest wages it can out of the unions, which then goes back to what they really expect to provide in terms of customer service.

Mickmse2002
03-20-2007, 01:07 PM
You're right, what's done is done. Obviously some of this stuff being leaked out is part of the union's negotiating tactics.

What Disney can do is make sure that the new contract reflects what best matches their strategic goals, and not just the lowest they can get from the union.

Unless of course, one of their strategic goals is to merely get the lowest wages it can out of the unions, which then goes back to what they really expect to provide in terms of customer service.

Can you really infer a cause/effect relationship between level of pay and customer service? I'm not so sure. I again offer the auto union analogy. UAW employees are the highest paid in the industry and yet the cars the build are not necessarily the highest quality. We would like to think that pay is the big motivator but Maslow certainly thought otherwise.

DisneyZell
03-20-2007, 01:14 PM
You're right, what's done is done. Obviously some of this stuff being leaked out is part of the union's negotiating tactics.

What Disney can do is make sure that the new contract reflects what best matches their strategic goals, and not just the lowest they can get from the union.

Unless of course, one of their strategic goals is to merely get the lowest wages it can out of the unions, which then goes back to what they really expect to provide in terms of customer service.


I really think we go back to 1998...was the union negotiated rate above the average? I'll be it was significanly above, but then the rest of the area went up faster. Anyone know how we can check this? I think that is the most salient point here. I don't think Disney would screw over it's employees, and considering the length of service for most I'm guessing they are ok.

I agree this smells like a union ploy...

raidermatt
03-20-2007, 03:04 PM
Can you really infer a cause/effect relationship between level of pay and customer service? I'm not so sure. I again offer the auto union analogy. UAW employees are the highest paid in the industry and yet the cars the build are not necessarily the highest quality. We would like to think that pay is the big motivator but Maslow certainly thought otherwise.

I'm not sure how flawed Maslow's research was, or if its more a case of people using his heirarchy to further their own agendas, but yes, there is most definitely a cause/effect relationship between compensation and quality of work. Practical experience teaches us that.

But as I said, its ONE component of that equation. Certainly its not the only one.

ltp74
03-20-2007, 03:57 PM
What workers do UNITE HERE represent at WDW? Also is Disney's pay low for everything(stagehands, plumbers, electricians, IT and so on), customer service jobs will always be low paying because people 18 to say 25 years old who work most of those them don't know any better.

Mickmse2002
03-20-2007, 06:57 PM
I'm not sure how flawed Maslow's research was, or if its more a case of people using his heirarchy to further their own agendas, but yes, there is most definitely a cause/effect relationship between compensation and quality of work. Practical experience teaches us that.

But as I said, its ONE component of that equation. Certainly its not the only one.

I have no agenda to further. Where is the evidence that there is definitely a cause/effect relationship between compensation and quality of work? I would be very interested to read it.......and make a copy for my next merit raise performance review with my boss.

I would think that the thousands of negative posts about Disney management we read here on these boards would certainly not support the idea that higher compensation results in higher quality of work.

I have worked closely with a lot of minimum-wage employees that do excellent positive work.

OKW Lover
03-20-2007, 08:10 PM
Maybe I'm a bit cynical (ok, no maybe about it) but if the current wage agreement is so "unfair" then why did the union agree to it? There are two parties to these agreements. And why is the story focused just on the hourly rate? Shouldn't the "fairness" be judged based on the total compensation package and comparable jobs in the same labor market? Sorry, to me this story smacks of somebody getting ready for the next round of negotiations, not a valid news story.

Mickmse2002
03-20-2007, 08:18 PM
Maybe I'm a bit cynical (ok, no maybe about it) but if the current wage agreement is so "unfair" then why did the union agree to it? There are two parties to these agreements. And why is the story focused just on the hourly rate? Shouldn't the "fairness" be judged based on the total compensation package and comparable jobs in the same labor market? Sorry, to me this story smacks of somebody getting ready for the next round of negotiations, not a valid news story.
I think you are correct in this assessment. I also can't help but think it is a huge tactical error on the part of the Union leadership. Why advertise the fact they agreed to a contract they think unfair and detrimental to their membership. Even if it was corrected in their most recent contract, why comment on it now?

YoHo
03-20-2007, 08:26 PM
I wouldn't think that the issue for Disney isn't so much that people paid what they pay can't do good work, but simply that there are others paying more for the same work.

That's been Disney's problem in Anaheim and Florida, they pay some of the lowest rates on average for their themepark employees.
That means that all the most talented individuals will go to the higher paying jobs elsewhere.

Mickmse2002
03-20-2007, 08:40 PM
I wouldn't think that the issue for Disney isn't so much that people paid what they pay can't do good work, but simply that there are others paying more for the same work.

That's been Disney's problem in Anaheim and Florida, they pay some of the lowest rates on average for their themepark employees.
That means that all the most talented individuals will go to the higher paying jobs elsewhere.

I wonder what percentage of the affected employees at WDW were talking about are retirees and the relative wage isn't as important for them as working for WDW for other CM benefits?

raidermatt
03-20-2007, 09:33 PM
A lot fewer than there used to be since Disney started cutting the full time jobs in favor of part time jobs.

I have no agenda to further. Where is the evidence that there is definitely a cause/effect relationship between compensation and quality of work? I would be very interested to read it.......and make a copy for my next merit raise performance review with my boss.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that YOU had an agenda. I've just seen his hierarchy used by companies as both a way to emphasize that compensation isn't everything and also to justify not increasing compensation. Never expressly stated of course, but clearly implied.

But think about it. You get merit pay raises. While they are positioned as rewards for past performance, they are really carrots for you to maintain good performance and continue to improve. Companies don't pay you for what you did, they pay you for what they believe you will do. Even bonuses and one-time rewards are really ways to incent you to perform well in the future.

That's because they know if they don't, you will not be as motivated as you would otherwise be, and will also be more likely to leave. If pay didn't matter, you wouldn't get an increase at all unless it was a promotion.

The point, though, isn't just how it affects one person. Its how those policies and levels of compensation affect the employees as a whole. Pay less and you will eventually end up with a lower cut of the talent. Supply and demand applies to the labor market as well.

Mickmse2002
03-21-2007, 06:42 AM
That's because they know if they don't, you will not be as motivated as you would otherwise be, and will also be more likely to leave. If pay didn't matter, you wouldn't get an increase at all unless it was a promotion.

The point, though, isn't just how it affects one person. Its how those policies and levels of compensation affect the employees as a whole. Pay less and you will eventually end up with a lower cut of the talent. Supply and demand applies to the labor market as well.

By and large I agree with you here. Interestingly though, we recently had an "employee satisfaction survey" done where I work involving several thousand employees in different departments. Several of the questions centered on the theme of "would you leave here to work someplace else (similar work) that paid 5% more or 10% more". The responses to both scenarios were overwhelmingly no. That tells me that other factors, be they tangible or intangible, are at play as well. I think Disney is no different. They may currently be under market in terms of wages (and eventually the market will correct that) but the myriad of other reasons probably have a larger impact of employee satisfaction and longevity.

MassJester
03-21-2007, 10:49 PM
But think about it. You get merit pay raises. While they are positioned as rewards for past performance, they are really carrots for you to maintain good performance and continue to improve. Companies don't pay you for what you did, they pay you for what they believe you will do. Even bonuses and one-time rewards are really ways to incent you to perform well in the future.


But does that really apply? Aren't employees under a collective bargaining agreement typically given raises on tenure-triggers rather than from positive performance ratings?

raidermatt
03-22-2007, 01:36 PM
Yes, the union aspect adds a layer of complexity. I'm honestly not sure how much performance comes into play on raises at WDW for the rank and file. I believe it does on other issues, like getting requested transfers and promotions of course, but I'm not sure about the wages themselves.

If it is completely tenure-based, that is a problem because it removes a portion of management's ability to incent, but now we're getting into the value of unions in general.

But the question was whether or not compensation is in fact ONE factor in quality and performance. As to how it applies in a practical matter to WDW, yes, the union aspect complicates things.

Still, if Disney believes it should offer more to prospective and current employees than SW or Universal because they expect more from those employees, the union certainly has not stopped that from happening, and wouldn't in the future.

And the below market pay is the same at DLR. It should be clear that this is a strategic decision by management, not a union issue.

raidermatt
03-22-2007, 01:41 PM
Also, a friend forwarded this article to me. Not that it settles the debate, but it makes for an interesting perspective. Certainly it highlights the challenges faced when companies buck the trend on the Street. But if its long term results you are interested in, you'll quickly learn that the caving to the whim of the Street isn't always going to serve you well.

This example would seem to be even more relevant to Disney's model, which is supposed to feature quality and service that is superior to its industry competition, and certainly superior to its competion in the local job markets.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_15/b3878084_mz021.htm

The Costco Way
Higher wages mean higher profits. But try telling Wall Street

Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST ) handily beat Wall Street expectations on Mar. 3, posting a 25% profit gain in its most recent quarter on top of a 14% sales hike. The warehouse club even nudged up its profit forecast for the rest of 2004. So how did the market respond? By driving the Issaquah (Wash.) company's stock down by 4%. One problem for Wall Street is that Costco pays its workers much better than archrival Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT ) does and analysts worry that Costco's operating expenses could get out of hand. "At Costco, it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder," says Deutsche Bank (DB ) analyst Bill Dreher.

The market's view of Costco speaks volumes about the so-called Wal-Martization of the U.S. economy. True, the Bentonville (Ark.) retailer has taken a public-relations pounding recently for paying poverty-level wages and shouldering health insurance for fewer than half of its 1.2 million U.S. workers. Still, it remains the darling of the Street, which, like Wal-Mart and many other companies, believes that shareholders are best served if employers do all they can to hold down costs, including the cost of labor.

Surprisingly, however, Costco's high-wage approach actually beats Wal-Mart at its own game on many measures. BusinessWeek ran through the numbers from each company to compare Costco and Sam's Club, the Wal-Mart warehouse unit that competes directly with Costco. We found that by compensating employees generously to motivate and retain good workers, one-fifth of whom are unionized, Costco gets lower turnover and higher productivity. Combined with a smart business strategy that sells a mix of higher-margin products to more affluent customers, Costco actually keeps its labor costs lower than Wal-Mart's as a percentage of sales, and its 68,000 hourly workers in the U.S. sell more per square foot. Put another way, the 102,000 Sam's employees in the U.S. generated some $35 billion in sales last year, while Costco did $34 billion with one-third fewer employees.

Bottom line: Costco pulled in $13,647 in U.S. operating profit per hourly employee last year, vs. $11,039 at Sam's. Over the past five years, Costco's operating income grew at an average of 10.1% annually, slightly besting Sam's 9.8%. Most of Wall Street doesn't see the broader picture, though, and only focuses on the up-front savings Costco would gain if it paid workers less. But a few analysts concede that Costco suffers from the Street's bias toward the low-wage model. "Costco deserves a little more credit than it has been getting lately, [since] it's one of the most productive companies in the industry," says Citigroup/Smith Barney retail analyst Deborah Weinswig. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams says that Sam's pays competitively with Costco when all factors are considered, such as promotion opportunities.

PASSING THE BUCK. The larger question here is which model of competition will predominate in the U.S. Costco isn't alone; some companies, even ones like New Balance Athletic Shoe Inc. that face cheap imports from China, have been able to compete by finding ways to lift productivity instead of cutting pay. But most executives find it easier to go the Wal-Mart route, even if shareholders fare just as well either way over the long run.

Yet the cheap-labor model turns out to be costly in many ways. It can fuel poverty and related social ills and dump costs on other companies and taxpayers, who indirectly pick up the health-care tab for all the workers not insured by their parsimonious employers. What's more, the low-wage approach cuts into consumer spending and, potentially, economic growth. "You can't have every company adopt a Wal-Mart strategy. It isn't sustainable," says Rutgers University management professor Eileen Appelbaum, who in 2003 edited a vast study by 38 academics that found employers taking the high road in dozens of industries.

Given Costco's performance, the question for Wall Street shouldn't be why Costco isn't more like Wal-Mart. Rather, why can't Wal-Mart deliver high shareholder returns and high living standards for its workforce? Says Costco CEO James D. Sinegal: "Paying your employees well is not only the right thing to do but it makes for good business."

Look at how Costco pulls it off. Although Sam's $11.52 hourly average wage for full-timers tops the $9.64 earned by a typical Wal-Mart worker, it's still nearly 40% less than Costco's $15.97. Costco also shells out thousands more a year for workers' health and retirement and includes more of them in its health care, 401(k), and profit-sharing plans. "They take a very pro-employee attitude," says Rome Aloise, chief Costco negotiator for the Teamsters, which represents 14,000 Costco workers.

In return for all this generosity, Costco gets one of the most productive and loyal workforces in all of retailing. Only 6% of employees leave after the first year, compared with 21% at Sam's. That saves tons, since Wal-Mart says it costs $2,500 per worker just to test, interview, and train a new hire. Costco's motivated employees also sell more: $795 of sales per square foot, vs. only $516 at Sam's and $411 at BJ's Wholesale Club Inc. (BJ ), its other primary club rival. "Employees are willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done," says Julie Molina, a 17-year Costco worker in South San Francisco, Calif., who makes $17.82 an hour, plus bonuses.

MANAGEMENT SAVVY. Costco's productive workforce more than offsets the higher expense. Its labor and overhead tab, also called its selling, general, and administrative costs (SG&A), total just 9.8% of revenue. While Wal-Mart declines to break out Sam's SG&A, it's likely higher than Costco's but lower than Wal-Mart's 17%. At Target (TGT ), it's 24%. "Paying higher wages translates into more efficiency," says Costco Chief Financial Officer Richard Galanti.

Of course, it's by no means as simple as that sounds, and management has to hustle to make the high-wage strategy work. It's constantly looking for ways to repackage goods into bulk items, which reduces labor, speeds up Costco's just-in-time inventory and distribution system, and boosts sales per square foot. Costco is also savvier than Sam's and BJ's about catering to small shop owners and more affluent customers, who are more likely to buy in bulk and purchase higher-margin goods. Neither rival has been able to match Costco's innovative packaging or merchandising mix, either. Costco was the first wholesale club to offer fresh meat, pharmacies, and photo labs.

Wal-Mart defenders often focus on the undeniable benefits its low prices bring consumers, while ignoring the damage it does to U.S. wages. Costco shows that with enough smarts, companies can help consumers and workers alike.

TheRustyScupper
03-22-2007, 02:50 PM
. . . I would have to ask, what is the actual wage that people receive, both starting and actual and how it compares to other jobs in the area. I live and work in the Chicago area in the restaurant business and can not get 17 yo kids to take a host job for less than $8.00/hr . . .


1) Hourly:
. . . this is a union environment
. . . everyone gets paid the same for the identical pay grade and seniority
. . . thus, $7.35 starting wage is $7.35 starting wage
. . . no room for management to move on individual pay or perks
. . . no incentives or bonuses or merit increases (even for CM's that get good comments from guests)
2) Salaried & Management:
. . . there could soime negotiation within the salary grade
. . . but, very little
. . . there is usually many applicants for the same non-union position
. . . typically, it is a take-it-or-leave-it job offer

TheRustyScupper
03-22-2007, 02:55 PM
. . . Maybe I'm a bit cynical (ok, no maybe about it) but if the current wage agreement is so "unfair" then why did the union agree to it? There are two parties to these agreements . . .


1) They negotiated months past the contract date.
2) They could not get better terms from WDW.
3) Their only resolution would be a strike.
4) And not enough employees would go on strike.
5) So, you take it or leave it.
6) WDW has them over qa barrell, and WDW knows it.

EUROPACL
03-22-2007, 03:51 PM
1) They negotiated months past the contract date.
2) They could not get better terms from WDW.
3) Their only resolution would be a strike.
4) And not enough employees would go on strike.
5) So, you take it or leave it.
6) WDW has them over qa barrell, and WDW knows it.

,,,,wait a second who was holding the gun to these peoples heads and forced them to go to work for Disney?