An open letter to Disney about mandatory room checks.

[tink20]

Are these security checks at all resorts? I’m going to be very unhappy if they wake up my napping 11 month old granddaughter.

 

[snappy]

Are these security checks at all resorts? I’m going to be very unhappy if they wake up my napping 11 month old granddaughter.

Unfortunately for naps, yes, but the policy seems to be inconsistent applied, between resorts and even for different guests at same resort. The one thing that we know per the new sign, is that Disney “can enter your room at any time for any reason.”
What that means for some guests is a Knock or a visit while the room is empty every day, others not. Be prepared to head then off at the pass (door) to avoid a sleeping baby.

 

[fractalpotato]

The time it took to argue was less time than the check takes. Until the policy is changed the quickest thing to do is let them look. Then get back to whatever you wete doing.

That's really not the point though. The point is that these room checks are at best a useless nuisance and possibly a disruptive nuisance that serves no practical purpose. The worst thing in such a situation is to let them do stupid things because fighting for the right thing is inconvenient. It's attitudes like that and people who espouse them that make city, state and federal governments able to make sweeping cuts at privacy and liberty in the name of trumped up fears. Never give in to something wrong because you can't be bothered to stand up for your right to privacy and peace. If you do, then don't come crying to anyone about it when they take the next step.

Matt

 

[BK2014]

The worst thing in such a situation is to let them do stupid things because fighting for the right thing is inconvenient. It's attitudes like that and people who espouse them that make city, state and federal governments able to make sweeping cuts at privacy and liberty in the name of trumped up fears. Never give in to something wrong because you can't be bothered to stand up for your right to privacy and peace.

Room checks at Disney have absolutely no connection to government intrusions. Disney is not the government, and their policy in no way violates your legal right to privacy.

 

[fractalpotato]

Room checks at Disney have absolutely no connection to government intrusions. Disney is not the government, and their policy in no way violates your legal right to privacy.

I know that, but my point is that the attitude of "it's easier to not put up a fight" is foolish and dangerous. If you want to play along because you think it helps and it's actually legitimate, fine, I think that's nuts, but hey, play along. Don't play along if you think it's wrong because it's just easier to not make a stink, and definitely don't tell other people that don't agree with it they should just fold on their belief because it's easier. That whole attitude is just awful.

Matt

 

[BK2014]

I know that, but my point is that the attitude of "it's easier to not put up a fight" is foolish and dangerous. If you want to play along because you think it helps and it's actually legitimate, fine, I think that's nuts, but hey, play along. Don't play along if you think it's wrong because it's just easier to not make a stink, and definitely don't tell other people that don't agree with it they should just fold on their belief because it's easier. That whole attitude is just awful.

Some would argue that comparing a completely optional and avoidable situation to something serious as government intrusions into people's lives is inflammatory and reckless. And most people who have worked in the real world understand that the least effective way of changing the policy of a large company is by arguing with the front line employee who is simply trying to do their job.

 

[fractalpotato]

Some would argue that comparing a completely optional and avoidable situation to something serious as government intrusions into people's lives is inflammatory and reckless. And most people who have worked in the real world understand that the least effective way of changing the policy of a large company is by arguing with the front line employee who is simply trying to do their job.

I have said twice now it's a dangerous attitude to take, not that it was the best method to convince Disney World to do anything. The point, that you're going to completely ignore anyway, is that the right answer should never been based on convenience but by what is right for the situation. You and I would, I suspect, disagree one the merits of any given situation, but that's fine. We've got a right to our opinions, and I would never advocate that you put up with something you disagree with just because it's easier. No one should.

Just for the record, I also work in the real world, nearly every day, and yes-ing clients just for convenience has almost only ever made things worse for myself, my employer and most of all for the clients. It would be very easy for me to just take the convenient route and make it someone else's problem, but I don't have a problem with a little inconvenience to do the right thing.

Matt

 

[BK2014]

I have said twice now it's a dangerous attitude to take, not that it was the best method to convince Disney World to do anything. The point, that you're going to completely ignore anyway, is that the right answer should never been based on convenience but by what is right for the situation.

It might be a dangerous attitude to take in some situations, but how is it a "dangerous" position to take in relation to the room checks at WDW? I am not ignoring your point that the right answer should not be based on convenience, but rather by what is right for the situation. The poster you initially responded to simply suggested that it takes less time to let them conduct the room checks than to argue with the person conducting the room check. You seemed to believe that was a stance of convenience, but was not the right position to take in that situation. So I guess what I don't understand is why would fighting with the employee doing the room check, who doesn't set the policy and is only doing their job, the right thing to do in that situation?

 

[fractalpotato]

It might be a dangerous attitude to take in some situations, but how is it a "dangerous" position to take in relation to the room checks at WDW? I am not ignoring your point that the right answer should not be based on convenience, but rather by what is right for the situation. The poster you initially responded to simply suggested that it takes less time to let them conduct the room checks than to argue with the person conducting the room check. You seemed to believe that was a stance of convenience, but was not the right position to take in that situation. So I guess what I don't understand is why would fighting with the employee doing the room check, who doesn't set the policy and is only doing their job, the right thing to do in that situation?

How is not fighting a policy you disagree with, when it's directly intruding on your private time, because it's faster to just acquiesce not a stance of convenience? Fighting the policy is the right thing to do because you're standing your ground. Sure, it's pretty unlikely that one time, one guest fighting it is going to change anything. Constant pushback and ineffective results on the other hand will eventually make it to the bean counters. It will be considered the next time a new policy is drafted. I'm not suggesting you tackle the guy to the ground, but firmly and politely stating that it isn't a good time and making it known they're being disruptive while they do this is not out of line. Not doing that just because you can get to a nap faster is how you end up with even more policies you don't like. Not just Disney, this is a pervasive aspect of society in general, giving up on your position to avoid confrontation and inconvenience. It's a terrible trait.

Matt

 

[Three60guy]

How is not fighting a policy you disagree with, when it's directly intruding on your private time, because it's faster to just acquiesce not a stance of convenience? Fighting the policy is the right thing to do because you're standing your ground. Sure, it's pretty unlikely that one time, one guest fighting it is going to change anything. Constant pushback and ineffective results on the other hand will eventually make it to the bean counters. It will be considered the next time a new policy is drafted. I'm not suggesting you tackle the guy to the ground, but firmly and politely stating that it isn't a good time and making it known they're being disruptive while they do this is not out of line. Not doing that just because you can get to a nap faster is how you end up with even more policies you don't like. Not just Disney, this is a pervasive aspect of society in general, giving up on your position to avoid confrontation and inconvenience. It's a terrible trait.

Matt

AMEN. I am the original poster and you have eloquently stated my position throughout your postings. I only wish more people understood the bigger position you are communicating. Ultimately, if we simply acquiesce to these policies today we will discover to our amazement, in the future, worse policies that will be even harder to reverse.

Ultimately, if we vote with our pocketbooks collectively that will send a powerful message. But we still need to communicate the reason why we disagree with this room check policy and back it up with action which will put less money into Disney’s pockets.

 

[Jen1995]

It might be a dangerous attitude to take in some situations, but how is it a "dangerous" position to take in relation to the room checks at WDW? I am not ignoring your point that the right answer should not be based on convenience, but rather by what is right for the situation. The poster you initially responded to simply suggested that it takes less time to let them conduct the room checks than to argue with the person conducting the room check. You seemed to believe that was a stance of convenience, but was not the right position to take in that situation. So I guess what I don't understand is why would fighting with the employee doing the room check, who doesn't set the policy and is only doing their job, the right thing to do in that situation?

If you are in a restaurant and your food isn't cooked, do you not say anything because it isn't the waiter's fault? The front line people are the front of the line and they do report their experiences to their superiors.

 

[Jen1995]

I'm sorry, we didn't feel paranoid at all. We had nothing to hide. It was simply a matter of being exhausted, trying to nap and being awakened by pounding (LOUD) at our door. When we said it was not a good time because we were resting, the CM didn't just leave.

I think such a scenario is legimitately distressing and unnerving. I was referring to people who are so scared of terrorism that they will let people walk all over them in exchange for a false promise of safety. If they are that scared of crowded public places maybe Disney isn't the place for them.

 

[kaytieeldr]

How is not fighting a policy you disagree with, when it's directly intruding on your private time, because it's faster to just acquiesce not a stance of convenience? Fighting the policy is the right thing to do because you're standing your ground.

It's reasonable not to argue with a frontline worker performing their assigned duties. Fighting the policy might be the right thing to do, but fighting it with a housekeeper or even security personnel is pointless. It's like teaching a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it irritates the pig.

 

[kaytieeldr]

If you are in a restaurant and your food isn't cooked, do you not say anything because it isn't the waiter's fault? The front line people are the front of the line and they do report their experiences to their superiors.

Tell? Absolutely. Argue (fight) with? Nope.

 

[Jen1995]

Tell? Absolutely. Argue (fight) with? Nope.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that they get into a fistfight with a staff member. But that doesn't mean you need to let them be abusive (regardless of who told them to be that way).

 

[Jen1995]

AMEN. I am the original poster and you have eloquently stated my position throughout your postings. I only wish more people understood the bigger position you are communicating. Ultimately, if we simply acquiesce to these policies today we will discover to our amazement, in the future, worse policies that will be even harder to reverse.

Ultimately, if we vote with our pocketbooks collectively that will send a powerful message. But we still need to communicate the reason why we disagree with this room check policy and back it up with action which will put less money into Disney’s pockets.

Exactly. If I just start staying off site (which I will after this trip) it will have no impact on Disney at all. If I tell them the reasons I am staying off-site, and they are the same reasons hundreds of other families are changing to stay off site, then it will. Disney often reverses bad decisions when the customers complain en masse.

 

[darrengs]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that they get into a fistfight with a staff member. But that doesn't mean you need to let them be abusive (regardless of who told them to be that way).

Unfortunately you are wasting your time trying to explain what you mean. There are a few people on this board that put Disney on a pedestal and take any criticism against Disney personally. Like a poster on here once said if Disney had a cast member standing at the gates punching people in the face as they enetered the park, these posters would defend it.

 

[tex1989]

"Stand your ground". These are the words that a previous poster used in relation to the room check policy at Disney. That scares me a little deep down. That is a law in Florida that relates to the use of deadly force in confrontational situations and is a policy that has absolutely no context in a discussion of this sort. Don't like the policy? Don't stay in a Disney Resort. Simple. Still want to go to Disney but will not tolerate the policy? Stay offsite. Don't like the policy? Write e-mails, letters, make calls, let Disney know you are not happy with the policy. But "stand your ground"? Private property that gives Disney the right to do what they want concerning room checks. Them doing such does not lessen your rights. These are rights you never had to begin with. If Disney wants to ban you for violating their policy it is their right to do so.

I completely understand people feeling the way they do about the room checks as it feels like an invasion of perceived privacy. But the reality is that privacy has never existed when you stay in a hotel/motel, Housekeeping comes to the room everyday. If your ac is not working maintenece will come in your room while you are away to fix it. What we are really talking about here is the fact that you are crossing paths with these people if you are in your room at the same time they want to do what they do everyday. You can resist that's your choice, but to somehow think that this is a new policy meant to somehow ruin your vacation or invade your privacy I can't understand that. Someone was in your room everyday before this became a stated policy and all this policy is doing is actually telling you that they reserve the right to continue doing what they have always done.

So to me it is basically no change to the way it has always been and I am not really sure what the dust up is all about. Of course I have also admitted in another post that I probably don't see any changes because our touring style is get up in the morning, leave the room for the parks all day and not return till later in the evening. We don't often take midday breaks in our room. That's not what we are there for.

Just my observations about a subject that I think is much ado about nothing.

 

[snappy]

I think what the fractalpotato and Jen1995 and others are saying is that it is possible to express displeasure both about a policy and the uneven way it has continued to be implemented without arguing or fighting. Unlike others the policy does and has affected me as my family and I DO spend a lot of time in our DVC “home.” I fail to see why we should not give feedback, we are guests/members not sheep. And it can be expressed to front line staff, and escalated to HK management, and resort management face to face, surveys, emails and calls to Disney and DVC executives. I have done so in the past at Disney and elsewhere without raising my voice or my fists. In person, I am usually able to make my point clear with tone of voice. Not very productive if I bottle it up, or as one poster said somewhere, bend over and grab the ankles.

 

[darrengs]

Never mind.