Arbitrator rules in favor of fired Disney employees

[crazy4wdw]

Arbitrator rules in favor of Disney workers
Employees refused to perform because of 'unsanitary' costumes

Published On: Apr 28 2015 07:43:56 AM EDT, Click Orlando

ORLANDO, Fla. -

An arbitrator has ordered Walt Disney World to reinstate three performers who were dismissed when they refused to wear soiled spandex unitards as part of their costumes for "The Lion King" show.

The arbitrator ruled Monday that Disney violated language in a collective bargaining agreement guaranteeing that all costumes be clean and dry before performers use them.

Disney said the workers carried out an unauthorized work stoppage when they refused to put on the wet unitards last June, forcing the cancellation of a show.

The workers said their clean unitards became wet and sullied while hanging from a rack where sweaty costumes were pushed up against them.

The clean-costume provision was added to the agreement more than a decade ago after incidents of rashes, scabies and other infections.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/arbitrator-rules-in-favor-of-disney-workers/32611852

 

[Josh Hendy]

Wasn't there also some word that the performers had to re-audition for their jobs when the theater moved from Camp Minnie-Mickey to Africa? Besides the issue of health and safety versus insubordination, possibly there was also an attempt to weed out performers who although adequate on stage were considered to be a negative presence in the locker room. Or the performers were using the slightly-damp uniforms as an excuse to protest the stress of having to re-audition for what was really the exact same job.

Do performers in shows like Lion King get greater pay and benefits the longer they are on the job? If so then you can see how there would be a motivation to replace them with newer, lower-paid recruits, especially if the newbs were perceived as being more fresh and enthusiastic. Better for the show and easier to handle backstage.

Not siding with anyone or making excuses, but show biz is really tough. Perhaps it would work better for everyone if they didn't keep putting on the exact same show for more than a decade, it would keep things from getting stale the cast and management would be less irritable.

 

[Magic Fanatic]

Wasn't there also some word that the performers had to re-audition for their jobs when the theater moved from Camp Minnie-Mickey to Africa? Besides the issue of health and safety versus insubordination, possibly there was also an attempt to weed out performers who although adequate on stage were considered to be a negative presence in the locker room. Or the performers were using the slightly-damp uniforms as an excuse to protest the stress of having to re-audition for what was really the exact same job.

Do performers in shows like Lion King get greater pay and benefits the longer they are on the job? If so then you can see how there would be a motivation to replace them with newer, lower-paid recruits, especially if the newbs were perceived as being more fresh and enthusiastic. Better for the show and easier to handle backstage.

Not siding with anyone or making excuses, but show biz is really tough. Perhaps it would work better for everyone if they didn't keep putting on the exact same show for more than a decade, it would keep things from getting stale the cast and management would be less irritable.

You seem to be taking this story and making a lot of assumptions about things that were not mentioned in the article. FYI, the Lion King musical has been touring longer that the Animal Kingdom show, should they rewrite the musical every time they come through your town so it won't be stale? If it is so stale and everyone is so unhappy, why is the show always full? I guess you would rewrite the Hoop De Doo Review as well, it's had the same script and gags since the 70's. Lighten up.

 

[TheSweetestThing]

Wasn't there also some word that the performers had to re-audition for their jobs when the theater moved from Camp Minnie-Mickey to Africa? Besides the issue of health and safety versus insubordination, possibly there was also an attempt to weed out performers who although adequate on stage were considered to be a negative presence in the locker room. Or the performers were using the slightly-damp uniforms as an excuse to protest the stress of having to re-audition for what was really the exact same job.

Do performers in shows like Lion King get greater pay and benefits the longer they are on the job? If so then you can see how there would be a motivation to replace them with newer, lower-paid recruits, especially if the newbs were perceived as being more fresh and enthusiastic. Better for the show and easier to handle backstage.

Not siding with anyone or making excuses, but show biz is really tough. Perhaps it would work better for everyone if they didn't keep putting on the exact same show for more than a decade, it would keep things from getting stale the cast and management would be less irritable.

None of the cast had to re audition. I know as a guest there are several performers who have been there for over ten years, who returned once the show opened in the new location. Only the Equity performers (singers, flying birds, trapeeze guys, and fire guy) have to re negotiate their contracts each year. The performers in the rest of the roles in the show are trained in parades and other shows. If they are no longer part of one show, they still work other shows.

 

[beer dave]

Wasn't there also some word that the performers had to re-audition for their jobs when the theater moved from Camp Minnie-Mickey to Africa? Besides the issue of health and safety versus insubordination, possibly there was also an attempt to weed out performers who although adequate on stage were considered to be a negative presence in the locker room. Or the performers were using the slightly-damp uniforms as an excuse to protest the stress of having to re-audition for what was really the exact same job.

Do performers in shows like Lion King get greater pay and benefits the longer they are on the job? If so then you can see how there would be a motivation to replace them with newer, lower-paid recruits, especially if the newbs were perceived as being more fresh and enthusiastic. Better for the show and easier to handle backstage.

Not siding with anyone or making excuses, but show biz is really tough. Perhaps it would work better for everyone if they didn't keep putting on the exact same show for more than a decade, it would keep things from getting stale the cast and management would be less irritable.

These are good questions-- and I agree with all points you are trying to make ,from a personnel management point of view. And I believe that when you make reference to "shows like Lion King" you are referring to the festival of the lion king and not broadway.

I also recall hearing that the performers were all required to re audition during the move. And some of them made the cut, and some of them didn't. Show biz is tough, and there is always someone to take your place.

 

[Josh Hendy]

You seem to be taking this story and making a lot of assumptions about things that were not mentioned in the article. FYI, the Lion King musical has been touring longer that the Animal Kingdom show, should they rewrite the musical every time they come through your town so it won't be stale? If it is so stale and everyone is so unhappy, why is the show always full? I guess you would rewrite the Hoop De Doo Review as well, it's had the same script and gags since the 70's. Lighten up.

Lighten up yourself. I'm only trying to look at things from both sides, using speculation where the article has obviously left a lot unsaid.

If you like to watch the exact same show with the exact same script, same soundtrack and same dance moves year after year for more than 10 years, that's great. Other people however dislike seeing the same show every year when they go to WDW and don't understand why a company with such a huge catalog of music and shows doesn't try a bit harder to mix things up a bit.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that there is a possibility that performers and management can become tired and cranky doing the exact same thing 3 times a day for 10 years, and that _maybe_ some tensions can build up. Well, obviously tensions built up which is why management dug in their heels and refused to do something about the costume problem and performers also dug in their heels and refused to wear the costumes even at risk of losing their job.

Acknowledging that a serious problem happened in the presentation of this show and speculating as to the causes and solutions is not being hypercritical, it's an expression of natural curiosity motivated by the desire to watch quality shows while I'm on vacation, plus a lot of sympathy for the people who put on the shows.

 

[Magic Fanatic]

Lighten up yourself. I'm only trying to look at things from both sides, using speculation where the article has obviously left a lot unsaid.

If you like to watch the exact same show with the exact same script, same soundtrack and same dance moves year after year for more than 10 years, that's great. Other people however dislike seeing the same show every year when they go to WDW and don't understand why a company with such a huge catalog of music and shows doesn't try a bit harder to mix things up a bit.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that there is a possibility that performers and management can become tired and cranky doing the exact same thing 3 times a day for 10 years, and that _maybe_ some tensions can build up. Well, obviously tensions built up which is why management dug in their heels and refused to do something about the costume problem and performers also dug in their heels and refused to wear the costumes even at risk of losing their job.

Acknowledging that a serious problem happened in the presentation of this show and speculating as to the causes and solutions is not being hypercritical, it's an expression of natural curiosity motivated by the desire to watch quality shows while I'm on vacation, plus a lot of sympathy for the people who put on the shows.

Sorry, but you stick to the "boring and stale" argument, but it just doesn't hold up. The Lion King remains because it continues to be the most popular show at Disney World, once it begins to fade in popularity it will be changed, just as Beauty And The Beast (24 year run), Tarzan Rocks (7 year run) yet Hoop De Doo Music Review (40+ years and still going) remains popular.

Sorry, but if you really feel that these performers get "tired and cranky from doing the same thing for 3 times a day for 10 years", then maybe you don't understand the meaning of employment. If your job makes you "tired and cranky" then you have the right to go find another one that makes you happy, your employer has no obligation to restructure the job just so you are no longer "tired and cranky".

I do agree though, Disney should have given them clean panty hose, tights (or what every you call those things) to wear. Nothing worse than a guy in a monkey suit with BO.