Cast Members Rally

[Gumbo4x4]

If I, as a taxpayer has to contribute to those benefits being given while the CEO takes home record bonuses, then I will say that they should be raising the minimum wage. As far as costs of product - while that contributes in part - also factored in is what people are willing to pay. Prices have gone up CEO pay has gone up, worker wages have remained the same. The gap is widening. One study showed that if walmart paid their employees 12.00 per hour, they would need to raise the prices 1% to cover the costs - so, if I usually pay 150$ at Walmart. I would now need to pay $151.50 in exchange several workers fall off the welfare list. Seems like a fair trade to me.
At Disney, you would not need to raise the ticket price 25% in order to pay a fair wage.

The problem with this line of thinking is 2-fold.

First, the CEO is in a position where his or her decisions could mean the difference in millions of dollars in profits OR millions of dollars in losses. An individual CM is unlikely to have any positive or negative impact on profits at all.

Second, assuming you could even get a suitable CEO at a drastically reduced salary, spreading those millions of dollars saved over 10's of thousands of low-end employees wouldn't add anything significant to their pay.

In the end, there appears to be a nearly endless supply of people who are willing and even eager to do the low end jobs for Disney. That makes all such personnel easily replaceable. And if you are easily replaceable, you are not likely to ever make much salary. If you're VERY good at such a job, you could wind up with a promotion to a different position with more pay and benefits. But, the downside is that such jobs come with more responsibility, more accountability, and probably aren't as "cool" as some CM jobs.

 

[lauradis]

The problem with this line of thinking is 2-fold.

First, the CEO is in a position where his or her decisions could mean the difference in millions of dollars in profits OR millions of dollars in losses. An individual CM is unlikely to have any positive or negative impact on profits at all.

Second, assuming you could even get a suitable CEO at a drastically reduced salary, spreading those millions of dollars saved over 10's of thousands of low-end employees wouldn't add anything significant to their pay.

In the end, there appears to be a nearly endless supply of people who are willing and even eager to do the low end jobs for Disney. That makes all such personnel easily replaceable. And if you are easily replaceable, you are not likely to ever make much salary. If you're VERY good at such a job, you could wind up with a promotion to a different position with more pay and benefits. But, the downside is that such jobs come with more responsibility, more accountability, and probably aren't as "cool" as some CM jobs.

If cm do a mediocre job because of neg feelings towards company Disney profits will suffer.

In all honesty part of Disney magic is the cm and the way they treat you. How many times have you seen complaints about employees from the dark side on this board. Without Disney customer service aka cm they are just another run of the mill amusement park.

Happy, well paid employees are profit makers.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

If cm do a mediocre job because of neg feelings towards company Disney profits will suffer.

In all honesty part of Disney magic is the cm and the way they treat you. How many times have you seen complaints about employees from the dark side on this board. Without Disney customer service aka cm they are just another run of the mill amusement park.

Happy, well paid employees are profit makers.

Disagree. I don't think a single CM has that much power to have any real impact. If they ALL feel negative, sure. But, again there are so many people begging for these jobs that the bad ones aren't likely to last long.

 

[skatalite]

Disagree. I don't think a single CM has that much power to have any real impact. If they ALL feel negative, sure. But, again there are so many people begging for these jobs that the bad ones aren't likely to last long.

Yeah, I'm with Gumbo on this one. One, two, or five CMs don't affect the company's bottom line the same way a CEO does. If a CM is generally crappy, or breaks the rules, they're booted because they're easily replaced.

 

[hopemax]

If a CM is generally crappy, or breaks the rules, they're booted because they're easily replaced.

Anecdotal experience from CM's, bad CM's aren't recognized as such, because there is no oversight. If you are constantly late, that will show up as points on your record and they may do something. Caught for theft, termination. But if you show up, but don't really know or perform your job responsibilities nothing really happens. And if another CM dares to mention that another CM isn't pulling their weight, then "they aren't being a team player" and is likely to be written up themselves. Things that don't get done are pushed to another shift or another team (morning shift leaves things for the late shift or vice versa. In merchandise, shop CMs will leave messes for the early morning stock crew to handle) or the one or two people on your shift who actually know what to do or care, are overburdened. They end up getting burned out and quit or transfer into positions that they have heard has better and more visible management. No one is checking to see if 3 people in a shop are actively helping guests, or if 2 of them have slipped into an offstage area, leaving it up to one person to ring up everyone in the shop. It's a place where people have perfected the art of looking busy. The one person can't handle everything, some people give up waiting in line (lost sales), some other people take advantage of an overwhelmed CM to take a "five fingered discount." But the guest may only see the one CM working hard with a smile and think, "That's what I expect from Disney." Or the CM that has figured out that as long as they chat up every guest they see, they don't have to run the register or do other tasks they don't want to do. I think we can all appreciate a friendly CM, but for the company that friendliness should not extend to the point where sales aren't being made or work not being done.

No a single CM will not have an impact, but the productivity problem is a far bigger problem then I think people want to believe. "This is Disney! A successful multi-national company, there would be no way they would allow themselves to become so inefficient!" But the same can be said about a many a defunct company. I think what is going on at Disney is akin to some of the issues Walmart is facing in regards to their labor issues, and I suspect we'll here from other companies facing similar issues in the years to come. Disney or any company doesn't just need bodies, they need productive bodies.

 

[eliza61]

Last I checked, the United States wasn't a socialist country.

Employers can't be forced to give raises, with the exception of following an increase in the minimum wage. CEOs typically have contracts that spell out their compensation. If the CEO gets paid what their contract spells out then there should be no complaining. Eisner made a boat-load of money but he was paid for doing the job his contract called for.

"But he made too much money!".

Who is to say what "too much money" is? The government? That's a slippery slope comment right there.

Fast food employees are trying to unionize in my area. If that happens, that $1 burger I can get a McDonalds will now be $2. The company isn't going to lose money or reduce their profits - they'll pass the extra cost onto the consumer.

Same goes for Disney - if employee pay goes up you can bet that $99 dollar ticket that people are complaining about will be $125

So what's the excuse for the latest round of ticket prices increasing. we just had a ticket increase and ticket prices have gone up every year. moral of this tale. Disney does annual increases whether salaries go up or not.

The problem with this line of thinking is 2-fold.



In the end, there appears to be a nearly endless supply of people who are willing and even eager to do the low end jobs for Disney. That makes all such personnel easily replaceable. And if you are easily replaceable, you are not likely to ever make much salary. If you're VERY good at such a job, you could wind up with a promotion to a different position with more pay and benefits. But, the downside is that such jobs come with more responsibility, more accountability, and probably aren't as "cool" as some CM jobs.

Eisner didn't get called out for making a boat load of money, he got complaints because he was a crappy ceo and got a boat load of money. Stockholders stripped him of his CEO and the man had to do the equivalent of sneaking out of town at midnight.

I think the ceo salary contributes to the perception of unfairness. How many of the ceo's of the financial industries catastrophe got crap loads of money for ruining the banks. If I don't perform at my job I get canned without a golden parachute.
So being a ceo, even a stupid one is a win-win job. I would love a position where I can take my company on the brink of disaster and walk away with a 50million dollar compensation package.

So what accountability is there? Now in the interest of full disclosures I think CEO's are pretty replaceable. most have boards that probably know as much if not more than they and like I said it's a pretty sweet deal.

For example in my late husbands business of oil and natural gas, a guy name Tom Ward led his company to operating losses of 550 million (that;s 1/2 billion bucks folks. talk about America get your billion back) and then negotiated a deal that netted him 200 million in total compensation.

So why is he a genius yet the poor scrub working at the refinery asking for a 2.5% raise the bad guy?
Yet no one think that's a problem.

Don't even get me started on what the genius from Jc penny got when he got canned for destroying JC Pennys

 

[bunkkinsmom]

Just my 2 cents.

I live in a RTW state. I started with a MAJOR corporation in 2003. One of Forbes top ten places to work for. Loved it, the first job my husband ever said he was proud that I had. I had over 20 years of experience in restaurants when I went to work for Starbucks. For the first 3 years I was in heaven. HEAVEN. Loved the company, loved the hours, loved the job. Then around 2006 Howard came back. Everyone just was all in love and was so excited about Howard Schultz coming back to lead the company again. It was a disaster. Starbucks laid off almost all ASM's, and lots of VERY tenured VPs. Including the Regional Director of our area. This was the same man who was with the company for over 16 years, and the guy that walked into the original store many years earlier and said, "You know, you could make a lot of money if you could find a way to bag this coffee and sell it on the shelves instead of scooping it out of barrels. All you need is a one way valve to let the air out but not in". Of course now bags of Starbucks are in every store and most major grocery stores. Yep, he got laid off too, and I guarantee you he made the company MILLIONS.

At any rate, we got a new District Manager (over about 13 stores) who hated me. HATED me. But no matter how much she hated me, I still kept winning awards because numbers and customer service awards don't lie. It took her over 3 years to fire me, and she fired me for something that her best friend (who was also a store manager and they came to the company together) did as well and didn't even get written up. Was I bitter? You betcha. Was I angry? Yessir. But what it comes down to is that the company changed. In reality, I wasn't mad at her. I was mad at Starbucks for no longer being the utopian work place that I started with.

So when I was fired (I refused to quit) I filed for unemployment. Starbucks denied it. So I appealed. I showed up to the appeal with a briefcase full of awards, citations, records held, and letters from customers AND higher management praising my performance. When they saw that, they didn't even fight me. I lost my job, but I proved my point. Starbucks of course did nothing to the DM, but the sales in that store have dropped dramatically since I left.

I did my job, I did it well, and I KEPT RECORDS. When I asked for a raise, I had DOCUMENTATION that I DESERVED one, not just was owed one because it had been a year and I wanted my 5%. Towards the end, I wasn't allowed much of one anyway because of the salary cap.

As far as unions, I don't have much experience in that. But I do know that the little experience I have I don't like. My hubby owns his own company and we had a local company hire us to go to NY and film their production plant. They had to pay us an extra travel day and extra expenses (including hotel and food) because after 3PM there was not a "driver" there to pull a truck out of a bay. There were managers there who would've done it, but they would've gotten in trouble for taking work from a Union worker. For driving a truck 50 feet. I'm serious. Same company, hired a manager and transferred him to NY from a RTW state. He arrived on a Friday and wanted to paint his office. Over the weekend, he went and bought paint and did the work. The company had to pay union workers to come in and repaint it because he "took hours from the union". True story.

IMHO................ If you don't like your job, leave. If you want a raise, prove you earned it. If there is an INJUSTICE, then stand up and shout until there isn't one anymore. But frankly, this isn't an injustice.

 

[lauradis]

Just my 2 cents.

I live in a RTW state. I started with a MAJOR corporation in 2003. One of Forbes top ten places to work for. Loved it, the first job my husband ever said he was proud that I had. I had over 20 years of experience in restaurants when I went to work for Starbucks. For the first 3 years I was in heaven. HEAVEN. Loved the company, loved the hours, loved the job. Then around 2006 Howard came back. Everyone just was all in love and was so excited about Howard Schultz coming back to lead the company again. It was a disaster. Starbucks laid off almost all ASM's, and lots of VERY tenured VPs. Including the Regional Director of our area. This was the same man who was with the company for over 16 years, and the guy that walked into the original store many years earlier and said, "You know, you could make a lot of money if you could find a way to bag this coffee and sell it on the shelves instead of scooping it out of barrels. All you need is a one way valve to let the air out but not in". Of course now bags of Starbucks are in every store and most major grocery stores. Yep, he got laid off too, and I guarantee you he made the company MILLIONS.

At any rate, we got a new District Manager (over about 13 stores) who hated me. HATED me. But no matter how much she hated me, I still kept winning awards because numbers and customer service awards don't lie. It took her over 3 years to fire me, and she fired me for something that her best friend (who was also a store manager and they came to the company together) did as well and didn't even get written up. Was I bitter? You betcha. Was I angry? Yessir. But what it comes down to is that the company changed. In reality, I wasn't mad at her. I was mad at Starbucks for no longer being the utopian work place that I started with.

So when I was fired (I refused to quit) I filed for unemployment. Starbucks denied it. So I appealed. I showed up to the appeal with a briefcase full of awards, citations, records held, and letters from customers AND higher management praising my performance. When they saw that, they didn't even fight me. I lost my job, but I proved my point. Starbucks of course did nothing to the DM, but the sales in that store have dropped dramatically since I left.

I did my job, I did it well, and I KEPT RECORDS. When I asked for a raise, I had DOCUMENTATION that I DESERVED one, not just was owed one because it had been a year and I wanted my 5%. Towards the end, I wasn't allowed much of one anyway because of the salary cap.

As far as unions, I don't have much experience in that. But I do know that the little experience I have I don't like. My hubby owns his own company and we had a local company hire us to go to NY and film their production plant. They had to pay us an extra travel day and extra expenses (including hotel and food) because after 3PM there was not a "driver" there to pull a truck out of a bay. There were managers there who would've done it, but they would've gotten in trouble for taking work from a Union worker. For driving a truck 50 feet. I'm serious. Same company, hired a manager and transferred him to NY from a RTW state. He arrived on a Friday and wanted to paint his office. Over the weekend, he went and bought paint and did the work. The company had to pay union workers to come in and repaint it because he "took hours from the union". True story.

IMHO................ If you don't like your job, leave. If you want a raise, prove you earned it. If there is an INJUSTICE, then stand up and shout until there isn't one anymore. But frankly, this isn't an injustice.

See the fact that the major of companies I know of have salary caps, so you don't get a raise even if you truly deserve one. We are talking Disney world so that is mostly retail and hotels.

Union do serve a purpose. Not all unions are the extreme of NY union labor practices.

Unions in hotels serve the purpose not just for wages, but to make the work load reasonable.

It is almost physically impossible to clean over 20 hotel rooms in a day and do a good job. That's 40 beds 140 towels max.

How long is reasonable to stand behind a front desk smiling?

How long should a lifeguard be on duty at the pool?

The list is long of what a union contract provides, but everyone get all hung up on the money.

Lets be grown up about this not all companies are will to pay the people that product their profits with a fair wage.

How about we start off with all the people willing to scrub your toilet cleans, sweep up the trash that you threw on the ground, smile at your rude child and try to make your day better,,, with at least $12 hr the cap can be double that.

Min wage really should be at least $12.00 hr. in fla

 

[ICF]

Min wage really should be at least $12.00 hr. in fla

Why? You could make an argument for any state, but no offense to those living in Fla, but nothing about that state should mandate a $12/hr minimum wage vs the other 49.

 

[lauradis]

Why? You could make an argument for any state, but no offense to those living in Fla, but nothing about that state should mandate a $12/hr minimum wage vs the other 49.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1209553000

There are plenty of charts and formulas out there. why wouldnt a state want their residents to earn more money to pay more state taxes and use less public aid?

 

[ICF]

http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/1209553000

There are plenty of charts and formulas out there. why wouldnt a state want their residents to earn more money to pay more state taxes and use less public aid?

Using that logic, the government should have a minimum wage of $50/hr b/c it will generate more tax revenue.

A lot more goes into it then just wanting higher minimum wages to generate more tax revenue.

Forcing companies to paying a 50% increase in minimum wage would cause many small businesses to shut down.

 

[S. C.]

Disagree; this is why. One goes on an interview; agrees to xyz; takes the job; works hard year after year; no raise, ever: little to no medical benefits offered; Not Right! Businesses take advantage (not all, but many do). Starting at a minimum wage does not mean one should stay at minimum wage indefinitely. I have friends who work for Disney; very hard, dedicated workers who have been trying to make more money; but always denied; who have been trying to become full time; but denied. Not Right!

As for Disney raising prices; They do it anyway; Didn't you hear they just raised ticket prices?

I say good for them. They should gather and stand strong together. Look at unions.

Well said!

A rally is taking responsibility. It just a public way. It is saying, no you do not get to take advantage of me simply because I am an employee.
It also says that you have a policy that more than a few people have an issue with.
I take responsibility for my fate, one way I do that is by NOT allowing some one use me. Whether it's a spouse, a friend or an employee.

It all depends on how you look at it, some chose to stand their ground and try to change inequality, some say, I'll leave.

 

[lauradis]

Using that logic, the government should have a minimum wage of $50/hr b/c it will generate more tax revenue.

A lot more goes into it then just wanting higher minimum wages to generate more tax revenue.

Forcing companies to paying a 50% increase in minimum wage would cause many small businesses to shut down.

so small businesses are the reason a large profitable company like Disney can't pay their employees a livable wage?

We wouldn't need unions or minimum wage if companies where more fair with their employees or actually pay federal and state taxes at the same rate as most of the rich people that earn 125k-250k.

They have to pick one, the middle class cant take much more.

8% increase in profit in just the parks? and Disney offers less then have an increase to employees current wages. That's called greed.

http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/q4-fy13-earnings.pdf

This is just the most current of disney not paying their fair share in taxes.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-12-09/business/os-disney-offshore-profits-taxes-20131206_1_walt-disney-world-u-s-senate-profits

I say pay a livable wage. large profit breaking companies should do it for the good of the country.

You show me articles where Disney is being fair with their employees with out cutting hours or asking for more work with out more pay all the while making a larger profit.

 

[ICF]

I like Disney making large profits --- it helps their stock price, which makes me happy. A company like Disney is supposed to maximize value for their shareholders...not the good of the country. Of course the increased ticket prices I have to pay helps temper some of that excitement..

A "livable" wage varies across the state and the country -- If you can't live on the wage your job is paying.....find a new job, get a second job, find a roommate or cut back your expenses.

A company -- no matter their size or profit levels -- is only required to pay whatever the minimum wage in their state is. Some pay more, some don't.....what Disney is doing is well within their right. If you don't approve, stop supporting them.

My company -- large Fortune 100 -- hasnt given across the board raises since 2010. I can choose to stay there and make the same or find something else. I'd love for them to give me the 3.5% raise that Disney wants to give their employees.

 

[FlyingDumbo]

I like Disney making large profits --- it helps their stock price, which makes me happy. A company like Disney is supposed to maximize value for their shareholders...not the good of the country. Of course the increased ticket prices I have to pay helps temper some of that excitement..

A "livable" wage varies across the state and the country -- If you can't live on the wage your job is paying.....find a new job, get a second job, find a roommate or cut back your expenses.

A company -- no matter their size or profit levels -- is only required to pay whatever the minimum wage in their state is. Some pay more, some don't.....what Disney is doing is well within their right. If you don't approve, stop supporting them.

My company -- large Fortune 100 -- hasnt given across the board raises since 2010. I can choose to stay there and make the same or find something else. I'd love for them to give me the 3.5% raise that Disney wants to give their employees.

So if you lived in another country and worked in a sweat shop, would you say, if you don't like it quit and go find another sweat shop? I mean at what point does the employer hold some responsibility? It is easy to say go somewhere else, but not everyone has the ability to do that. If they did, no one would take the jobs no one wants to do. But the work still needs to get done, no?

 

[ICF]

So if you lived in another country and worked in a sweat shop, would you say, if you don't like it quit and go find another sweat shop? I mean at what point does the employer hold some responsibility? It is easy to say go somewhere else, but not everyone has the ability to do that. If they did, no one would take the jobs no one wants to do. But the work still needs to get done, no?

Seriously, we're now comparing Disney to a 3rd world sweatshop? We are talking about "other countries" unless you want to bring Disney Paris, HK or the rest into the discussion other countries aren't relevant to this.

If the "work still needs to get done" mantra is true -- and Disney can't find people to do it at minimum wage.....they would be forced to pay enough to entice people to "do the work".

As long as they have an ample pool of people wanting to work at Disney and agreeing to do the job listed at the pay listed (again, nobody forced these people to take a minimum wage job at Disney-- they applied for it) then Disney has no real incentive to pay more.

Sorry but IMO, minimally skilled jobs that require no real education are the exact jobs that should be paying minimum wage.

 

[eliza61]

Seriously, we're now comparing Disney to a 3rd world sweatshop? We are talking about "other countries" unless you want to bring Disney Paris, HK or the rest into the discussion other countries aren't relevant to this.

If the "work still needs to get done" mantra is true -- and Disney can't find people to do it at minimum wage.....they would be forced to pay enough to entice people to "do the work".

As long as they have an ample pool of people wanting to work at Disney and agreeing to do the job listed at the pay listed (again, nobody forced these people to take a minimum wage job at Disney-- they applied for it) then Disney has no real incentive to pay more.

Sorry but IMO, minimally skilled jobs that require no real education are the exact jobs that should be paying minimum wage.

truck drivers, window washers and many other jobs that require no real education and are all jobs that pay well over the minimum wage.
Toll booth collectors, fisherman (although potentiall dangerous). sanititation workers (garbage collectors) all require no format education and yet are good paying jobs with benefits.

Education does not always equal skill nor should it automatically equal better salaries

We fight that fight in my industry. When I worked at a power plant, you had plant operators who knew their job inside and out, yet some idiotic kid out of college comes in and just because he had a BS, seemed to think he was "all that".
Union took care of that notion when it went on strike and left management in charge. LOL about 2 days of public outcry because management was supremely inept and power kept going out pretty much got them a new pay structure.

 

[ColoradoDisneyFreaks]

Sorry but IMO, minimally skilled jobs that require no real education are the exact jobs that should be paying minimum wage.

truck drivers, window washers and many other jobs that require no real education and are all jobs that pay well over the minimum wage.
Toll booth collectors, fisherman (although potentiall dangerous). sanititation workers (garbage collectors) all require no format education and yet are good paying jobs with benefits.

Education does not always equal skill nor should it automatically equal better salaries

We fight that fight in my industry. When I worked at a power plant, you had plant operators who knew their job inside and out, yet some idiotic kid out of college comes in and just because he had a BS, seemed to think he was "all that".
Union took care of that notion when it went on strike and left management in charge. LOL about 2 days of public outcry because management was supremely inept and power kept going out pretty much got them a new pay structure.

You ignored the part of the quote that said minimally skilled. All of the jobs you listed are either skilled trades, or are jobs that don't have a large pool of people who are waiting to get those jobs, so the wages are higher (trash collectors). Just because they don't require post-secondary education, doesn't mean they aren't worth more than minimum wage, this is an argument that is comparing apples and oranges. I agree with ICF, if there weren't thousands of people who were willing to work for Disney at the current salaries, and they had difficulty finding people to fill the jobs, then the pay rate would go up.

 

[Wall-E1]

But that still doesn't mean Disney is treating their employees unfairly or somehow "not right".

To me, as long as an employer is following the law (paying minimum wage, following OT rules, etc), then it's "right" AND "fair".

I'm not against the rallies or the employees. What I'm against is people flat out saying Disney has not been "fair" or is not treating employees "right" because of a bunch of employees held a rally. Both those claims are in this thread, but no one has provided an example of either. Oh wait, one former employee said they didn't get paid for the 20-30 minutes it took to get from their parking lot to the gates.

IMHO................ If you don't like your job, leave. If you want a raise, prove you earned it. If there is an INJUSTICE, then stand up and shout until there isn't one anymore. But frankly, this isn't an injustice.

I don't think Disney is treating their employees fairly in relation to upper executive pay/increasing profit margins. I see an injustice. CEO pay has exploded in many large corporations, while hourly wage employee compensation has almost stagnated in comparison. In my opinion, increased profits and pay should be spread more evenly throughout the company. Disney CEO compensation fluctuates between 35 - 50 million annually. That's about 500 - 600 times more than the average companywide worker salary($50,000). When compared to the average cast member salary($20,000, and around 25,000 cast members), that gap widens to about 2,000 times more than an average cast member salary. I understand that a CEO ha much more responsibility than a cast member, but I also think that a CEO making 2,000 times more than an average cast member is unfair and obscene. I think that a CEO making 100 or 200 times more than the average worker is more than fair. But, it has become a money grab for the top executives of large corporations, to the detriment of tens of thousands of workers below them. If a Disney CEO were paid 200 times more than the average worker salary(500 times more than the average cast member), he would still take in ten million dollars annually. The money they saved by bringing the CEO pay to a more reasonable number could be redistributed to the 25,000 cast members and give them an almost 60 cent an hour raise. So, one man's excessive compensation is preventing 25,000 other workers from having an additional $1,200 in their pocket yearly. Essentially, each cast member could receive a 6% raise without costing the Disney company a cent if they would only redistribute the CEO's excessive pay and spread it more evenly amongst the lower wage cast members.

Another thing that I find unfair in relation to cast member pay vs. CEO/executive pay is how they are paid. CEO's are given a "low" base salary, but their compensation is padded with performance pay. This is a legal way for CEO's to avoid paying taxes on their earnings. There is a tax law that puts a cap of $1,000,000 on the amount of pay that can be tax deductible., but there is a loophole that makes an exception for performance pay. That is not taxable. So(for an example), a CEO could be getting 2 million dollars in salary, but another 10 or 20 million in performance pay, which is not taxable. Knowing this, CEO's now work to artificially inflate the value of their stock options in order to increase their own personal performance pay, without regard for the many employees working for the corporation. Using the tax loophole, a CEO could make 20, 30, 40 million dollars and only pay taxes on a million or so. For some reason, Disney doesn't give their cast members non taxable performance pay. Why does Disney think it is fair that upper management should get non taxable compensation, but lower wage workers should have to report all of their compensation as taxable? This is an example of a practice that Disney engages in that is legal, but not fair. (IMO)

So… I do not feel that Disney is treating their lower wage workers fairly, especially when compared to the CEO/upper management. They may be acting legally, but there is a difference between acting legally and treating someone fairly. Again… IMO.

I like Disney making large profits --- it helps their stock price, which makes me happy. A company like Disney is supposed to maximize value for their shareholders...not the good of the country.

This goes beyond a company doing something for "the good of the country." Their business practices are bad and harmful to the country(not just Disney, many large corporations). Paying workers less than a livable salary costs all of us taxpayers money when we have to provide assistance to them. And the performance pay that that these corporations give out allows certain people to not pay their fair share of taxes. They may be paying their legal share, but it is certainly not a fair share. I'm not saying that a corporation needs to do something for the "good of the country", but they should at least be required to operate in a fashion that is not harming the country. We taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize their workers with assistance programs so that the CEO's can maximize profits for shareholders.

Also, it doesn't need to be one or the other - happy shareholders or happy workers. A company can have both if they take a more balanced approach to how they run their company. For example - Costco. The average pay companywide for a Costco employee is about $22 an hour, or $45,000 annually(starting pay is $11.50 an hour). CEO makes about 5 million annually(about 110 times higher than the average worker). It's stock prices have doubled since 2009. It's a win-win for everyone. Corporations simply needs to reign in the greed at the top.

 

[FlyingDumbo]

Seriously, we're now comparing Disney to a 3rd world sweatshop? We are talking about "other countries" unless you want to bring Disney Paris, HK or the rest into the discussion other countries aren't relevant to this.

If the "work still needs to get done" mantra is true -- and Disney can't find people to do it at minimum wage.....they would be forced to pay enough to entice people to "do the work".

As long as they have an ample pool of people wanting to work at Disney and agreeing to do the job listed at the pay listed (again, nobody forced these people to take a minimum wage job at Disney-- they applied for it) then Disney has no real incentive to pay more.

Sorry but IMO, minimally skilled jobs that require no real education are the exact jobs that should be paying minimum wage.

I was not comparing Disney to a third world sweatshop. I was asking the opinion of all the people who keep saying "if you do not like your job( in general) go get another one". Not everyone can do that. I volunteer with a group of teen parents and the things I see are scary. Employers get away with a lot when they think people cannot defend themselves. My employer fired someone for being pregnant. That is not the reason they gave her, but thats why they did it. And you could tell her to go get another job if she doesn't like it, but a lot of people won't hire someone visibly pregnant knowing they have a baby coming. Is it right? Of course not. Does it happen? Every day. These kids get treated poorly all the time. A lot of them can and will improve their skills, but they need to pay their bills while they are working on it. And these kids in this program work and go to school. They are not sitting at home on the couch.