Cast Members Rally

[hopemax]

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.

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.

Just remember, that these so called "thousands lined up" are not from the local labor pool. Here's an article from 1998 that talks about where Disney has started filling its labor needs. And now we're 16 years later, and Disney is 16 years more invested in that process.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ns-disney-theme-parks-disney-s-animal-kingdom

That's something that Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations capitalism never predicted. That profit makers would "short circuit" the local economy. So if you're sitting around waiting for local market conditions to warrant labor cost increases, you'll be waiting a very long time, because you have to wait for the global labor market to change. There will always be a location from where the big multi-nationals can "import" their labor from, to avoid wage increases that the local economy might have required otherwise.

But again, many of these imported bodies are temporary. They never gain any mastery which will allow Disney's system to operate efficiency. And "mastery" is even more important now with the amount of technology Disney has introduced into its parks. Registers are computers, the attractions are computers and machines, the turnstyles and ticket handling, My Magic+ is all technology oriented. You can't just grab a person off the street, hand them a datapad, dump them at the Wait Times Board and tell them "help guests with FP+" in the same way that in 1972, Disney could hire someone off the street and say "collect E-tickets." Disney's jobs increasingly are becoming skilled positions.

Something's gonna give, and given the lack of understanding Disney has regarding its own theme park operations that they have shown during the My Magic+ rollout, I am not positive that Disney will A. recognize the deficiencies, B. Since they are a behemoth now, be able to move quickly enough to rectify it.

 

[sam_gordon]

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.

Valid point. My only problem is I don't want a 3rd party coming in and telling a CEO "you can only make 'x' amount of dollars". Do I think CEOs make "too much"? Yes. But what is "too much"? And if someone (outside the organization) limit how much a company can pay an employee, what's to stop them from saying "Wall-E1, YOU make too much money."?

 

[sam_gordon]

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.

When I started at my current employer, I was paid .25/hour over minimum wage. Hey, it was great for someone still in college. In the last 23 years, my salary has magnified a LOT. It didn't come just from yearly raises. It happened because I busted my tail and used downtime to learn other, better paying jobs. Sometimes that meant coming in during my time off. Sometimes that meant cutting a lunch break short. Sometimes that meant utilizing my "downtime". I talked to coworkers and asked them to teach me what they do. I was able to move up the ranks. Promotions = more pay.

My boss & I talk occasionally (he actually came up the same way I did but in a different department). Many folks have come to him over the years asking for formal training on new positions. They want to be scheduled and paid for that training. If they're not paid for the training, they're not interested. He doesn't mind paying for them, but he wants to see some motivation on THEIR part that they actually want to move up.

It's not just about going to another employer. Presumably you can move up through the ranks at Disney also. Be willing to accept some more responsibility and maybe some more money comes with it. Find out what it takes to become a "lead" (I think that's what Disney calls their supervisors). Put some effort out.

 

[hopemax]

Presumably you can move up through the ranks at Disney also. Be willing to accept some more responsibility and maybe some more money comes with it. Find out what it takes to become a "lead" (I think that's what Disney calls their supervisors). Put some effort out.

Not as easily as you might think, and pay is not as much as you might think either. Couldn't find numbers for Disney, but did find reference to Universal that their regular attractions host is $7.80, Attractions lead is $9.06. I would expect Disney's spread between regular and lead to be in the similar $1.25 category. Same thing for Disney "Trainers." Any other "working up" I believe requires people come through Disney's management program where you need things like college degrees. From a family members personal experience, they had 5+ years as Assistant Manager of a Disney Store location, and that meant absolutely nothing in terms of pay or responsibilities. And in fact, when they tried to exert some responsibility there were issues with other CM's because person was "making them look bad" or "trying to do someone else's job." You would think Disney would want to take advantage of someone with retail management skills, but unless you come through a specific door, they don't want it.

 

[sam_gordon]

Not as easily as you might think, and pay is not as much as you might think either. Couldn't find numbers for Disney, but did find reference to Universal that their regular attractions host is $7.80, Attractions lead is $9.06. I would expect Disney's spread between regular and lead to be in the similar $1.25 category. Same thing for Disney "Trainers." Any other "working up" I believe requires people come through Disney's management program where you need things like college degrees. From a family members personal experience, they had 5+ years as Assistant Manager of a Disney Store location, and that meant absolutely nothing in terms of pay or responsibilities. And in fact, when they tried to exert some responsibility there were issues with other CM's because person was "making them look bad" or "trying to do someone else's job." You would think Disney would want to take advantage of someone with retail management skills, but unless you come through a specific door, they don't want it.

All I can say is there are jerks everywhere.

BTW, jumping from $7.80 to $9.06 is a 16% raise. But that's not enough? I guess everyone should give 20% raises to everyone. Or maybe 25%? How much is enough?

 

[Wall-E1]

BTW, jumping from $7.80 to $9.06 is a 16% raise. But that's not enough? I guess everyone should give 20% raises to everyone. Or maybe 25%? How much is enough?

Enough would be a livable wage. A wage where taxpayers did not need to carry the burden of subsidizing these employees with assistance programs while the corporation CEO's are walking away with record profits and giving themselves one or two million dollar raises each year.

I do think 875% is enough of a raise for these CEO's…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryn...-more-than-twice-as-much-as-the-stock-market/

From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.

In 2012, the average CEO at one of the top 350 biggest publicly traded companies earned $14.1 million, an increase of nearly 13 percent since 2011 and more than 37 percent since 2009.


Kinda puts the $1.25 raises into perspective(not really a raise anyway, it's an increase of pay for accepting a higher position within the company. This should be considered separately from the standard "yearly raise evaluation" where a worker is given increased salary for working in the same position within the company). In contrast, the CEO's have been rewarding themselves with an average 1 - 2 million dollar per year raises over the past few years. How much is enough for them?

 

[hopemax]

BTW, jumping from $7.80 to $9.06 is a 16% raise. But that's not enough? I guess everyone should give 20% raises to everyone. Or maybe 25%? How much is enough?

But we're dealing with small numbers here. What may be appropriate for one end of the scale is not always appropriate for another part of the scale.

You used Disney's Lead position as an example as to what someone could work toward. But Disney's Lead pay in the grand scale of wages is still below a "living wage." Still only in the realm of appropriate for a single person, "college job" type thing. A job where you would have to expect that turnover would still be frequent as people move on to other types of jobs.

But are Disney Leads jobs that should have people "move away from" or are they the type of jobs that you would want people to stick around in so not only can they do their jobs more productively, but because they will have a level of knowledge that they can pass onto others and ensure that all proper procedures are followed, even the more obscure but important stuff? Same with their Trainers. At Disney, the Trainers are often asked to train people for job duties that they themselves do not know how to do, sometimes partly, sometimes fully. Is that the way to build a productive, knowledgeable staff?

And without that, mistakes will be make, things will slip through cracks and a lot more "I didn't know about that." Sometimes it's minor, like introducing new guest charging procedures without making sure the person ringing them up completes all the new steps to actually charge the guests and so guests don't walk off with a bag of merchandise that they attempted to pay for but the transaction did not fully process so Disney ended up accidentally giving the merchandise away instead. Multiply that by several guests, and you could see how that could be a bad day for some locations when the reports came in.

Sometimes it's major with incidents like the Columbia accident at Disneyland. Failure of maintaining proper supervisory roles not only led to the death of a guest and the associated resulting payouts, returning the Lead system to the theme park, but what has to be even more costly to the company overall; Disneyland losing the ability to "self police" themselves and subjected them to state regulations and oversight for the first time in their then 45 year history. Because of their proven critical link between the Leads and the safe operation of the theme parks "heavy machinery" there is a big of a disconnect that their "worth" is only a little more than $9 an hour. People point to Disney's stellar safety record and reputation, but as previously provided, in 1989 Disney was paying 50% more than minimum wage (and that's actually down from pre-Eisner wages of the 70s). Undoubtedly, people working under those wage scales were sticking around a lot longer, and therefore had deeper knowledge, than the "current college kids supervising college kids" expectation that should come along with $8 and $9 an hour wages. The conditions have changed, so expecting the results to remain the same, doesn't seem to be the best bet.

Another fun data point. Florida minimum wage in 1971, when WDW opened, was $1.60 per hour. Which is the equivalent of $9.24 today. More than the previously mentioned $9.06 Lead pay.

 

[Robinrs]

When I started at my current employer, I was paid .25/hour over minimum wage. Hey, it was great for someone still in college. In the last 23 years, my salary has magnified a LOT. It didn't come just from yearly raises. It happened because I busted my tail and used downtime to learn other, better paying jobs. Sometimes that meant coming in during my time off. Sometimes that meant cutting a lunch break short. Sometimes that meant utilizing my "downtime". I talked to coworkers and asked them to teach me what they do. I was able to move up the ranks. Promotions = more pay.

My boss & I talk occasionally (he actually came up the same way I did but in a different department). Many folks have come to him over the years asking for formal training on new positions. They want to be scheduled and paid for that training. If they're not paid for the training, they're not interested. He doesn't mind paying for them, but he wants to see some motivation on THEIR part that they actually want to move up.

It's not just about going to another employer. Presumably you can move up through the ranks at Disney also. Be willing to accept some more responsibility and maybe some more money comes with it. Find out what it takes to become a "lead" (I think that's what Disney calls their supervisors). Put some effort out.

And you SERIOUSLY think that's why you've MADE it???

 

[hopemax]

Another fun data point. Florida minimum wage in 1971, when WDW opened, was $1.60 per hour. Which is the equivalent of $9.24 today. More than the previously mentioned $9.06 Lead pay.

Quoting myself, but...

I think too often people think that today's entitled brats are asking for more than what they had, or their parents had. But this little tidbit illustrates how that isn't the case. Yes, you may have made it with a minimum wage job in whatever year you entered the workforce, but what if your minimum wage job paid you 15 or 20% or even more less than what you were actually paid? That's the reality today's "brats" are living with.

I don't always like the "living wage" terminology because I don't think it accurately frames the issue. Some jobs should be stepping stones. It's about making sure that today's low wagers have the same purchasing power that YOU did when you were a low wage earner or when your parent was starting out. I bet those young people of the 70's, 80's and 90s needed every last cent of their minimum wage salaries, why would anyone expect someone to make due with equivalently less? But we do. And then we get even more up in arms when those people are forced into the social safety net.

$10/hr may feel like a large number, but it's no different than the former 5 cent candy bar or $25 WDW admission ticket someone might have bought as a kid but can't happen now. Inflation happens, math happens. If $1.60 per hour was appropriate for FL in 1971, then the idea of $9.25 now shouldn't generate the outrage that it does.

 

[4luv2cdisney]

Quoting myself, but...

I think too often people think that today's entitled brats are asking for more than what they had, or their parents had. But this little tidbit illustrates how that isn't the case. Yes, you may have made it with a minimum wage job in whatever year you entered the workforce, but what if your minimum wage job paid you 15 or 20% or even more less than what you were actually paid? That's the reality today's "brats" are living with.

I don't always like the "living wage" terminology because I don't think it accurately frames the issue. Some jobs should be stepping stones. It's about making sure that today's low wagers have the same purchasing power that YOU did when you were a low wage earner or when your parent was starting out. I bet those young people of the 70's, 80's and 90s needed every last cent of their minimum wage salaries, why would anyone expect someone to make due with equivalently less? But we do. And then we get even more up in arms when those people are forced into the social safety net.

$10/hr may feel like a large number, but it's no different than the former 5 cent candy bar or $25 WDW admission ticket someone might have bought as a kid but can't happen now. Inflation happens, math happens. If $1.60 per hour was appropriate for FL in 1971, then the idea of $9.25 now shouldn't generate the outrage that it does.

Excellent.

I don't know why it is so hard for some people to understand this. I had a relative boasting about how he "worked hard, put himself through college" and these "lazy kids of today and their sense of entitlement"....... you get the idea. Well, I got soooo tired of it, I pulled out my laptop and looked up the minimum wage the year he started college and the room, board and tuition rates for his college. He could gross his annual school costs working about 16 hrs. per week. Today, my DD would have to work about 50 hours per week to gross the college costs at the same school. Pretty impossible. Oh, and the car he bought for himself......took him about 250 hours to pay for. That would give my kid less than $2K today, So, we then went on Autotrader to see what kind of options she'd have at that price point. Seriously. Shut him up pretty quick. I then challenged him to attempt my DD's homework that she had that weekend. He declined.

 

[eliza61]

Quoting myself, but...

I think too often people think that today's entitled brats are asking for more than what they had, or their parents had. But this little tidbit illustrates how that isn't the case. Yes, you may have made it with a minimum wage job in whatever year you entered the workforce, but what if your minimum wage job paid you 15 or 20% or even more less than what you were actually paid? That's the reality today's "brats" are living with.

I don't always like the "living wage" terminology because I don't think it accurately frames the issue. Some jobs should be stepping stones. It's about making sure that today's low wagers have the same purchasing power that YOU did when you were a low wage earner or when your parent was starting out. I bet those young people of the 70's, 80's and 90s needed every last cent of their minimum wage salaries, why would anyone expect someone to make due with equivalently less? But we do. And then we get even more up in arms when those people are forced into the social safety net.

$10/hr may feel like a large number, but it's no different than the former 5 cent candy bar or $25 WDW admission ticket someone might have bought as a kid but can't happen now. Inflation happens, math happens. If $1.60 per hour was appropriate for FL in 1971, then the idea of $9.25 now shouldn't generate the outrage that it does.

And that's the second part of the equation. with our awful economy many folks are forced to take these low income jobs because there is nothing else.
I laugh when folks here spout "just go out and get another job". As if almost 9 million folks unemployed simply need to fill out a form to get a good paying job.

My area saw that a few summers ago. Here in south jersey, the shore jobs are usually the ones the college kids get during the summer. well since unemployment in nj is above the 7% nationally, many out of work adults took the low wage shore jobs usually reserved for the college kids.
Trickle down effect, now the college kids had a tough time finding work.

Yesterday in AC there were 1000 people lined up for 40 jobs at one of the casinos.