Characters protesting

[GinnyEmma]

I was in a teachers union because if I chose not to participate I would be harassed. No one should made to participate ever. And there was no $200 stipend so your broad brush seems to be a bit biased. Must be those slick union brochures.

Eta: let's see that same union allowed a teacher to assault over a dozen kids through 4 schools before he was finally stopped.

 

[luvthemouse71]

Sorry, unions will always be needed. And they aren't going anywhere. Kind of hypocritical for people to criticize CMs for how they spend their money when all of us here spend big money on a non essential thing (Disney vacations). I'm not buying that everyone here lives within their means.

 

[GinnyEmma]

Sorry, unions will always be needed. And they aren't going anywhere. Kind of hypocritical for people to criticize CMs for how they spend their money when all of us here spend big money on a non essential thing (Disney vacations). I'm not buying that everyone here lives within their means.

Lol, statistically speaking I am sure you are right.

That said don't complain that you don't have enough money when itnis wasted on nonessentials. That is hypocritical, too.

 

[luvthemouse71]

In my union, the union leaders get a stipend of $200 a year, which has been declined every year for at least the last ten. Even if it was taken, it would not come close to covering the ink, paper, supplies, traveling expenses etc.

Nice stereotype though. I guess those slick advertising campaigns are working, but then again I already knew that.

For the record, I think that everyone should pay their fair share for the negotiation and enforcement of the contract. Even in non "right to work states" that all that is required. Funds spent on anything else (flowers for sick co-workers, charitable donatins etc) are not included in this calculation. Also, the laws require an independant annual audit of all revenue and expenses. We would do this even if it weren't required. Again the statistics are clear, workers in these cirumstances are much better off. Do the research.

But they won't. These people sure do like the benefits and improvements that unions have brought- benefits that even non union people enjoy. ( 40 hour work weeks, sick time,getting paid for overtime, family leaves etc) But, they whine about the dues and how corrupt unions are. Again, they aren't perfect, but your average corporation forced unions into existence. They'd run amuck without them.

 

[kikiq]

I hope you never find yourself in a position where your take home check decreases because you need a more expensive health care package.

My DH is in that position, that along with a 10% pay cut in order for everyone to keep their jobs. New health package comes out and the package we had is now extra money. AND I lost my teaching position, even though our union OKd furlough days and no pay raises this year, so that we could keep as many teaching positions as possible. I did not make the cut. We could choose the HMO covered by the company, but don't. Luckily I get called to substitute plus I have found some PT jobs to cover expenses, but we made choices.

IF anyone has read the article, there is a 3% raise over 3 years for the CMs. They are getting raises, but SOME of the health care packages are going up.
Would it be better if it was a 2% raise and no change in health care cost? Our union asked that the health benefits not be altered and then worked from there. Someone has to pay for health care costs and do we know the projected financials for the parks? (Because that's the budget this money is coming out for the CMs pay)

 

[ftballfan7]

I was in a teachers union because if I chose not to participate I would be harassed. No one should made to participate ever. And there was no $200 stipend so your broad brush seems to be a bit biased. Must be those slick union brochures.

Eta: let's see that same union allowed a teacher to assault over a dozen kids through 4 schools before he was finally stopped.

I never said that there aren't isolated horror stories out there. My brush was quite narrow. what I really take issue with your post is that a union allowed a teacher to assault over a dozen kids through 4 schools before he was stopped. That is total B.S. This idea that Unions do not allow for the firing of employees with cause is a complete falsehood. Unions merely ensure that there is in fact cause. Probably the most important role of a union is to protect it's members from adverse job actions without cause. That being said, if management is doing it's job and followng proper procedures there is no problem firing a union employee with cause. AGAIN, IF THERE IS JUST CAUSE A UNION EMPLOYEE CAN BE FIRED, PERIOD. This is a tired anti-union argument. If management is doing their job properly that teacher would have been fired for cause in a timely manner. If management decided that it was easier to transfer the employee than do their job correctly, it is on them.

 

[luvthemouse71]

Lol, statistically speaking I am sure you are right.

That said don't complain that you don't have enough money when itnis wasted on nonessentials. That is hypocritical, too.

I don't whine about it. I make great pay, have great benefits, and get 2 raises every year because of our union. The Disney CMs should get paid more than they do. I can't believe people begrudge them that, especially since they are on the front lines and have to deal with some real wackos.

 

[bumbershoot]

If this protest is anything like the ones in Anaheim, those aren't even Disney Cast Members.

That's exactly what I was going to say. The Disney-related unions aren't all peaches and cream. The DLR stuff has been going on since 2007, and the UNION still will not come to the table despite DLR asking them to. Last year someone related to the union staged a pseudo hunger strike outside the Grand...not that they were employees...that union likes to have non-employees going out to "protest" something they won't sit down at the table and talk about.

So I don't have much faith that those were actually employees, that the union has done anything about it, or that real employees are actually being affected by this.

So when that hard working teacher's contract is up and wants a raise or wants to protest that their health care contribution is too high, he or she should just lump it? If someone doesn't ever complain, how do things change? You should read up on the history of labor unions and why they are started in the first place.

There's a difference between going through the normal procedures (voting on things) and going out and doing something SOLELY to get media attention. Almost every year up here teachers unions go on strike and go ON about "unfair" contracts. Macys has been doing the same thing ever since Macys took over the local Bon Marche. And all I say to them is...you thought it was FAIR last year when ya voted on it...were you really that silly last year? Tell us that it's not good THIS year, but don't call it "unfair", not when you voted on it last year.

I hope you never find yourself in a position where your take home check decreases because you need a more expensive health care package.

Isn't that NORMAL? The article said that there were several packages to choose from. We're about to hit open enrollment for hubby's job. There will, most likely, be 3 packages. One will be the cheapest, one will be the middle, and one will be the swanky one. The swanky one will cost the most, which means it will bring down the check more than the others. We will, most likely, go with the middle one. We used to go with the cheapest, but then things changed and we *decreased our check* by a bit, to get the middle package.

This is how it works. If you need more than the normal coverage, you pay a bit more. Not all companies are like Microsoft, where full employees get their healthcare paid for....

 

[GinnyEmma]

But they won't. These people sure do like the benefits and improvements that unions have brought- benefits that even non union people enjoy. ( 40 hour work weeks, sick time,getting paid for overtime, family leaves etc) But, they whine about the dues and how corrupt unions are. Again, they aren't perfect, but your average corporation forced unions into existence. They'd run amuck without them.

So people should just shut up and appreciate the good? Yet another hypocritical statement.

 

[luvthemouse71]

Yeah, appreciation would be nice. So would people here educating themselves. But, it's a lot easier to whine about the bad than contribute to change it. You can be anti- union all you want. Won't do any good. I for one are glad they're here to stay.

As far as people going out to protest in public. Most of the time, negotiations have broken down before that. And again, people have the right to protest in this country.

 

[Tgtown]

I live in a right to work state, and am not union, but don't have a problem with people protesting or wearing costumes to protest if they feel they are being treated unfairly.

What I would have a problem with is if there were picket lines that would have to be crossed in order for my family to access the parks or hotels we will be staying at in March because in my opinion they would have taken an issue that
was between them and their employer and injected into my families life.

 

[GinnyEmma]

I never said that there aren't isolated horror stories out there. My brush was quite narrow. what I really take issue with your post is that a union allowed a teacher to assault over a dozen kids through 4 schools before he was stopped. That is total B.S. This idea that Unions do not allow for the firing of employees with cause is a complete falsehood. Unions merely ensure that there is in fact cause. Probably the most important role of a union is to protect it's members from adverse job actions without cause. That being said, if management is doing it's job and followng proper procedures there is no problem firing a union employee with cause. AGAIN, IF THERE IS JUST CAUSE A UNION EMPLOYEE CAN BE FIRED, PERIOD. This is a tired anti-union argument. If management is doing their job properly that teacher would have been fired for cause in a timely manner. If management decided that it was easier to transfer the employee than do their job correctly, it is on them.

You've had good experiences, I've had crappy. People can be fired but my experience is that wheeling and dealing allowed people to be quietly moved along.

I've held the children who were assaulted and held their victims too. This particular man is probably responsible for dozens of victims of victims at this point. I have a problem with that. Yelling doesn't make your point better, btw.

One side here wants and has the right to complain about management. That is a given. A legal right to do something doesn't mean I have to like or approve of it. I don't approve of people picketing. I believe in leaving a bad position. I also believe that crying poor me because you can't afford luxuries is ridiculous. But i come from proud hard working people.

 

[grizelda]

In my school district it is next to impossible for a teacher to be fired. Maybe in an extreme case. There are plenty of teachers who deserve more than the "across the board" raise and plenty who do NOT. Why cant the excellent teachers be rewarded for their extra effort -- b/c of unions...

 

[justakrazymom]

There are a lot of people who haven't gotten raises. My husband didn't. We also have to pay more for insurance. One can't assume that wages will raise. That is the point. Get another job. There are many more out there who would be happy for yours.

.

exactly..our insurance has gone up twice and my husband has taken a pay CUT at his job..but ya know..we are just glad he's not laid off anymore..

 

[Schmeck]

That's exactly what I was going to say. The Disney-related unions aren't all peaches and cream. The DLR stuff has been going on since 2007, and the UNION still will not come to the table despite DLR asking them to. Last year someone related to the union staged a pseudo hunger strike outside the Grand...not that they were employees...that union likes to have non-employees going out to "protest" something they won't sit down at the table and talk about.

So I don't have much faith that those were actually employees, that the union has done anything about it, or that real employees are actually being affected by this.




There's a difference between going through the normal procedures (voting on things) and going out and doing something SOLELY to get media attention. Almost every year up here teachers unions go on strike and go ON about "unfair" contracts. Macys has been doing the same thing ever since Macys took over the local Bon Marche. And all I say to them is...you thought it was FAIR last year when ya voted on it...were you really that silly last year? Tell us that it's not good THIS year, but don't call it "unfair", not when you voted on it last year.



Isn't that NORMAL? The article said that there were several packages to choose from. We're about to hit open enrollment for hubby's job. There will, most likely, be 3 packages. One will be the cheapest, one will be the middle, and one will be the swanky one. The swanky one will cost the most, which means it will bring down the check more than the others. We will, most likely, go with the middle one. We used to go with the cheapest, but then things changed and we *decreased our check* by a bit, to get the middle package.

This is how it works. If you need more than the normal coverage, you pay a bit more. Not all companies are like Microsoft, where full employees get their healthcare paid for....

It shouldn't work like that - that's my point. And if people want to stay passive and submissive to the rising health care costs, it's going to get much worse.

If you have a health condition that needs lots of coverage, why should you be forced to pay so much more for that coverage? Health care coverage should cover it all, there shouldn't be a menu you ahve to choose from. Who knows what will happen tomorrow (been there, it's devastating emotionally and financially) and you may be diagnosed with something that your current insurance doesn't cover. Or your deductibles are so high you can't even afford to pay for your essentials. Then you are choosing between life and death.

Meanwhile, the CEO is getting 35% more of how much? How much money does anyone need? The greed is so ugly here in the US.

 

[GinnyEmma]

It shouldn't work like that - that's my point. And if people want to stay passive and submissive to the rising health care costs, it's going to get much worse.

If you have a health condition that needs lots of coverage, why should you be forced to pay so much more for that coverage? Health care coverage should cover it all, there shouldn't be a menu you ahve to choose from. Who knows what will happen tomorrow (been there, it's devastating emotionally and financially) and you may be diagnosed with something that your current insurance doesn't cover. Or your deductibles are so high you can't even afford to pay for your essentials. Then you are choosing between life and death.

Meanwhile, the CEO is getting 35% more of how much? How much money does anyone need? The greed is so ugly here in the US.

Do you have more than you need? Needs are simple, but i suspect that you have more than a roof over your head and rice in your belly. but i know some people who would love to have that on a daily basis...

as far as healthcare coverage, not everything is always going to be covered. that is the way it is. my cancer drug wasn't, so we paid for it. and it was devestating. There are no guarantees that everyone will live, or be healthy.

Why should a healthy 18 year old pay the same rates as a 50 year old diabetic?

 

[Honeybell]

Many people here have mentioned that they haven't gotten cost of living (or any) raises. That is perfectly understandable if a company is struggling. In a company that is doing well, the situation is a little different. Considering the number of threads complaining about how crowded the parks are and how there are no longer any slow times at Disney, it seems that the parks have come through this recession fine. There has also been increases in both ticket costs and parking (probably in other areas too, but those are the easiest to notice) It's wrong for a company that is making a profit not to share it with their workers, after all those front line workers have a huge part in that success. The company my husband works for has had several good years, that success has been shared with the workers as raises and bonuses. As a result, each year has been better because the workers feel they have a stake in the company's success.

I'm also intrigued by the number of people who seem to think having a phone is a luxury. How many employers will tolerate not being able to contact an employee? The number of people who seem to think that workers in so called "unskilled labor" positions should accept subsistence wages and any working conditions and be happy that they are even being allowed to work is depressing.

 

[GinnyEmma]

Hmmmmm...are You saying Disney will fire you if you don't have a cell phone? My husband is in charge of a million dollar computer network was just asked a couple of months ago to get a cell phone. I'm still not required to have one.

So, I'm thinking it isnt a requirement for hourly workers at a theme park. I think you are confusing needs and wants again.

As far as crowded parks the parks are not the only piece of the Disney company last I looked.

 

[grizelda]

Why should someone who tries to stay healthy get the same healthcare rates as someone who doesnt exercise, is overweight, and smokes? Nothing is ever going to be equal for everyone b/c people arent all the same. And I dont know any company that requires you to have a cell phone. I agree that is confusing needs and wants.

 

[GinnyEmma]

Well, you are right, healthcare issues will not be solved here. Not fair, but life in general is not fair.