Disney employees had to train their replacements after they were laid off

[Andrew015]

Don't get me wrong-by all means do/say what you want.

The point of my post was to illustrate the uphill battle to expect anything other than what we are seeing IMO.

If the "blinders off" guests are still contributing (reluctantly or not), obviously the "blinders on" guests will for sure.

WDW's delivered product is pretty much a legal drug at this point, fortunately or unfortunately (depending on the individual) for those that desire it.

100% agreed. And FWIW, while I still buy the drug, I would consider myself more of a recreational user than I was 5-10 years ago due to my growing discontent:

• I am a DVC member, but my stake was purchased via resale during the bottom of the Great Recession. In other words, I take advantage of their "deluxe" accommodations at about as low of a cost as humanly possible.
• My trips used to be at least 2X per year. They now consist of anywhere from 1X per year to 1X every other year.
• I find myself in the parks less and less each trip.
• My spending in their gift shops is almost non-existent.
• The urge to venture "off property" - a notion that I never even considered years ago - is becoming a more desirable notion.

So while I still contribute to the nasty cause, I'm voting with my pocketbook to some extent. At least that's how I justify it in my mind

 

[Josh Hendy]

There must be more to this. Isn't there a Labor law regarding this?

If the employees' stories are factual, then I think the takeaway is that yes, there are labor laws which ostensibly protect American citizens from losing their jobs to lower-paid foreigners brought into the USA on temporary visas. But the legal fine print evidently contains loopholes which allow large companies to violate the spirit of the law with complete impunity. And also to humiliate the displaced employees by withholding severance unless they train their lower-paid, foreign replacements "with a good attitude".

Maybe these stories are resurfacing because someone with an agenda is stirring the pot. But given the apparent facts ... is that such a bad thing? This is a company which doesn't make weapons or concrete or anything like that, but whose entire business model is centered on the telling of heartwarming stories of kindness, generosity and righteousness. If there's a disconnect, it's up to their customers to set them straight.

 

[cranbiz]

On the state level, WDW can do pretty much anything it wants to. FL is a right to work state.

There are Federal laws but any good outsourcing company knows how to get around those.

 

[OKW Lover]

On the state level, WDW can do pretty much anything it wants to. FL is a right to work state.

Being a "right to work state" simply means you can't be forced to join a labor union as a condition for working there. It doesn't mean that companies can ignore labor laws. I'm guessing that the employees in this group chose not to join a union.

 

[Planogirl]

If this happened, it's an act of cruelty. I don't care if they can do it or even should do it, it's still an act of cruelty. Disney is no better than many of the other big corporations that people complain about and that is a shame.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

If its in Florida...there are no useful labor laws...

It's a "right to abuse" state

 

[JaxDad]

WDW's delivered product is pretty much a legal drug at this point, fortunately or unfortunately (depending on the individual) for those that desire it.

Ha! This explains a lot of posts on these forums!

 

[Saltywardog]

It's just sad to see a company making more money every year do this.

 

[OKW Lover]

Another slow news day. This is about something that happened almost 9 months ago. I wonder if it re-surfaced because of somebody's agenda. Are labor contracts up soon?

Replying to my own post. Still don't know about an agenda here, but further arousing my suspicions is this story from the Orlando Sentinel. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-disney-characters-20150604-story.html

 

[Josh Hendy]

Replying to my own post. Still don't know about an agenda here, but further arousing my suspicions is this story from the Orlando Sentinel

Even if it was unions behind the campaign (if there is one) to remind people of what happened, does that affect the moral question? Unions have an agenda to preserve jobs and wages, sure. You could even call it a bias.

But can you think of any reason why even non-unionized American citizens might be morally outraged by the reported facts? Like, that congress pretends that they've passed laws to protect workers from what most people would call unfair competition, but then they find out that the law doesn't exist at all in the form that they were told it exists. Because of more-or-less secret loopholes that were inserted at the behest of very large corporations.

There are Federal laws but any good outsourcing company knows how to get around those.

I assume you're using the word "good" in its meaning of "effective" ... and not the other meaning, "decent" or "moral".

And I hope you're not arguing that Disney corporation is on any more solid ground, morally, because they did everything through a "good" outsourcing company.

 

[csm101]

I've been in the I.T world for 25 years, this happens all the time. It's only a surprise to those people not in the industry.

 

[emilymad]

This has been happening in the corporate world for decades. I have had to do it twice already and I have only been in the work force for 13 years. In my case there has always been a severance package at the end so you put on a smile and train the replacements. I would suspect this was the case with Disney. I now work in the IT industry and this happens everyday regardless if the new employee is in the US or elsewhere.

 

[WillJenDisney]

This just further illustrates what we all know (and some don't want to admit); The Walt Disney Company is no longer a family run operation based on values and virtues as it once was years ago. Rather, it is run purely by Wallstreet, and current management won't stop until they have extracted ever cent possible from its customers and employees alike. Many are blinded by the pixie dust and feel that Disney can do no wrong. Others of us see the corporate greed and call it like we see it. We're the ones considered "negative"...

To be fair, any idea that the Walt Disney Company wasn't always focused on maximizing profits is an exercise in revisionist history. Walt's animators didn't strike against him because they felt he was providing such a great work environment and tremendous pay. I dont think those animators at that time felt it was a great family run operation based on values and virtues. They felt overused and undercompensated.

 

[Andrew015]

To be fair, any idea that the Walt Disney Company wasn't always focused on maximizing profits is an exercise in revisionist history. Walt's animators didn't strike against him because they felt he was providing such a great work environment and tremendous pay. I dont think those animators at that time felt it was a great family run operation based on values and virtues. They felt overused and undercompensated.

So you're saying that there is no difference between the way in which the company was run under Walt, and the way in which it was run today? Sorry, not buying it.

 

[WillJenDisney]

So you're saying that there is no difference between the way in which the company was run under Walt, and the way in which it was run today? Sorry, not buying it.

Not saying it's no different, but I don't buy the idealized image that it used to be some sort of altruistic venture based on values and virtue with no regard for money. As shown by the example I provided.

 

[cranbiz]

I assume you're using the word "good" in its meaning of "effective" ... and not the other meaning, "decent" or "moral".

And I hope you're not arguing that Disney corporation is on any more solid ground, morally, because they did everything through a "good" outsourcing company.

I am when it comes to the word good. I'm not implying that these firms are good but good at circumventing the labor laws of our country.

H3ll no on Disney being on solid moral ground. Walt would be displeased at these moves. Unfortunately the almighty dollar prevails.

 

[minnie-apple-mouse]

To be fair, any idea that the Walt Disney Company wasn't always focused on maximizing profits is an exercise in revisionist history. Walt's animators didn't strike against him because they felt he was providing such a great work environment and tremendous pay. I dont think those animators at that time felt it was a great family run operation based on values and virtues. They felt overused and undercompensated.

So you're saying that there is no difference between the way in which the company was run under Walt, and the way in which it was run today? Sorry, not buying it.

Not saying it's no different, but I don't buy the idealized image that it used to be some sort of altruistic venture based on values and virtue with no regard for money. As shown by the example I provided.

Don't try to put words in my mouth, please.

Gotta love discussion boards.

 

[rteetz]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-disney-visas-nelson-20150605-story.html

 

[Andrew015]

Not saying it's no different, but I don't buy the idealized image that it used to be some sort of altruistic venture based on values and virtue with no regard for money. As shown by the example I provided.

I suppose we're going to disagree here - substantially. The strike that you referenced was purely political and driven by the union. Disney's animators were the highest paid and worked under the best conditions in the industry. Walt frequently and voluntarily gave large percentages of a particular piece's profits to its animators. He would also give bonuses to those artists whom Walt felt were higher performers, and developed incentive programs to help motivate those who were underperforming. As the studio grew significantly in size, coupled with the Great Depression, Disney was forced to make cuts in order to keep things afloat and the special incentive programs went by the wayside. The animators that became accustomed to these non-guaranteed, discretionary bonuses - given by Walt himself - became angry, unionized and the rest is history.

I think there is a pretty significant difference between a business owner cutting a discretionary bonus program in the midst of the Great Depression and a company outsourcing 250 high-performing individuals to India during periods of record sales and profits, but that's just me. Was Walt concerned about profits? Sure. Was he out to extract every last penny from his customers and employees like the current management team is? I think it's pretty clear that the answer is no. The fact that most current cast members still revere the man and his principles to this very day - many of whom were decades away from even being a twinkle in their parents' eyes when Walt died - reinforces that notion.

If I'm putting words in your mouth, please correct me so that I don't offend Minnie.

 

[Castle2Castle]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-disney-visas-nelson-20150605-story.html

Ah, politics. A Florida senator so concerned for his constituency and the business practices of the largest single-site employer in his state (the country even) that it took eight months and a NYT article to even know what was happening. That same NYT article also reports the issue of H-1B visas have already been at the center of fierce debates in Congress. Welcome to the party, Senator Nelson!

ETA: Highlighting how new this isn't, Microsoft was the focus of similar Congressional ire back in 2009. Senator Bill Nelson, the heroic Rip Van Winkle of the Sentinel article, has been in office since 2001.