Disney Hourly Salaries

[Madteaparty001]

A whole week? Wow.
No, sorry, I've been working customer service for years. Yes, you can claim it takes a week. But really, other than the new register, the new complaint system or the new computer, it doesn't take long.
Take a skilled labor job. It can take months to learn the job. And that is in addition to a college degree. Or possibly years as an apprentice.

So other then a good portion of the job you can definitely learn everything in an hour, is that what you mean? I recently was just hired for a customer service job for a well known online travel company, training is 4 weeks, full time. Just because you think anyone off the street can perform the job, doesn't mean companies agree with you.

But even with your friend. She isn't being asked to be available 24 hours a day. She is simply being asked to work holidays and weekends. That is normal for the low man on the pole.

When I first went to work, I was scheduled Friday and Saturday night. Then Sunday afternoon opened up to me. The sweet schedules were for those that had been there the longest.

Not everyone can work the weekends, especially those with kids when few to no daycare option are available. It's a requirement more often then not.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/09/11/3565747/retail-scheduling/

http://www.snagajob.com/resources/does-availabilty-matter-to-employers/

http://www.epi.org/publication/irregular-work-scheduling-and-its-consequences/

But these jobs aren't worth any more pay. It doesn't matter who is working it. Someone that has student loans or someone with a family doesn't deserve a larger salary simply because they have loans or a family. Or because it is the only job they can find.

May I ask what your qualifications are to decide these jobs aren't worth more? My DH is in IT and he gets paid rather well for his job because if his company's servers go down they loose millions every hour. He's worked retail, and he said hands down, retail is a harder job. Not because of technical skill, but because of all the crap you have to deal with.

If someone is willing to work a full time job, they should at least be able to survive off of the income from that job. But that's part of the problem, companies aren't hiring full time people, instead of having 5 full timers they would rather have 10 part timers. And before you say well these jobs are for college and high school students, obviously there aren't enough of them since they are not the only ones working these jobs. I also didn't say having a family or a loan should require you get more pay, I said if someone goes to school and takes on debt to learn the skills a job requires then that job's salary should reflect that.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

So other then a good portion of the job you can definitely learn everything in an hour, is that what you mean? I recently was just hired for a customer service job for a well known online travel company, training is 4 weeks, full time. Just because you think anyone off the street can perform the job, doesn't mean companies agree with you.

That job may or may not be considered an entry level job. I have also worked a job that took six months, full time, to learn. But we weren't paid entry level wages. In fact, we were paid more once the six months were up.

What we are talking about here, are entry level jobs.

Not everyone can work the weekends, especially those with kids when few to no daycare option are available. It's a requirement more often then not.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/09/11/3565747/retail-scheduling/

http://www.snagajob.com/resources/does-availabilty-matter-to-employers/

http://www.epi.org/publication/irregular-work-scheduling-and-its-consequences/

So your friend is in college and has kids. When would she be available to work?

May I ask what your qualifications are to decide these jobs aren't worth more? My DH is in IT and he gets paid rather well for his job because if his company's servers go down they loose millions every hour. He's worked retail, and he said hands down, retail is a harder job. Not because of technical skill, but because of all the crap you have to deal with.

It isn't my qualifications that matter, it is the qualifications of those that decide how much employees should be paid that matter. When I was working in HR, it was my decision. Now, it is the decision of each and every HR department.

If someone is willing to work a full time job, they should at least be able to survive off of the income from that job. But that's part of the problem, companies aren't hiring full time people, instead of having 5 full timers they would rather have 10 part timers. And before you say well these jobs are for college and high school students, obviously there aren't enough of them since they are not the only ones working these jobs. I also didn't say having a family or a loan should require you get more pay, I said if someone goes to school and takes on debt to learn the skills a job requires then that job's salary should reflect that.

Sorry, but that, in recent memory, has not been the case.

Even back in the 60's, people worked full time at one job and part time at another to make ends meet. Or both Mom and Dad had to work to have enough money to feed the kids.[/QUOTE]

 

[whiporee]

May I ask what your qualifications are to decide these jobs aren't worth more? My DH is in IT and he gets paid rather well for his job because if his company's servers go down they loose millions every hour. He's worked retail, and he said hands down, retail is a harder job. Not because of technical skill, but because of all the crap you have to deal with.

I don't think there are many jobs that most people can walk off the street do immediately. That's not the issue. The issue is whether there are a lot of people who can do the job eventually, or with enough training to make fiscal sense. If there's a large pool to choose from, then there's no reason to pay more than it takes to get someone who can do the job. Even in the example you cited (congrats on the gig, BTW) 4 weeks is not a huge amount of time to learn things. it's better than two hours, but it's not a huge amount of training.

May I ask what your qualifications are to decide these jobs aren't worth more? My DH is in IT and he gets paid rather well for his job because if his company's servers go down they loose millions every hour. He's worked retail, and he said hands down, retail is a harder job. Not because of technical skill, but because of all the crap you have to deal with.

That may be true for him, but it's not true for everyone. And "hard" isn't the issue -- it's specialized skill. Plumbers are paid more than guys who cut grass, because one requires specialized knowledge and skill and the other doesn't require as much. The pool of applicants for lawn-care jobs is larger than the pool for plumbers, so plumbers make more. There are fewer people who know IT than can work a cash register.

If someone is willing to work a full time job, they should at least be able to survive off of the income from that job.

The world just can't work that way. If you inflate the wages on the bottom, then you have to inflate the wages across the board because there has to be a reward for people who have larger skills. You also have to define survive, because the American definition of survival is rather inflated. And if you inflate across the board, then prices go up correspondingly, so while the wages may seem higher, the actual quality of buying is the same.

And when you talk about the part timers, the choice isn't between five full-timers and 10 full-timers because 10 full timers isn't on the table. If those companies were to hire the five full timers you suggest, that would mean five others would be unemployed completely. Maybe that's a tradeoff you think si a good one, but the five completely unemployed people might disagree.

 

[disneynutz]

Disney is great at importing workers from other countries, getting college program temp workers and charging them to stay in Disney housing and making many of the jobs part time to reduce pay and benefits. They also like to outsource many of the positions and contract to outside companies like the food kiosks and restaurants at DS. They collect lease money and a percentage of income by only being a landlord.

Bill

 

[rg35]

To refer to what another poster said, just because a person is in a low wage or unskilled job doesn't mean they lack ambition. In many parts of the country, these lower wage "service" jobs are the only types of jobs left. There are many circumstances that can impact the type of employment someone is holding, sometimes the least of which is their own personal work ethic or ambition. "Bootstraps" can only go so far.

One example of a major difference in then and now, let's take the rust belt
Then - manufacturing jobs weren't necessarily high skilled, but they were union jobs that paid well and offered good benefits.
Now - manufacturing jobs replaced with non union, service jobs (WalMart, etc.), but don't pay well and offer poor benefits.

Pittsburgh is a good example of a former rust belt city that has done a pretty good job of reinventing itself as a tech and robotics center, leading to availability of higher skilled jobs. Other rust belt cities haven't had such an easy transition from the loss of manufacturing.

 

[whiporee]

In many parts of the country, these lower wage "service" jobs are the only types of jobs left.

Sure, but Orlando's not one of them. And I wasn't saying that people in low-wage jobs lack ambition, but if you're in a low-wage job, then it's not encumbant on employers to raise the wages in order to provide you a better lifestyle. Or anything.

Jobs are worth what employers say jobs are worth, just like pizza is worth what you want to pay for it. It's not up to Disney to provide wages at a higher level than they deem the job is worth. If they've underestimated the worth of the job, then no one will take it until they raise the wage.

 

[rg35]

If they've underestimated the worth of the job, then no one will take it until they raise the wage.

This assumption is based on an unlimited or near-unlimited supply of replacement jobs.

 

[Brer Chump]

A lot, not all, of the jobs listed in the OP are union jobs. The union's contract is online and can be read here

 

[whiporee]

Minimum wage jobs? Yes, there is a nearly unlimited supply of minimum wage jobs.

They may not be jobs people want, but minimum wage jobs are out there. Plenty of them. Construction sites can't find laborers. Fast food can't find workers. Retail can't find workers. Especially in Orlando.

 

[Madteaparty001]

I don't think there are many jobs that most people can walk off the street do immediately. That's not the issue. The issue is whether there are a lot of people who can do the job eventually, or with enough training to make fiscal sense. If there's a large pool to choose from, then there's no reason to pay more than it takes to get someone who can do the job. Even in the example you cited (congrats on the gig, BTW) 4 weeks is not a huge amount of time to learn things. it's better than two hours, but it's not a huge amount of training.

You're the one that said you can teach someone to do your job in an hour and they would be good to go. None of the retail jobs I've had could be taught in an hour if you wanted to do the job correctly without some kind of consequences. You've also discounted the cost of turnover, high turnover can cost more in the long run than a proper wage. And while 4 weeks is certainly a drop in the bucket compared to several years spent in school (which I have also done) 160 hours of dedicated training is way more than the usual 8 hours in front of a computer and then a week of trial by fire that is usually the go to training method of companies.

That may be true for him, but it's not true for everyone. And "hard" isn't the issue -- it's specialized skill. Plumbers are paid more than guys who cut grass, because one requires specialized knowledge and skill and the other doesn't require as much. The pool of applicants for lawn-care jobs is larger than the pool for plumbers, so plumbers make more. There are fewer people who know IT than can work a cash register.

You said it yourself that plumbers are getting paid a lot more in part because there is so few of them. That's happening in these low wage jobs. While the pool of people available to take said job may be large, those willing to work it are becoming fewer and fewer, thus the slow rise of these wages above minimum wage. I also have said several times that those in highly skilled professions should be paid more. I'm sorry but this whole argument is starting to sound like "I think a monkey can do these jobs so people who work them should be thankful to get paid the pennies they do get paid". I know I'm putting words in your mouth and exaggerating your point for dramatic effect but that is my essential interpretation to your argument.

The world just can't work that way. If you inflate the wages on the bottom, then you have to inflate the wages across the board because there has to be a reward for people who have larger skills. You also have to define survive, because the American definition of survival is rather inflated. And if you inflate across the board, then prices go up correspondingly, so while the wages may seem higher, the actual quality of buying is the same.

And when you talk about the part timers, the choice isn't between five full-timers and 10 full-timers because 10 full timers isn't on the table. If those companies were to hire the five full timers you suggest, that would mean five others would be unemployed completely. Maybe that's a tradeoff you think si a good one, but the five completely unemployed people might disagree.

But the world can and has and in some places still does work this way. The past 2 decades wages for the working class have become stagnant and the top earners' wages are the ones that have become inflated. Trickle down economics has backfired in a large way. Please tell me you're not one of those people who think a poor person shouldn't be able to have a refrigerator because it's a 'luxury'. I think someone should be able to afford rent (with a roommate) be able to afford to feed themselves healthy (non-processed) foods and pay their utility bills, without assistance.

Papa John's has become rather infamous for saying in order to give their employees health care they would have to raise their pizza by 10 cents and that they weren't willing to do that. Living costs have risen with the rate of inflation, food is kept down through subsidies that do more harm than good. Again the wages haven't risen to match this increase of expenses.

According to you even if the company were to hire the five employees at full time there are plenty of other retail/fast food jobs for them to fill, so they wouldn't be out of employment. Underemployment is as much of a problem as unemployment. If a person needs 2 part time jobs because there are no full time jobs that's one person to 2 jobs, that would still equal one person to one full time job. Except a person can't get 2 part time jobs because they are both requiring full availability. Thus the horrible cycle of working in America for the new generations entering the work force.

 

[Madteaparty001]

That job may or may not be considered an entry level job. I have also worked a job that took six months, full time, to learn. But we weren't paid entry level wages. In fact, we were paid more once the six months were up.

What we are talking about here, are entry level jobs.

Except companies are requiring years of experience for these entry level jobs. You had, it sounds like, a contract to hire. They give you a 'test run' while training you so that if they decide you are not a good employee they terminate the contract and you and the company part ways without them having to pay unemployment. The IT field has gone this way with many of their jobs.

So your friend is in college and has kids. When would she be available to work?

She has a Saturday class/lab. They told her even if she were to only be scheduled Sundays or one weekend a month she still had to have the availability to work the entire weekend. I advised her against taking these jobs because I had to fight with 2 different retail jobs that would schedule me during my classes when I was still in college, and they knew my availability. So they would give me less and less hours for not showing up. It was a pain, my immediate managers tried to throw extra hours at me because they new the person doing the scheduling was being lazy by not looking at availability and thus screwing me over. This is not an uncommon practice. And yet supposedly these jobs are supposed to be filled with college students and high schoolers, who more than anyone have changing schedules.

It isn't my qualifications that matter, it is the qualifications of those that decide how much employees should be paid that matter. When I was working in HR, it was my decision. Now, it is the decision of each and every HR department.

It's also the decision of the job seeker/employee to not accept a job that doesn't pay enough to live on and look for work else where.

Sorry, but that, in recent memory, has not been the case.

Even back in the 60's, people worked full time at one job and part time at another to make ends meet. Or both Mom and Dad had to work to have enough money to feed the kids.

Back in the 60's people could pay off the cost of college with a part time job. Also it was an option to work full time and part time then, now many jobs refuse to take back burner to another company. My grandmother (turning 90 this year, bless her) managed to raise 6 boys as a cafeteria worker and her husband a cab driver without assistance. They scraped their pennies together and lived very modestly, but they managed it. You could not do that in today's world, no way.

 

[Madteaparty001]

I feel like I've written a novel and taken over this thread, sorry if I didn't reply to anyone. I think at this point we going to have to agree to disagree. These long responses are taking a lot of time to write, .

 

[whiporee]

First, you have me confused with someone else. While others have made the points you're assigning me, I haven't been one of them, so I can't argue what you're saying. I don't think I've talked about anyone sitting in front of a computer -- the only low-wage, low-skill job I've used as an example is checking to see if Mickey turned green and telling people to watch their steps. So again, in your first paragraph, you're assigning me things I haven't said, so I can't argue the point. I'm not arguing the merits of what companies should pay for anything -- I'm arguing that a company sees what a job entails and decides it's worth X. If you don't want to work for X, you shouldn't, but it's not the company's responsibility to raise the pay to X+Y if they don't feel the job is worth that. And the way they determine if the job is worth that is by seeing whether someone will take it at X. If they don't, they end up at X+Y.

In your second point, again, I think you'e arguing with someone else. What I have said is that companies pay for jobs, not people. But for the plumbers analogy, you're saying the same thing I am. Being a plumber takes time and it takes a learned skill (several, actually). You can't call yourself a plumber and get paid for being a plumber unless you have established that you have those skills. Because of that, there are fewer plumbers than there are lawn-care people, and because there are fewer of them, they can charge more and have customers agree to pay more because the pool to get another plumber is smaller than the pool to get another lawn care person, and if they need a plumber, then this is what it costs.

One of the problems that these discussions cause (And I'm pretty sure we're close to getting moved to community) is anecdotal evidence. I don't know your situation, but since this started with talking about Disney's low-wage salary structure, I think it would be better to stay within those parameters. Would you agree that most of the low-wage jobs Disney hires require little training to do the actual job? (I know Disney has culture training, too, but that's much more company-centric than any specific job) That for most of these low-wage jobs, there isn't an already-leanred skill set they're bringing into the application? And that those jobs, while frustrating and maddening like all jobs, are not perilous or straining or anything beyond the bare minimum that employment requires? If you agree with those assumptions, then why should WDW pay them more than is required to keep them filled? You seem to be making an argument that says (extrapolated), of course, that they should just because. I don't think that's a fair burden to put on any company or any person.

 

[MommyinHonduras]

I think it's interesting people say if someone works, they should be able to live on that salary regardless of the job preformed. A huge red flag that our economy is dying. The country is in so much debt thinking they need things they can not afford to pay for. I am sad for what my kids will find in 10 years but I am not sending them t school and saying just do your best and life will be grand. They are learning lots of real world skills as they grow and will be attractive to employers, more likely they will start their own companies and be the employers. Teaching our kids to think outside the box, value people and work hard. Not graduate and the world is waiting to pay you your worth is the route I'm taking.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

Except companies are requiring years of experience for these entry level jobs. You had, it sounds like, a contract to hire. They give you a 'test run' while training you so that if they decide you are not a good employee they terminate the contract and you and the company part ways without them having to pay unemployment. The IT field has gone this way with many of their jobs.

No, I was not contract to hire. I was hired outright by the company. But thanks for playing.

She has a Saturday class/lab. They told her even if she were to only be scheduled Sundays or one weekend a month she still had to have the availability to work the entire weekend. I advised her against taking these jobs because I had to fight with 2 different retail jobs that would schedule me during my classes when I was still in college, and they knew my availability. So they would give me less and less hours for not showing up. It was a pain, my immediate managers tried to throw extra hours at me because they new the person doing the scheduling was being lazy by not looking at availability and thus screwing me over. This is not an uncommon practice. And yet supposedly these jobs are supposed to be filled with college students and high schoolers, who more than anyone have changing schedules.

Two points.

I wouldn't hire her either. Sorry. Why hire someone that can only work one day a week? Or one weekend a month? It isn't worth the paperwork. It makes more sense to hire someone that has their entire weekend free.

I live in a college town, and I don't believe what happened to you is a common practice. I know at least 100 college students with part time jobs. Not one has ever complained about businesses scheduling them during class. And yes, I would have heard such things.

It's also the decision of the job seeker/employee to not accept a job that doesn't pay enough to live on and look for work else where.

Very true. But that doesn't seem to be a problem. Certainly not around here. Nor at Disney.

Back in the 60's people could pay off the cost of college with a part time job. Also it was an option to work full time and part time then, now many jobs refuse to take back burner to another company. My grandmother (turning 90 this year, bless her) managed to raise 6 boys as a cafeteria worker and her husband a cab driver without assistance. They scraped their pennies together and lived very modestly, but they managed it. You could not do that in today's world, no way.

Did your grandparents go to college?

Maybe, with the cost, when people can't afford it, and can't get scholarships, they shouldn't go. Or at least put it off until they can afford it. There are many jobs available that pay very well, that don't require college. The world needs plumbers and carpenters.

Also, if you(general you) plan to go to college. Make sure that your degree will help you make a living. Don't choose Women's Studies or Art Appreciation. Instead go for Engineering or Nursing.

And everyone should remember, no one owes you a job. Nor a college degree. You need to work for both, if you want them.

 

[Planogirl]

I think that the salaries are too low particularly for the character actors. But I've learned that it's just wise to agree to disagree when this topic comes up.

 

[mmouse1239]

When people claim that if wages are raised a bit, customers will have to pay more, I get infuriated. ARE YOU KIDDING!!! As someone who has traveled to Disney many times and have seen how hard those people work to make me and my family happy, it makes my blood boil when I think that they are making such little money. This is just another example of the rich getting richer. If you haven't seen Disney's prices SOAR while paying their employees "table scraps", you need to crawl back under your rock.

 

[Madteaparty001]

First, you have me confused with someone else. While others have made the points you're assigning me, I haven't been one of them, so I can't argue what you're saying. I don't think I've talked about anyone sitting in front of a computer -- the only low-wage, low-skill job I've used as an example is checking to see if Mickey turned green and telling people to watch their steps. So again, in your first paragraph, you're assigning me things I haven't said, so I can't argue the point. I'm not arguing the merits of what companies should pay for anything -- I'm arguing that a company sees what a job entails and decides it's worth X. If you don't want to work for X, you shouldn't, but it's not the company's responsibility to raise the pay to X+Y if they don't feel the job is worth that. And the way they determine if the job is worth that is by seeing whether someone will take it at X. If they don't, they end up at X+Y.

In your second point, again, I think you'e arguing with someone else. What I have said is that companies pay for jobs, not people. But for the plumbers analogy, you're saying the same thing I am. Being a plumber takes time and it takes a learned skill (several, actually). You can't call yourself a plumber and get paid for being a plumber unless you have established that you have those skills. Because of that, there are fewer plumbers than there are lawn-care people, and because there are fewer of them, they can charge more and have customers agree to pay more because the pool to get another plumber is smaller than the pool to get another lawn care person, and if they need a plumber, then this is what it costs.

One of the problems that these discussions cause (And I'm pretty sure we're close to getting moved to community) is anecdotal evidence. I don't know your situation, but since this started with talking about Disney's low-wage salary structure, I think it would be better to stay within those parameters. Would you agree that most of the low-wage jobs Disney hires require little training to do the actual job? (I know Disney has culture training, too, but that's much more company-centric than any specific job) That for most of these low-wage jobs, there isn't an already-leanred skill set they're bringing into the application? And that those jobs, while frustrating and maddening like all jobs, are not perilous or straining or anything beyond the bare minimum that employment requires? If you agree with those assumptions, then why should WDW pay them more than is required to keep them filled? You seem to be making an argument that says (extrapolated), of course, that they should just because. I don't think that's a fair burden to put on any company or any person.

I honestly didn't want to reply any more but I did want to apologize if I was confusing you with someone else, I was writing a lot of long responses. I'm going to try and be brief in my reply to your points. 1. The low wage and lack of investment in a company's employees is why there's such culture of high turn over and moving companies for a promotion, this does, more often then not, cost more in the long run. 2. If the market was saturated with plumbers they would be making a fraction of their current salary no matter how skilled they were. Look at teachers for a good example, a very under paid skilled profession. 3. I think those working for Disney have and need a lot more training then you are giving them credit for. Not only do they have to preform the job in which they are hired for but they need to be trained in how to handle highly sensitive situations, medical emergencies, and crowd control. The only reason Disney is getting away with paying less is because of legal loopholes and abusing H1B visas. If you want an example of how I think a company should be run, please look no further than Costco.

 

[cbsnyber1]

I agree they should be paid more but, if you look at how many hours per week of work by Disney employees even a $1/hr raise for each one of them would be a huge amount of money. I'm not sure the exact number of employees Disney has in Orlando but I've heard is well above 50,000 people. 50,000 people x 40 hours per week = 2 million hours. Thus a dollar per hour raise but increased business expenses by $2 million per week!

Not all those 50,000 are hourly employees. I don't know the exact number of hourly vs. salaried.

However, let's take all 50,000 as hourly. If you increase their base pay by $2 an hour, that would add $208,000,000 in annual cost to Disney. In April 2016 Disney reported net income of $2.143 BILLION in profit for the first quarter of the year. Annualized, that amounts to $8.572 billion in profit. So, that added cost of a $2 an hour raise would amount to 2.4% of that annual profit.

Meanwhile, Bob Iger in 2015 made $46.5 million in salary and bonuses, an increase of 35.5% over previous year (among other things, Disney paid $614K to Iger for "security"). Yes, Iger is paid to improve corporate performance, raise the stock price. Nothing wrong there, capitalism at work - but part of that performance is unfairly paying hourly employees (my opinion). Yes, they are paying what the market says they should - but does that make it right?

 

[cmash95]

It is a legal requirement that internships at for profit businesses pay interns, unless they meet 6 specific requirements (basically a shadowing program can be unpaid). Government and Nonprofits are excluded from this. Disney pays all of their interns since they all provide a direct benefit to the company (the basic litmus test for paid vs unpaid).

i dont know where you got your info because most interns in centeral florida are not paid. employers figure that experience is better than pay. my son interned in three different jobs and never got any money and these were for for profit corporations and he wasn't shadowing anyone. he actually did alot of the grunt work