Disney Hourly Salaries

[Madteaparty001]

I'm sorry, but this entire post reveals a fundamental disconnect in your view of how the typical private sector job works. If you think that a majority of people in professional positions are only putting in 40 hours per week, and that teachers having the summer off equates to the time off those people in 'normal' jobs get, you do not understand the way the private sector works.

Again, I'm talking about professionals here -- people whose careers require education and training comparable to, or more than, that required by teachers and who make a respectable salary. The majority of such jobs do not entail a 9-5 schedule, but instead require the same immense number of 'extra' hours that you mention teachers have to put in. It goes with the territory, and it is expected of people in professional positions of all types. And yet, no summers off. To argue that teachers do not receive a great deal more time off than other professionals because of the 'extra' hours they put in is, I'm sorry, just plain wrong.

You are comparing a teacher to someone who, at their job, typically puts in 60 hours a week every week for the entire year. I am comparing a teacher to someone who's hours are typically 40 hours a week every week of the year. This is how their hours average out when you take summer vacation into account. If teachers are getting paid so much in your area it's because the cost of living is high. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_211.60.asp
As you can see, the average pay is much more in line with this.

My DH also works in IT, his department does not have on call and works 40 hours a week. The company staffs IT 24/7 (and they also are paid more than the average teacher is). Your experience in the job force does not equal everyone's experience. I wonder why you seem to have such a disrespect for the job teachers perform and why you would wish more hardship on them.

Workers on cruise ships have similar work schedules, months of work every day with a month or two off at a time. Your argument is based on what you think is 'fair'. Your opinion does not get to dictate how the job market works. Should a food critic not get paid to eat at a restaurant? Should a CEO not have his airfare covered? Every job has pros and cons. Just because a teacher has what you deem an unfair 'pro', doesn't mean they don't also have an unfair 'con' you haven't considered. I've also stated that teachers do continue to do work during the summer despite how you see it.

http://www.nea.org/home/12661.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ek-on-average/2012/03/16/gIQAqGxYGS_blog.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011...week-u-s-teachers-hours-among-worlds-longest/

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1999/04/art4full.pdf

 

[cbsnyber1]

Both have jobs expected to contribute to the profit of the company, however, the lowest paid person is 1) NOT responsible for the health, welfare and well-being of literally tens of thousands of employees, 2) NOT personally liable for a number of elements facing the company (i.e. fiduciary liability), 3) NOT expected to be on call 24/7, 4) NOT expected to have the in-depth understanding of all facets of the organization...

Shall I continue?

Are you suggesting that Bob Iger, during an average week, works 2,159 times harder than that lowest paid employee? If so, please continue.

Bob Iger has one responsibility - to the shareholders of Walt Disney, Inc. Any way he can drive up the stock price is fine with him, even if it means demeaning those at the bottom of the company pay scale with a self-justified "market rate" wage. Does that make it right, from a moral perspective? Would it kill Disney to spend a little of its huge annual profit to ensure a decent, livable wage to all employees?

My point is simple, and I've lived through it: those at the top of the ladder are coddled and compensated far beyond common sense dictates simply because they bring value to the shareholders. That's fine, but don't do it on the backs of those struggling to eke out a living at the bottom of that same ladder. Do a search on the top companies to work for. In 2016 to date per Glassdoor, Airbnb is #1 - a "customer experience specialist" makes $20.38 an hour (https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Airbnb-Salaries-E391850.htm). In fact, the lowest hourly wage I could see is $17.87 an hour (plus benefits). Why can't Disney (or any low paying company) afford that, given that huge profit margin they report quarterly?

The irony here for me is that I now am retired, with a fat portfolio of mutual funds some of which I am sure contain Disney stock. The better Disney and hundreds of other stocks in my portfolio perform, the better is my retirement. You know what? I am willing to sacrifice some of that gain if those working hard at the lowest rungs at these companies get a bit of a better life from unselfish actions by the top management of those companies.

 

[cbsnyber1]

How many other people could do the job that Bob Iger does at Disney, and do it effectively? How many other people could do the job that the lowest paid person in the company does, and do it effectively? Answer that honestly, and you have the answer to your question.

Well, in that context, explain this to me:

"From 1978 to 2014, inflation-adjusted CEO compensation increased 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.9
percent growth in a typical worker’s annual compensation over the same period." From the same article:

"The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio, 20-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 376-to-1 in 2000 and was 303-to-1 in 2014, far higher than in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s." How do you justify that?

(http://www.epi.org/publication/top-...market-gains-and-the-rest-of-the-0-1-percent/)

 

[Maineiak]

Are you suggesting that Bob Iger, during an average week, works 2,159 times harder than that lowest paid employee? If so, please continue.

Not at all, but this is a disingenuous argument. Under your rationale, you are implying that if someone makes $30,000 and works 40 hrs/wk and has a manager that makes $60,000, said manager should work 80 hrs/week. If that manager has a manager that makes $120,000, they should work 160 hours a week? None of those salaries are unrealistic. And I know "working longer" does not equate to "working harder" but "working harder" is a qualitative measure, not quantitative. My original point was the $30,000 worker can go home and shut their brain off from work. Bob Iger doesn't get that luxury.

Bob Iger has one responsibility - to the shareholders of Walt Disney, Inc. Any way he can drive up the stock price is fine with him, even if it means demeaning those at the bottom of the company pay scale with a self-justified "market rate" wage. Does that make it right, from a moral perspective? Would it kill Disney to spend a little of its huge annual profit to ensure a decent, livable wage to all employees?

Again, I disagree. Bob is responsible to and for many stakeholders - and that includes both employees and shareholders. Is his exact wage justified? Probably not. Does it make it right from a moral perspective? Perhaps not. However, you want the best person to lead your company that you can. Right, wrong or indifferent, those best people are attracted via $ and perks.

I work for a small non-profit. We have no shareholders, yet our CEO makes roughly 32x that of a front-line employee. Is that right? Does that mean he works 32x harder than a front-line employee? No, but he sure has a lot more responsibility and is therefore compensated according to what the market will bear to shoulder that responsibility.

EDIT: And I meant to add that no, it wouldn't kill Disney to spend more of it's profit on higher wages. What exactly that increase should be, I don't know. But it should be more than the mandated minimum wage.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Jeez...the pro/con teacher debate continues...I see?
Here's the reality (from a family of teachers):

Do teachers put in more average hours during their normal schedule from sept - June?

Likely yes...so they do earn back some of the summer...

Does that offset an 75-80 day break where there are no job requirments and that no other workers on earth get?

Sorry...but no. I'm not placing more or less value on teaching compared to other jobs...they all have merit and downsides...

But summers off is stil advantage:teachers.

 

[mcjaco]

My main gripe about the teacher argument is their "we work soooo many hours during the school year, so summers off are fair." Yeah, and I work 45 hours a week or more every week of the year. And I only have 3 weeks vacation. Explain how that's equal????

I also have a friend that makes over $100K teaching broadcasting. BROADCASTING! It's not even a mandatory class to get your HS diploma. Give me a break.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

My main gripe about the teacher argument is their "we work soooo many hours during the school year, so summers off are fair." Yeah, and I work 45 hours a week or more every week of the year. And I only have 3 weeks vacation. Explain how that's equal????

I also have a friend that makes over $100K teaching broadcasting. BROADCASTING! It's not even a mandatory class to get your HS diploma. Give me a break.

Everybody has a "yeah, but..."
In defense of their jobs...

The teacher "yeah, but..." To the absolutely zero (as in no calls, no emails, the school is on lockdown) disturbance for the 2 month annual vacation...is "but we work so much during the year"

Yeah...25 year vets teaching the same subjects never reuse the playbook

It's a means to justify the ends.

But we all do it. I'm on vacation starting tomorrow...but I'll be bothered everyday...

It's how I justify my ridiculous salary, 5 weeks of vacation, and self set schedule for 47 weeks a year...and 4 day work weeks.

We all have to sleep at night

 

[rteetz]

Since it seems this topic is hard to stick too and teaching salaries have nothing to do with Disney salaries. I'm going to close this thread.