Disney is totally heartless!!!

[C.Ann]

First off, Jadynne. I am very sorry for your loss. I cannot imagine what you went through losing a child. But I am very familiar with Disney's attitude and agree with your view of the company completely. Furthermore...



Peter Pirate, I could not have said it any better. It is commonplace for some people on these boards to defend Disney at all costs. From ride accidents to unfortunate situations like Jadynne's. It is amazing that people can be so ignorant when it comes to this company.

Jadynne is one of many people to experience a dark side of Disney. But she is only one of a very few to share her experience on these boards. She has great courage to put something so fresh and painful on a board like the DIS for all to see. While the many people who shared thier condolances should be commended, the others who defended Disney have no respect or human decency.

I don't want to take away from Jadynne's tragic story in any way. But I used to be a Store Manager for The Disney Store. My mom was diagnosed with breast cancer and had to undergo surgery at the same time while my dad was in the hospital recovering from major surgery of his own. My parents lived 3 hours away and I had to take an emergency FMLA to be with both of them. My DM and HR did not want to grant me the leave, saying that the business was more important than my personal situation. I was forced to jump through hoops and go further up the chain of command to get a lousy week off.

Shortly after I returned from the leave, my DM took away another previously arranged trip that I had planned to be with my parents for a holiday. This was days before my mom was to begin radiation treatments for the cancer. Once again I was told that the business was more important than my personal situation.

I still took the 1 day off as planned. Two days after I returned to work, I was fired from my job. Looking back on it, I have always said that it was the best thing Disney did for me while I worked there. But it still shows how pathetic this company is when it comes to treating their employees with respect and dignity.

When I emailed my DM, Regional Director and HR to inform them that I would not be at work on the day I had previously been granted off, I used the quote by Walt Disney that appears at the bottom of this and all of my posts.

To those who wish to defend the mighty Disney by using the DIS to DISS those who have had a bad experience, think again. Better yet, keep your thoughts to yourself.

----------------------

Very well said!

 

[beachblanket]

It is commonplace for some people on these boards to defend Disney at all costs. From ride accidents to unfortunate situations like Jadynne's. It is amazing that people can be so ignorant when it comes to this company.

Hear, hear - and they get incredibly nasty when that is pointed out!!!!

 

[kelleigh1]

Sorry for your loss.


As for the insurance arguement going on here, I worked in the insurance industry (life and health) for 15+ years. It is very common for group life insurance policies to have significantly reduced benefits for children under 6 months of age. It seems heartless, but it's a very sad reality that babies are a significant risk for the first 6 months of life.

I would definitely suggest getting your hands on the actual policies from the insurance company directly and finding out exactly what the benefits are. I hope that you are able to find some peace despite all that you are dealing with.

 

[Chuck S]

Hear, hear - and they get incredibly nasty when that is pointed out!!!!

I don't think anyone has been nasty, or even defending Disney, they simply stated that group policies often have these types of limitations, and to "expect" a company, any company to go beyond those limits is unreasonable in this day and age. It has also been pointed out tht there is a Cast Member to Cast Member help organization already in place.

The law does say Family Leave is unpaid, and it is unclear from the original poster if Disney actually recalled her husband, or simply said that further time off would be unpaid.

Times have changed a lot, while most companies are no longer as generous with employees as they were a few years ago, in the 1950s there was no guaranteed family leave at all, not even maternity leave.

 

[WDSearcher]

I think it's also important for the OP to remember that, while she is totally focused on her own situation and not thinking beyond that, hers is probably not the only situation like this that Disney is dealing with. They are not focused only on her situation and helping her because there are probably a batch of other CMs who have had children, parents, spouses, grandparents, or friends die, get sick, or get diagnosed with a terminal illness at this same time. Disney employs 65,000 people in Florida alone -- unfortunately, the OP is not likely the only person in the company facing such a situation and asking for assistance.

Also ... while we all understand that the OP is lashing out in anger and grief and that part of that is directed at Disney, we have no proof that Disney is as heartless as she has maintained. There are a lot of facts left out and a lot of questions about things. It's clear that the OP was initally venting -- and now that it's out of her system, she seems to have focused her energies elsewhere as opposed to this board. But regarding her situation ... none of us have read her insurance policy; none of us have heard exactly what transpired re the FMLA leave; none of us have been privvy to her phone conversations with Disney. We're all going on her comments and her comments alone. It would be unfair to condemn Disney out-of-hand based on this. Without knowing more, all we know is one angry, grieving woman's perspective on the situation. It is quite possible that Disney did show compassion and offer help, but that they didn't do it in the way the OP was expecting and so it was read as not helping at all.

 

[kelleigh1]

I think it's also important for the OP to remember that, while she is totally focused on her own situation and not thinking beyond that, hers is probably not the only situation like this that Disney is dealing with. They are not focused only on her situation and helping her because there are probably a batch of other CMs who have had children, parents, spouses, grandparents, or friends die, get sick, or get diagnosed with a terminal illness at this same time. Disney employs 65,000 people in Florida alone -- unfortunately, the OP is not likely the only person in the company facing such a situation and asking for assistance.

Also ... while we all understand that the OP is lashing out in anger and grief and that part of that is directed at Disney, we have no proof that Disney is as heartless as she has maintained. There are a lot of facts left out and a lot of questions about things. It's clear that the OP was initally venting -- and now that it's out of her system, she seems to have focused her energies elsewhere as opposed to this board. But regarding her situation ... none of us have read her insurance policy; none of us have heard exactly what transpired re the FMLA leave; none of us have been privvy to her phone conversations with Disney. We're all going on her comments and her comments alone. It would be unfair to condemn Disney out-of-hand based on this. Without knowing more, all we know is one angry, grieving woman's perspective on the situation. It is quite possible that Disney did show compassion and offer help, but that they didn't do it in the way the OP was expecting and so it was read as not helping at all.

Well said!

And, if you don't mind me adding a bit, while it's stated that "Disney has no compassion", it's not as though Walt himself ihas decided what is covered and what isn't. Unfortunately, the policies that are in effect are dictating coverage and benefits little. And mistakes happen. So the initial denial and/or the cancellation may have been errors - whether human or computer generated. These things happen unfortunately and they tend to happen at the worst times.

 

[diznygirl]

It is commonplace for some people on these boards to defend Disney at all costs. From ride accidents to unfortunate situations like Jadynne's. It is amazing that people can be so ignorant when it comes to this company.

---------
To those who wish to defend the mighty Disney by using the DIS to DISS those who have had a bad experience, think again. Better yet, keep your thoughts to yourself.

Some of us are not so ignorant - my DH and I have worked for Disney on and off for over twenty years. We have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly. But there IS good. To say that a corporation as large as Disney is 100% evil is ignorant.

In this case, it sounds like they are getting blamed for something that isn't their fault.

 

[lillygator]

I don't think anyone has been nasty, or even defending Disney, they simply stated that group policies often have these types of limitations, and to "expect" a company, any company to go beyond those limits is unreasonable in this day and age. It has also been pointed out tht there is a Cast Member to Cast Member help organization already in place.

The law does say Family Leave is unpaid, and it is unclear from the original poster if Disney actually recalled her husband, or simply said that further time off would be unpaid.

Times have changed a lot, while most companies are no longer as generous with employees as they were a few years ago, in the 1950s there was no guaranteed family leave at all, not even maternity leave.

very well said.

OP, I am sorry for your loss.

 

[beachblanket]

I don't think anyone has been nasty, or even defending Disney, they simply stated that group policies often have these types of limitations.

Granted, but we're still waiting for proof of that, ergo, FACTS, not just opinions, broad generalizations or examples based on a single contract (which is all that has been offered here). Anyone arguing the "group policies often" point is more than welcome to offer a link to hard industry data proving it.

As for kelleigh1's point about "babies are a significant risk for the first 6 months of life," while I respect his industry experience, the facts argue that risk has dropped significantly over the last seven decades. And the underwriters know that.

Specifically, since the U.S began centralized death registrations in 1933 (when all States became included in the collection of death statistics), there has been an almost constant drop in the domestic infant mortality rates (IMR). In fact, they've gone down every year, with the exception of 1957-58 -- when a short-term, Thalidomide-related increase in the IMR was observed .

Through the 1930s and 1940s, the IMR declined by an average of 4 percent per year. The rate of decline slowed markedly to 1 percent per year for 1950 to 1964. Thereafter, until the early 1980s, infant mortality declined rapidly, by an average of almost 5 percent per year . From 1981 to 1989 the rate of decline again slowed to an average of 2 percent per year (some arguing that the geographic coverage of better neonatal care has expanded to the point where few regions have are seeing immediate additional opportunities for substangtive improvement).

That trend leaves one with a thought: group insurance -- which historically is a brutally competitive, efficient marketplace -- should be one of the first to recognize (and leverage for competitive pricing benefit) such a drop in underwriting risk.

 

[PatsMom]

QUOTE Granted, but we're still waiting for proof of that, ergo, FACTS, not just opinions, broad generalizations or examples based on a single contract (which is all that has been offered here). Anyone arguing the "group policies often" point is more than welcome to offer a link to hard industry data proving it. QUOTE


http://careamerica.com/sg.html
One group term provider that specifically notes "subject to certain limits for newborns and infants". They don't get specific but presumably the limits are lower or the coverage does not exist.
http://www.umich.edu/~benefits/forms/DepGLP.pdf
Here is a plan that doesn't cover infants at all until they are 15 days old.
http://www.hcclife.com/group-term-life.aspx?id=101
A plan that doesn't cover infants until 14 days
http://www.ucip.utah.gov/downloads/Spouse Dep group term life.pdf
A $1,000 coverage limit for up to age 6 months

I haven't been arguing anyone's point I just have reviewed a ton of employee benefits over the years and I wouldn't say it is uncommon to have limits on coverage for infants.

My heart goes out to the OP - I can't imagine how devastating it is to have a child die. But without knowing the facts, I don't think I can join in condemning Disney for the insurance when it is quite possibly a limitation of the group term policy.

 

[DevilDuckie]

I am so sorry for your loss and for all the troubles surrounding this terrible tragedy. If you are a member of a church, consider asking them for help. If you're not, Catholic charities do an awful lot of good works regardless of your faith. Check and see if there is something they can do to help ease the burden.

 

[KiKi Mouse]

I do not think anybody can comment unless they have worked for Disney.
As for insurance companies having reduced benefits for preterm infants etc. I find that VERY sad. I never knew that. While I can understand why they do this I have to think now of all those parents that leave the hospital with nothing only to get bills later and funeral costs on top of it.
Nobody needs that kind of stress during a time like that.

OP I am very sorry about the loss of your child.

 

[Disney Doll]

Granted, but we're still waiting for proof of that, ergo, FACTS, not just opinions, broad generalizations or examples based on a single contract (which is all that has been offered here). Anyone arguing the "group policies often" point is more than welcome to offer a link to hard industry data proving it.

As for kelleigh1's point about "babies are a significant risk for the first 6 months of life," while I respect his industry experience, the facts argue that risk has dropped significantly over the last seven decades. And the underwriters know that.

Specifically, since the U.S began centralized death registrations in 1933 (when all States became included in the collection of death statistics), there has been an almost constant drop in the domestic infant mortality rates (IMR). In fact, they've gone down every year, with the exception of 1957-58 -- when a short-term, Thalidomide-related increase in the IMR was observed .

Through the 1930s and 1940s, the IMR declined by an average of 4 percent per year. The rate of decline slowed markedly to 1 percent per year for 1950 to 1964. Thereafter, until the early 1980s, infant mortality declined rapidly, by an average of almost 5 percent per year . From 1981 to 1989 the rate of decline again slowed to an average of 2 percent per year (some arguing that the geographic coverage of better neonatal care has expanded to the point where few regions have are seeing immediate additional opportunities for substangtive improvement).

That trend leaves one with a thought: group insurance -- which historically is a brutally competitive, efficient marketplace -- should be one of the first to recognize (and leverage for competitive pricing benefit) such a drop in underwriting risk.

Well, we didn't get a lot of facts from the OP, which is very understandable given the extreme distress I am sure she & her family are experiencing. I don't necessarily consider "Disney is a cold heartless place" and "the policy is for $5000 but they only paid us $500" to necessarily be factual, as much as, again, a reaction during extreme stress.

Perhaps Disney is screwing the OP royally, in which case they should be reported to every regulatory agency there is and made to pay every penalty they have incurred, whether monetary or otherwise. I would recommend the Insurance Commissioner of her state, as well as the State Attorney general if there is a question of insruance misconduct or fraud on the part of Disney.

But, my guess is that when the OP is able to think a bit more clearly and start to make some sense of all this insurance, she may come to realize that they have followed the regulations. Now, perhaps we all dislike the regulations as written, but I'm not sure that even Disney has control over the insurance regualtions in any particular state.

I also think the information provided by other CMs with regard to the CM Assistance Program is a good avenue to explore.

 

[bumbershoot]

As for insurance companies having reduced benefits for preterm infants etc. I find that VERY sad. I never knew that. While I can understand why they do this I have to think now of all those parents that leave the hospital with nothing only to get bills later and funeral costs on top of it.

I think the limitation is the life insurance, not the health insurance. I think that's what is being talked about. The medical bills will be paid for how they will be paid for; it's just the life insurance part that was a surprise.

And as someone who is out thousands b/c of a billing problem that the MD refuses to fix (he billed something as non-emergency, and he was assigned to me but was out of network even though I was at an in network hospital, and his billing code made his dubious care payable at out of network instead of in-network as the emergency should have been covered), health insurance confusion and mess-ups can happen no matter what the age or employer...

But still, I think it's the life insurance that's being talked about.

 

[bumbershoot]

But I used to be a Store Manager for The Disney Store. My mom was diagnosed with breast cancer and had to undergo surgery at the same time while my dad was in the hospital recovering from major surgery of his own. My parents lived 3 hours away and I had to take an emergency FMLA to be with both of them. My DM and HR did not want to grant me the leave, saying that the business was more important than my personal situation. I was forced to jump through hoops and go further up the chain of command to get a lousy week off.

Shortly after I returned from the leave, my DM took away another previously arranged trip that I had planned to be with my parents for a holiday. This was days before my mom was to begin radiation treatments for the cancer. Once again I was told that the business was more important than my personal situation.

I especially address the bolded part.

I once took FMLA for my mom's sudden death, and there were absolutely hoops to jump through. They have paperwork and therefore I had paperwork.

In addition, their unofficial rule when I took it (which became 100% official after I took it and argued with their policies) is that you must first use ALL sick and vacation time BEFORE going on FMLA time. Since my situation was in March, the idea of having all my sick time gone was really disturbing to me. I've always had touchy health, and when I was working I did tend to take all my sick time, b/c I tend to get sick. So they made me take those first, and when i got back I argued long and hard with them. Since it wasn't written, they did end up giving it back to me (which meant I paid them back in the next paycheck).

But soon after it was official, that before you took FMLA you had to use up all your paid time off. So your situation would have been totally correct, b/c you wouldn't have HAD that time to take.





OP, I don't mean to take away from the pain you're going through. It's an awful loss, and to lose things AND have money issues on top of it is so hard. I don't share the same thoughts about a "proper" funeral, in fact we had a totally proper, for our family, funeral for under 1K, but being Buddhist makes things a bit different. So while I don't understand the need to pay huge amounts for a funeral, I understand that YOU are sad about it.

So even though I started off posting about insurance things, know that I am very sorry for your tragic loss.

 

[PatsMom]

I was under the impression it is the life insurance as well. I can't think of a medical policy I've reviewed that didn't provide coverage for a newborn. Not to say they don't exist but I haven't come across them.

 

[Talking Hands]

OP- I'm so very sorry for your loss, I hope that you can work through your pain and not let it consume you.

I don't quite understand what everyone means when they say edit your posts becasue someone from Disney may read them, and her husband could be without work because of a message board?!?!?!? Do we now live in the Middle east or what?? I thought there was such a thing as freedom of speech in this country. If someone with enough authority read these posts and figured out who the op's DH was, what are they really going to do, fire him? I HIGHLY doubt it!!!

OP - vent away, if I were you, I would hope that someone from Disney would get a whiff of these posts, maybe then you will get an audience for your concerns!

Disney has very strict policies as to what CM may say about their jobs, pay and benefits to outsiders and the CM can be fired for saying negative things on a message board. CM families do need to be careful what they say as their CM can get fired for their comments.

 

[DizBelle]

As for the FMLA thing... The way I understand it (and I went to the Department of Labor website to reread it) is that you can take FMLA if you are needed to care for a newborn, newly adopted/foster care child or immediate familiy member that is unable to care for themselves or if you yourself are unable to work due to serious health condition. In this situation, it seems that DH was not needed to care for the infant as he was being cared for in the hospital. I don't think that FMLA has to be granted if the employee just wants time off to spend at the hospital.

I suppose that individual employers can grant FMLA for other reasons but I believe that this is all they are legally required to provide for.

 

[Amlee]

As for the FMLA thing... The way I understand it (and I went to the Department of Labor website to reread it) is that you can take FMLA if you are needed to care for a newborn, newly adopted/foster care child or immediate familiy member that is unable to care for themselves or if you yourself are unable to work due to serious health condition. In this situation, it seems that DH was not needed to care for the infant as he was being cared for in the hospital. I don't think that FMLA has to be granted if the employee just wants time off to spend at the hospital.

I suppose that individual employers can grant FMLA for other reasons but I believe that this is all they are legally required to provide for.

Ok, my take on this, is the husband couldn't get FMLA based on the bolded part above AND the fact that the wife was home with said child. Everything I read, read as if you (the husband) has to be the primary care giver for the child.

 

[PlainJane]

OP: I'm very sorry for your loss.

Moderators: Can you edit the OP's post so she is not giving out info that could get her DH fired. I know, in the past moderator's have taken out info that gave away a person's name or address. I wouldn't ask normally, but the OP is under a lot of stress, and possibly not thinking clearly about the repercussions this could have on her family. If they are already having financial problems they don't need to be dealing with the loss of a job too.