Disney may be heading for some interesting litigation....

[minnie-apple-mouse]

Yet what the issue is new stuff, not old stuff...Even if it wasn't friends and family if they knew it would be a issue, would not be ratting the CM's out..
AKK

So that has been clearly stated/defined?

Seems odd they would write this if there is indeed no gray area:

"The performers are very concerned because you can't un-tell somebody something," Dalton said. "They have family and friends that already know this and have pictures of themselves in their performing roles. It's out there."

Your probably right-but defining "old stuff" that has been reposted is not always easy to discern.

If Disney is not the type to "look for an excuse" for turnover, financially or otherwise-then they should be safe.

Agreed "friends and family" may not be the ones "ratting them out", but others?

Regardless, if I had stuff out there, I would feel less secure with this new rule, at least without further "definition"-unless like you say it is for sure not an issue.

 

[Lewisc]

Yet what the issue is new stuff, not old stuff...Even if it wasn't friends and family if they knew it would be a issue, would not be ratting the CM's out.....The tone of the CM's was that this was a 1st amendment issue which it surely is not.

WHAT I am also reading from the article...........if the article is all true........is that this maybe more Union making a issue then the CM's themselves.

AKK

Union is doing its job. Negotiate and clarify language before any complaints or disciplinary actions are taken by Disney. CMs might not complain until Disney acts on its new, unilateral change. Union wants to prevent issues.

What happens if a relative, friend, acquaintance or ( for that matter "enemy") posts a picture on Facebook, me with john doe dressed in his Mickey outfit.

Disney needs to work the union in developing written policy which works and us fair

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Yet what the issue is new stuff, not old stuff...Even if it wasn't friends and family if they knew it would be a issue, would not be ratting the CM's out.....The tone of the CM's was that this was a 1st amendment issue which it surely is not.

Union is doing its job. Negotiate and clarify language before any complaints or disciplinary actions are taken by Disney. CMs might not complain until Disney acts on its new, unilateral change. Union wants to prevent issues.

What happens if a relative, friend, acquaintance or ( for that matter "enemy") posts a picture on Facebook, me with john doe dressed in his Mickey outfit.

Disney needs to work the union in developing written policy which works and us fair

AGREED!......However, the union looks to me anyway, to be building this up into more of a issue then it needs to be.........AKK

 

[JenSop]

I dont know about anyone else, but I have friends posting photos all the time from Disney - with characters. If I personally know that person playing the face character, I'm going to recognize them with or without the wig and make-up.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

So that has been clearly stated/defined?

Seems odd they would write this if there is indeed no gray area:

"The performers are very concerned because you can't un-tell somebody something," Dalton said. "They have family and friends that already know this and have pictures of themselves in their performing roles. It's out there."

Your probably right-but defining "old stuff" that has been reposted is not always easy to discern.

If Disney is not the type to "look for an excuse" for turnover, financially or otherwise-then they should be safe.

Agreed "friends and family" may not be the ones "ratting them out", but others?

Regardless, if I had stuff out there, I would feel less secure with this new rule, at least without further "definition"-unless like you say it is for sure not an issue.

We all can post our own take on all this..........I still get the impression the Union Bosses seem to be making more of this then the CN's themselves. However I do totally agree with you that if its already out there, its out there. If Disney was to try and discipline a CM for talking , they would have to show it happened after the new work rule.


AKK

 

[minnie-apple-mouse]

If Disney was to try and discipline a CM for talking , they would have to show it happened after the new work rule.


AKK

That's great news.

I'm glad Disney agreed to that, otherwise the CM would have to try and prove it was from before the new rule.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

That's great news.

I'm glad Disney agreed to that, otherwise the CM would have to try and prove it was from before the new rule.

Actually I figure Disney would have to prove it happened before the new rule.

Never saw a Union contract(and I had many a crew with Union contracts on my vessels) that said the employee would need to prove they didn't break the rule. The company (or on my Vessels I had to be able the prove) needs to prove it happened. If I tried to make a crew member prove it, I would have been lol out of the discipline meeting.

AKK

 

[Josh Hendy]

I still get the impression the Union Bosses seem to be making more of this then the CN's themselves.

You have this impression that it is mostly the union stirring up trouble when there was basically no trouble at all because every employee already knew about the rule, agreed with it, and obeyed it.

Yet it was the company who decided that there was enough of a problem, or a potential problem, that the previously well-understood and universally-obeyed verbal rule must now be committed to writing. In other words to make it into an offense subject to discipline such as suspension and dismissal.

And further, we've had some stories shared here on this forum that at least some CM's who play Disney characters do put their pictures in costume on facebook, frequently, and apparently a lot of CM's make no secret of telling their friends and family what characters the play.

In laying this at the feet of the unions I think you're barking up the wrong tree. If I was an employee I'd want to know what is the rule exactly, and why is it so important that I might be fired for doing what every other person in every other job does all the time (including cast members on stage, movies, tv, and even shopping mall Santa's). Namely, tell my friends and family and anyone else who wants to know about me from facebook, exactly what I do for a living.

And BTW ... can a CM gets fired if someone posts a picture of them in costume on facebook, and then tags them with their real name? Are you supposed to un-friend them or block them or something ... to preserve the Disney magic?

 

[Lewisc]

We all can post our own take on all this..........I still get the impression the Union Bosses seem to be making more of this then the CN's themselves. However I do totally agree with you that if its already out there, its out there. If Disney was to try and discipline a CM for talking , they would have to show it happened after the new work rule.


AKK

I don't agree. My impression is the author if the article is the one making a big deal out if it.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

You have this impression that it is mostly the union stirring up trouble when there was basically no trouble at all because every employee already knew about the rule, agreed with it, and obeyed it.

Yet it was the company who decided that there was enough of a problem, or a potential problem, that the previously well-understood and universally-obeyed verbal rule must now be committed to writing. In other words to make it into an offense subject to discipline such as suspension and dismissal.

You are correct.......Disney sees a big enough issue, effecting the operation of the parks that they need to make it official. They have the right to put rules in writing.

And further, we've had some stories shared here on this forum that at least some CM's who play Disney characters do put their pictures in costume on facebook, frequently, and apparently a lot of CM's make no secret of telling their friends and family what characters the play.

In laying this at the feet of the unions I think you're barking up the wrong tree. If I was an employee I'd want to know what is the rule exactly, and why is it so important that I might be fired for doing what every other person in every other job does all the time (including cast members on stage, movies, tv, and even shopping mall Santa's). Namely, tell my friends and family and anyone else who wants to know about me from facebook, exactly what I do for a living.

And BTW ... can a CM gets fired if someone posts a picture of them in costume on facebook, and then tags them with their real name? Are you supposed to un-friend them or block them or something ... to preserve the Disney magic?

You are correct.......Disney sees a big enough issue, effecting the operation of the parks that they need to make it official. They have the right to put rules in writing and they now know the rule exactly. As I pointed out before, Disney would have to prove they broke the rule after the written policy came out.


We do not have the facts to assume what if any discipline would occur. Common sense would dictate if others did something, the CM cannot be held responsible.

AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I don't agree. My impression is the author if the article is the one making a big deal out if it.

Now I disagree. The Union is calling this 1 amendment rights and a host of could bes and maybes, so they are raising the issues. This is assuming the article is right....there you have a good point, which believe I brought up as well.

AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Frankly we don't have much in the way of details or facts to draw the real conditions or the situation. Just a article that may or may not be correct, No information that is written on the Disney rules, and only the Union filed a complaint at the national level. This all boils down to just rumors and opinion.

AKK

 

[Lewisc]

Now I disagree. The Union is calling this 1 amendment rights and a host of could bes and maybes, so they are raising the issues. This is assuming the article is right....there you have a good point, which believe I brought up as well.

AKK

Go back and reread the article. The author claims some CMs are complaining about the first amendment. Article says union has an issue with Disney implementing a policy which was part of negotiations but never agreed to. It's a contract issue not a first amendment issue.

Does anyone doubt the resolution? Disney and the union will agree on specific rules.

 

[dinolounger]

The tone of the CM's was that this was a 1st amendment issue which it surely is not.

I don't agree, this situation is again knotty because it's not clear whether or not the recently announced advisory update to policies violate constitutional protections. The only way to find out will be if this matter ends up in litigation, which is a possibility if Disney pursues any punitive actions against CMs based on the new rules.

Frankly, this all could have been avoided if Disney management had been more procative about getting disclosure terms written into contracts. It sounds as if the company as been relying on the "gentleman's agreement" approach to this issue far beyond the point it had been bypassed by changes in technology and culture.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Go back and reread the article. The author claims some CMs are complaining about the first amendment. Article says union has an issue with Disney implementing a policy which was part of negotiations but never agreed to. It's a contract issue not a first amendment issue.

Does anyone doubt the resolution? Disney and the union will agree on specific rules.

I agree on the fact it will all be settled out, but we can keep going back and forth on the rest.

AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I don't agree, this situation is again knotty because it's not clear whether or not the recently announced advisory update to policies violate constitutional protections. The only way to find out will be if this matter ends up in litigation, which is a possibility if Disney pursues any punitive actions against CMs based on the new rules.

Frankly, this all could have been avoided if Disney management had been more procative about getting disclosure terms written into contracts. It sounds as if the company as been relying on the "gentleman's agreement" approach to this issue far beyond the point it had been bypassed by changes in technology and culture.

I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree..no constitutional issue here.

AKK

 

[dinolounger]

I am afraid we will have to agree to disagree..no constitutional issue here.

AKK

Yes. we will disagree because based on the legal discussion going on elsewhere about this situation there may well indeed be a constitutional issue here. Specifically, precedent that limits what an employer can dictate employees to do or not do when they are not working and are outside company property. One notable quote on this from a constitutional scholar:

"When can an employer legally discipline or terminate an employee for their online behavior? This will vary from state to state, as more states are passing all-encompassing "off duty conduct" laws that prohibit, at least potentially, an employer's ability to discipline an employee for online actions. That does not mean employers are without any mechanism for regulating an employee's online activity.

An employer has the right to discipline employees for their online behavior during working hours; an employee is at work to do work, not to send Twitter updates, post on Facebook or maintain a blog. The one caveat to this rule is that employers must be consistent in enforcing this social media policy; an employer cannot discipline employees when they make negative comments about the company, but ignore other non-work related activity while an employee is on the clock.

Second, an employer can, and must, intervene when an employee's online actions are placing the employer at legal risk -- such as betraying confidential information (ed: as others have observed, can Disney seriously make an argument that disclosure of the fact Muffy plays Donald Duck is putting the company at legal risk? ), or violating the Federal Trade Commission's rules on endorsements of the company's products, or threatening or harassing a co-worker. Third, employers can act when an employee has crossed a line and acted disloyally. Complaining about your boss or your pay isn't disloyal; telling people that the hospital where you work is unsafe would be disloyal (ed: see above comment - is disclosure that a character is really just an actor in a suit being "disloyal?" )- though if there are real safety concerns raised, the employer needs to address them.

Bottom line: again, this is a knotty situation by virtue of the ambiguity of how far Disney is trying to reach into the private, off hours behavior of CMs.

 

[cmash95]

first universal isnt union but again this isnt a new policy. This has been around since the beginning. I think the only new thing might be that someone actually put it in writing. Like I said before the union rep that filed the grievance doesnt work as a character. they represent themand i asked people I know that are friends with several furry and face characters and universal and they informed me that not only is that the policy but they can be fired on the spot if there is even a hint of the character they portray. and like i said universal can do that because they aren't reprsented by a unnion. oh and it's the same a busch gardens in tampa as well

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Yes. we will disagree because based on the legal discussion going on elsewhere about this situation there may well indeed be a constitutional issue here. Specifically, precedent that limits what an employer can dictate employees to do or not do when they are not working and are outside company property. One notable quote on this from a constitutional scholar:

"When can an employer legally discipline or terminate an employee for their online behavior? This will vary from state to state, as more states are passing all-encompassing "off duty conduct" laws that prohibit, at least potentially, an employer's ability to discipline an employee for online actions. That does not mean employers are without any mechanism for regulating an employee's online activity.

An employer has the right to discipline employees for their online behavior during working hours; an employee is at work to do work, not to send Twitter updates, post on Facebook or maintain a blog. The one caveat to this rule is that employers must be consistent in enforcing this social media policy; an employer cannot discipline employees when they make negative comments about the company, but ignore other non-work related activity while an employee is on the clock.

Second, an employer can, and must, intervene when an employee's online actions are placing the employer at legal risk -- such as betraying confidential information (ed: as others have observed, can Disney seriously make an argument that disclosure of the fact Muffy plays Donald Duck is putting the company at legal risk? ), or violating the Federal Trade Commission's rules on endorsements of the company's products, or threatening or harassing a co-worker. Third, employers can act when an employee has crossed a line and acted disloyally. Complaining about your boss or your pay isn't disloyal; telling people that the hospital where you work is unsafe would be disloyal (ed: see above comment - is disclosure that a character is really just an actor in a suit being "disloyal?" )- though if there are real safety concerns raised, the employer needs to address them.

Bottom line: again, this is a knotty situation by virtue of the ambiguity of how far Disney is trying to reach into the private, off hours behavior of CMs.

Still one opinion vs another with very limited facts.....AKK

 

[7series]

This is not a first amendment issue. The purpose of the first amendment, and indeed of the entire Bill of Rights, is to place limitations on what the government, and only the government, can do that infringes on our rights. You have no first amendment rights at your place of employment. An employer is not bound by the constitution and is free to limit your speech in any way they see fit to protect their interests.

@ dinolounger: Your scholar's quote has nothing to do with constitutional issues. It references state laws. Employers are bound by state law. They are not bound by the Bill of Rights. That is constitutional law 101.