Disney workers fired over sweaty costumes

[NYDisneyKid]

Interesting aricle. Im on the workers side and I hope they win.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-disney-sweaty-costumes-20141025-story.html#

 

[OKW Lover]

Very interesting article. I'm on Disney's side, they need to maintain show quality.

 

[halleous]

Im on Disney's side if others where willing these where just being picky IMO and spoilt the experience of those audience members waiting to see the show

 

[Luvchefmic]

Interesting aricle. Im on the workers side and I hope they win.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-disney-sweaty-costumes-20141025-story.html#

I am too, but don't think they will.

 

[jodyb]

I think it's really hard to pick a "side" with just the information from the article. Obviously, for Disney, and for most professional performers "The show must go on" is a basic tenet, and they depend on their performers to show up and do the job and not disappoint the guests. So my first reaction was - if you are a really dedicated professional performer, you must go on even if there is a little hardship or yuckiness involved. However, without actually talking to these performers and seeing the "yuckiness" firsthand to know what they were talking about that grossed them out so much, I really think it's unfair to either side to jump to any conclusion about who's "right". Personally, I would find it really disgusting to put on a garment that I believed was "tainted" with another person's sweat. I really would. Would I suck it up and put it on for the sake of the show, and then "deal with it" later? Probably. But that's, again, based on very little knowledge about what actually was the condition of those garments. Basically, if they really were "unwearable", then we should "side" with the performers. If it was just a mild grossness that falls under the category of "the show much go on", then we should "side" with Disney. And to repeat yet again - we really don't have enough info to judge. I just hope that the outcome of the dispute will be fair to everyone.

 

[surferdave]

There better be more to this story. It looks like far too petty a problem to fire people over and not find a way to work it out.

 

[cakebaker]

Another vote for we don't have near the information needed to make a judgement.

It all depends on just how soiled were the costumes. Refusing to go on stage because performers aren't happy about one thing or another is something I imagine Disney does not want to encourage. Performers have to know if they choose not to do their job, they're going to lose that job.

On the other hand, if their garments were really disgusting, there had been time to clean them and Disney just didn't- then whoever is in charge of that ought to get fired, not the performers.

The only thing I'm pretty sure of is someone in this deserved to get canned. I just don't know who.

 

[jodyb]

There better be more to this story. It looks like far too petty a problem to fire people over and not find a way to work it out.

I'm not sure you're right about it being a "petty problem". The problem we're talking about is a very popular show being canceled at last minute. For Disney, this isn't a bit "petty", and performers refusing to perform could be grounds for firing. It's possible that the performers were being petty, but as I said before, we just don't have enough info to know whether it really was petty or it really would have been impossible for them to perform in those costumes. Either way, Disney didn't fire them over something petty - they fired them for refusing to do their jobs. (again, not taking sides, just saying)

 

[goofy4tink]

Let me see if I understand this correctly.....CMs went to put on their costumes, and found them on a rack, 'touching' other sweaty/dirty costumes, so they refused to put them on because the clean costumes were now dirty? Sorry, but I find it extremely hard to believe that those unitards became unwearable because they 'touched' sweaty costumes. It's a petty, minor issue. Were they damp, were they soiled? I doubt it.
Sorry, but I have to line up behind Disney on this one.

 

[NYDisneyKid]

I think it's really hard to pick a "side" with just the information from the article. Obviously, for Disney, and for most professional performers "The show must go on" is a basic tenet, and they depend on their performers to show up and do the job and not disappoint the guests. So my first reaction was - if you are a really dedicated professional performer, you must go on even if there is a little hardship or yuckiness involved. However, without actually talking to these performers and seeing the "yuckiness" firsthand to know what they were talking about that grossed them out so much, I really think it's unfair to either side to jump to any conclusion about who's "right". Personally, I would find it really disgusting to put on a garment that I believed was "tainted" with another person's sweat. I really would. Would I suck it up and put it on for the sake of the show, and then "deal with it" later? Probably. But that's, again, based on very little knowledge about what actually was the condition of those garments. Basically, if they really were "unwearable", then we should "side" with the performers. If it was just a mild grossness that falls under the category of "the show much go on", then we should "side" with Disney. And to repeat yet again - we really don't have enough info to judge. I just hope that the outcome of the dispute will be fair to everyone.

So you would suck it up and go on with the show with the possibilty of contracting some disease (EBOLA as one)? hmmmmm

 

[tony67]

From the article: "Though this was a one-time incident, Teamsters recording secretary and business agent Donna-Lynne Dalton likened it to a controversy that arose in 2001 over Disney's practice of making workers share bike shorts and tights. In a contract agreement reached that year, Disney gave in and allowed each worker to have his or her own set."

Disney was run a bit better back them and they wanted people to share shorts and tights???
I can only imagine what they doing now in their days of cuts all over the place..it sounds to me like there is a lot more to this story than one rack touching another rack...

 

[jodyb]

So you would suck it up and go on with the show with the possibilty of contracting some disease (EBOLA as one)? hmmmmm

Obviously, if I thought it was bad enough that it threatened my health, I would NOT put on that garment. My point was that WE DON'T KNOW how bad the costumes were, so we can't make a judgement! That's why I said I would "probably" suck it up. We just don't have enough info!

 

[liljimmyt]

This doesn't sound like anything that a quick spray with a can of Lysol couldn't have fixed. I'm pretty sure that all of us have experienced far worse than this in a high school gym locker room at some point.

 

[surferdave]

I'm not sure you're right about it being a "petty problem". The problem we're talking about is a very popular show being canceled at last minute. For Disney, this isn't a bit "petty", and performers refusing to perform could be grounds for firing. It's possible that the performers were being petty, but as I said before, we just don't have enough info to know whether it really was petty or it really would have been impossible for them to perform in those costumes. Either way, Disney didn't fire them over something petty - they fired them for refusing to do their jobs. (again, not taking sides, just saying)

Disney has demonstrated repeatedly that their attractions are subject to last minute closings with little or no explanation of why and they are usually defended rather aggressively for it around here.

If workers without a history of performance issues stop a show over a potential health concern, no matter how trite it may seem to the employer, they had best resolve it openly and not summarily dismiss the issue and the workers and send other workers into the same condition.

 

[LaurenT]

I have to assume the performers were very taken aback by the condition of the garments - I can't imagine them refusing to perform otherwise. Couple that with the fact that there were three of them ... Most of the others probably weren't affected ... I doubt all the unitards came in contact with the soiled pieces. So of the ones that were soiled, three refused to put them on ... Not just one germophobe....
If "the show must go on" why would they cancel with only three performers missing from such a large cast? I'm in show business and I'm thinking there must have been a way to work around it / unless it was any of the four main singers. An if they had to cancel - so be it. Guests can come back for the next show.
So, I'm on the performers side ... This is something Disney should have voiced displeasure at, and then figured out a way to make sure that performers never have to worry about putting on a skin tight unitard that is moist with someone else's sweat. The person who brought that rack in and left it up against a clean rack should have been reprimanded (but not fired. No one needed to be fired here).

 

[jodyb]

This is something Disney should have voiced displeasure at, and then figure out a way to make sure that performers never have to worry about putting on a skin tight unitard that is moist with someone else's sweat. There person who brought that each in and left it up against a clean rack should have been reprimanded (but not fired. No one needed to be fired here).

I think Lauren makes a good point - that this could have been resolved without anyone being fired - but again, because WE LACK INFORMATION here - really what we know from the article the OP posted is SO MINIMAL, we really should just be saying "this is interesting. I wish we knew more. Meanwhile either "side" could be right or wrong...."

 

[Jennasis]

What disease could someone potentially pick up from wearing a costume that had leaned up against another person's sweaty costume?

 

[Minerva Mouse]

According to the Facebook comments on the news article, a few of the CM's mentioned that this isn't an isolated incident as the article suggests. I'm not sure what I would have done if I were in the performers shoes.

 

[LaurenT]

What disease could someone potentially pick up from wearing a costume that had leaned up against another person's sweaty costume?

I have to say - i wouldn't really be worried about disease so much...BUT - I don't think it was a matter of the unitard just touching the sweaty items. I just can't see a performer refusing to go on because "mommy - his sleeve touched mine". And again, there were three of them - it wasn't just one guy who could easily be shrugged off as overly picky.
The sweaty rack was probably drenched in sweat and wasn't just "touching" but was squashed up against the clean clothes.
If it were me.... if I went to get my unitard and it was actually damp from someone else's sweat... I'm not sure what decision I'd make, but I would definitely not be happy.

 

[jcb]

The article makes it sound like the employees violated the work now, grieve later rule. Refusals to work are difficult to defend in arbitration and successes are usually limited to where the refusal was based on an imminent danger.

The teamster's website explains this principle (in discussing a different situation):

When assigned to work or projects like this the proper thing to do is to perform the work and grieve the violation afterwards. The exception to the “work now, grieve later” rule is that if there is a possibility of death or serious bodily harm that may occur as a result of performing the task. Only then can the work can be refused.

Don’t put your or your coworker’s job at risk by refusing, or forcing your coworker to refuse, the work. The best way to solve these types of disputes is using the grievance process, taking it all the way before a neutral in arbitration if the parties can’t resolve the issue at a lower level.

http://teamster.org/content/ualcalcmi-mechanics-weekly-update-december-6-2011