Disney's Dirty Secret

[Stitchfans]

DH is a truck driver and each month gets a small magazine from the Teamsters union. There was a small article in the March/April issue that was titled Disney's Dirty Secret. Here is what it said:

was talking about another company then started the Disney one like this


And then there's the Walt Disney Company, a company known for exploiting workers across the globe---- except for its executives. CEO Michael Eisner hired Michael Ovitz to be his number two at the compan. After only 15 months at the company Eisner fired Ovitz and gave him a $140 million severance package.

In fact, Disney is trying to shift more costs onto workers. In 2004 it haggled with its unions for 8 months with wages, health care and pension topping the issues.

Andrew Carroll, a shop steward at Disney World for Teamsters Local 385 in Oralndo was a new employee at the time. "The other contract negotiations were hard. Disney wanted to increase our benefit costs and there was a big uproar. We voted down the contract three times before we fnally came to an agreement.

END OF ARTICLE

just thought some of you might find this interesting since the topic of how Disney pays its employees is often a hot topic. not sure if anything can be done to change it just wanted to let you know what I found.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

So this isn't a bed bug thread? Awesome!

 

[luv2nascar]

isn't that the way the tide has turned. Employers are making a fortune of the backs of their workers and we are not sharing in the profits??
It seems like it in the area where I live anyways.

 

[Disney Doll]

You know, I have never really understood why someone would take a job at a place that they thought wasn't paying them enough, or where they didn' like the benfit package.

Those things are usually not a secret until after you get hired. usually pay and benefits are discussed before the actual hiring, so if one, the other or both are not acceptable to oyu, why take the job?

It's been a few years since I have job hunted, but if I interviewed for a job, was told the salary & befit package, and didn't like either/or, I'd either negotiate for an improvement in them or I'd say "Thank you for oyur time, but your offer is not interesting to me for this reason" and then I'd go on to explain why.

I have done that in the past. I have been offered and refused jobs where some part of the offer was unacceptable. Can you no longer do that as a job seeker?

At the very worst, if I had to take a job because I needed the paycheck. I'd take the unaccpetable job and continue to job search until a better job came along.

 

[bicker]

isn't that the way the tide has turned. Employers are making a fortune of the backs of their workers and we are not sharing in the profits??
It seems like it in the area where I live anyways.

What is even more interesting interesting is that that is the way it has always been, going all the way back to feudalism and before.

Indeed, workers today enjoy a substantially better situation than even just 50 years ago, and much better than 100 years ago.

 

[hucifer]

So this isn't a bed bug thread? Awesome!

It can be, if we hijack it.

 

[Dana49]

You know, I have never really understood why someone would take a job at a place that they thought wasn't paying them enough, or where they didn' like the benfit package.

Those things are usually not a secret until after you get hired. usually pay and benefits are discussed before the actual hiring, so if one, the other or both are not acceptable to oyu, why take the job?

It's been a few years since I have job hunted, but if I interviewed for a job, was told the salary & befit package, and didn't like either/or, I'd either negotiate for an improvement in them or I'd say "Thank you for oyur time, but your offer is not interesting to me for this reason" and then I'd go on to explain why.

I have done that in the past. I have been offered and refused jobs where some part of the offer was unacceptable. Can you no longer do that as a job seeker?

At the very worst, if I had to take a job because I needed the paycheck. I'd take the unaccpetable job and continue to job search until a better job came along.

AMEN!

 

[drakethib]

You know, I have never really understood why someone would take a job at a place that they thought wasn't paying them enough, or where they didn' like the benfit package.

Those things are usually not a secret until after you get hired. usually pay and benefits are discussed before the actual hiring, so if one, the other or both are not acceptable to oyu, why take the job?

It's been a few years since I have job hunted, but if I interviewed for a job, was told the salary & befit package, and didn't like either/or, I'd either negotiate for an improvement in them or I'd say "Thank you for oyur time, but your offer is not interesting to me for this reason" and then I'd go on to explain why.

I have done that in the past. I have been offered and refused jobs where some part of the offer was unacceptable. Can you no longer do that as a job seeker?

At the very worst, if I had to take a job because I needed the paycheck. I'd take the unaccpetable job and continue to job search until a better job came along.

Agree

 

[Hannathy]

and the unions need to talk - ever see what they pay their top people ! Union officials (not their workers)

 

[Alice Sr.]

and the unions need to talk - ever see what they pay their top people ! Union officials (not their workers)

oops another dirty little secret slipped out

 

[lindalinda]

Of course if the wages or benefits arent acceptable, you dont take the job. Thats not the issue here. The issue is RE-negotiated benefits. In other words...today you make XX$$ and pay X$ for health insurance, life insurance..etc. In the negotiations ..they change it. You may be OFFERED less$ or have to pay more $ for ins. etc. If you have held a job for many years... and suddenly your pay is less take home, you would be fighting it also.

 

[bicker]

That's a bit too subtle of a nuance for comfort, and it seems to imply an assumption which is perhaps the root of some evil: It seems to imply that once you have a job you have a right to keep that job, without any changes. That's simply not reasonable. Most folks work at will: They're not obligated to keep the job and the company is not obligated to keep them employed. There is no reason why that shouldn't be the case -- employment is a confluence of convenience for both sides.

 

[lindalinda]

That's a bit too subtle of a nuance for comfort, and it seems to imply an assumption which is perhaps the root of some evil: It seems to imply that once you have a job you have a right to keep that job, without any changes. That's simply not reasonable. Most folks work at will: They're not obligated to keep the job and the company is not obligated to keep them employed. There is no reason why that shouldn't be the case -- employment is a confluence of convenience for both sides.

Wow...got the old thesaurus out for that one!

People live on budgets. My comment was completely straightforward. It wasnt subtle at all, and implies nothing. If your company cuts pay, through changes in benefits, hours worked, or straight wages, you are going to be impacted, and will fight it (if you can). Yes, you can look for another job. Stability is important to most households though, and sometimes the options for employment are limited, esp. in certain geographical areas and in some employment sectors (ask airline employees about this).

 

[BriarfoxinWA]

oops another dirty little secret slipped out

Speaking of unions - at my DH job he HAS NO CHOICE about being a union member. Since he has the job - he's in the union and has the privilege of paying $1,000 a year in dues. The union has NEVER done one thing for my DH when he needed them...what a waste of our money.

 

[slo]

Susan - are you spreading dirty secrets again????

Just teasing - I'm just stopping to say HI!!!

 

[bicker]

Wow...got the old thesaurus out for that one!

Nope... all those words are on-board this ship.

Stability is important to most households though

as well as to most businesses. One of the tools business has to achieve stability is cost-control.

 

[FSUGrad97]

and the unions need to talk - ever see what they pay their top people ! Union officials (not their workers)

EXACTLY!

I remember back in the 80's when the UAW went on strike and people were losing their homes. We had a neighbor who was in the UAW leadership and he brought home a brand new Corvette.

The Teamsters criticizing Disney is a bit much, seeing as how the Teamsters have had some issues of their own.

 

[RadioNate]

I don't know why any of this is new. The Ovitz thing happened nearly 10 years ago. Eisner isn't even the CEO anymore.

I'm not saying Iger is any better but this is a trend in every industry.

Employees are being asked to take a greater share of the burden while the top dogs are getting richer.

Sure it would be great if we could all quit our jobs in protest. It would be great if after 10 years on the job when we were asked to take a pay cut or forgo our promised retirement savings that we could just up and get another job with better benefits and pay.

But really how realistic is that?

 

[ducklite]

I think this thread is laughable. What company isn't looking to control costs these days? Show me a single company that hasn't had an increase in the benefits costs that have been passed to employees over the past ten years of so. Our son is no longer on our health insurance, and DH and I are paying as much now for couples coverage as we did five years ago for family coverage.

It happens. It has nothing to do with union or no union, it has to do with the need for companies to control costs and add to the bottom line--they are accountable to stock holders.

And I agree wholeheartedly with Disney Doll, if you don't like it, find another job. Your desire to live in a certain geographical area is nobodies problem but your own. DH and I lived in an economically depressed area. We packed up and moved to an area with better emplyment opportunities, and it was the best thing we ever did. This is not Cuba or China, you are free to live where you want, work where you want, and if you CHOOSE to do otherwise, you've got no one to blame but yourself because where you choose to work you are no longer making enough to pay your bills. This is not a socialist or communist country. You make choices, you live with them, and you have no right to complain.

And BTW--saying there aren't opportunities in a certain fields is utter BS. Get training in another field to increase emplyment, advancement, and income opportunities. There are choices in everyone's lives. Some involve sacrifice. If you aren't willing to make a change for yourself because you aren't willing to temporarily sacrifice (wife working outside the home so husband can take classes, taking classes on evenings and weekends and missing some familiy events, working a p/t job to save money to move to a new area, etc.), then you get what you get with no reason to complain.

This is all just another example of the entitlement mentality. Get off your a** and make the change for yourself, because NO ONE is responsible for your life except you. And if you're too lazy, ignorant, head-in-the-sanded, etc. to be bothered, then you'll have to accept the consecquences--and there sure as heck won't be sympathy from me.

Anne

 

[Stitchfans]

Speaking of unions - at my DH job he HAS NO CHOICE about being a union member. Since he has the job - he's in the union and has the privilege of paying $1,000 a year in dues. The union has NEVER done one thing for my DH when he needed them...what a waste of our money.

DH brought this article to my attention since it is his magazine, but I didn't even stop to think about how it had just recently hit home with me. I just a few weeks ago was having problems at work and the union didn't help me at all either. Yeh, sure is a waste of my money. 7 years down the drain.

Although DH swears by the Teamsters Union. He thinks they are wonderful.
He says he say employees that messed up big time and who deserved to lose their job, but yet the union saved it. Here I was innocent and the union didn't do anything for me.