Should cast members be paid more?

[DisneyBamaFan]

...Since these situations exist, Americans don't generally value service workers getting better wages.

I am not sure that you are drawing the right conclusions from the data, and the markets don't always provide clear examples, but I'll try to offer one: Target vs WalMart.

Target pays employees more, has wider aisles, has fewer sales, and is more focused on the consumer's shopping experience. Target wants to be seen as an "upscale" WalMart, and its prices for some of the exact same merchandise are generally higher as a result. Target shoppers are willing to pay more for the improved experience.

Now, do the consumers care that the employees are making more? Probably not - it probably never enters their minds - but they are willing to pay more for the results. So, Americans are not opposed to paying more if they receive something tangible in return.

I suspect that Disney could charge substantially more than they currently do and see very little fall-off in attendance. Why? Because the service at WDW is substantially better than that received at any other amusement park in the world.

Americans will pay through the nose for excellence.

 

[Dis4]

Instinctively, I know this. But when you say "Being a CM is not a high skill job, anyone can do it." you're plopping down a very generalist comment that both over-simplifies the issue and doesn't take into account the vast diversity of jobs at Disney.

The jobs that require high skill are not getting paid $8 an hour. That's why I did that, I thought we were all on the same page there.

 

[Carly_Roach]

People are generally selfish creatures. What you really want is to change human nature.

But, with respect the thread topic, WDW employee wages have nothing to do with greed, per se. They are the result of a job market in a capitalist society. Now, you may not support capitalism, but it still beats any other socioeconomic system developed to date.

Actually, I'm a huge supporter of a Capitalistic society. The best and the brightest creating the best product, selling it and benefiting from their creation is an ideal I strongly believe in. However, as I stated before, I don't believe we live in a Capitalist society here in America. Once we started socializing businesses by offering tax breaks, Socialism took over.

And we don't live in a capitalist society. We haven't lived in an actual capitalist society for a long time. When the first tax breaks were offered to businesses, that's when Capitalism died.

I say that the Government missed a bet. Anyone who wanted to be bailed out n 2008 should have had to be made to agree to adhere to the Japanese model where the CEOs and top executives would no longer be allowed to make more than X amount of their lowest-paid employee in perpetuum. If they disagreed with that condition of being bailed out, then they could work out their company troubles on their own. Maybe get the shareholders that they value so much to loan them the bucks.

IMO, all these companies who got bailed out at taxpayer expense were no longer capitalists. They became socialists the minute they received money from the Government. They should now work for the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the executives and shareholders.

But that's just my opinion. Everyone's got one.

And I think I've run my course on this thread. My rule is to unsubcribe once a thread gets to 10 pages or over 150 replies. It's been my experience that once that happens it becomes a clique or an axe-grinding thread with the same three or four people saying the same things. I've made some exceptions to my rule in the past and will again in the future, but I doubt this thread will be one of those exceptions.

No hard feelings, though! Y'all have a great day!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Not really. Managements(as in the first level, those who deal directly with the ticket takers, shelf stockers, etc) job is to make the guest happy. Disney bends over backwards in the most crazy ways. Have you ever seen a restaurant manager call engineering to come with a ladder, and take out a light bulb because a guest thinks its to bright? Try that at an Apple Bees, and see how well it goes over.

The first level of management only cares about that(making teh guest happy) and playing the politics to hopefully get promoted.

Well, there are service managers and staff managers. Hopefully, when they are combined in one role, the manager learns to balance the needs of both. Otherwise the result is a bad experience for both.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Actually, I'm a huge supporter of a Capitalistic society. The best and the brightest creating the best product, selling it and benefiting from their creation is an ideal I strongly believe in. However, as I stated before, I don't believe we live in a Capitalist society here in America. Once we started socializing businesses by offering tax breaks, Socialism took over....

Not sure if socialist applies either - maybe corporatist?

 

[wvjules]

Instinctively, I know this. But when you say "Being a CM is not a high skill job, anyone can do it." you're plopping down a very generalist comment that both over-simplifies the issue and doesn't take into account the vast diversity of jobs at Disney.

I think most people thought the PP was referring to the unskilled laborers such as waitstaff, housekeeping, ticket takers, etc. not accountants, imagineers and other jobs that require a higher education and/or more skill.

 

[Dis4]

I think most people thought the PP was referring to the unskilled laborers such as waitstaff, housekeeping, ticket takers, etc. not accountants, imagineers and other jobs that require a higher education and/or more skill.

 

[bicker]

I am not sure that you are drawing the right conclusions from the data,

Or perhaps what you're feeling is that I'm not drawing pleasant conclusions from the data.

and the markets don't always provide clear examples, but I'll try to offer one: Target vs WalMart. ... Now, do the consumers care that the employees are making more? Probably not

Which is the point. If a store offered the superior buying experience at a lower price, even if that lower price was at the expense of worker compensation, then typical American consumers would prefer that. That's my point.

So, Americans are not opposed to paying more if they receive something tangible in return.

Key word now highlighted. The standard of living of the workers who serve those Americans isn't "something tangible in return".

To be fair, it isn't absolute: There is a limit beyond which Americans generally will react, and not prefer the lower price.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Consumers do not think about the labor force unless they are forced to do so. Why would they? You don't go to a restaurant to talk to the wait staff about the quality of their lives. You turn on Oprah for that stuff.

It is pretty clear that Americans care - which is why many labor practices have been made illegal, and why we have so many social services. But that care does not translate into action unless there is a clear case of laborer abuse. Making minimum wage simply does not meet that threshold for most Americans. But how quickly did Americans react when they found out that some of Oprah's merchandise was being made in sweatshops overseas?

 

[bicker]

Consumers do not think about the labor force unless they are forced to do so.

Precisely. And that really underscores why changes (such as some here are advocating for) must be a reflection of a change in consumer thinking - a change in our society's mind-set. Such changes are often reflected in our laws.

It is pretty clear that Americans care

No: It is clear that Americans claim to care. Some Americans really do care, I'm sure, but the reality of how things are clearly shows what Americans, in general, do and do not care about.

which is why many labor practices have been made illegal

To be clear, no one is saying that Americans don't care about anything. My point is that Americans currently don't care enough about this to justify the expectations that some in this thread are voicing.

But how quickly did Americans react when they found out that some of Oprah's merchandise was being made in sweatshops overseas?

That's actually a funky situation, and one that I think shows a very negative side of Americans (not to say other folks aren't also as guilty of this): In many cases, they will only get steamed up about something if they're incited to riot (figuratively speaking), spurred on by irrational chest-beating - the whole "Think of the children!" phenomenon. That's not the say that there aren't cases (such as perhaps the example you gave) where that rather mindless mob mentality is applied toward good aims - things that if people really sat down and thought it through, they'd still be as incensed - but my impression is that the vast majority cases where this kind of pitchforks-and-torches approach is applied are cases where it is just one set of people trying to make their own personal preferences sound more important than they really are. They're essentially just trying to incite people to riot, because they didn't get their own way on the power of the merit of the issue.

Even with the example you mentioned there are clear indications of this: Don't think Oprah's merchandise is the only overseas-sweatshop merchandise purchased by the people who got up-in-arms. Most of the folks who got upset weren't really passionate about the underlying issue - they just wanted one or more of the visceral thrills that they were able to derive from being upset: Either feeling part of something vital; the charge they got from taking a shot at Oprah or who/whatever; and/or the reward of feeling like they did something praise-worthy, even though, in the context of their purchasing habits overall, that one part was practically insignificant.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

... My point is that Americans currently don't care enough about this to justify the expectations that some in this thread are voicing...

Exactly - but that doesn't mean that they don't care, it just means that this doesn't meet the threshold for response. I never complained about my pay while I was in the Army. I never expected people to care about my income. Why would they? I knew what I would be making when I signed the enlistment papers. And I made a whole lot less than WDW employees. Last I heard, the Army is still hiring if these folks feel slighted by Disney.

So, IMO, Americans don't care because this is not a worthy cause.

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

When I ended my last CP, I very much wanted to go full time. But at the time the housing market was at its peak. All the apartments in Orlando were turning into condos, and the average rent was well over $1,000 a month. I loved my job, but there was no way I was willing to take so little money to barely make ends meet.

That's one reason I decided to become a teacher. I worked with many teachers who are seasonal for Disney. To me it seemed like the best of both worlds. Most full timers live in low income housing, have multiple roommates, or have a partner who has a much better paying job.

I lvoe Disney and absolutely want to go back and work for them one day. And to be fair, the park I work at now pays me even less, and there are never any raises unless you are promoted. There are people who have worked here for five or six seasons at least and still make base rate. It's a problem in the entire industry.

Plus, I really hate what the union did. I took a great deal of pride in my role, and you don't turn around and bad mouth the company. Just like all those entertainers who publish juicy half truths and falsehoods to make us all look bad. I think the union made a huge misstep.

 

[Joanna71985]

I'm a current CM at WDW. It may be an "entry-level job". But I love what I do

 

[MarkBarbieri]

...No: It is clear that Americans claim to care. Some Americans really do care, I'm sure, but the reality of how things are clearly shows what Americans, in general, do and do not care about...

Wow, I can't imagine how I could create a workable system in which we paid a premium to companies that treated their employees better. How would I know who was treated well and who wasn't? As an employer, I'd be awfully tempted to start replacing more employees with more automation if I had to start paying them big premiums.

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

WOW! So many responses. I saw this in the news today too. It sucks to think that Disney isn't paying employes more, I think more so because Disney is family friendly. I think it just shows how they are a business like any other and it's all about the people at the top getting paid big $$.

Time to reflect and think about where your money is really going huh? that 4 Disney trips a years seems a bit less exciting when you know the CM might be struggling to make thins meet. Hopefully people are a little more understanding if a CM isn't quite so magical.

I could never see myself working at Disney unless I was retired or a student in college but that's just me.

 

[mickeysgal]

WOW! So many responses. I saw this in the news today too. It sucks to think that Disney isn't paying employes more, I think more so because Disney is family friendly. I think it just shows how they are a business like any other and it's all about the people at the top getting paid big $$.

Time to reflect and think about where your money is really going huh? that 4 Disney trips a years seems a bit less exciting when you know the CM might be struggling to make thins meet. Hopefully people are a little more understanding if a CM isn't quite so magical.
I could never see myself working at Disney unless I was retired or a student in college but that's just me.

Regardless of what they are being paid, if it is part of their job description to be magical to their guests, then they need to be magical to their guests. If they're not, then they aren't fulfilling what they were hired to do. They knew what the job entailed and they knew what the job paid when they took it. You don't get a free pass to choose to not do what you were hired to do because you don't like what you're being paid. If you truly are unhappy with the pay, then you find another job. Can't find another job in this crappy economy? Then it's time to put the big girl/boy pants on, and do what your job description dictates. Customers (Disney guests) should not have to understand anything about accepting anything less than the experience they are paying to have. If you're in a restaurant, and the waitress isn't making good tips on any given night for whatever the reason, should you have to understand and accept less than great service? It's called having a good work ethic and a sense of pride. You don't turn it on/off depending on how satisfied/unsatisfied you are with what you agreed to in the beginning.

And I agree with you. Working for Disney is for the students/kids, retirees, and those with partners with jobs that really pay the bills. It is not a job where you can hold down a mortgage and raise a family on. I'm so surprised that people really think that those selling balloons, working the shake machine, and taking tickets should be paid well enough to make a family's ends meet.

And yes, I worked for Disney (Disney Store) for years before we moved. We didn't get paid as much as other stores in the mall and they worked us hard. But I understood that going in. I thought it was low given other jobs you could get at the mall, but that didn't give me the right to do anything less than the job I was hired for. Their expectations of their CMs are high and their customer service is second to none (at least at the time it was). I just wanted to work for Disney. I loved and still love Disney. And that's where I think people go wrong. I think people get enamored with the idea of working for the Disney brand until the reality sets in that these are truly entry level paying jobs and Disney pays only what the market will bear.

 

[arminnie]

This is why I always advise young people to look for jobs they want in industries with very high revenue per employee. If you work for a $40 billion company with 100,000 they have to be very careful about employee expenses. On the other hand, if you work for a $40 billion company with only 4,000 employees, increases in employee benefits don't impact the bottom line as much. I haven't ever done a real study, but my personal experience is that high revenue per employee companies tend to pay better, provide better benefits and treat their employees better...at least the good ones.

BINGO! I learned at a very early age that a company with a high revenue per employee was going to be able to pay more.

My last employer was Visa International. When I started we had less than 500 employees worldwide. As we were not a public company (until a few years ago) we really flew under the radar. Our salaries were good but not out of this world. But our benefits were unbelievable.

I know that parts of this country Michigan, Nevada, Florida in particular are just dying for jobs. I went through this in Texas in the 80s. I know personally how awful this can be.

But not all of the country is underwater. I live right next to Oklahoma. There's no "Grapes of Wrath" going on in this part of the country. There are "for hire" signs everywhere plus I know lots and lots of people who have quit one professional job to go on to another very quickly.

It's easy to get paralyzed when the bottom falls out of an area. But sitting there unemployed or severely underemployed with a house that is most likely going to be underwater (and is still sinking) for the next decade is not really a solution.

If you want a living wage to raise a family then move someplace that 1)has some jobs and 2) has a very low cost of living.

 

[Queen2PrincessG]

What I'm saying is that when you are concerned about taking care of your family sometimes it affects your ability to do your job. This pedestal that people but Disney on is very mind blowing, let alone the expectations some have of CM'S. I love Disney but I also understand that CM's are PEOPLE. The are entitled to have bad days.

 

[PatriciaH]

I have seen the state of some of the hotel rooms and bathrooms after guests are through with them and I think pay should start at $10/hour minimum! Who cares if some of the jobs are "unskilled?" They are hard, physical and dirty. They deserve MORE money than people sitting on their butts all day robbing us all but then so do teachers, police, etc. and that will never happen.) Also, many of these "unskilled" workers are driving vehicles and operating rides that your children and other loved ones are going on. You are expecting them to keep you safe. Yeah-$10/hour to start sounds about right.

We left FL and Disney because it was more expensive to live in Orlando than MA for us yet we took a huge $25k a year pay cut when we moved! No thanks.

 

[PatriciaH]

Were You Born on the Wrong Continent?: How the European Model Can Help You Get a Life

is a great book about some of these topics and talks a lot about the German model of business

http://www.amazon.com/Were-You-Born...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291521349&sr=8-1

"Labor lawyer and Europhile, Geohegan (Which Side Are You On?) makes a passionate case for the high-tax, regulation-heavy model of life on the Continent. Using Germany as a model, he argues the middle class is the real beneficiary of European social democracy--its members reap free education, free child care, free nursing home care, guaranteed vacation time, and generous unemployment payments--while their white-collar American counterparts struggle to pay for the same. "Europe is set up for the bourgeois," writes Geohegan. "America's a great place to buy kitty litter at Wal-Mart and relatively cheap gas. But it's not set up for me, a professional without a lot of money." While he's quick to acknowledge that critics seize on labor's costs and prominence as a potential path to the collapse of the system, he's convinced of the framework in place. The narrative unspools in a chatty, anecdotal style; it's jumpy, appealingly digressive, and winning, all the more so for being such an unabashed polemic that refuses to be resigned to the rising rate of inequality in the U.S.