Universal fires another shot over Disney's bow

[tjkraz]

OK, I'll play along. In for a dime, in for a dollar, I guess.

It is my "personal recollection" from college management studies that base wages are not the primary decision driver for job seekers choosing from multiple employment opportunities which offer similar compensation. And my own practical work experience corroborates this.

I have never claimed to be an expert. I have not conducted any studies or surveys myself. But my recollections and experiences support the idea that wages are not the be-all, end-all. Far from it.

Even these forums provide a realistic glimpse into the psyche of a Disney Cast Member. Many will tell you they chose Disney simply because they want to work for "The Mouse." That is exactly what I am referring to. These individuals do not weigh their options and pick the highest paying position--they take the position with the best environment (or benefits, or chances for advancement, or job security...)

As for my allegedly being "defensive" that seems understandable when my posts are being dissected to such a degree.

Back to the topic at hand, the Disney hiring website has this to say regarding wages:

The rate of pay for most of the entry-level positions is $7.55/hour for full-time, part-time and seasonal roles. Some areas have higher pay rates such as Food & Beverage and Outdoor Foods ($8.05/hour for full-time, part-time and seasonal roles), Security ($10.24/hour for full-time, part-time and seasonal roles), Bus Driver ($10.70/hour for full-time, part-time and seasonal roles), Character Performer ($9.15/hour for full-time, part-time and seasonal roles), Resort Guest Services ($8.50/hour for full-time roles) and Culinary ($8.95 - $11.78/hour for full-time and part-time roles).

According to the Sentinel story, Universal's standard rate is $7.25 and this year they are offering seasonal workers $7.75. The difference would appear to be $.20 per hour (or 2.6%) for entry-level.

I do think it's a bit of a reach to suggest that Universal was the aggressor in seeking out summer workers. The Sentinel published the story so they chose how to present the information. The information I quoted above was easily obtained from the Disney job fair website noted in the article. Why the Sentinel chose to publish US rates and not Disney is a question for them.

Universal deserves credit for upping Disney on the low end. However, the Sentinel claims Universal's typical base (prior to this hiring push) is the $7.25 minimum wage while Disney has apparently been paying $7.55. So who really deserves more kudos: Disney for consistently paying more than minimum or Universal for coming along on May 2nd and upping them by $.20?

It's also impossible to know how the two differ across individual job classifications. Universal's hiring site lists the high end wages for seasonal workers at $10.75 while Disney wages quoted above go up to $11.78.

Both appear to offer benefits to seasonal employees. Disney's job fair press release had this to say:

In addition to competitive pay, cast members receive unique benefits including theme park admission, on-site health and wellness center, discounts on select dining and merchandise, affordable on-site child care, learning opportunities and exclusive access to Mickey’s Retreat, a 19-acre recreation complex.

Universal's site has extensive information on benefits and perks but there's no way to tell which may or may not apply to seasonal EEs. And major items like the quality and cost of heath coverage remain a mystery.

 

[TisBit]

Defensive much? No interest in reading textbooks -- just would love to see the studies you mentioned, because I'd be real surprised if it turned out that wages are "pretty far down on the list of priorities for workers."

And if that's the case, and if you can back it up with "many studies," I'd happily consider myself educated on the matter.

But again, none of this really applies to the seasonal workers at issue here. They're deciding between some measly amount of money and all the Harry Potter they can stand, or some other measly amount of money and all the Space Mountain they can handle...

Interesting that you have no evidence to show that he is wrong about his claims on wages. I too have had many classes (and a degree on the wall) that showed where wages is not the "top" decision maker for an employee. While "pretty far down" can be subjective, if I recall my text books correctly it is usually 3rd to 5th in priority. Things like job security, health benefits, commuting distance, etc are usually topping that list. I don't feel like getting the text books out to find the studies to tell you where they were done, because you wouldn't care anyway and want more evidence.

Look at your personal career, if you were offered a $3 an hour raise to commute twice as far from home and was a contract that had to be renewed every year, is it something you would jump on...just because it was a raise?

LOL, I was trying to have a discussion about an article I found interesting. You brought argument into the discussion. But if your so called "expertise" counts for more than my "personal recollections" then I stand rebuffed.

A discussion is usually will result in counter view points, you obviously expected this to be everyone jumping on with you going...yeah Universal stuck it to them. Your title was fishing for an argument.....

 

[nytimez]

OK, I'll play along. In for a dime, in for a dollar, I guess.

It is my "personal recollection" from college management studies that base wages are not the primary decision driver for job seekers choosing from multiple employment opportunities which offer similar compensation. And my own practical work experience corroborates this.

I have never claimed to be an expert. I have not conducted any studies or surveys myself. But my recollections and experiences support the idea that wages are not the be-all, end-all. Far from it.

Even these forums provide a realistic glimpse into the psyche of a Disney Cast Member. Many will tell you they chose Disney simply because they want to work for "The Mouse." That is exactly what I am referring to. These individuals do not weigh their options and pick the highest paying position--they take the position with the best environment (or benefits, or chances for advancement, or job security...)

As for my allegedly being "defensive" that seems understandable when my posts are being dissected to such a degree.

Back to the topic at hand, the Disney hiring website has this to say regarding wages:

The rate of pay for most of the entry-level positions is $7.55/hour for full-time, part-time and seasonal roles. Some areas have higher pay rates such as Food & Beverage and Outdoor Foods ($8.05/hour for full-time, part-time and seasonal roles), Security ($10.24/hour for full-time, part-time and seasonal roles), Bus Driver ($10.70/hour for full-time, part-time and seasonal roles), Character Performer ($9.15/hour for full-time, part-time and seasonal roles), Resort Guest Services ($8.50/hour for full-time roles) and Culinary ($8.95 - $11.78/hour for full-time and part-time roles).

According to the Sentinel story, Universal's standard rate is $7.25 and this year they are offering seasonal workers $7.75. The difference would appear to be $.20 per hour (or 2.6%) for entry-level.

I do think it's a bit of a reach to suggest that Universal was the aggressor in seeking out summer workers. The Sentinel published the story so they chose how to present the information. The information I quoted above was easily obtained from the Disney job fair website noted in the article. Why the Sentinel chose to publish US rates and not Disney is a question for them.

Universal deserves credit for upping Disney on the low end. However, the Sentinel claims Universal's typical base (prior to this hiring push) is the $7.25 minimum wage while Disney has apparently been paying $7.55. So who really deserves more kudos: Disney for consistently paying more than minimum or Universal for coming along on May 2nd and upping them by $.20?

It's also impossible to know how the two differ across individual job classifications. Universal's hiring site lists the high end wages for seasonal workers at $10.75 while Disney wages quoted above go up to $11.78.

Both appear to offer benefits to seasonal employees. Disney's job fair press release had this to say:

In addition to competitive pay, cast members receive unique benefits including theme park admission, on-site health and wellness center, discounts on select dining and merchandise, affordable on-site child care, learning opportunities and exclusive access to Mickey’s Retreat, a 19-acre recreation complex.

Universal's site has extensive information on benefits and perks but there's no way to tell which may or may not apply to seasonal EEs. And major items like the quality and cost of heath coverage remain a mystery.

A much better argument. And I don't disagree with some of your larger points.

I think clearly someone who is making a real salary will take a lower wage for a better situation. And I didn't dispute that before ("pretty far down the list" is the part I have a problem with). I think many of us here on these boards have probably traded better wages for a better situation or better benefits or more flexibility at some point (to a degree: I don't think most people would accept a significantly lower salary for those things). And many others would happily do so.

However, I think that's considerably less true for people at the lowest end of the wage scale. Even if you take the example of $7.55 versus $7.75, that's a difference of "just" $32 over a four-week period (assuming a 40-hour week and no OT).

Not a lot of money, sure. Most people who can afford a Disney vacation could probably lose $32 and not even realize they lost it. Heck, that's the price of a T-shirt in many WDW stores.

But I think to someone who has no money to begin with -- which, for the most part, is the kind of people who will need to find seasonal work -- $32 is the difference between gas in the car and no gas in the car.

That said, even then it's not the be-all and end-all of the debate. Some people may take the $32 less because they think they have a better shot of catching on full-time at Disney.

But I think that for at least some not insignificant number of people, the bottom line is going to be who pays them even a little bit more -- because that little bit makes a difference to them.

I don't feel like getting the text books out to find the studies to tell you where they were done, because you wouldn't care anyway and want more evidence.

Ha. You lost me here -- if you're going to sniffle and tell me that you already know what I think, I'm not even going to bother engaging you.

 

[tjkraz]

However, I think that's considerably less true for people at the lowest end of the wage scale. Even if you take the example of $7.55 versus $7.75, that's a difference of "just" $32 over a four-week period (assuming a 40-hour week and no OT).

Not a lot of money, sure. Most people who can afford a Disney vacation could probably lose $32 and not even realize they lost it. Heck, that's the price of a T-shirt in many WDW stores.

But I think to someone who has no money to begin with -- which, for the most part, is the kind of people who will need to find seasonal work -- $32 is the difference between gas in the car and no gas in the car.

You underestimate the value of happiness and job satisfaction. Even at the lower levels, people want to enjoy where they work and what they do. For better or worse, Disney has been leveraging that with both customers and employees for decades.

The cost of a cup of weekly cup of coffee or monthly gas tank fill-up isn't enough to sway people who are predisposed to liking one position over another for various non-financial reasons.

This is also where employee perks come into play. To a Disney fan, free park admission and merchandise discounts at WDW are far more valuable than similar perks at Universal. The popularity of Harry Potter will only help Universal in this regard, but Disney's loyal fan base continues to be substantial.

The people who will fill these positions aren't all single income parents looking to feed their families. There will be many local high school and college students, retirees, non-working spouses from single income households, etc. If it comes down to Mickey vs. Harry, the Disney fans aren't going to take $.20 more per hour to work at the perceived "evil empire", while the HP fans won't be swayed by WDW passes and t-shirt discounts.

Assuming these rates hold up, I don't believe that Universal will get all of the best workers due to a $.20 per hour premium any more than I believe Disney got the best-of-the-best when its wages were $.30 higher than US.

 

[nytimez]

You underestimate the value of happiness and job satisfaction. Even at the lower levels, people want to enjoy where they work and what they do. For better or worse, Disney has been leveraging that with both customers and employees for decades.

The cost of a cup of weekly cup of coffee or monthly gas tank fill-up isn't enough to sway people who are predisposed to liking one position over another for various non-financial reasons.

This is also where employee perks come into play. To a Disney fan, free park admission and merchandise discounts at WDW are far more valuable than similar perks at Universal. The popularity of Harry Potter will only help Universal in this regard, but Disney's loyal fan base continues to be substantial.

The people who will fill these positions aren't all single income parents looking to feed their families. There will be many local high school and college students, retirees, non-working spouses from single income households, etc. If it comes down to Mickey vs. Harry, the Disney fans aren't going to take $.20 more per hour to work at the perceived "evil empire", while the HP fans won't be swayed by WDW passes and t-shirt discounts.

Assuming these rates hold up, I don't believe that Universal will get all of the best workers due to a $.20 per hour premium any more than I believe Disney got the best-of-the-best when its wages were $.30 higher than US.

OK, so here's where I think our disagreement is -- and it's not a very fundamental one, just a modest one.

I tend to believe -- and this is observational, so take it at face value -- that the low-end labor pool of Orlando is dazzled by neither Disney nor Universal. There's just not a whole lot of mystique there for many (not all) of them. Just jobs.

And as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I don't think Universal is trying to get the cream of the crop or the best workers by offering 20 cents more... they are simply trying to get workers, period, from a somewhat limited labor pool.

Orlando may have high unemployment, but there's still only a limited number of people who will work for $7.55 or $7.75 an hour -- and my understanding is that at least at Disney, they've had a hard time filling all those positions even before the rush to hire summer seasonals.

Offer a little more, and you'll probably have a little bit of an easier time filling all the positions you hope to fill... and I think that's what this comes down to in this specific instance -- without getting into a renewed discussion of what salaried workers value more.

 

[TisBit]

Ha. You lost me here -- if you're going to sniffle and tell me that you already know what I think, I'm not even going to bother engaging you.

No sniffling on my part....my point is you are debating that there were studies done and were issuing a challenge to produce them. My point is that you wouldn't care if they were produced, you would just counter argue them anyway.

And for the record, by quoting you are engaging me....

 

[tjkraz]

I tend to believe -- and this is observational, so take it at face value -- that the low-end labor pool of Orlando is dazzled by neither Disney nor Universal. There's just not a whole lot of mystique there for many (not all) of them. Just jobs.

The target market for any "summer job fair" is kids. High school kids...college kids...recent graduates waiting for their dream job. Those are the people joining the work force in June and (for the most part) departing in August / September.

They are also locals, most of whom have some tie to one theme park or another. I would imagine it's nearly impossible to live in the Orlando area and have zero exposure to Disney, Universal and Sea World.

And I don't find them to be selective to the point of dickering over $.20. For the most part, they will lean toward the park that they have grown up cherishing, the park their friends will be working at or the park where the hot cheerleader just got hired.

Now, many of those people may actually gravitate toward Universal. I'm not ruling that out by any means. And the $.20 difference in pay could be reason enough to get some people to apply at both Disney and Universal when they would have otherwise been inclined to go to Disney alone.

But wages are rarely the decision driver for this group. If an individual is predisposed to like Disney, or they have a shorter drive to the Disney parks, or Disney offers a more appealing role, or they have friends working at Disney, or they just want free admission to the Magic Kingdom, 99 times out of 100 (IMO) they will turn down an offer for 2% more pay to take the Disney job.

The Universal wages are effective as a sort of "hey, come check us out" move. But how well it pays off is impossible to predict. My sense is that there are probably more candidates predisposed to like Disney, but since Universal has fewer workers to hire they could end up meeting their quotas sooner.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

The target market for any "summer job fair" is kids. High school kids...college kids...recent graduates waiting for their dream job. Those are the people joining the work force in June and (for the most part) departing in August / September.

They are also locals, most of whom have some tie to one theme park or another. I would imagine it's nearly impossible to live in the Orlando area and have zero exposure to Disney, Universal and Sea World.

And I don't find them to be selective to the point of dickering over $.20. For the most part, they will lean toward the park that they have grown up cherishing, the park their friends will be working at or the park where the hot cheerleader just got hired.

Now, many of those people may actually gravitate toward Universal. I'm not ruling that out by any means. And the $.20 difference in pay could be reason enough to get some people to apply at both Disney and Universal when they would have otherwise been inclined to go to Disney alone.

But wages are rarely the decision driver for this group. If an individual is predisposed to like Disney, or they have a shorter drive to the Disney parks, or Disney offers a more appealing role, or they have friends working at Disney, or they just want free admission to the Magic Kingdom, 99 times out of 100 (IMO) they will turn down an offer for 2% more pay to take the Disney job.

The Universal wages are effective as a sort of "hey, come check us out" move. But how well it pays off is impossible to predict. My sense is that there are probably more candidates predisposed to like Disney, but since Universal has fewer workers to hire they could end up meeting their quotas sooner.

No offense but Orlando locals, in general, see the theme parks as a necessary evil. Mickey is not revered as many non locals would assume. Universal is more of a locals destination, mostly due to City
Walk but I don't assume they have any built in advantage over WDW. Any employment decision is going to be made based on money, hours and location.

 

[tjkraz]

No offense but Orlando locals, in general, see the theme parks as a necessary evil.

The same could be said of folks' attitudes toward fast food joints and mall outlet stores in any city in America. Still this group of workers doesn't look critically at wages when they know all are comparable. They apply at a store they like, where a friend works or where the job itself holds some appeal.

Any employment decision is going to be made based on money, hours and location.

If one alternative was offering $7 and another $9 per hour, then yes. Money doesn't play a big role given the numbers we are talking about, particularly among a group that's working solely to support their summertime leisure activities.

 

[nytimez]

No offense but Orlando locals, in general, see the theme parks as a necessary evil. Mickey is not revered as many non locals would assume. Universal is more of a locals destination, mostly due to City
Walk but I don't assume they have any built in advantage over WDW. Any employment decision is going to be made based on money, hours and location.

Yes. This is what I was going to say... but you said it better.

The same could be said of folks' attitudes toward fast food joints and mall outlet stores in any city in America. Still this group of workers doesn't look critically at wages when they know all are comparable. They apply at a store they like, where a friend works or where the job itself holds some appeal.

But do they? Or do they apply at McDonald's, Burger King, a bunch of mall stores and Walmart, and then take the first job offered?

I'm willing to bet plenty of that goes on in Orlando -- people apply at all the major parks, and take the first job offered (again, this is speaking only to these low-end jobs). And if more than one job is offered, in the absence of any real benefits, most would probably take the one that pays more... even if it's just a little bit.

I just don't think sentiment plays as big a role among the locals as you think, for the reasons Peter mentions. I know plenty of CMs at Disney, for example, who only use their free admission perk when friends/family visit from out of town. And that's often true even at some of the higher levels of employment.

But I will concede that when it comes to the younger set, where friends work -- or where the hot cheerleader works -- can certainly play a role.

 

[tjkraz]

But do they? Or do they apply at McDonald's, Burger King, a bunch of mall stores and Walmart, and then take the first job offered?

Some do. Some don't. When I was 16 I applied at the one place I wanted to work and got the job. Didn't shop around. Didn't have to choose.

I'm willing to bet plenty of that goes on in Orlando -- people apply at all the major parks, and take the first job offered (again, this is speaking only to these low-end jobs). And if more than one job is offered, in the absence of any real benefits, most would probably take the one that pays more... even if it's just a little bit.

And my own takeaway is that personal preference plays a larger role than wages, even for this group.

You may apply at multiple places, but most people still have a clear favorite. It may be extreme to call it "sentiment." I'm not trying to paint any Disney-esque images of kids longing to spend the summer in a fuzzy character suit after years of visiting with friends and family. But at that age, the motivations are many...friends, discounts, location, environment, benefits, job description, future prospects.

Some of the more forward-thinking youngsters will even recognize the value in putting "Disney" on their college transcript / resume even if they spent the summer in a kitchen at Cosmic Ray's.

When Disney's starting wages are/were better, do they fill 100% of their positions before Universal can get a single warm body? Of course not. People still have/had their own reasons for picking US even when Disney offered more money. The same will be true here...even moreso if Disney decides to follow suit and match or exceed that rate.

Based upon the figures provided, it sounds like Disney does offer higher wages for some job classifications, and I still have no idea how benefits may compare between the two.

 

[TisBit]

The target market for any "summer job fair" is kids. High school kids...college kids...recent graduates waiting for their dream job. Those are the people joining the work force in June and (for the most part) departing in August / September.

They are also locals, most of whom have some tie to one theme park or another. I would imagine it's nearly impossible to live in the Orlando area and have zero exposure to Disney, Universal and Sea World.

And I don't find them to be selective to the point of dickering over $.20. For the most part, they will lean toward the park that they have grown up cherishing, the park their friends will be working at or the park where the hot cheerleader just got hired.

Now, many of those people may actually gravitate toward Universal. I'm not ruling that out by any means. And the $.20 difference in pay could be reason enough to get some people to apply at both Disney and Universal when they would have otherwise been inclined to go to Disney alone.

But wages are rarely the decision driver for this group. If an individual is predisposed to like Disney, or they have a shorter drive to the Disney parks, or Disney offers a more appealing role, or they have friends working at Disney, or they just want free admission to the Magic Kingdom, 99 times out of 100 (IMO) they will turn down an offer for 2% more pay to take the Disney job.

The Universal wages are effective as a sort of "hey, come check us out" move. But how well it pays off is impossible to predict. My sense is that there are probably more candidates predisposed to like Disney, but since Universal has fewer workers to hire they could end up meeting their quotas sooner.

No offense but Orlando locals, in general, see the theme parks as a necessary evil. Mickey is not revered as many non locals would assume. Universal is more of a locals destination, mostly due to City
Walk but I don't assume they have any built in advantage over WDW. Any employment decision is going to be made based on money, hours and location.

No, they do not have pixie dust in their shorts so to say, but as tjkraz pointed out, they grew up in the shadow of these parks and spent a good deal of their youth in one or both. I grew up within a mile of a huge amusement area, I started working outside of that area and eventually ended up working there, in ever food service area, a few attractions and even after getting out of the military went back for a seasonal position with the Police Department. I treasure the time that I spent there, not when I was young, but now that I am older, etc.

At the time, it was a job...many of my friends worked there, but I also had a good many that refused to ever take a job there out of principal (mostly that teen idealism that they weren't going to follow the herd, etc).

Long story short, yes it is not magical, but the people they are recruiting for these position are indifferent to the parks, they are jobs, places of employment etc. They don't see them the same that we do and would likely laugh that we can debate there jobs to four pages here.