Why defend Disney

[cobright]

In response to your bullet points above:

* Is that a living wage, given the cost of living? For all intents and purposes, I don't see much difference between a minimum wage job and one that pays 25% more. Disney is not some burger flipper joint. They charge premium prices to their guests, and are supposed to provide excellent customer service. Right now, their CMs are pretty miserable, and it shows. Just check out all the threads that mention surly CMs and examples of bad service.

Under Disney's most recent union contract, based on calculations provided by Dr. Amy K. Glasmeier and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, most of their employees will earn a living wage with one year of seniority or less. The vast majority of Disney CMs presently have the seniority to be earning a living wage. They can thank their effective union representation for this, something employees of WDW's competition cannot do.

* Remove an attraction? No. I'm talking about those times when they cut the budget for a new attraction, instead of making the investment that was needed to create something great. Some apologists on the message boards were talking as if Disney's hands were tied, because they couldn't do anything about "budget cuts." I had to point out that the budget was whatever Disney wanted it to be! In other words, they have sometimes been way too risk-averse for the theme park business.

Okay, I don't have anything to do with vaguely referenced "apologists" believing that any decision Disney makes is based not having the money. For the last 5 - 10 years anyway Disney has a decent warchest for whatever they decided. But because you have a pocket full of money doesn't make every decision you make to spend it a good one.

* They've cut staff hours, and yes, the CMs are overworked. Less CM hours often mean that they have to do the same job that two people used to do-- while dealing with heavier crowds than in past years. If you have to run faster during every hour then you did before, then you are overworked.

Except there is no significant reductions in seasonally adjusted staffing numbers.

* As I mentioned above, I am not on Universal's payroll. You say that doesn't matter, so why raise that ridiculous idea at all? Probably to undermine my credibility. For the record, in other threads, I've criticized Universal, too. For example I think they've added too many screen-based rides in recent years.

Why bring it up? Because some of the arguments you make are so weak that it strains credulity that they come from an objective position on the matter. Time and again you have disparaged Disney for being miserly towards both their staff and customers, and in the same breath advocate for taking your business to places like Universal Studios which provides a far worse deal for both.

*As noted above, their quarterly reports show five consecutive years of record profits for the WDC. That's what you want to call modest increases?

Again, I understand that it is easier to make arguments against things that sound like what I say instead of things I actually say, but I promise you that I actually check on this stuff before I type it out. I'm not out to 'spin' anything or twist words. What I said was that disney, "quarterly reports actually prove only modest growth in investor earnings and exponential growth in spending on improving the parks and labor costs" which is a true statement and refers to your assertion that disney will, "try anything that will put more money in their pockets".

You mention "extremely complex calculus" going into corporate decisions. If Disney just simplified things, and spent whatever it takes to create the best possible guest experience, the bottom line would take care of itself. By all appearances, that's the attitude that the OLC has taken when it comes to Tokyo Disney Resort. They just spend whatever it takes, and the place is wildly popular and successful. That's because they know that "if you build it, they will come." No cynical manipulations, no spread sheet/bean counter calculations about squeezing X dollars from Y guests. Just create an amazing product, and people will gladly give you their money. There would be jubilation on these boards, not grumbling and complaints.

Part of OLC's success comes from rolling those profits into park expansions at the expense of worker wages. Nearly half of Tokyo Disney workers are part time and starting wage is about $9.00 an hour. Just like WDW, they have bankrolled enormous expansions in the last 10 years and are paying modest (some quarters diminishing) returns to investors.

 

[Davey Jones II]

Under Disney's most recent union contract, based on calculations provided by Dr. Amy K. Glasmeier and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, most of their employees will earn a living wage with one year of seniority or less. The vast majority of Disney CMs presently have the seniority to be earning a living wage. They can thank their effective union representation for this, something employees of WDW's competition cannot do.


Okay, I don't have anything to do with vaguely referenced "apologists" believing that any decision Disney makes is based not having the money. For the last 5 - 10 years anyway Disney has a decent warchest for whatever they decided. But because you have a pocket full of money doesn't make every decision you make to spend it a good one.


Except there is no significant reductions in seasonally adjusted staffing numbers.


Why bring it up? Because some of the arguments you make are so weak that it strains credulity that they come from an objective position on the matter. Time and again you have disparaged Disney for being miserly towards both their staff and customers, and in the same breath advocate for taking your business to places like Universal Studios which provides a far worse deal for both.


Again, I understand that it is easier to make arguments against things that sound like what I say instead of things I actually say, but I promise you that I actually check on this stuff before I type it out. I'm not out to 'spin' anything or twist words. What I said was that disney, "quarterly reports actually prove only modest growth in investor earnings and exponential growth in spending on improving the parks and labor costs" which is a true statement and refers to your assertion that disney will, "try anything that will put more money in their pockets".



Part of OLC's success comes from rolling those profits into park expansions at the expense of worker wages. Nearly half of Tokyo Disney workers are part time and starting wage is about $9.00 an hour. Just like WDW, they have bankrolled enormous expansions in the last 10 years and are paying modest (some quarters diminishing) returns to investors.

Wow, I posted on May 13. It took you ten whole days to come up with such lame responses?

Some University professors want to claim that slightly above minimum wage is a "living wage"? Have they tried living on that lately? I mean in the real world, not some ivory tower.

Disney has mountains of money, not just a pocket-full. And yes, they are being stingy with it. No, they shouldn't just spend willy nilly just because they have a lot of it. But reinvesting in their workforce is an investment, not just a cost. As for reinvesting in the parks, I give them credit for currently doing a lot of that. But should/could they be doing more? Well, considering that there hasn't been a new E Ticket at WDW in a dog's year...
Part of that, of course, has been screwed-up priorities. They blew $2 billion on FP+ and other unneeded, related gizmos, instead of spending it on attractions. That contributed to the creeping pace when it comes to the development of new park goodies.

Once again, with feeling...tons of observations from many quarters reported large scale cutbacks, not just this seasonal adjustment you keep harping on. You want to claim that you know more about it than the CMs who suddenly had their hours slashed, and took to social media to complain about it? Why don't you explain to them why they shouldn't complain about having no money to pay their bills?

Again with this crap suggesting that I'm some stooge for Universal? Get over it. I live in Montreal, not close to any of the parks. I've done my share of criticism of both companies. I could just as easily accuse you of having some payroll-inspired bias. You claim that Universal offers "a far worse deal" and state your opinion as if it was a fact. No, sorry, that's an opinion, based on what you happen to like -- nothing more than that. (Overall, I happen to prefer Disney parks over Universal. But that doesn't change my disgust over the recent cutbacks).

And once again, since you keep repeating yourself, I have to keep doing so, too: it's a joke to call consecutive quarters of record profits "modest growth." They're spending more on their parks? Well, I certainly hope so, considering the mobs that keep descending on the places. The question is whether they are spending enough to deal with the crowds, and provide enough park capacity. Given that the new lands are years away (okay, except for Pandora, which is 13-14 months away) and that wait times are usually pretty bad, they are, at best, barely spending enough.

As for OLC, they provide a great guest experience. While I do support the CMs and believe that they deserve more, as a fan, my primary concern is with the guest experience. I do think that both companies (Disney and OLC) can provide that with park revenues, without short changing the CMs. But the WDC has sometimes chosen to short change both. And the key word there is chosen.