Discussion in 'The DIS Unplugged Podcast' started by disneysteve, Dec 20, 2017.
Yes. Control expenses in the form of $10M bonuses!!
Remember, according to the Supreme Court, corporations are people. As so, they are literally heartless, soulless, apathetic people... my thing is if corporations are people, then shouldn’t people be corporations? I should be entitled to the corporate tax cut, regardless of who I work for. Here here!!!
The media is definitely pushing that narrative but CBS actually did a study of 3 families with different income levels and each come out ahead in the new tax plan.
Not taking any sides, just hopefully adding to the conversation.
obviously it is nearly impossible to discuss these sorts of things without getting political - but I do enjoy and appreciate reading things like what you linked which seem to be about looking at numbers and not immediately takings sides ...
... though there is more to the story than what they showed as impact to what you can deduct for mortgage interest and no longer deduct state income tax, plus the flip side of some benefits going away so even if you are getting more money back, you might have to do more with that money
nowadays so many of the news outlets are aimed at one side of the other so you see one saying this is a disaster of epic proportions and then the other say that side is wrong and it is actually a great thing for everyone .... my guess is that it is somewhere in the middle
I can understand your point, but a huge reason I like the podcast is because the members allow their personalities and opinions to be discussed. I love the group because they are likable and hilarious. I have gotten used to political opinions being expressed by nearly everyone. Though I personally don't allow my political views to be shared because it doesn't behoove me to do so, but I don't mind hearing from others, including the podcast group.
I agree with Pete on almost everything but disagree with his views on minimum wage, but I totally support him using the podcast as his platform to express his opinion. Heck, it's HIS show. He can say whatever he'd like to say. It certainly won't stop me from listening and enjoying the show. If I wanted a Disney podcast that was all lollipops and rainbows, there are plenty of those out there. I like the DIS because it's real and honest and gets into serious issues in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. It's hard to find that in today's world.
Part of the problem with our society is that too many are incapable of accepting different points of view. I love hearing the other side, some times it opens my eyes and other times reconfirms my own beliefs. I see and hear people all the time treating others as if they’re personal enemies, because they refuse to open their minds -or are just mentally incapable. It’s too bad....
I hear you on this. Many people (not all) will tune you out if you say something that disagrees with their opinions. I wish more people would be more open minded and come to the table when discussing issues with a open mind. It seems the world is more divisive with people picking sides and if you do not believe what they do then you are automatically wrong. In my experience this behavior seems to be happening more with the younger generations. (Is this observation what others are experiencing too?) I do think it is great to have both sides of an issue presented and hopefully compromise can take place. I think the word that people haven't done much of lately in politics is compromise. That means both sides give and take.
I don't find that to be true at all. Just the opposite. I find younger people to be much more open-minded and inclusive. Race, nationality, gender identity, and sexual orientation are non-issues to them. It's the older folks who I see being more bigoted, racist, and sexist. The exception is children of folks who hold those views who are being raised to hate in the same way.
It's born out in data that, at least politically we are more and more divided. It used to be that you would have a wide spectrum of views within each political party (so leberal Republicans, conservative Democrats, etc) and then the average of each was actually pretty close. Now the gap between each side has really grown and there is much more of an "us vs them" mentality
I also find, especially on social media, that people want you to agree with them exactly and fully and even if you are only 90% of the way with them they are nasty back to you. I tend to be fairly moderate and try to consider where the other side is coming from and that tends to not play well on social media
Not sure if that is gererational thing or just more of a technology thing though
I think it's a little of both. The problem with the internet and social media is that it is very simple to find like-minded folks. In real life, friends and family members and co-workers typically hold a wide range of views on various topics, but on the internet, with a few clicks you can find a discussion forum or blog or private facebook group dedicated to pretty much any view you can think of. So you can hang out with lots of folks who validate your opinions, which can be a bad thing of course when your opinions are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-science, etc.
Also it can be hard, I think, to always properly convey your thoughts on topics that require some nuance in a single post - or even worse, within 140 characters on Twitter ... and sonpeople can jump to misinterpreting at times as well
Interesting data Max Rebo. From what I have seen on my it seems to be the younger generation (30s and younger) that seem to be less flexible with their judgement of others that differ from themselves. Growing up it didn't seem to matter to my parents friends if they were of a different political party. They understood that there could be differences between their beliefs and their friends beliefs but they still cared for each other. Now I feel with the younger generation if you do not believe the same as they do they will not even listen to your beliefs. People make so many generalizations about others based on one factor. I see this a bunch on the political lines. Let me think of a few examples. One that comes to me is that of saying you voted a particular party. Most of my fb friends that didn't vote the same way make all these assumptions about the other side. They assign beliefs to the other person just on the basis of how they cast a vote. It seems they can't even engage an alternative view point in discussion. This is the kind of behavior I am speaking of. It seems like my parents generation was more accepting that two people can disagree politically and still be friends. This is what I am speaking about when I was giving my opinion. O.k. here is another example I just thought of. My younger sister and I were discussing something and when I disagreed with her opinion instead of letting me express my opinion once she knew I wasn't going to agree with her she wouldn't even let me continue speaking. This is the type of thing I feel is more prevalent with the younger generations. They don't want to hear opinions that differ from theirs. I hope that makes sense. I wasn't thinking of Race, nationality, gender identity, and sexual orientation but rather how open people are to opposing positions.
Nice idea, I would be very surprised if it happened.
I see what you are saying (and obviously we are getting a bit off topic at this point) - though I also think it is connected to social media and having to talk in headlines and snipits vs simply a generational thing (though obviously there is a correlation as younger people have grown up with social media while older people are fitting that into their life experiences that didn't include it). I think there are some things that people hold very strong beliefs on and if you don't agree with them, then they don't want to hear about anything else. I also see a lot of merging of arguments, or arguing multiple points in the same discussion. So thinking "Well you are wrong on topic X because of this point around related topic Y".
To bring us back to the original question, WDW (and DL) can't simply increase cast member pay or compensation without first negotiating to impasse with the union. Federal law (the National Labor Relations Act, and amendments to it) do not permit unilateral increases (or decreases)to represented employee compensation (including benefits). Bargaining to impasse (where the parties have negotiated in good faith but still cannot reach an agreement) permits the employer to implement its last offer. With the way the CBA at WDW is written, I don't see that being possible at present, at least not until WDW and the union have negotiated further in light of the CM vote to reject the last proposal.
Employee compensation is determined by market supply rather than what employees deserve. We all believe cast members deserve more pay but what matters is whether WDW and DL can get qualified cast members and supplement it with college program personnel. Until that well dries up (e.g., CMs leave for Universal etc.) WDW and DL have little motive to increase employee compensation.
Now, in my view, there is room to debate whether WDW is still attracting qualified CMs.
right, Disney management definitely can't just come out on their own and announce they are upping everyone's pay by $2/hour or whatever, it needs to be negotiated. Now, they could play the PR game and say "due to the benefits we will see from the revised Tax program we have revised our offer to the Union to reflect an immediate $2/hour increase and it is now with the Union to vote on," or whatever. Also, I am not sure what it would mean if they wanted to just give out a one time bonus (as some other companies are doing) - if that would have to go through the Union management as well or if they could do that on their own
Unless the CBA let's WDW unilaterally decide to give out bonuses, it would have to be negotiated. The 2014 CBA (which expires in 2019) permits Disney to have a retention bonus program (as well as a hiring bonus) for certain tipped and non-tipped classifications. The non-tipped provision reads:
The Company may continue and/or implement the following hiring and/or retention initiatives including, but not limited to, hiring and/or retention bonus payments, hiring referral program incentives, relocation assistance, and any other incentive and/or retention initiative deemed appropriate by the Company to meet hiring and retention needs.
You would think that the highlighted language gives WDW virtually unfettered discretion to give out bonuses but in the world of bargaining, the employer is still smart in making sure the union will not object. Especially now, there is every reason to be cautious. With the vote, WDW will be in negotiations with the union over revising the CBA. An employer that gives out bonuses or other "rewards" during negotiations walks a very fine line. This is the proverbial iron fist in the velvet glove (no relation to Marvel / Netflix). Without CBA language very explicit, most employers (on advice from their labor lawyers) don't take the chance of being found to acted in bad faith by increasing compensation during (or shortly before) negotiations.
What intrigues me is the CBA clause which states:
Wage rates may be periodically increased for any Classification, but the Company agrees that in such instances, the Company will notify the Union and discuss proposed increases prior to implementation. If the minimum rate is increased above the wage rate of any current Employees in the same classification, the current Employee’s rate would be automatically adjusted to at least the new min. rate.
While this could be read as a broad grant of authority to unilaterally increase wages, I don't believe that is how it would be interpreted. In context, this could mean WDW could unilaterally increase the starting pay (or minimum pay for having worked a set number of years) for non-tipped CMs by simply giving the union "notice" but WDW must then increase existing CM pay to the minimum. I don't think this would permit a unilateral across the board pay increase without bargaining nor do I think a rational employer would take the chance that this clause permits a unilateral across the board increase).
A friend of mine who works for one of these banks told me that a memo was sent internally reassuring all employees that their wages would also be raised so as not to "lose ground" to minimum wage workers. I would prefer a raise than a one time bonus, but unfortunately my employer has announced neither at this point .
I'm in the camp that would rather not have this tax bill pass as both a resident of California and someone concerned about the debts we are passing our children. However, even with the massive loss of itemized SALT deduction, I was shocked to find out that my taxes were going down slightly after running the numbers. My siblings who have a very different tax profile than I do also found their taxes decreasing. At least until some of these individual provisions sunset, the tax burden does not seem as bad as many of my friends in California are projecting.
Separate names with a comma.