Another Example of Disney's Great Service!

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:53 AM
Well, here is a novelty: How about working hard for the sake of it? How about respecting yourself to put in a day's work?

I would say that if I didn't spend 5 summers at Geauga Lake working hard and trying to do my best I would not have been hired by Disney. If I don't do my best at Disney I don't get hired by Cedar Point. If I don't perform well at Cedar Point then I likely miss the opportunity to come to Florida. NONE of that had to do with the $3.15/hr I made the first summer at Geauga Lake. By performing well when I was making $28,000 a year I have tripled my salary in less than 10 years.

Now, to further muddle the issue at Cedar Point, they have other resources to improve the employee experience that does not involve pay. Namely, employee housing and the living experience outside of the work day. Because of Dick's stubborness and lack of vision they can't even really fully realize the benefits of that. *** Edited 4/23/2008 3:55:17 PM UTC by wahoo skipper***

+0
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:02 PM

djDaemon said:
So, in many cases with low paying service jobs, there isn't much one can do for themselves, and combine that with the abysmal pay scale...

Yes this is indeed true, but is that an excuse to take the job and then not perform. You doing a great disservice to your employer and their customers and basically wasting everyone's time.

If you don't feel the job is worth it, then why take it in the first place?


wahoo skipper said:
How about working hard for the sake of it? How about respecting yourself to put in a day's work?

That's something that seems to have been lost along the way.

Most successful people I know in life have that attitude, though - so it's still out there in some people.

Everyone else just seems to complain that they don't get paid enough and continue to blame other people for their lack of forward momentum in life.

+0
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:20 PM

wahoo skipper said:
Well, here is a novelty: How about working hard for the sake of it? How about respecting yourself to put in a day's work?

Just to be clear - I'm not condoning this type of ethic, or rather the lack thereof. I'm merely stating what seems to be the case, at least in my few years in the service industry.

But in many cases, I would say that working hard for the sake of it doesn't have a noticable reward for many of these people.


Lord Gonchar said:


...is that an excuse to take the job and then not perform.


Quite obviously, no, its not an excuse. It just seems to be what happens.


If you don't feel the job is worth it, then why take it in the first place?

A combined need for money and a lack of viable options? I really have no idea.

+0
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:43 PM

wahoo skipper said:
Well, here is a novelty: How about working hard for the sake of it? How about respecting yourself to put in a day's work?

Lord Gonchar said:
Most successful people I know in life have that attitude, though - so it's still out there in some people.
Success is not objectively defined, but the truth of the matter is that working in high school or in college is what you do for beer money, not a career. I doubt many people are going to have pride in work that has very little long term value to them. The bottom line is that successful people are people who really dig what they do. That's not likely a seasonal park employee.
+0
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:10 PM

Jeff said:
The bottom line is that successful people are people who really dig what they do.

In an ideal world, yes.

Is the guy doing what he digs for 8 hours a day, but not making enough to feed or care for his family and spending the other 16 hours of his day constantly worrying really more successful then the stressed-out 10-hour-a-day guy who has plenty of money to make the other 14 hours (his personal life) everything he wants it to be...and more?

I think the point is that neither doing what you want nor how much you make (when considered alone) makes you successful. If you can have both, then great. But most people will ultimately find a balance that suits them best.

So let me re-write that line from my last post:

Most people whom I consider successful have that attitude.

It's not all about working hard and giving your life to the man. It's about caring and a will to succeed. I find that people with those traits are the ones I'd be most likely to consider to be successful people.

+0
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:22 PM
It has nothing to do with an ideal world... that's how I define it. And if you dig what you do, you probably make enough doing it. Quality of life, personal time, etc., are all qualifiers, sure, but I stand by my original statement.

The "will to succeed" is misinterpreted by far too many people as chasing the man's agenda to "make it," which isn't what success is.

Makes total sense, right?

The bigger point is that seasonal amusement park jobs are still gigs that a "special" kind of person has to enjoy to do it effectively.

+0
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:31 PM

The "will to succeed" is misinterpreted by far too many people as chasing the man's agenda to "make it," which isn't what success is.

Not always, but it certainly can be.

What is success?

I think it's just as possible to be successful as part of the machine as it is outside the system. You seem to imply that the moment you begin to "play the game" so to speak, that you're not successful.

I'd rather follow the man's agenda and have everything I want in life (and I don't just mean possessions) than do my own thing and suffer.

10 years ago you couldn't have paid me to say that. :)


The bigger point is that seasonal amusement park jobs are still gigs that a "special" kind of person has to enjoy to do it effectively.

Yeah, I totally agree. I think it goes back to the "you can't make people work" thing. I don't see how an employer can really influence things in a meaningful way (as some are suggesting) in this kind of situation.

However, it's still work that you agreed to do for a certain price. Do it.

(wow, I'm all over the place on the subject)

+0
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:40 PM
I think this all goes back to the idea that most people believe the deserve to be handed life on a silver platter (which I tend to chalk up to pop culture/TV - advertising in particular). The idea of working hard to EARN something doesn't seem to be part of the vocabulary.

Andy <- Admittedly part of the generation being spoken about.

+0
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:50 PM

Lord Gonchar said:If you don't feel the job is worth it, then why take it in the first place?

There's no way to say this without sounding flippant (unintentional, but unavoidable it seems): Public assistance has been cut to the point where many who would otherwise choose NOT to work are simply forced to work. There's alot of benefits to the newer system, but one of the drawbacks is that the service industry is flooded with people who would probably prefer to be sitting at home playing video games...

+0
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:32 PM

Lord Gonchar said:
I think it's just as possible to be successful as part of the machine as it is outside the system. You seem to imply that the moment you begin to "play the game" so to speak, that you're not successful.

I'd rather follow the man's agenda and have everything I want in life (and I don't just mean possessions) than do my own thing and suffer.


I didn't say that you couldn't work in the system to be successful, nor have I said that selling out makes you unsuccessful. What I'm saying is that doing it for the paycheck or "everything I want in life" is not success, as these alone do not lead to happiness.

ApolloAndy said:
I think this all goes back to the idea that most people believe the deserve to be handed life on a silver platter...
I think that's a grossly unfair generalization... about any generation. *** Edited 4/23/2008 6:33:40 PM UTC by Jeff***
+0
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:06 PM

Jeff said:
What I'm saying is that doing it for the paycheck or "everything I want in life" is not success...

I suppose our definitions of success differ to some degree.

To me having everything you want in life (enough time to spend doing whatever with whoever, freedom from financial worry, toys, spiritual enlightenment, peace, goodwill towards your fellow man - whatever floats your boat) is the definition of success.

Successful people are people who get what they're after in life - they achieve their goals. The means by which it is achieved is irrelevant and everybody will be shooting for something different.

Again, people who seem successful to me are the ones who put in the work to get what they want. The incentive should be a will to succeed (with success being defined above).

Which, getting back to the whole point I was after in the first place, seems to be in direct contrast to the mindset that it's the employer's responsibility to give you incentive to work. I don't agree with that. To me that's the mindset of people who probably won't get very far on their own anyway.

That, in turn, agrees entirely with the idea that a crap job is a crap job and that you can't make people care.

Which then comes full circle with wahoo skipper's idea that those that do care (even when there's no incentive to care), tend to get ahead...and I agree with that too.

+0
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:53 PM

Lord Gonchar said:
On the flip side - you can stress it all you want as an employer, but the employee will still react as they so choose.

Customer service is an intangible. There's very few black & white guidelines. Obviously, the mission is to provide the best service for the guest - that can be (and will be) interpreted in countless manners by employees.


Just wanted to chime in and agree with that.

Last holiday season, a slightly mentally-handicapped janitor at the local mall's food court noticed a customer left behind a $10K diamond bracelet just purchased. The guy turned it into mall security and eventually the bracelet was returned to its rightful (and absent-minded) owner. As good as the mall looked as a result of that, it wasn't the mall that did the right thing, it was the individual employee acting on his own behalf.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...