Disney and union still without agreement at Walt Disney World as deadline approaches

From the Sentinel piece:

It’s not about Disney being a bad company. Or a good company. It is simply a low-paying company.

No, it's a low paying industry and these are jobs that garner that type of pay. I have 25+ years experience working in a similar industry that depends on entry-level, low hourly wage employees. Disney is paying the going rate and, as long as people are still filling those jobs, there's no reason for them to raise that rate above market. Even if you raise the pay rate to $20/hour, you still don't change the nature of these jobs - low skill requirements, repetitive, mostly mundane, maybe some empowerment, but mostly following a script. Really good, highly motivated employees are going to move up or move on. In my experience, bumping up the minimum pay rate helps you keep a few great employees and a lot of mediocre or worse employees - the warm bodies, the seat-fillers, the transient employees that hop from entry-level to entry-level job that you need to keep things running, but aren't necessarily concerned about keeping around for the long haul.

Jeff said:
Let's take out my absurd midlife crisis car payment,

That part made me laugh, as I contemplate a new vehicle but have to weigh in a possible relocation soon.

The model 3 still looks nice, especially because I'm going to have to hold off on the Roadster for now.

Just more of the same argument Jeff. When large companies drive down wages and drive up prices it's "the free market at work" but when workers package their labor together for sale it's "artificially inflating wages" and not at all a free market mechanism of wage balancing.

It's time for America to let go of its almost religious devotion to this perverse corporate version of capitalism.

A ) What Acrobatic Enthusiast said.

B ) I earn $20 an hour.

C ) I would love to move up but I recognize my limitations.

You still haven't illustrated where anyone has "driven down wages."

Your comparison isn't valid, and we've given you the classic example that shows how union-driven wages breaks entire industries. We can argue that Detroit just wasn't building cars that people wanted, sure, but a better part of that argument was that unions drove up the wages of bumper-mounters that didn't match the skill required driving up the cost, while protecting the most mediocre workers (for non-skilled work no less) from ever being replaced or fired, reducing quality of the product. Higher labor cost and lower quality isn't good for the company, or the worker. If you don't believe me, you can go buy a city block in Detroit for about $10k.

You know what happens when a company raises prices beyond what the market will allow? It can't sell product. That's supply and demand. When labor attempts to do the same, the company has no choice but to raise prices. In the long run, unions screw themselves and the companies they work for. It is not the same as raising prices on product.

This is just tiring. Same arguments. No real rebuttals. It's all just "this is the way it is" instead of asking why it has to be that way.

No real rebuttals? For real? I've given you the actual economics, which are straight forward supply and demand, you've given me nothing of the sort. Re-read my last paragraph, please. That's your rebuttal. Explain to me why it's not correct.

If you want to talk about some kind of moral issue instead of the economics, feel free to take it in that direction, but the outcome of that will be what Gonch and I have been arguing for years: If you want to make more, acquire the skills that demand it.

https://m.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/12/20/disney-union-...e-increase

Workers belonging to six local unions that make the Service Trades Council Union voted Tuesday and Wednesday on Disney's contract offer. Out of the 38,000 Disney cast members that make up the STCU, 9,117 voted against against accepting the contract (93 percent), while 643 voted to move forward with Disney's proposal.

If I'm reading that right that means that roughly 74% of the union represented workforce didn't even bother to show up to vote. If I was Disney I'd be using those numbers for my advantage. "Look 74% of your people don't even care enough to show up over the course of 2 days to even vote. You're getting 50 cents an hour. Take it or leave it."

Especially when, at least when I worked there, Disney would provide all union members with a shuttle to go to wherever they were holding the vote during your shift. All you had to do was sign up.

Sorry for the double post, but here is the Sentinel article on the vote:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-bz-union-disney-...story.html

From the story:

“We deserve more than 50 cents,” said Krystle Karnofsky, who is paid $10 hour to work at Animal Kingdom’s Flight of Passage ride and struggles with a company she loves but that can’t support her financially..... She has worked at the some of the most popular rides at Disney World, which means she gets to bring people joy

The issue is not that the company can't support her financially. It's that she is a ride operator, and $10/hour is pretty standard. If she has chosen to make her long term job a theme park ride operator, she is going to be paid the industry standard. "Bringing people joy" is not a marketable skill, contrary to what thousands of entry level Disney Cast Members believe.

A hundred times, that. I work for a software company, and as boring as the subject matter is, we actually bring joy to our customers by reducing their work and making their jobs easier. But the difference is that the skills I have to enable that are far more rare, more specialized and take years to develop. That demands a higher wage. This isn't an issue of fairness... literally anyone who is at least remotely polite and not a moron can be a ride host with relatively little training, and there are people lined up out the door who want to do it.

I still feel like this is a bizarre expectation problem, that because you like what you do and others like what you do for them, that it entitles you to more. We all make choices... mine was not to settle for $15k a year being a top 40 DJ. It was a really hard choice to make, but I was realistic about the situation.

Red Garter Rob said:

If I'm reading that right that means that roughly 74% of the union represented workforce didn't even bother to show up to vote.

You’re reading it right but you aren’t getting all the facts from the article. That 38,000 is the amount of Cast Members that the STCU could cover if they were all union members. That number doesn’t equal the amount of dues paying, card carrying members of the union.

Typically, strong unions and generous minimum wages are good for the economy and humanity. People can't reasonably live off of $7 an hour or less, and at that point, many people just won't work, or will turn to a life of crime, or government benefits if that's all that their skills will give them. And, if we put more money into their pockets, it would barely even be noticeable for the 1%ers and the corporations who are paying for the raises. Stock held by corporations is mostly held by the ultra-wealthy, who already have enough.

Putting more money into the pockets of the lower and middle class helps them live, and gives a jolt in the arm to the economy, as they spend almost every dime of the newly found money, while the ultra rich just hoard it.

The only issue that you may run into would be corporations moving jobs overseas. This is an issue, but that's why in addition to the labor laws, you need to aggressive write laws to prevent this. Take away the tax benefits for moving jobs overseas, and tax goods heavily goods produced by off-shore labor. Also, put pressure on those nations to adopt fair working conditions for their employees from a diplomatic standpoint.

"May run into?" History shows that's exactly what happens. You can't avoid globalization or rig it in your favor, especially if you're willing to let your unskilled labor force be mostly unskilled. That's a fallacy that Americans have been believing in for decades.

I agree that the economy benefits when people with low wages have less low wages, but you lose me as soon as you start talking about "putting money into their pockets." No one "puts money in my pockets" unless I work hard and better myself. Why is it no one expects to start at the bottom? Rich people are not the enemy or inherently evil, and while corporations are largely soulless entities, people act like no one works for them or benefits from them, and that's stupid. I used to work for the biggest software company in the world, and while you can call them evil or whatever because they have billions in the bank, they employ over 100,000 people, mostly with high paying jobs. They're not the devil.

Disney employs 62,000 people in Central Florida alone. What would all those people do if it suddenly went away?

The fallacy that Americans believe in is that the way things are done here and have been done in the past are the only ways that things can be done. America lacks imagination and the balls to try anything other than three status quo.

Unless they're American immigrants... see Elon Musk (Tesla, SpaceX), Sergey Brin (Google), etc.

TheAcrophobicEnthusiast said:

The fallacy that Americans believe in is that the way things are done here and have been done in the past are the only ways that things can be done. America lacks imagination and the balls to try anything other than three status quo.

The fallacy is that you think that's the fallacy.

Ignoring supply and demand is not innovative or ballsy. This is probably a good point in the script to work in #wronglyentitledballs.

How did I forget that glorious meme?