Shanghai Disneyland opening driving cost-cutting measures in the US and Paris parks

I understand supply and demand and free market (and its limitations), but I also think the employer has more leverage than the employee in that exchange and I'm not sure it's "fair" (in the way that a monopoly or monopsony isn't fair) and I definitely don't think it's good for society as a whole.

And I might be somewhat inclined to agree to an extent, but all of the CEO-bashing nonsense is infuriating. You know what I don't think is good for society? This us vs. them thing where anyone who has achieved success doesn't deserve it, or somehow inherited it. I am well aware of the societal and cultural barriers that make it difficult for people, but that is not a reason to tear down successful people who have worked their asses off to get where they are. When did that become something to loathe instead of aspire to?

Of course there's a general current of fear mongering, but I think there's a perception that CEO's make millions of dollars by finding ways to stick it to the average worker in order to maximize profits. There may be some truth to that and some exaggeration, but it's hard for me to swallow that CEO's who tank companies are still making multiple millions of dollars a year when the justification for such high salaries is always "the leadership they provide generates way more income and therefore they are worth it."

Some CEO's fail, sure. So because some fail we should hate them all, and adopt a "stick it to the man" attitude? That's nuts.

I think it's also only "fair" to consider the general work ethic of the employees these days, too. At the risk of over-generalizing, I'm not sure it's true in 2016 that all of the general workforce has hardworking, "can-do" attitudes that would exude loyalty if only they felt stable in their jobs. The level of employee entitlement that seems to be paramount in the workplace makes it hard to go-to-bat for some, if not many.

There's always been a subset of the employee population that has crappy attitudes, regardless of place of employment. What has changed over the last generation or two is the notion that good workers, who were loyal and dedicated, somehow have any sense of job security, even at companies that are doing well. It's one thing if the company is facing bankruptcy and hard decisions have to be made. It's another for a company that is once again looking to "take costs out of the system" just to meet Wall Street's expectations.

Americans have finally figured out that their bosses will sell them down the river in a heartbeat if they can. It's the younger, "millennial" generation who have wised up, perhaps faster than their superiors, and realize that they have to look out for themselves first. That means negotiating hard upon entry, and having zero expectation of a lifetime career at their employer, even if they are stellar employees. Corporate America has proven by example, that you're worth more to someone else than at your current employer, and they've adapted. Can't blame them at all.

I can't buy that. The idea that people migrate among various employers simply because the "system" or "man" taught them that they are better off elsewhere than in their current gig seems awfully narrow-sighted. Why can't it be that everyone started playing the same game? That corporations and employees alike are all looking for better situations and moving towards them? And if that's the case, I think there's not a single thing wrong with that.

Sometimes we talk about loyalty in the workplace as if it's as much a cornerstone as love in a personal relationship. It's not. There's a business transaction going on at the core of all employment. Supply and demand applies in both directions.

And although I'm sure there have always been crappy attitudes in the workplace, I really think it's growing. Just look at all of the attitudes expressed about employment in any of these threads. Your statement alone about millennials being "forced" to come in negotiating hard at entry and then carrying zero expectation of a lifetime career at their employer speaks volumes about the attitudes that are leading behaviors these days. An alternative perspective/choice would be to come in being committed to always adding value to the organization so that whether at the same employer or another if an opportunity arises, everyone is ready to land on their feet.

I think certain things used to be perceived as things to be earned and the more recent general attitude is that those same things are deserved.

ApolloAndy said:

Of course there's a general current of fear mongering, but I think there's a perception that CEO's make millions of dollars by finding ways to stick it to the average worker in order to maximize profits.

At the risk of trying to insinuate my POV into the thought process...

Shareholders want high profits and rising share prices.

Many industries are not in a growth phase, but are either mature or declining.

One of the easiest ways to generate short-term profits (everyone's focused on the quarterly numbers) without selling more product is to cut costs.

Workers are quite typically a business's most expensive cost.

If the short-term result is profit, then shareholders are happy.

Happy shareholders pay CEOs more.

It's indirect enough of a line for a CEO to claim plausible deniability, and for shareholders to claim their only concern is maximizing profits...

Carrie J. said:

I can't buy that. The idea that people migrate among various employers simply because the "system" or "man" taught them that they are better off elsewhere than in their current gig seems awfully narrow-sighted. Why can't it be that everyone started playing the same game?

I've struggled with this idea for years. The weird thing is that I work in a field (software) where people are treated like interchangeable commodities (they're not), and yet companies pay a serious premium for them. That doesn't even make sense, and yet, here we are. But in this field, the old cliche that people leave managers, not companies, is also likely true.

Sometimes we talk about loyalty in the workplace as if it's as much a cornerstone as love in a personal relationship. It's not. There's a business transaction going on at the core of all employment. Supply and demand applies in both directions.

This is the fundamental understanding that I suspect much of the workforce doesn't understand. You're only worth as much as the value you add. I don't understand how people make this a moral issue.

But you're not paid based on your "worth" to the company. You're paid based on what you can negotiate.

Hence the need for unions...to balance the power at the negotiating table.

If Disney isn't paying well and cutting hours do people can't pay rent, those people should find another job. It's why I left Walmart nearly 20 years ago and worked hard to find a job that pays a living wage, one that I can work and afford to live my lifestyle. But that's just me.

I came to Orlando for a six month internship at Disney after college that wound up being a six and a half year first career. After six and a half years and four different positions, I decided that the job was no longer fulfilling and something I wanted to do, for a variety of reasons. So I started a job search, continued to work hard, eventually found a new job outside of the company which was a fantastic fit, and left. Upon leaving, I was met with two responses from both co workers and supervisors

1) We provided you with training and opportunities to advance over the years. How dare you use these opportunities to your advantage and then leave?

2) I whine and complain about the way I am treated, my long hours, and the pay we get. I don't like my job and complain about it every chance I get. Wait, you are leaving? How did you go about doing that and why would you do such a thing?

I was made to feel guilty by some for seeking out a career that provided me with opportunity that aligned more closely with my short and long term career and personal goals. Sort of a "none of us really like it here, but wait, why do you get to leave and we don't" kind of attitude. Yet none of them ever actually looked into any sort of new opportunity. Part of it may have been the unique "pixie dust blowers" that Jeff talks about (which is 100% true - all of it.) But I also think part of it is a sense of entitlement that folks have - just stick it out and put in the minimum and eventually they will "owe" it to me to make it "better."

rollergator said:

But you're not paid based on your "worth" to the company. You're paid based on what you can negotiate.

That's fundamentally untrue. You can't ignore the supply and demand aspect. If a hundred employers need to hire from a pool of ten highly skilled people, their worth and pay is very high. If the reverse is true, not so much. My pay isn't based on negotiation, it's based on demand for my skills, which are scarce. This is the point I keep coming back to... if you feel that you aren't paid enough, then your first action shouldn't be bitching and moaning about it. Put that energy into building new skills that are in higher demand. Like I said, I totally get the societal and cultural barriers that people are up against. I am sympathetic to them. But inaction doesn't make it better.

Hence the need for unions...to balance the power at the negotiating table.

That's exactly the thing that nearly killed the auto industry. It has nothing to do with fairness, it has to do with the fact that $25 or more is a lot of money to pay someone to mount a bumper and do a job that took a few hours to learn. Why? Because the Japanese (and others) proved it could be done for less. Fairness doesn't come into play and won't change this.

I wish I could like this more than once.

One of the few areas I agree with Jeff almost entirely.

High five!

Seriously though, like everything else in our culture, people are inclined to take opposite stances on this, and I still think I'm pretty much in the middle. I fully acknowledge that there is a cyclical problem with poverty, with plenty of racism, sexism and other ism's that make it difficult. I understand that capitalism has downsides, and maybe the "living wage" thing is one of those. However, when people are eager to remember the good old days (and they don't sound good at all to me), let's remember that even in the manufacturing economy of the previous century, there was desire and drive to learn skills to succeed. That requirement hasn't changed. Employers may not have "loyalty," but you can't force that, ever, so your choice is to roll up your sleeves and play with the new rules, or not.

You'll get no argument from me that most unions failed to adapt to changing economies, and failed to take a lead in ensuring their members were able and ready to adapt. But they have played an important role over the decades in providing a more equal negotiating relationship between workers and companies.

Equality shouldn't have anything to do with it though, and the history isn't really important as the world has changed. Unions made sense in the context of making sure that working conditions were safe and things like that, but for unions to interfere with the market leads to certain failure. The auto industry is certainly one of the biggest examples, but there are countless others. The result doesn't protect the workers, it gets them laid-off and puts the companies at risk. In a global economy, someone is going to figure out how to make that widget cheaper, and if the unions in the US invoke a protective labor strategy, that bubble is going to burst. It's a certainty. It's not me being political or apathetic, it's just a reality.

On the one hand, unions allowed workers to have a more equal relationship with employers.

On the other hand, I agree: unions moved to relying on those protective labor strategies, to their detriment.

May only be anecdotal, but we've spent the last week in the DFW area. One thing that has caught our attention is the sheer number of 'help wanted' signs that are EVERYWHERE.

I have to assume the supply and demand situation has led to things like this:

That's $11 an hour for flipping burgers. Well over the minimum wage because the value is determined by the market, not arbitrary wage assignments.