Walt Disney World workers prepare to negotiate for better wages, benefits

It is weak and lazy managers who can't manage a union workforce.

Funny, the managers would make the argument that it's a weak and lazy union workforce. If you can't promote someone on the merits of their work, that is a pretty broken system.

Ask your Lemon Chill Bartender for more advice.

CPJ said:

It is weak and lazy managers who can't manage a union workforce.

I always thought it was weak and lazy workers that needed a union.

Winky...or not.

Not always and definitely not in the beginning. But, having been heavily involved in a union in a past life, that is sadly often the case.

Jeff- You'll notice that Microsoft, while mentioned in the article, is somewhat of an outlier. They (along with the other giants) are pretty far from the top users of the visas. I did concede that there may indeed be some legitimate uses of the H-1B program, but the article states that the majority of them are used in an abusive manner.

While this is strictly an anecdotal, my dad used to be a shift manager at a union shop. They did have a handful of the stereotypical "lazy, tenured" union employees, but in his experience the union wasn't the real problem. Those employees could be disciplined or terminated, but his bosses and the HR department wouldn't allow him to because there was "too much work involved" for them to follow through on the process. Behind every lazy union member is usually even lazier upper management that's trying just as hard to avoid doing their jobs. Granted, I absolutely believe a company should have to show good reason before they fire somebody, so the fact that upper management has to do some paperwork/documentation to justify a firing doesn't bother me one bit.

OK, so even if you could demonstrate that H-1B's are "mostly" abused, at the end of the day it's such a small part of the workforce that it's a rounding error.

It would be a rounding error if you could find someone who wasn't promoted at Disney World due to a union.

Jeff is 100% on with all his points. I worked at WDW for 7 years - both in a hourly union represented role and in management.

I will say unions don't hold people from management - but from promotions. Management at Disney is nonunion and anyone who meets the general position requirements can apply. However within the hourly roles unions can hold people back from lead/supervisor/coordinator roles.

People can not move up due to the union - I had 2 years of experience and my managers wanted to promote me to the lead/coordinator role but couldn't because my seniority wasn't long enough. Someone who was awful and called in all the time got it because he had 15 years. I can share 100 similar stories of myself or peers.

I managed a union cast and it was difficult. While there are a lot of good people - there are so many people who are locked in and are nearly untouchable. The contract allows for people to no-call no show for 3 days straight prior to being terminated (what other job can you disappear for 2 days with not even calling in and not even get written up?). Everything was fought by the union. I had cast members swear to guests, a terminable offense per the contract, we fired them then two weeks later they were in a different role thanks to the union. Or someone who stormed in threw their ID down, said he quit, cursed myself and my peer out, the other cast in the area and left. Two days later the union had him his job back. It is near impossible to fire or discipline people due to the contract and when you do they would fight it. What about the time someone who was mad and wanted to make a point, jumped on a the coaster's track in front of the moving train nearly getting run over - in front of guests on a busy day? Fired, then after 3 months brought back with back pay.

Anytime anyone with seniority over 15 years would go to a union grievance - they almost automatically got their job back - reason? "They have a lot of seniority and know better. They served the company well for so many years."

The good news is the union's control over WDW is slipping away and the last few contracts saw some changes to the seniority/promotion rules.

So while everyone has a right to their own opinion - I challenge you to go work for Disney, be told you can't move up due to seniority or manage 150 union employees then come back to this discussion.

Wait wait wait, so my anecdote was based in truth? You don't say? It's as if I work for a theme park company or something.

All unions are not created equal, and I don't believe for a second that there aren't serious downsides in terms of ingenuity, productivity, seniority, etc.

OTOH, it has been proven that having some union employees increases wages in the local area, and in the company, for union and non-union workers. They really do provide the proverbial rising tide that lifts all boats.

Oh, and VW has indicated they haven't given up on having a union shop in their TN plant.

Isn't is curious how many TN politicans came out STRONGLY in opposition to the union? Even saying things about VW that VW later said were totally false (not using the TN plant for future product lines, etc.). Why lie if you believe your argument should carry the day with truth and logic?

The difference in ideology is that one side believes people "deserve" higher wages, and that's good for everyone, while the other side believes that it interferes with market forces that normally cause corrections. While the reality is likely somewhere in the middle, I tend to believe things lean toward the latter.

In unskilled assembly line work, what happens when a company is forced to pay a guy $30/hr.? Cost of the product goes up. You've protected the worker short term, but screwed him long term when the product can no longer compete with cheaper goods from overseas.

In skilled labor, look at teachers. I think they all deserve six figures. However, they're paid by voters, and there is only so much to be had. Then unions link tenure to degrees and seniority, and they can never leave because another district won't pay a masters when they can hire at bachelor rates.

Unions sometimes make sense, especially in the days where labor laws were weak, but I'm not convinced they always make sense today. The stories above from Disney are an example of that.

My thinking is that the POV that "the market will correct flaws" somehow requires a concept of "the market" as a distinct rational entity without emotional thoughts, or feeling. To my way of thinking (not claiming a position of *correctitude*) is that the market is made up of individuals, and while in total there may be a bias toward rationality, it often happens that the market completely fails to behave in that way (think bank runs).

Also, the market can never account for public goods, stuff like clean air, clean water, etc. We may need these things, but unless Nestle or someone else can actually claim ownership of those, they will always be undervalued by market forces - nobody has an interest in clean water strong enough to overcome the desire of business to use that water for production of goods and energy. Returning it back to environment with pollutants may not be good for those who drink the water, but it sure is cheaper for Freedom Industries.

rollergator said:
OTOH, it has been proven that having some union employees increases wages in the local area, and in the company, for union and non-union workers. They really do provide the proverbial rising tide that lifts all boats.

But at what cost? Artificially higher costs are not sustainable. So if the results of the union are higher wage/benefits than what must otherwise be paid in the market, the company and union won't survive on a long term basis. I grew up in Lorain which had a Ford assembly plant for about 50 years (and it was struggling for 10-15 years before it closed). But the UAW (and management who gave in to it) drove the costs of the plant so far above market prices that the plant is now closed. Worked out well for about a generation and a half. Seems to me it would have been better for the area to have the plant there and operating on a long term basis.

Why lie if you believe your argument should carry the day with truth and logic?

The cynical side of me says they lie because thats what politicians do. But in reality, its more because the education in the US in terms of basic economics is worse than horrible. So its difficult to have a true and logical discussion about anything dealing with even basic economics. Short attention spans and the world of sound bites make it that much tougher.

All teachers deserve six figures. Why?

GoBucks89 said:

But at what cost? Artificially higher costs are not sustainable. So if the results of the union are higher wage/benefits than what must otherwise be paid in the market, the company and union won't survive on a long term basis. I grew up in Lorain which had a Ford assembly plant for about 50 years (and it was struggling for 10-15 years before it closed). But the UAW (and management who gave in to it) drove the costs of the plant so far above market prices that the plant is now closed. Worked out well for about a generation and a half. Seems to me it would have been better for the area to have the plant there and operating on a long term basis.

Yes. Couldn't agree with this any more.

As a child of rural western PA who saw my father, all my friends' fathers and the community at large suffer when the steel mills/plants/factories left town, I'm still convinced to this day that the unions those men trusted and believed in killed the industry and were the cause of the jobs going away.

Teachers deserve six figures because that's my opinion, and I think they do important work. The reality though is that there is no way that's going to happen. My opinion about what's right doesn't matter. That was the point.

Six figures is one thing, but should we really have teachers with bachelor's degrees earning little enough to qualify for public assistance? It is a question of values to a large extent.

It varies by state. But the average starting salary for a public school teacher in Ohio is about $32,000. And average public school teachers in Ohio make about $55,000. I don't think there are many who qualify for public assistance. And that's before you factor in a 180 day work year of 7 hour days. Public pension that cannot be bankrupted (for which they pay little compared to what someone would need to contribute to a 401(k) plan for the same retirement benefit). Other benefits typically better for less cost than for non-teachers.

At one point (20 years or so ago), I think public school teachers were underpaid in Ohio. But I don't think that is the case now (at least in most cases). Though the mantra continues in school board meetings, PSO meetings, etc.

Its my understanding that in some other states (particularly in the south) that is not true though.

Not that it matters, but I can't say I know any teachers who work just 180 days a year at 7 hours a piece.