Working While At WDW Parks

Friday, March 21, 2014 10:40 AM

That, and I'm not paying for satellite Internet access!

Friday, March 21, 2014 11:38 AM

Once again, CoasterBuzz makes me realize how good I have it. I make a little bit more than enough money to get by on, and the stress level is low when I am not at work. I have it all, and I don't get bothered by work at all when I am not scheduled to be there.

If it's the difference between having a regular job and someone with a professional career, I'll take the regular job anytime.

Friday, March 21, 2014 12:22 PM

And for that service, you are welcome. You will receive an invoice for it though. Probably with the invoice you receive the next time you break Coasterbuzz.

Friday, March 21, 2014 4:19 PM

Travis, I still enjoy my job, even though I sometimes get stuck working at odd times. Really, it's satisfying to know that my skills and ability to create/solve/manage systems in the way that I do keep me as a valuable and necessary employee.

It doesn't mean that I have more stress, in fact, I think I have less because I know I'm financially stable enough that I can enjoy the time I do get to spend away from work. I've stressed and worried my way through my first lower-level jobs because it's always easier to be replaced when you're doing basic stuff, and if it's not "good enough", then kiss that goodbye. When you've got responsibility, and day to day operations actually count on your input, it really does make work a bit more satisfying.

I never thought I'd be sitting at my desk, on my company-provided 13" MacBook Air, docked to external 22" monitors, listening to music, being someone's "senior" and their "mentor", all while wearing jeans and a zip up hoodie. It's a great feeling, and because I"m treated well, I actually love my job. It's more than just a "job" to me, it's actually fulfilling and not just a way to get a paycheck.

Friday, March 21, 2014 4:46 PM

I think the short answer is to not assume that you know what others are doing for work, or what that requires. You can make different choices that may afford you more (or more flexible) free time in exchange for lower pay, or you may work a job that stops at 5pm sharp. Doesn't make anyone else's choice(s) wrong, and it doesn't make yours right.

Of course, the opposite is equally true...

Friday, March 21, 2014 6:32 PM

GoBucks89 said:

Though if you read between the lines with what a lot of out of office notices say, they are saying essentially the same thing only not as directly.

My impression is that most of them say: "I won't read this until I get back." My proposed version is different: "I won't read this."


As for whether my job is good or bad: I love my job. In fact, I'm a little surprised that I get paid as much as I do to do it. We had our External Advisory Committee meeting today, and the topic was our campus climate as experienced by our students---the good and the bad. We figured we could not do that without hearing from the students directly, so we recruited a group to come in and talk about these issues. We let them own the process---how the questions would be worded, what issues to surface for the EAC, and who should attend. It exceeded even my wildest expectations and was a tremendous success. Not because of anything I did; we just created the environment for the students to make what they would of it, and then we stayed the heck out of the way.

Now, the week was also incredibly stressful, because our EAC includes a lot of folks who are in a position to financially support our activities in this space. If we got this right, there could be a lot of resources deployed behind our initiatives. But, if we got it wrong, we'd be (rightly) raked across the coals.

We'll see what happens, but I think we got it right.

Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:14 AM

There's a distinction between jobs that have an on-call component to them for some legitimate reason and others where it's either voluntary or an expectation based on no real need.

Saturday, March 22, 2014 6:40 PM

Brian Noble said:

My impression is that most of them say: "I won't read this until I get back." My proposed version is different: "I won't read this."

I understand the difference in wording that you are proposing. But my focus was on whether the actual result would be any different. Taking your notice literally, when you got back to the office after having that notice on for a week, you would highlight every email received while you were out and click the delete button. If there was something that was still relevant when you returned, you would be counting on the sender to resend it. Now maybe you would do that but I know I never would. I would at least spend a few minutes looking through them to see if there is anything to which I need to respond (assuming I haven't done so already).

That view is likely biased by the fact that at this point, email is pretty much the gateway of my professional life. New clients often come through email, new matters for existing clients (many of whom do not use me or my firm exclusively) do as well and deals are negotiated and closed via email. The idea of taking an entire block of emails and deleting/totally ignoring them just wouldn't work. And in reality, when you get back to the office, many (probably most) of the messages that came in while you were out have resolved themselves. So its not like you are reading each and every email when you get back to the office.

I am sure that isn't true for everyone though. But could you ever get info about a grant that you would want that might not be sent again when you got back? Could the university president, the head of your department or some other important person to your professional life send you something that as a matter of protocol couldn't really be pushed back on them to calendar it for another try when you get back? Or that you wouldn't want to take the chance that they wouldn't want to resend later or would forget to resend?

On the separate issue of real need, the idea that if there isn't a real need you shouldn't do it is right. But how do you define "real need?" Is it with respect to the business/organization or individual? How much of a problem/issue would it need to cause if you didn't respond/were totally absent?

Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:35 PM

Inbox zero is another lifestyle choice. :)

Sunday, March 23, 2014 1:12 AM

Jeff said:

There's a distinction between jobs that have an on-call component to them for some legitimate reason and others where it's either voluntary or an expectation based on no real need.

Yes. People who are actually in a position where they need to be available 24/7 I understand.

It's those who are clearly not in such a position I look askance at :-)

Those folks generally strike me as people who are not able to effectively delegate duties to their subordinates or aren't able to effectively manage their time.

Sunday, March 23, 2014 3:54 PM

ApolloAndy said:
I don't know if I'm included in the "some of you" but I'm certainly not arguing that productivity doesn't go up as hours go up (maybe with diminishing returns). What I do find disconcerting is that more and more companies demand 24/7/365 availability when there's no reason for it and workers accept it as necessary when it really isn't. Does it positively affect the bottom line for the shareholders? Yes. Does it negatively affect the worker and his/her quality of life? Also yes.

Having worked in a job where even though I went on vacation, I received calls on my personal cell phone asking if I could fly home early and work, I can appreciate this so much. It was not MY responsibility to make sure there was backup staff to care for patients when I was gone, yet I still had approximately 200 emails on my work account and 12 or so messages requesting work to be done. How can one enjoy vacation or ANYTHING when you know you have that to come home to? Employers believe that no matter how basically they staff and how overworked you are, you'll be available to them. I eventually nearly had a nervous breakdown and gave my two weeks notice with no plan of what I was going to do after that. It was literally either quit or go insane. There was no reason for any of us to feel that way because appropriate staffing would dispel the "necessity of 24/7/365 availability". I truly believe that slightly less work spread thinner among a few more employees eventually will spell MORE profitability and better long-term outcomes for employers, job turnover, client satisfaction, and productivity.

Sunday, March 23, 2014 5:42 PM

I work at a seasonal park and believe it or not, even in December, I get anywhere from 50-100 e-mails a day.

During the operating season when we are open, all bets all are off and I am pretty much expected to be connected to my phone and email 24/7.

However during the off-season, it is a bit more relaxed, but I "choose" to be connected because I like to be connected with the happenings with what is going on with my park. It is my choice.

Even when I am on vacation during the off season, I do carve out a few minutes each day to connect with e-mail and even return some calls. Again, it is my choice and if I forced myself, I probably could delay the work until after my vacation. But I like staying connected, and for 10-20 minutes a day, even on vacation, it is worth it to me. Don't judge...

Last edited by Hanging n' Banging, Sunday, March 23, 2014 5:44 PM
Sunday, March 30, 2014 1:57 AM

Vater said:

Reminds me of the recent Cadillac commercial that a bunch of people got all butthurt about.

Ford's newest marketing plan?

Cater to the butthurt.

(link stolen from Jeff via Facebook)

Sunday, March 30, 2014 12:46 PM

Brilliant on ford's part. I'm not saying I agree with either one because both were playing to their target audiences and both did exactly what they set out to do.

Last edited by Tekwardo, Sunday, March 30, 2014 12:46 PM
Sunday, March 30, 2014 1:01 PM

And there's some interesting irony in the messages from each company considering one of those companies relied on a federal bailout to stay in business.

Sunday, March 30, 2014 1:45 PM

I love the title of the article about the Ford ad "absolutely destroying" the Cadillac commercial. I guess it does if you agree with the Ford spot. But for the most part it isn't as much a matter of being right or better as it is being different. Right or better are typically in the eyes of the beholder. Common concept dominates what I call political theater of every day politics at this point.

I also agree with respect to the irony of the GM bailout. And I think its interesting to see so many people touting clean tech all electric cars when significant portions of our electricity are generated with coal which no one views as clean air tech.

Sunday, March 30, 2014 2:20 PM

GoBucks89 said:

But for the most part it isn't as much a matter of being right or better as it is being different.


To me, the message is almost exactly the same, it's just the end goal that differs. They both say the same thing - work hard for things you're passionate about.

The difference is that Cadillac did the spot first using the concept and Ford sort of ripped it off. So if "absolutely destroyed" is defined as "ripped off their idea" then sure, they killed it.

Although, on a more philosphical and general note, there are two sides here. And it seems one just does what they believe in (outdated ideals or not) and the other seems as intent (maybe more so) on poking fun, mocking and finger pointing as much as anything - not just here, but this a good example. This article isn't "look at this wonderful ad by Ford", it's "look how stupid the Cadillac ad is and how Ford absolutely destroyed them by mocking them" - and that's a huge turnoff in general that I feel people who are of that mindset use all too often.

Sunday, March 30, 2014 9:51 PM

I don't think they're the same at all. One says "be a selfish dickhead, you earned it," the other says, "you've been selfless and contributed to the world, now buy yourself something nice." Both are materialistic rubbish, but at least the second is less douchey.

Sunday, March 30, 2014 10:57 PM

Man, any time I buy something nice for myself thanks to the money I've earned working my ass off, I'm a selfish dickhead? Noted.

Sunday, March 30, 2014 11:50 PM

Lord Gonchar said:
They both say the same thing - work hard for things you're passionate about.

Jeff said:

One says "be a selfish dickhead, you earned it," the other says, "you've been selfless and contributed to the world, now buy yourself something nice."

One says, "You work hard for nice things. Keep kicking ass. Enjoy!"

The other says, "You're a smug asshat that thinks you're better than than other people because you wonk at them about the food they buy. Pat yourself on the back and buy a car!" (and goes a step further sending the message via mockery/parody)

One is definitely less douchey than the other. But I think you have it flipped.

Last edited by Lord Gonchar, Sunday, March 30, 2014 11:55 PM

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC