Originally Posted By Phantom It's in the news that Disneyland Resort is going to have larger costume sizes for larger Cast Members. In way, this is good because it will mean the Disneyland Cast will be more inclusive. Back in the day, there were plenty of people with the potential to be great Cast Members who were turned down because of their size. What I DON'T like about this is that it is another sign that we're collectively getting too large (yes, myself included, and I've been working to lose weight again). I'm sure there are plenty of people here who are comfortable and accepting of themselves being very large and will be very outspoken about that. But if we're going to face reality, we need to admit that **in general**, people of any size prefer to look at people who are more on the thin size, or at least hourglass if they are female. We prefer to see muscle intstead of fat. A theme park staffed with what MOST people would consider attractive and in-shape Cast Members is going to be percieved as a more attractive place than one staffed by heavier Cast Members. That's just a reality - I'm not saying it is a good or right thing. Which brings me to my other point. Disney is not paying enough to be choosy, and this is another sign of that (as is the backstage material printed in languages other than English.) Study after study shows that all other things being equal, the person who is more in shape is going to be the prefered hired, and in places with customer service, the prefered person for a Guest to interact with. You can argue that it is bigotry all you want, and I'm not saying it is right to pass someone over because they are heavier, but that is what the research shows. So, basically what I don't like about this is that it shows we're getting larger, and that Disney is not paying enough to attract those in the population who are smaller. What I *do* like about it is that more people who really like the Disneyland Resort will be able to work there. And again - I'm no thin man myself, and I'm not trying to put anyone down by stating one of the realities of life. If you're happy with your body, good. If you're not, you are either being irrational OR you really do need to do something about your body. On the advice of my own doctor, who himself lost weight, I'm working to lose weight again.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Disney is not paying enough to attract those in the population who are smaller>> That implies fat people are less successful. That may be true overall, but I don't think that that level of success applies to the types of jobs Disneyland is offering. What they need to get is massive numbers of high school and college kids who are young, beautiful, and exuberant. So...it's a percentages proplem. If Disney offered a higher starting wage, they would have more applicants to choose from. THEN they could afford to be more choosy, with appearance being one of the factors that they could be choosy about.
Originally Posted By monorailblue ^^^ I think Phantom was careful not to make that implication. The point was that, throughout the service sector, fitter, trimmer people are, statistically, preferred hires. Phantom did not suggest that this was good; rather, that it bears out in practice. This could lead to many conversations, but Phantom only points to one: that Disney has more and more of the statistically non-preferred is evidence that their offered wages are out of whack; if they offered an equivalent or superior work environment, we would expect that, statistically, Disney would have a commensurate amount of industry preferred hires. But that isn't to suggest that thinner people make better employees. It might suggest that the industry generally believes that they do. (I think it probably does suggest this.) But Phantom didn't say he agreed with that conclusion. (I think he probably does not agree with it.) [Side note: If we had exhaustive information, we might find that obese personnel, as a group, are more prone to sickness and injury that non-obese people, and in a walk-lift-push-pull-turn-wave-move type job are less productive than non-obese people. I've no idea, really, but such findings wouldn't surprise me.] So: Phantom did not say that 'fatter' people are worse employees. Phantom noted that Disney's hiring trend---being different than typical industry hiring---may demonstrate that Disney's compensation is too low.
Originally Posted By DLFAN1979 It has led to frustrations in Costuming at least for me at MK. U can not find ONE S, M, or L Pirate Coat. They were ALL XL XXL XXXL!!!!!! Like everyone at Pirates is FAT? And i could only find 2, count em, TWO, Pirate shirts in XS and S. However being 140# does have its advantages as i can squeeze into a 34R Mansion vest, which are the ORIGINALS from '71! Larger sizes are reproductions!
Originally Posted By DLFAN1979 BTW, here is the full article u r talkign about <a href="http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=70129" target="_blank">http://forums.wdwmagic.com/sho wthread.php?t=70129</a>
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<throughout the service sector, fitter, trimmer people are, statistically, preferred hires>> Which is why I said that it is merely a percentages problem, and that offering a higher starting wage would help offset that problem. Let's say Disney has a need for 50 new CM's. 100 people show up to apply. 60% of the applicants are fat. That leaves them with only 40 "preferred hires," with a deficit of 10 that they would need to compensate for in some manner. Now let's say Disney still needs 50 CM's, but 200 people apply. 60% are still too big, but that still leaves them with 80 preferred hires. In this example, they can afford to scrutinize beyond appearance.
Originally Posted By Phantom monorailblue, You are correct. I was not putting down larger, heavier, or fatter people or saying they SHOULD be passed over. I was taking into account the reality of which there is endless evidence: all other things being equal, people tend prefer someone who doesn't have extra weight, whether in hiring, approaching a stranger, or whatever. Anyone who has ever lost (or gained) a significant amount of weight in a short amount of time knows this.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss She's for those guests who prefer their women to have some junk in their trunk.
Originally Posted By Dapper Mickey DLFAN1979 writes "U can not find ONE S, M, or L Pirate Coat. They were ALL XL XXL XXXL!!!!!! Like everyone at Pirates is FAT? And i could only find 2, count em, TWO, Pirate shirts in XS and S." Quite the contrary. Did you ever stop to think that maybe those smaller sizes are gone because there is MORE demand for them and not the larger sizes you see most often? The Costuming department defintely gets a bad rap because of ingnorance and unrealistic demands.
Originally Posted By Westsider >>"The Costuming department defintely gets a bad rap because of ingnorance and unrealistic demands."<< Ooh.... I'm going to try very hard to restrain myself here because the written word here can come across as harsher than the spoken word, but... "Unrealistic demands"? So it's unrealistic for Costuming to stock enough popular sizes so that CM's can go Onstage in the correct sizes? That's being unrealistic? I was in Main Costuming earlier this week for a new Canoe costume. Just TRY to find a size 34 waist Canoe pants! Just try. Most of the guys on Canoes wear size 32, 34 or 36, and those are all gone. But you know what I found instead? About a dozen pairs of size 48 Canoe pants!!! Let me tell you that we do not have one single guy on Canoes that is a size 48 waist. And if we did, then we'd have to dredge his canoe out of the River at the end of the day cuz a guy that big in the bow would sink the boat after one good trip through the rapids. Yeah, I get that it's not politically correct to say a big fat guy isn't allowed to work on Canoes. But no one that big has ever been signed off on the ride, let alone work it. And there's certainly not a DOZEN guys with 48 inch waists working Canoes. But there are a dozen guys with 34 inch waists who need to get new pants sometimes, but Costuming doesn't have those in stock. And the few pairs they do have in that size range, usually in really short lengths like 28 inch inseams, are old and worn and not very good Show. But darnit there are a dozen pairs of 48 inch waist pants in pristine condition hanging on the rack that will never be checked out. If there is "MORE demand" for standard sizes like S, M and Large shirts, then how about stocking "MORE" of those sizes and leave the practically nonexistent CM's who wear size XXXL or 48 inch waists just a couple options on the rack instead? I don't think that's a request that should be considered as "ignorant" or "unrealistic" by the internal Guests that Costuming serves. Do you? ;-)
Originally Posted By monorailblue ^^^ 'Twasn't nearly the problem it is now before FastTrack came along--no need to have 3 costumes per CM!
Originally Posted By smeeeko ^^ not sure about elsewhere but Store Ops definitely could use the 3costumes considering there is a seperate costume for back of house and host/hostess. Also these pieces have many elements to them. It's not just a matter of having 3costumes or 12pieces (something like that) checked out. One costume requires many pieces while another might only have 3 piecs to it. Having the option available for 3costumes is smart, IMHO. =) I think it's great if they are willing to spend the money to get more costumes in smarter sizes. I don't have an issue when I did work at DLR with checking out men sizes, (actually prefer it) but to have both men & women's sizes and not have enough 'real sizes' and expect people to have good show, something has to give. It's rediculous to have no option but to wear pants that are 4inches too short.. (not to mention it's hard to move in pants like that).
Originally Posted By SpoonCM Well my only issue with costuming is finding a costume that actually is the size that it says on the label. I know that I can fit snuggly in a S or M shirt at Banana Republic and while the same shirt at the Express Men two stores down it's a M or L shirt that fits me best. At costuming, I can get a M shirt that'll fit an uncomfortable tightness on somedays and then the following week get a M shirt that'll hang loosely and look "baggy." Don't even get me started on pants... Whoever does the fitting for costuming please just pick a standard size to work off of, that's all I ask for.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I agree that it would be helpful to CM's for costuming to be more consistent in their sizing. Outside of DL's wardrobe, sometimes a manufacturer will monkey around with the labeled sizes a bit, to make consumers feel better about themselves... "Oooo, I can fit into this size 4 dress!"
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger You people should quit complaining. There is a simple solution: don't wear pants.
Originally Posted By monorailblue "3 costumes per CM" didn't mean 3 different ones. It means that each Auto CM has 3 Auto costumes checked out at once, rather than just one. FastTrack was a poor choice all around, having been a CM before and after.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss You may have your pantless canoe CM's if I can have some topless princesses.
