yelling

Originally Posted By vbdad55

The first time I saw MSEP I thought the wait was absolutely worth it. I know there are lots of parade people - I am not...so I'll go take advantage of shorter queues during most parades

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

Here's a joke someone told me once.

How to Speak Arkansas:

M R DUCKS

M R NOT

OSAR

C M WANGS?

L I B

M R DUCKS



Can you read that? Here's the translation:

'Em are ducks.

'Em are not.

Oh 'es 'ey are (Oh yes they are)

See 'em wangs (wings)?

'ell I be! (Well, I'll be!)

'Em ARE ducks!

 

Originally Posted By MPierce

>> here' dbe the question we have to answer - can we do with 1/3 less CM's if we paid them $11/HR ? It's gonna come down to $ and cents and still making a proift for shareholders. <<

That is always the arguement against raising the working class pay scale up.

 

Originally Posted By MPierce

>>This has been going on for years... even before the budget cuts. I remember my wife and I complaining about the light-wand Nazis in Epcot during the Tapestry of Nations parade. We weren't even trying to watch the parade, just get to one of the countries where we could hang out while the parade took place. <<

Over by the UK pavilion was the worst.

>> The only parade I’ve ever seen at WDW that was worth that kind of wait was Tapestry of Nations. <<

I agree, but I still wouldn't wait that long.

 

Originally Posted By MPierce

>> Here's a joke someone told me once.

How to Speak Arkansas:

M R DUCKS

M R NOT

OSAR

C M WANGS?

L I B

M R DUCKS



Can you read that? Here's the translation:

'Em are ducks.

'Em are not.

Oh 'es 'ey are (Oh yes they are)

See 'em wangs (wings)?

'ell I be! (Well, I'll be!)

'Em ARE ducks! <<

You want me to hold him while you slap him silly bobbelee?

 

Originally Posted By carribean queen

m r fytin wewrds, git im ma

 

Originally Posted By sjhym33

"here' dbe the question we have to answer - can we do with 1/3 less CM's if we paid them $11/HR ? It's gonna come down to $ and cents and still making a proift for shareholders.

The other question of course is will the $11/ hr employee really be that much different ?"

Thats a great question. One thing I will say about Disney is that they have taken a big step backwards in how they pay their CM's. When I started with Disney you could work hard and put in your time and move up if you wanted to. But if your only goal was to be a host or hostess, that was ok too. After 5 years you'd be at the top of your pay grade and making decent money. Disney seemed to care more about its CM's. That is no longer the case. Recently a union rep told me that an attractions host has to work 12 years to top out in their pay grade. And that top out is around $11.00. 12 years to move up $4.00 an hour. Seems like a long time to me. My 19 year old son makes more at the local supermarket that is 1 mile from our house than at Disney which is 22 miles down the road. He is a hard worker and has gotten 2 raises in 6 months. He says that it isnt worth his time to go and work at Disney. Pay does have an effect on who works and stays at Disney.

 

Originally Posted By carribean queen

Are raises based on performance or length of employment?

 

Originally Posted By sjhym33

Raises are by length of employment per the union contract. That is one of the problems at Disney. A hard worker with one years seniority makes the same as a good, fair or terrible Cast Member with one year seniority.

The union stinks and has sold out the CM's on more than one occasion. Back in the 1990's the union agreed to a pay freeze. A month later Eisner got a multi-million dollar bonus. The contract that CM's work under today is worse than the ones they worked under in the 80's and 90's

 

Originally Posted By carribean queen

Thats a shame theres no reason for anyone to go above and beyond. no wonder everything has gone down.

 

Originally Posted By bobbelee9

<<<You want me to hold him while you slap him silly bobbelee? >>>

Thank you M, I will get that so and so. Where's he from? Hopefully I will get my grandchildren to sic 'em too.

 

Originally Posted By carribean queen

One of your grandkids is a purple belt now He'll ninja on him!

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

<<I commented recently to a manager friend that the quality of Cast Members seems to continue to slip. He said "When you pay people $7.50 an hour you get people worth $7.50 an hour.">>

That sums it up perfectly.

Disney knows what it is getting. It is a credit to all the college kids and IPers and retirees that really the majority of CMs are still at least good.

<<The other question of course is will the $11/ hr employee really be that much different ? >>

Of course they would be. There's a big difference in $7.50 and $11 ... $3.50 by my way of doing math.

I was once told by a management (non Disney) type that there's all kind of formulas that will show that you get more productivity and better workers each time you raise wages by just two percent. Your example is a whole lot more than two percent.

 

Originally Posted By -em

I would argue that yes you would esp when that 3 dollars would be the diference between making it and missing it each month. Trying to live off 7.25 an hour is really really hard (trust me Ive been doing it for 10 months now...)If it wasnt for most of my food bill being subsidized at work I would be dead...

The sad part is in those 10 months Ive actually got a 75 cent raise between minimum wage ^ and the union raise- The 15/20 yrs Cms I know make 11... Lots to look forward to...

sigh I just want a decent job where I can afford to live...


oh and sjhym33- Long time no see!

 

Originally Posted By sjhym33

Thanks. It's nice to be seen.

 

Originally Posted By CarolinaDisneyDad

If you pay your employees well they will become your best customers......Henry Ford

 

Originally Posted By vbdad55

<<<The other question of course is will the $11/ hr employee really be that much different ? >>

Of course they would be. There's a big difference in $7.50 and $11 ... $3.50 by my way of doing math.

I was once told by a management (non Disney) type that there's all kind of formulas that will show that you get more productivity and better workers each time you raise wages by just two percent. Your example is a whole lot more than two percent.
<
that's just my point- it is a whole lot more than 2%, so unless someone has found a corporate budget with unlimited resources ( i've been looking for decades when my next years budget is due) - then there is a trade off - less employees @ a higher rate.

Working corp America for 30+ years in mgmt positions,I have been exposed to many theories.I work with other major corps we do business with andget to attend many sessions that have.

Walgreens for years struggled to define who it was when Jr kept investing in other businesses other than their core. It took his ownpersonal isses anda stronger board to finally cut back to what they do and do well- pharmacies with storesattached- but they still had a problem with 150 - 20% turnover of their employees in the stores. They raised wages- but cut number of employees and fixed the retention issue and quality of employees.

my question is do you think that would workat WDWwhere they dont deal with 10 people an hour- but tens of thousands ?

 

Originally Posted By sjhym33

I think the current system would work better if:

1) People made a livable wage. It is hard to support yourself, let alone a family on $7.50 an hour. That stress pours over into the workplace.

2) Raises were tied not only to years of service but performance. There should be encouragement to do a better job that is tied to pay increases.

3) Disney appreciated the fact that there are people who want to be there full time and long term.

4) Disney management spent more time in the park and with their CM's rather than in their offices doing unimportant projects.

5) Disney taught its management that their most valuable resource is its Cast Members. A friend tells me that in the year they have been at Disney most of the mgmt in the area do not know his name.

 

Originally Posted By -em

>>my question is do you think that would workat WDWwhere they dont deal with 10 people an hour- but tens of thousands ?<<

Maybe not on the same scale but I think it would help a great deal. For the amount that is spent on new hire training (!) if that was reduced by even 10-20 percent the amount saved I would think would partially (or more than partially) offset the cost of the raise.. Not only would you have less hires, you would need less people at the casting center, trainers, location trainers and all other support units..

Turnover is huge right now- one small view is I've been gone from the Emporium little over a year now and when I walk through I recognize only about 5-10 percent of the cast...

I think its the one of the laws of the jungle- Have 10 positions to fill and 100 applications will generally yield a better result than 100 positions and 100 applications.

If you raise the bar where its a privilege and not just a job- You would still get the occasional bad apple but overall you would get the ones who WANT to be there vs the ones who just want a paycheck

 

Originally Posted By -em

>>5) Disney taught its management that their most valuable resource is its Cast Members. A friend tells me that in the year they have been at Disney most of the mgmt in the area do not know his name.<<

Agreed- I do have a small story to share that happened yesterday when I was shopping at Property Control- This CM came up to me and asked if I remembered him (oh how I hate that) but he did look familiar so I told him that and he said that he worked for me one day in t-land when he picked up an extra shift. he just wanted to thank me cause I was one of the few managers that ever checked on him, asked how he was doing and called him by name even when he wasnt my CM and how that impressed him.

I never have had that before and quite frankly made my day-

sigh- and I'm "not good enough" to be a manager here...