Originally Posted By bobbelee9 <<< IMO execs should not receive bonuses if they are laying people off. And its one thing to let people go to keep the business afloat, and quite another to do so to keep profits huge.>> I think those statements cannot be stressed enough.
Originally Posted By sjhym33 I worked for Disney for many years and I know alot of people who were let go. My take in the layoffs is that Disney used the economic problems as a reason to do some house cleaning. I have spoken to several people who are still there and they are all scratching their heads at some of the people who were laid off. There is a large preportion of people with decades of service to the company and mostly outstanding records. So one of the things that people have been assuming is that part of the criteria used was how much a person made.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Even when they perform poorly, and are forced out, their get-away package is usually 10 times what your average worker makes in a lifetime.>> Yup. Like I said elsewhere, it often dwarfs a Lotto Jackpot.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<My take in the layoffs is that Disney used the economic problems as a reason to do some house cleaning. >> That is a common excuse used by Corporate America. The truth is that its easy to layoff non performers at any time. You just eliminate their position and kick them out the door. And hourly people are even easier. You just schedule fewer and fewer hours for them until they quit. Make no mistake about it, the layoffs were about boosting the bottom line.
Originally Posted By sjhym33 I have no doubt about that. My point is that they did it under the guise of the economic downturn.
Originally Posted By CarolinaDisneyDad <<My take in the layoffs is that Disney used the economic problems as a reason to do some house cleaning. >> It's just spin control. Disney is smart enough to realize that people's perception of a company is very important. Take WalMart for example. It has gone from being viewed as a low price leader to just being viewed as cheap. People still go there but they no longer talk with their friends about the great deals they found there. No one wants to be identified with the companies poor public perception. Disney is battling the same thing. They run a fantasy land and their guests want to feel good about the company they are giving their money to. A Disney vacation is a big expense and if people start thinking Disney is run just like any other cut throat corporation they may become less likely to splurge on a Disney vacation when they can go somewhere else for much less. Disney, I'm sure, is cutting long time associates because they make the most money. While that may make sense in the short term, it will hurt them in the end. In a service industry the workers must be engaged and tied to the company or the guest experience will suffer. How many CMs are going to be thinking long term and company loyalty after watching all the old timers being dismissed? They will view their job as temporary and will perform their duties as such. A couple of years ago Circuit City tried this approach to payroll saving and we see where they are today.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Take WalMart for example. It has gone from being viewed as a low price leader to just being viewed as cheap.< I don't agree. People, meaning the great majority of people, go to Walmart cuz they can afford to shop there. I don't think most people give Walmart's corporate structure a second thought. >...if people start thinking Disney is run just like any other cut throat corporation they may become less likely to splurge on a Disney vacation...< While that's true, again I don't think people outside of these online communities know or care about Disney's corporate stance when booking a vacation. They look at value in the hotels and cost of tickets and food. If they can afford it, they'll come. When either the prices get too high or the value gets too low, that's when people will stop coming. Disney Corporate turning into the evil empire is completely beneath the radar of average people.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<My point is that they did it under the guise of the economic downturn.>> That's the only point that really matters. They didn't have to do it. They didn't have to uproot and, in some cases, destroy peoples' lives. There were other options, including exec compensation cuts. This is all about perception. This is all about making Iger, Staggs and Rasulo look good to the Street when second quarter numbers come out and they aren't good with the prospect of getting worse down the line. But ultimately, again, it's just playing the game the exact same way it always has the past few years and it doesn't work. It perpetuates a downward spiral that is near impossible to fully recover from. I get tired of saying the same thing over and over again, but our 'free market' system needs drastic overhauls so that corporations aren't run based on a model where all that matters are short term gains or we will become a third world country with nukes and delusions of grandeur. ~Spirit is a PINKO COMMIE!!!~
Originally Posted By bobapril I would tread VERY carefully about overhauling (or even over-regulating) a free market. Obviously, there need to be limits on what a corporation can do, just as there are limits on what you and I can do. But remember, ultimately, the purpose of a business is to make a profit for its owners, not to provide jobs. (I said this once to some British friends, and they looked at me as if I had grown horns.) Any external force, as from a government, union, etc. that makes a business unprofitable will ultimately kill the business. Unless you want government subsidies forever. That's un-American.
Originally Posted By A Happy Haunt <<~Spirit is a PINKO COMMIE!!!~>> Now come on! you know that's not true! you're a very nice young man
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<But ultimately, again, it's just playing the game the exact same way it always has the past few years and it doesn't work. It perpetuates a downward spiral that is near impossible to fully recover from. I get tired of saying the same thing over and over again, but our 'free market' system needs drastic overhauls so that corporations aren't run based on a model where all that matters are short term gains>> BINGO, you said it! The problem is that the typical US Company is being run for short term gains with absolutely no concern about longevity of the actual company. The Disney Company is no exception. And your right drastic changes do need to happen. Obviously Corporate boards of directors are fundamentally wrong when they place a higher priority on what can be bled from a company rather than what needs to be done to shore up and perpetuate a company. It doesn't always work when consessions are made that forfeit the long term.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<But remember, ultimately, the purpose of a business is to make a profit for its owners, not to provide jobs.>> And we all know how that turned out! FWIW, businesses do not operate in a vacuum. The operate within a society and benefit from it. To say that they have no obligation to the society they operate within is absurd.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> Disney, I'm sure, is cutting long time associates because they make the most money. While that may make sense in the short term, it will hurt them in the end. In a service industry the workers must be engaged and tied to the company or the guest experience will suffer. How many CMs are going to be thinking long term and company loyalty after watching all the old timers being dismissed? They will view their job as temporary and will perform their duties as such. << I believe you are correct, and I can't blame the CM's for viewing Disney for what they have become. It's hard to view Disney in a positive light when devoted Cm's have received the ax.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> ~Spirit is a PINKO COMMIE!!!~ << I've already had one post removed at the Magical site because I called you a COMMIE.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I would tread VERY carefully about overhauling (or even over-regulating) a free market. Obviously, there need to be limits on what a corporation can do, just as there are limits on what you and I can do. But remember, ultimately, the purpose of a business is to make a profit for its owners, not to provide jobs. (I said this once to some British friends, and they looked at me as if I had grown horns.) Any external force, as from a government, union, etc. that makes a business unprofitable will ultimately kill the business. Unless you want government subsidies forever. That's un-American << I would be more afraid of losing everythig I worked my whole life for because a business was allowed to go unchecked. That's un-American.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> <<~Spirit is a PINKO COMMIE!!!~>> Now come on! you know that's not true! you're a very nice young man << No, he's a COMMIE!
Originally Posted By MPierce >> <<But remember, ultimately, the purpose of a business is to make a profit for its owners, not to provide jobs.>> And we all know how that turned out! FWIW, businesses do not operate in a vacuum. The operate within a society and benefit from it. To say that they have no obligation to the society they operate within is absurd. << To be a good business you must support the community that keeps you in business. Once you turn your back on the community, it will turn it's back on you. You must be a good stewart of the things prosperity has provided you.
Originally Posted By A Happy Haunt As a shareholder I am disgusted by these layoffs! My divided check didn't get any bigger! That didn't really come out right.. If we really need to make cuts then fine. But if it's so the over priced execs can have even more millions than it's completely uncalled for.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 <<<<~Spirit is a PINKO COMMIE!!!~>> Now come on! you know that's not true! you're a very nice young man >> She's only saying that because she figures Spirit is her age or maybe just a little older.
Originally Posted By hopemax I'm not sure free market is the problem. Rather, we introduced something into the free market, and assumed the free market would react in the same manner as if that thing wasn't there. The something was credit. Unfortunately, at the same time we did that, technology advanced to the point where the global pool of labor became a viable alternative to a local pool. The second one, was always going to be a problem. But I don't think it represents a failure. The result is standard of living increasing in many areas around the world. On a macro level, this is a GOOD thing, although it sucks for those that had been enjoying higher standard of living, because to reach equilibrium, we have to go down. Someday, the local pool will be more attractive. The first though, essentially removed the checks & balances that economists thought were inherent to a free market system. People didn't have to stop purchasing when prices rose, they didn't have to choose between A & B. Which meant the company that theoretically wouldn't have been chosen, didn't have to innovate, could get away with cutting quality etc. People thought they were earning a living wage, when in fact they weren't, and so didn't have to re-evaluate their job situation. Both individuals and business got lazy and certain "muscles" atrophied. I think if we had been living in an environment where we were living within our means, a lot of the bad decisions would have been revealed as bad decisions. But we weren't, so they weren't. Some of them have even gained traction as being good decisions. Mistakes, that I think the free market (but not free market + credit for all) will rectify. Although not at the speed at which will benefit most people today, or tomorrow, or the next day.
