Originally Posted By skinnerbox << If I were to wager where the desire to cut corners here came from, I would put more money on the bottom of the food chain than the top. At least that's how things seem to work in my organization.>> I would highly disagree. WDW management is excessively cost conscious. Meg Crofton and her flying monkeys (like Phil Holmes) have to answer to Rasulo regarding their bottom line. And everything today is about the bottom line, period. This is why hundreds of WDW employees, most of them in managerial positions, were laid off earlier this year. Revenue is way down, so reductions in labor costs were the quickest way for TDO to pump up those earnings numbers to Burbank's satisfaction. I also believe this is reflected in the 'newbie syndrome' which em has described. Hiring less experienced (and hence, less expensive) rails CMs is quick and dirty savings in labor costs, at least until something like this happens. Disney, like most American corporations these days, hires number crunchers to predict the line between profit and failure, and then proceeds to skate up to that line as closely as possible. Unfortunately, the time needed for correction when that line is crossed -- placing inexperienced CMs in critical operational conditions for which they're neither prepared nor skilled enough to handle -- is always too long. And when the line is crossed and not corrected for quickly enough, crap like this terrible accident occurs. Who knows if NTSB will ultimately identify all of the contributing factors which lead to this accident. But my money is riding on inexperienced and/or inadequate managers who were 'promoted' too quickly because of the earlier layoffs. These individuals either did not keep their eyes on the ball with regard to the CMs they managed, and/or stupidly assumed they did not have to pay attention, and allowed the department to basically 'run itself.' Knowing that the Control CM was dining over at Crossroads during the accident would tend to support the latter and most definitely the former.
Originally Posted By danyoung >He now drives foward facing into the TTC/Mk station at which point he shuts down his end of the train and moves to the other end which is now the front.< Stupid question at this point, but I head on another site that there is only control systems in the front end of the monorail. I thought that they were fully controllable at both ends. Which is correct?
Originally Posted By -em >>Stupid question at this point, but I head on another site that there is only control systems in the front end of the monorail. I thought that they were fully controllable at both ends. Which is correct?<< You are right- the DLR trains only are controllable on one end
Originally Posted By sharpc << Stupid question at this point, but I head on another site that there is only control systems in the front end of the monorail. I thought that they were fully controllable at both ends. Which is correct?>> They're fully controllable from both ends. From what -em said on here earlier I think, it takes about 5 minutes to reboot the trains so that the driver is on the other end of the train.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << I also believe this is reflected in the 'newbie syndrome' which em has described. >> Sorry, but this is going on across America as the Baby Boom rapidly heads into retirement phase. There isn't a workplace in the country where the "experienced" faces are disappearing to be replaced by younger faces. It's also a consequence of the tight labor markets during the earlier part of this decade. What you describe isn't different from any other workplace in this country.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Knowing that the Control CM was dining over at Crossroads during the accident would tend to support the latter and most definitely the former. >> So, you are using the judgment of the low level CM shift supervisor as your critique on the alleged actions of corporate-level management? That's quite a leap considering the enormous number of spots on the org chart between those positions. It's also not a position that would have been impacted by the buy-outs and layoffs in the upper level management positions earlier this year, which you indicate might have caused this elsewhere in your posting.
Originally Posted By sjhym33 Lots of thoughts going on here. The WDW monorail system can be driven from both ends. They always have been and probably always will be because of the way the system is set up. Express monorails drive in one direction, resort in the opposite direction and the number of switches, etc require that ability. Monorails was the elite dept when I started at Disney. Not only were the a lot of high seniority people but most of the managers were old railes who understood the system and took pride in it. Even the two top transportation managers were old railes. There was also a transportation kinship. Many railes could drive parking trams because on busy days we would run monorails, ferries and trams to the MK (that is a story for different day). When railes were down or on busy days we would help at the ferry boat. I knew tons of people in both departments. Cost cutting and hiring practices- When the new monorails went online it afforded Disney the luxury of cutting CM's. Some of you might remember that the old monorails required a CM to count guests for each car and required them to physically close the doors. That meant during the morning I could have 15-20 CM's just for the TTC/MK station (same thing at night at the MK). Even at a place like the Polynesian I would have 6 CM's working for me PLUS myself. Go to the Polynesian today and you probably will see one, maybe two, CM's. On one level it makes sense to run with less people, but what it gave you was a lot of eyes and lots of people to react when problems arise. Today the Monorail Base coordinator is usually on the platform. Back in the day they stayed at the control console. That was their job. A friend and I were talking the other night and we reminiced about how a manager would come to Base and say "Without looking tell me where all your trains are." If you couldn't do that you were in trouble. They also would ask what the cycle time was (how long it took a train to make a full circle). If you lied and just gave a "good" number they would often say...no, I just did one and it was... When I interviewed for Disney the Casting person told me they hired one out of every ten people who applied. That changed years later when Disneys pay (which has never been great)lagged behind other places. A starting employee at my local McDonalds makes more money then a starting WDW attractions CM. A monorail driver starts at about the same salary as the McDonalds employee. The system went from being selective to where you can slot someone. Four years ago Casting needed to hire 200 people a week to keep staffing levels the same because of the number of people who leave. So it became hard to getto equality let alone full staffing. It meant that many areas went short handed. That translatted into long days. The system kinda worked because a low paid CM needed to work overtime to make ends meet. Disney also did something many years ago that I think made a big change out there. They went through a season of hiring ONLY part time CM's. The idea of this was of course money saving. No benefits, control over staffing hours, flexibility. The problem is that a part time CM has less loyalty than a FT person. AND it takes them 3 times as long to become fully ingratiated into the day to day operations. I could go on and on about that but this is already long. Lastly, I would say that many if not most CM's feel that Disney doesn't really care about them. There are some exceptions because of some great managers, but all in all Disney is a large company with a large company culture. You are replacable and most CM's know that. A couple of years back Disney created a quasi mgmnt position to try to keep turnover down. They ended up having little power and little impact because the company culture would need to change to make people feel that they are needed and respected. It was the first tier of mgmt let go during the layoffs. All of these factors lead to a lot of the problems that we talk about here including safty, Just me four cents.
Originally Posted By sjhym33 As I reread my post I feel I need to add. Disney moved away from hiring just part time CM's several years back and now hires some full time CM's but more often they hire in part time and you then request to be made full time.
Originally Posted By Indigo sjhym33, Well that was a depressing read. But Disney isn't alone in those practices. Sadly it's going on across the nation in nearly every company who, to the one, use the excuse that they're responsible only to the shareholders. Which never used to be the case, all 'stakeholders' were considered when making these business decisions. Now it's just short term profit over long term strength as a company. I really think it's part of the reason we're now facing 20% unemployment in parts of the nation. I think the strongest companies that emerge from this 'great recession' (another way to say minor depression, btw) will be the ones the commit to protecting their employees like a family. That will instill the sort of loyalty that will increase performance and innovation to produce growth when credit and capital are hard to come by. Disney used to be a leader in this area, it would not be that difficult for them to return to those practices. Although it's too late for Austin, it's not too late for Disney.
Originally Posted By sjhym33 I agree that it is not just Disney. Disney jumped on that bandwagon when it was decided to hire managers with degrees from outside the company rather than the old hire from within policy. I dont believe that Disney will change because there is no one at the top who wants to make that change. And it seems to me that when someone wants to make those type of changes at Disney, like Matt Quimet at DLR or Jim McPhee at EPCOT, they quickly get moved or are pressured to find a job elsewhere. When Disney made its last round of layoff in managment there wasnt initially seem to be a rhyme or reason for who got laid off. Now that the dust as settled it has become obvious they let go the dead weight (a good thing) but then went after more senior managers who were making a decent salary. One attractions manager had 33 years in the company and an outstanding record. They offered that person the opportunity to stay by moving down to a level of managment that they had worked in the early 1980's and report to a college guy with less than 5 years in the company. It was a terrible slap in the face. That person took the money and left and told the managers that sat in the meeting that they could take the job and well... I cant say on a family website. That just made me more of a fan.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I'll agree with you and it falls in line with a conversation I had last night with another former 'railer about how the dynamics of the dept has changed over the years. Back when I was in 'rails (and maybe Sjhym could attest to it also) but it was a very high senority/hard to get in department, where for lack of a better term they were picky who got accepted and more than average never passed training,.. Now days I know of several people that were either new hires into 'rails or transfers after only being with the company 6 months and 'rails has become a pretty transient department- so where the dominance used to have age, wisdom and experience you now often have youth and inexperience as the majority, where in time things such as going through the switches backwards which used to be an absolutely not becomes daily practice because no one knows any different... >> That's what it has come down to across WDW. Experience isn't values because it comes at both a higher pay level and with expectations ... old-timers aren't going to do things that are unsafe ... if they're ordered to do so, they'll likely raise a fuss. A 20-something kid that just came over from working at water parks (just an example) isn't. Look at what 'fat' Disney cut with its massive layoffs earlier this year ... and look at the massive checks they'll be sending out to the pilot's family and likely others (the designated fall guys) instead of simply saying we have a fundamental problem with our operational/business model that has been in place for over a decade ... a problem that starts with our top management and filters down ... and then lop of an Erin Wallace and/or an Al Weiss. Because however indirectly you make it, it doesn't change the fact that the whole cut, cut, cut model eventually caused a chain of human error that resulted in a dead kid ... a chain of mistakes that would never have been allowed in the past.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << it doesn't change the fact that the whole cut, cut, cut model eventually caused a chain of human error that resulted in a dead kid ... >> Except that there are no facts to support your speculation here. And considering that every single post you make on this site is anti-management, is it any wonder that you would immediately point the finger in that direction in your analysis of this accident? Same old broken record over an over and over. And it's a lot easier to blame a big, bad corporate entity than some hourly workers and supervisors who decided not to show up for work (physically and mentally) that evening. I certainly don't have all the facts involved here, but I don't see any evidence where cost-cutting played any role whatsoever in this accident. There appears to be an atmosphere of complacency and innatentiveness in the organization on the morning of 5 July. That's all the facts show. I do think management has a role to play here. There definitely needs to be more micro-management as far as safety is concerned. The salaried managers need to start becoming as unpleasant as possible to get some fear in the organization at the lower levels. When infractions occur, people should have the fear that they will lose their job in this tough economic climate. But that's not a move that requires additional funding -- just an attitude adjustment. Since I also work for an organization that found itself fighting to keep employees around during the earlier parts of this decade, I can tell you that a lot of standards were not enforced in the interest of just trying to keep employees happy and trying to minimize the revolving door of new hires. The days when cast member's had a ton of options for employment outside of WDW are over and Disney management can take off the kid gloves and start enforcing standards again. You don't have to worry about retaining personnel in this environment because paychecks are a whole lot more scarce. It's time to put some teeth back into managing people -- which, again, has nothing to do with money and everything to do with attitude.
Originally Posted By sjhym33 And that needs to come from the top. The tier of management above the operation managers need to get managers out of the office and out of pushing papers and into the area. And not just to yell or bust people. A good manager will be out in the area helping, encouraging, getting to know people and be visible. When I worked at Disney in mgmt the VP of the park would come into the mangers office and if you were at your desk you had better have a good reason. He would say get your butt into the park and in your area. Of course he was a Walt man and he would remind you that Walt didnt even want managers in the parks to have offices. Best of all, he would walk the park many times throughout the day. He would often call to tell you about bad show in your area when he came upon it. I have told this story here before but one day when Grand Prix had a long line he wanted to know why we didnt have more lanes open. We weren't scheduled to for another hour. He said that wasnt acceptable and he and I and another manager opened another lane and hopped cars in our shirts and ties for an hour. You dont see that nowadays.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << We weren't scheduled to for another hour. He said that wasnt acceptable and he and I and another manager opened another lane and hopped cars in our shirts and ties for an hour. You dont see that nowadays. >> And that sort of thing has nothing to do with budgets or bean counting, just leadership philosophy. It's the kind of thing you don't really see anywhere nowadays.
Originally Posted By leobloom >>The tier of management above the operation managers need to get managers out of the office and out of pushing papers and into the area.>> Truer words have never been spoken (or written!). When I worked at the Land boat ride, it was amazing how some managers would camp out in the office. Their appearances on stage were oftentimes restricted to dealing with irrate guests. I never once saw a manager take a boat around even though they were supposed to know the spiel in order to do that sort of thing when we were busy. And they were indifferent to CM complaints about boat rotation, which frequently resulted in people doing 2 consecutive hrs of spieling. (Think the spieling on that 7th consecutive boat ride was very magical? Think again.)
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom << The salaried managers need to start becoming as unpleasant as possible to get some fear in the organization at the lower levels. When infractions occur, people should have the fear that they will lose their job in this tough economic climate. But that's not a move that requires additional funding -- just an attitude adjustment. >> Sport Goofy are saying that reimplementing safety procedures that had been in place for decades isn't the solution here? Instead the solution is for management to create a hostile work environment? They say that people don't leave companies they leave managers.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << They say that people don't leave companies they leave managers. >> It's probably true. But I can only base things on my experience. The biggest "jerks" I have ever worked for have had the best record for workplace safety. The ones who were loved by their subordinates for being "good guys" were always dealing with mishaps and other lapses in procedures. It helps to have some good cops out there to balance the bad cops, but most people generally look for shortcuts if there aren't negative consequences involved. It's just human nature.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<It's just human nature.>> I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I know for a fact its NOT human nature. No one on the Disney monorail team set out that day to kill Austin. What happened to Austin was no accident. It was preventable and did not need to happen.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ It's also human nature to have empathy for the cast members involved in this unfortunate accident and find ways to blame the system or a detached management figure on the tragic outcome. In previous posts, you have shown that you are unwilling to consider any blame for the cast members involved because you have sympathy for them. There is really no place for empathy in an accident investigation. People make mistakes and the account of those mistakes needs to be recorded so corrections can be made. Just like there's no place for empathy in the management of a safety program. The reasoning behind your post is exactly the kind of thought processes that led to this accident -- too much empathy and not enough matter of fact enforcement of standards.
