I am speechless

[andyman8]

I am very sad to read this entire thread. What has happened to our country? Really...people should be thankful to have a job? That is an pathetic mindset! We should all want more for ourselves and for eachother. I understand that these are not highly skilled jobs, but people should be able to feed themselves after working 40 hours a week. They should be able to go to the doctor when they are sick without fear of losing everything. They should be able to buy their kids a Christmas gift. We are the United States for God's sake...we shouldn't tell people who make $7 an hour to be thankful they have a job. We should want them to make more. If people are willing to work they should be compensated fairly. Fairly meaning they should be able to support, at the very least, themselves through compensation and health care. It is absolutely sick that we sit on these boards discussing our $6000 a week trips that are made spectacular by those CM's and in the next breath say they don't deserve to buy their kid a Christmas gift and should be thankful they have a job. That is shameful!

My wife's nephew, at the age of three, woke up one Xmas morning and went down to the Xmas tree where he anticipating some presents. Instead, he found nothing but empty carpet. His mother, my sister-in-law, described herself as 'the most disappointed with myself (sister-in-law) I had ever been.'

You see, she had been working for Disney, after being laid off from her previous job, for two years. This is when she began to look for another job and eight months later she moved to New York and found one.

So, imagine your young child not having any Xmas presents because you cannot afford them (nor to live in a house instead of an affordable housing apartment building), and this because your employer won't pay you. She had been working 40+ hour weeks for most of her time at Disney.

This is why I agree word-for-word (couldn't have said it any better myself) with PrincessSunshine. These people make YOUR vacation as magical as possible, and you all won't stick up for them. I started this thread to spread awareness over the hardships they face, not to begin another (if there has not been enough already) political debate.

So to all those who tell me (a straight, football-loving MAN) to cry them a river, tell that to my sister-in-law or any other CM. Sorry to sound harsh, I'm not trying to be. Although, thanks for sharing all your opinions.

 

[notfrostyjosh]

The next time you have family members "in need," you might consider cutting them a check - no strings attached. I'm sure $100 would have gone to good use putting some gifts under the tree.

In "reality," Disney "cast members" make a vacation "magical" in the same way your local McDonalds worker makes your Big Mac "magical." The same way the local Ramada Inn makes your stay "magical." The same way your local mall janitor makes your trip to the mall "magical."

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Yes, they don't get paid well. No, they shouldn't get paid more simply because they've chosen to work for the Walt Disney Company instead of (insert name evil corporation).

Heck, if I could make 75k a year slinging Mickey pretzels I would be there in a heartbeat.

 

[andyman8]

The next time you have family members "in need," you might consider cutting them a check - no strings attached. I'm sure $100 would have gone to good use putting some gifts under the tree.

In "reality," Disney "cast members" make a vacation "magical" in the same way your local McDonalds worker makes your Big Mac "magical." The same way the local Ramada Inn makes your stay "magical." The same way your local mall janitor makes your trip to the mall "magical."

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Yes, they don't get paid well. No, they shouldn't get paid more simply because they've chosen to work for the Walt Disney Company instead of (insert name evil corporation).

Heck, if I could make 75k a year slinging Mickey pretzels I would be there in a heartbeat.

Sorry to tell you, but the money we gave her was used to HELP PUT FOOD ON THEIR TABLE and HEALTH CARE. Not to mention, it is not like were millionaires. We also helped them relocate.

My main point was that people need to appreciate the CMs for they give up more than most people realize, so be grateful. Also, Disney's employee benefits are worse than most corporations (i.e. McDonald's) but yet they 'pride' themselves on their 'above average' treatment of their employees, which many don't. I think, across the board, corporations should reexamine their treatment of employees, but now it is getting political. Bottom line: I'm not trying to argue, but don't question one's moral values over the internet, although, I do not think you said that with any militias intent. Happy Holidays.

 

[bumbershoot]

My wife's nephew, at the age of three, woke up one Xmas morning and went down to the Xmas tree where he anticipating some presents. Instead, he found nothing but empty carpet. His mother, my sister-in-law, described herself as 'the most disappointed with myself (sister-in-law) I had ever been.'

I don't have to imagine it, I grew up poor. The difference is that if my mom KNEW she had no presents for us, at 3 years old, there is no chance in heck that she would have put out a tree or acted in ANY way like there should be presents under it. Let alone spend the money on a tree. Sure, put up lights if you have them, but don't do the present stuff if you aren't going to have presents. I'm just confused why she let a 3 year old anticipate presents, but maybe that's why she felt disappointed in herself, because she didn't realize in time? My son at 3 didn't naturally have an anticipation of what happened back the year before when he was 2; when kids are bitty like that, you help them by telling stories, showing pictures, giving them that sense of anticipation....

 

[GreenCntryGirl]

My wife's nephew, at the age of three, woke up one Xmas morning and went down to the Xmas tree where he anticipating some presents. Instead, he found nothing but empty carpet. His mother, my sister-in-law, described herself as 'the most disappointed with myself (sister-in-law) I had ever been.'

You see, she had been working for Disney, after being laid off from her previous job, for two years. This is when she began to look for another job and eight months later she moved to New York and found one.

So, imagine your young child not having any Xmas presents because you cannot afford them (nor to live in a house instead of an affordable housing apartment building), and this because your employer won't pay you. She had been working 40+ hour weeks for most of her time at Disney.

This is why I agree word-for-word (couldn't have said it any better myself) with PrincessSunshine. These people make YOUR vacation as magical as possible, and you all won't stick up for them. I started this thread to spread awareness over the hardships they face, not to begin another (if there has not been enough already) political debate.

So to all those who tell me (a straight, football-loving MAN) to cry them a river, tell that to my sister-in-law or any other CM. Sorry to sound harsh, I'm not trying to be. Although, thanks for sharing all your opinions.

Bolded Mine:

They wouldn't pay her?

And I fail to see how living in affordable housing is a tragedy.

 

[shalom]

You see, she had been working for Disney, after being laid off from her previous job, for two years. This is when she began to look for another job and eight months later she moved to New York and found one.

Good for her for realizing she needed to get up and out and for doing something about it.

When our oldest kids were around three, the presents under the tree were from GoodWill or garage sales, and we could get a fair haul for $5 (although that's buying ahead of time, not buying them in December). Admittedly, they didn't get to watch broadcast TV, so they weren't bombarded with commercials for all kinds of expensive toys, but in my experience most three year olds are happy with new-to-them toys, whether those toys are from Toys 'R' Us or purchased used. And they don't get wound up when the wrapping paper isn't Christmas themed, either -- the comics page works just fine.

What you don't seem to be getting is that most Disney positions are entry-level, the sort of thing high school and college kids do. Entry level jobs don't require much training, but they do often require a high tolerance for noise or hassle, heat, and being on your feet for hours. The comparison to McDonald's is quite right, if someone is working Disney CS. The costumed characters are on par with costumed characters representing a local restaurant or sports team. Etc. These are all jobs usually filled by high school or college kids or the retired, not jobs held by someone who is trying to raise a family.

Not only that, but about once a week someone posts to the Dis saying "I'd work for Disney for free!" Would they really? Probably not, but there are a lot of people willing to work for Disney for less than they'd expect elsewhere. Add that to people who move to Florida straight out of high school or college because they love the climate, and there's a lot of competition for WDW entry-level positions. That's great for Disney -- they can get the best for less -- but doesn't change the fact that most Disney jobs are entry level and are paid as such.

The kids who work for Disney for a year or two and consider it time well spent for the experience have it right. Disney usually gives inexperienced workers a good understanding of customer service and of other qualities that will make it easier to get and keep a job later in life. As do other well-run theme or amusement parks. But these are still pretty basic, entry-level skills, the kind of things that shift a kid from the school mentality to the holding-down-a-job mentality. If someone wants to make real money, they need to take those skills, and the fact that they've held down a tough entry-level job with a stringent company, and move on.

The next employer knows they've got someone who knows how to get to work on time and can work with others and has the other basic job skills that are not nearly as common as people think. In theme parks, most jobs are entry level, so not many people move up in company; in other fields, they want to move people out of entry level as fast as possible, because entry level work isn't what that company does. Disney doesn't offer many in-house opportunities for promotion in the parks, but when you're trying to get beyond poor paying entry-level jobs, Disney looks great on the resume.

 

[JCH]

My wife's nephew, at the age of three, woke up one Xmas morning and went down to the Xmas tree where he anticipating some presents. Instead, he found nothing but empty carpet. His mother, my sister-in-law, described herself as 'the most disappointed with myself (sister-in-law) I had ever been.'

You see, she had been working for Disney, after being laid off from her previous job, for two years. This is when she began to look for another job and eight months later she moved to New York and found one.

So, imagine your young child not having any Xmas presents because you cannot afford them (nor to live in a house instead of an affordable housing apartment building), and this because your employer won't pay you. She had been working 40+ hour weeks for most of her time at Disney.

This is why I agree word-for-word (couldn't have said it any better myself) with PrincessSunshine. These people make YOUR vacation as magical as possible, and you all won't stick up for them. I started this thread to spread awareness over the hardships they face, not to begin another (if there has not been enough already) political debate.

So to all those who tell me (a straight, football-loving MAN) to cry them a river, tell that to my sister-in-law or any other CM. Sorry to sound harsh, I'm not trying to be. Although, thanks for sharing all your opinions.

I'm confused...you are the one who started this thread being "shocked" by what you saw, but if you had first hand experience with Disney, why would it be surprising?

I am also confused how they had a Christmas tree, but not one person in the entire family could buy a dollar store toy or two. A 3 year old would be fine with the things they sell there.

I also fail to understand why not having a house is the end of the world. My husband and I both have decent jobs, yet we live in an apartment. It just makes more economic sense.

As I and many others have stated, you cannot just say, okay, let's pay everyone the same regardless of skill level! As wages go up, companies must charge more, inflation occurs, cost of living skyrockets, chaos ensues...

I am just not seeing how being paid minimum wage is equivilent to an evil company choosing not to pay employees. I am not saying people don't struggle on minimum wage, just that you can't blame a company, any company, for paying minimum wage to entry level employees.

 

[JoshuaShaw]

Wages essentially boil down to this: how replaceable are you? At somewhere like Disney, where they hire non-skilled labor and have throngs of people breaking their door down to work there, you are very replaceable, ergo, wages aren't competitive.

This will not change. Regardless of the economy or how fixed or broken "the system" is, this will be a constant. Welcome to Laissez-faire capitalism.

 

[shalom]

Welcome to Laissez-faire capitalism.

White collar workers did not start fighting for work in amusement and theme parks due to laissez-faire capitalism. They started applying for those jobs when the economy tanked, and the economy tanked, in large part, because the housing bubble burst. And the housing bubble was created by the direct action of the US Government, first by passing laws forcing banks to give housing loans to people the banks considered bad risk, and then by agreeing to back those loans with taxpayer money.

"Laissez-faire" means "let it be" or "leave it alone," referring to government interference with the market. The US government is constantly fiddling with the market, either by ordering industries to do things they otherwise wouldn't, in order to accomplish government goals ("Gas should be cheaper" or "More people should be home owners"), or by propping up businesses that fail ("Let's bail out Chrysler. Well, that didn't take -- let's bail out the auto industry." "Let's bail out the Illinois National Bank. And the S&L industry. And Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac. And Citigroup. And Bank of America. Gee, this just keeps getting worse, doesn't it?" ).

That's not laissez-faire capitalism. That's more like mercantilism, only your citizens are taking the place of the colonists!

 

[eliza61]

I also fail to understand why not having a house is the end of the world. My husband and I both have decent jobs, yet we live in an apartment. It just makes more economic sense. As I and many others have stated, you cannot just say, okay, let's pay everyone the same regardless of skill level! As wages go up, companies must charge more, inflation occurs, cost of living skyrockets, chaos ensues...

I am just not seeing how being paid minimum wage is equivilent to an evil company choosing not to pay employees. I am not saying people don't struggle on minimum wage, just that you can't blame a company, any company, for paying minimum wage to entry level employees.

Because for the last 35 years the mantra in this country has been "homeownership" at all cost. Every one from politicians to preachers have been beating into peoples heads that "homeownership"= "success". We accepted that, we taught our kids not to throw money into some thing that we don't own. Everyone signed onto the mindset that home values would always go up.
So if we've preached this golden rule for the last generation why are we surprised when they learned that lesson.
for the last 35 years we've preached a "consumer" economy where the more stuff you have the better your life will be. Now our children have learned these lessons and we act all surprised that they can't seem to live without a cell phone.
For the last 35 years we've preached "you deserve" ______ even though you can't afford it.

Look how many people here on the boards will say no matter how broke they are, they deserve a WDW vacation. Like their children will be scarred for life if they never go to wdw.

So after learning all these lessons, now we expect economic sanity to just come back.

 

[Joanna71985]

I'm a current CM at WDW. I love what I do, and I hope to be at Disney for quite some time

 

[JoshuaShaw]

White collar workers did not start fighting for work in amusement and theme parks due to laissez-faire capitalism. They started applying for those jobs when the economy tanked, and the economy tanked, in large part, because the housing bubble burst. And the housing bubble was created by the direct action of the US Government, first by passing laws forcing banks to give housing loans to people the banks considered bad risk, and then by agreeing to back those loans with taxpayer money.

"Laissez-faire" means "let it be" or "leave it alone," referring to government interference with the market. The US government is constantly fiddling with the market, either by ordering industries to do things they otherwise wouldn't, in order to accomplish government goals ("Gas should be cheaper" or "More people should be home owners"), or by propping up businesses that fail ("Let's bail out Chrysler. Well, that didn't take -- let's bail out the auto industry." "Let's bail out the Illinois National Bank. And the S&L industry. And Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac. And Citigroup. And Bank of America. Gee, this just keeps getting worse, doesn't it?" ).

That's not laissez-faire capitalism. That's more like mercantilism, only your citizens are taking the place of the colonists!

You're right, but the problem is you're arguing against something I never said. I was referring to an employer's freedom to pay whatever wage they wanted (more or less), as influenced by the market. You've gone off on a tear that is, at best, indirectly related to the topic at hand. Your agenda-driven straw man argument aside, I don't disagree with anything you're saying. Big government is the biggest threat to the economy, but this is neither the time or the place for that discussion.

 

[shalom]

Your agenda-driven straw man argument aside

I would say it was less an "agenda-driven straw man argument" and more a "pedantic preference for precision." What set me off was your misuse of the term "laissez-faire capitalism."