Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How long do you believe that state of affairs could last?
If ride attendants can get that, why not all Disney employees? And then, all of those who made more than the Disney minimum already should get that difference or more on top of the $62K, right? How much does that increase Disney's labor costs? How much would that result in park attendance increases? What if that winds up reducing attendance and therefore revenue and therefore ability to pay everyone $62K? Can they lower wages? Lay people off? Go bankrupt? Could they say, "This union is killing us, we simply aren't going to talk to them again, we're back to offering $13 an hour for ride attendants and anyone who doesn't think that's enough is free to not do it"?
I really, really wish there was a mechanism to force people like you to have to be responsible for running a business for a while, long enough to see just how much the bottom line matters and how your beliefs do not, and cannot, intersect with reality. I'd love to see you have to issue layoff notices to people because a union just priced them right out of a job. I'd love for you to see and feel the very real consequences of your fairy tale fantasies.
It's not fairy tale. What a CEO and his upper management negotiate is not a fantasy*. They negotiate great contracts for themselves, there's nothing wrong with that, it's just a signal that there is money to be made and it's the union's responsibility to get the best contracts for their members as possible.
Smart unions know when to ask for more and when not to. Not all unions are cut from the same cloth. Just like there are poorly run businesses, there are poorly run unions. A lot of unions took pay cuts and made concessions during the recession.
As a foreman for a small company if I do not ensure my employer is profitable, I don't make any money. I can't drag my feet and just try to soak up OT because next month they may not have enough money to pay the bills to keep the doors open to bring in more work to keep me working.
Both parties agreed to the terms of the contracts. Both parties are expected to live up to their side. If there is a problem with the terms of the contract it can go through a grievance process, or it can wait until the next round of negotiations. It's a great system.
There is a mechanism to give me an understanding on running a business. My wife just started a business this past year. She knows what she needs to make to be profitable enough to hire employees. She's not there yet. My good union wages, health insurance, and job security has made it possible for her to tackle this endeavor at all.
Last edited by Cheesesteak Cravings; 03-03-2018 at 07:12 PM..
Reason: Slowed down, took pulse, caught breath.
Disney has an astounding methodology for operations. Truly a place to study efficiency.
Something businesses place second and think $$$ is the ruler. Granted Disney has increased its entrance fees in accordance with material increase and covering safety modifications.
From ground keeper to mechanical repair...It's not all poverty level pay.
I'm all for unions...it keeps management in check. Disney learned that lesson the hard way.
Let's not forget their constant lobbying at Congress for longer/stricter copyright terms when they ironically developed their a lot of their empire using the public domain.
Why do you think this? If the employees of Walmart and Disney qualify for welfare/food stamps/Medicaid (and they do!), then that means those large corporations are being subsidized by the taxpayers. Rather than paying a living wage, they know that the government will make up the difference
Disney and Wal-Mart both pay market determined wages. For taxpayer subsidization to be occurring, those companies would have to be paying less than a market determined wage, with the taxpayers making up the difference. Or, the government is paying those companies a portion of the employees wages. That isn’t happening. Not even in one single instance.
There is no requirement for any job to pay a “living wage.” You really need to get off of that idea. If someone is unable to live off of what a job pays, it is the responsibility of the employee to find additional work, or to increase their value to an employer. It isn’t the responsibility of an employer to pay more just because someone “needs” it.
Uh no it's what I actually see. For example, how do College kids in Boston afford all this stuff?? Did know half the workers in Boston MA make 35,000 a year or less. What is the average income of a college kid and where do they get all this disposable cash that there are multiple Chipotles, Starbucks, even car dealerships on or around campus?
College kids have parents, fewer expenses and do not tend to allocate money wisely. Lots of students with wealthy parents in Boston, and now most kids in the 4 year schools as freshman are wealthier.
It is a known thing that on loan deposit day many students go crazy. And live on ramen late in the semester.
Also, being poor doesn’t mean you do not have ocassional indulgences. You have very few luxuries jn life. A semi-annual trip to Chipotle might be your only splurge.
Buu, so ALL business is now immoral since almost every business could probably pay its workers more?
So in other words, you couldn't think of a legitimate response to what I actually wrote, so you chose to post some inane response to something no one said.
You did the same exact thing with Cheesesteak Cravings. You responded to what you wanted Cheesesteak Cravings to say, rather than what Cheesesteak Cravings actually did say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings
No, that's what you want me to say because it reinforces your perception on unions. You're being very disingenuous.
The fact that you cannot come up with legitimate responses to what people are actually posting should actually inform you about the failings of your own perspective, rather than an invitation to post arguments against things no one has posted.
Go back. Read what I wrote. Read it for understanding. And then, if you actually have something to post in response to what I actually wrote, please do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings
The system we've created still requires a business to be profitable, and still requires workers to produce something of value.
Mostly true. However, there is nothing that actually "requires" a specific business to be in business. As I said, society doesn't need for there to be a business that can only be profitable if it engages in exploitation of the desperation of what has effectively been a permanent underclass. That's just slavery repackaged in pretty lace. It is in society's best interest to have an even playing field between employers and employees rather than something unbalanced in either direction, where desperation of one side is exploited for the gain of the other side.
Last edited by bUU; 03-04-2018 at 04:11 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
