From Merl Clark on May 20, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Fire Them All

From Larry Zimmerman on May 20, 2007 at 1:53 PM
The Company's pulling in record profits from record attendance. I don't want a Six Flags attitude when I visit Disney; you get what you pay for. Pay Iger a million less so the rank and file can enjoy life a little more...I don't see HIM out there sweeping Main Street USA!

From Carmela Della Mura on May 20, 2007 at 4:29 PM
To me, happy employees have better results. I agree that cutting some of these million dollar bonuses and paychecks might be the answer and to pay more to the working employees who are out there every day. Any job dealing with the public should pay a good salary.

From Peter Rowe on May 20, 2007 at 5:46 PM
I think it's time to consider Merl Clark's membership of this club. Without "cast members" none of us would get to ride anything. Disney still leads in many aspects of the business and I see no reason why cast members shouldn't have the best pay deal too. Would the change in your day out be noticable? I'm not sure. But it sure would be world leading to try..

From Greg Mills on May 21, 2007 at 1:36 AM
The thing that interests me is how Disney can pull in near-record-breaking profits yet somehow manages to make itself into a "lowest bidder" company; offering the smallest pay it can possibly offer to maintain a staff without going 'overboard.' They're paying too much attention to their stupid stock prices and stockholders and not focusing on actual business. If they'd get their heads out of their collective corporate asses they'd realize that their stock prices would drop for maybe three months slowly after initiating a higher PR-based Employment payout, but after said timeframe, it would increase for a much longer expanse of time when more people are going to their parks because the staff are much happier because they can afford to eat and not worry about paying the next month's bills. And THEN there'd be more people working for them, which could in turn be a better payout for them stockwise because they could promote employee stock options more for the park-level employees, which means some of the money they'd be paying extra would go right back into their pockets.

Jesus christ, man, I'm only 19 years old in my first year of business administration classes at ITTech and even I can figure this crap out.

From Joe W on May 21, 2007 at 7:33 AM
Unions exist solely for the benefit of union leaders- they do little if anything to protect the rights of their constituents. Consider this: A $1000 per week union job...A 30 day strike over a 3% wage increase...That's a $30 per week raise... Lost wages during the strike= $4000...It will take 2 YEARS to recoup the lost wages if the individual saved the $30 per week. And by that time, it is likely that a new contract will be in the works- and likely another strike. Fruitless and stupid.

Get a job- work hard- and get paid based on merit. I know that unions don't want to hear such basic concepts since they prey on the weak and lazy among us.

From Robert Niles on May 21, 2007 at 12:12 PM
And without a union, workers' median real base pay would decline over time, and benefits would increase in price and decrease in quality. Turnover would increase and guest service would suffer as a result of the increased turnover. The middle class in the area where the workers live would shrink, making the economic viability of that community increasingly dependent upon those workers' ability to get more credit to offset their lower wages.

Hey, it's worked for so many other companies and communities in America! [/sarcasm]