Disneyland employees to Strike? God I Hope so!!!

[tarheelalum]

I understand a vote to accept a new contract, with no raise for employees with 10+ years of service, might be coming this week. Hopefully they refuse this insult of a contract and go on strike. It is truly the perfect storm for long time employees to get a well deserved raise and for fans of Disney to get another step closer to removing Chapek via a horrific PR disaster of a cast member strike with hapless executives running a Disneyland full of angry fans. God I hope they strike. They truly have excellent leverage and it's a fantastic job market for the cast members to pick up another job to help get them through the strike and make Chapek look like the fool he really is for all the world to see.

[Mr Wiggins]

The readers' comments from the MiceChat Strike Update nail it:

It's disgraceful and embarrassing that it is a better decision financially for people to work at In N Out Burger flipping burgers, working a register, or even scrubbing toilets, than to work at one of the top 10 world class theme park resorts in the entire world.

I'm not always a fan of unions, but in this case I have no support for Disney. Let's see, another ticket price increase for the 5th consecutive year (at least), including a 20% increase in parking, and a quadrupling of the price in the past 20 years, far outpacing the rate of inflation (about 62% since 2000). Nobody is happy about it, but I'm sure some folks would be a little less upset if Disney was actually using the increases to pay its employees appropriately for the world-class "Disney service" they are supposed to provide. Instead Disney makes money hand over fist, and employees struggle to get by. Only $2 above the minimum wage that is mandated by the state come January 1, 2022? Please! Disney can do better than that, and should!

I completely agree, but honestly it goes beyond the hourly rate. As I understand it, Disney is notorious for limiting employees' hours so that they don't qualify for benefits and whatnot, as well as not giving people consistent schedules that they can plan their lives around. They want to pay most of their employees like part-time minimum wage workers with no benefits and no job security, while demanding that they be available whenever Disney wants, even at the drop of a hat. Like all big companies, they also apparently have a bad habit of making decisions that end up stripping people of their seniority, or letting them go just before they qualify for retirement.

What Disney Parks SHOULD be doing, as a world-class 5 star theme park resort, is hiring the vast majority of their employees as FULL-TIME workers, with full benefits (healthcare, retirement, etc). I'm sure they can afford it, but they won't do it unless they are forced to.

[Druggas]

My wife retired from DL this year and not a moment too soon. There is a few problems with Disney and the unions that protect the labor and that's why labor is not paid livable wages.
1. The union contracts come due at different times which cuts their leverage in half. I'm sure Disney was pleased to see that in their negotiations.
2. Young Disney workers have no idea what their union does for them, therefore they don't see it as a way to level the playing field. My wife would always hear them complaining of "paying dues for no reason".
3. I can guarantee you that Disney workers cannot sustain a strike that lasts over one pay period and Disney knows it as well.

I'm afraid that Disney has the upper hand and a lot of workers will be unhappy with the results. I do think that with a more powerful union, support from the labor, and all contracts in the park coming due at the same date, Disney would be forced to negotiate in good faith. But until then, it won't be the Happiest Place on Earth.

Just my 2 cents.

[Stormy]

Does anyone have an idea of what percentage of 'direct service' employees are union? I mean those whose absence would really impact day to day guest services (like food service, ride operator, janitorial, mechanical maintenance, retail).

[Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah]

If CM's vote this down, how long before they can strike? Can it happen immediately? Is there a cooling off period or forced arbitration? I don't think Disney remotely wants the negative PR of a strike looming over the holidays and if the CM's can strike on or before the holidays they certainly have the upper hand. If they cannot strike till after the holidays then they are up the preverbal creek.

I was a CM in the 80's and was part of the 1984 Disneyland Strike. The strike action didn't happen until after the summer season (September). Had the strike started before or during the Summer I'm sure it would have not lasted as long as the 22 days that it did, especially since the olympics were in L.A. that year (which actually caused very low park attendance).

I'm behind the CM's in whatever they they vote, but I think they should hold out for what they feel they are worth. Disney expects 5 star service from them and they deserve a 5 star compensation package.

[micromind]

I find it absolutely obscene how weak the union is. It's almost as if they are representing Disney and not the CMs.

Yes, if they strike, it'd hurt the CMs a lot but if they cave, it'll hurt them far more.

They need to grow a backbone........

[Eagleman]

I find it absolutely obscene how weak the union is. It's almost as if they are representing Disney and not the CMs.

Yes, if they strike, it'd hurt the CMs a lot but if they cave, it'll hurt them far more.

They need to grow a backbone........

I AGREE...........negotiate should be in good faith-Both from the UNION and the COMPANY!
If the UNION cave, it'll hurt them far more........
And so if go strike,they better mean it , all the way !
Square Deal is what , I like to see.........IMO

[WaltDisney'sAlec]

If CM's vote this down, how long before they can strike? Can it happen immediately? Is there a cooling off period or forced arbitration? I don't think Disney remotely wants the negative PR of a strike looming over the holidays and if the CM's can strike on or before the holidays they certainly have the upper hand. If they cannot strike till after the holidays then they are up the preverbal creek.

I was a CM in the 80's and was part of the 1984 Disneyland Strike. The strike action didn't happen until after the summer season (September). Had the strike started before or during the Summer I'm sure it would have not lasted as long as the 22 days that it did, especially since the olympics were in L.A. that year (which actually caused very low park attendance).

I'm behind the CM's in whatever they they vote, but I think they should hold out for what they feel they are worth. Disney expects 5 star service from them and they deserve a 5 star compensation package.

So the union needs a majority vote to ratify the contract, which is anything over 50%. But they need 75% to authorize a strike. So there's this in-between where anywhere between 51-74% of people voting not to ratify the contract is basically at an impasse. I don't know how they solve that. It could mean a forced mediation, it could mean working under the old contract, or renegotiating the new one. I'm not sure how it gets resolved.

I will say that throughout the U.S., we're finding union members have recently been more willing to strike, even after union leadership has negotiated a new contract. From John Deere to IATSE, these votes have never quite been this close. CMs deserve more, and Disney needs satisfied and happy CMs working for them. Hopefully they both reach an agreement that everyone can benefit from.

[Eagleman]

Disney needs satisfied and happy CMs working for them. Hopefully they both reach an agreement that everyone can benefit from.

I AGREE with this part of the statement........
This not a good time being Greedy from ether party !
Both Company and Union
Need to know what Square Deal is

NOTE:
The Square Deal was Theodore Roosevelt 's domestic program, which reflected his three major goals: conservation of natural resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection.

These three demands are often referred to as the "three Cs" of Roosevelt's Square Deal. Thus, it aimed at helping middle class citizens and involved attacking plutocracy and bad trusts while at the same time protecting business
from the most extreme demands of organized labor.

IMO

[Spongeocto4]

So the union needs a majority vote to ratify the contract, which is anything over 50%. But they need 75% to authorize a strike. So there's this in-between where anywhere between 51-74% of people voting not to ratify the contract is basically at an impasse. I don't know how they solve that. It could mean a forced mediation, it could mean working under the old contract, or renegotiating the new one. I'm not sure how it gets resolved.

United Service Workers West detailed the process on their webpage:

If 75% of those in attendance vote to strike, the Executive Board will sanction the strike, which will also open up the strike fund for the purposes of supporting the workers. The Executive Board may approve a strike authorization by a vote of at least 65%, but may withhold strike sanction if they believe an insufficient number of members will support the strike.

The strike fund would be available for those participating on the picket line after 10 days. Picketing workers are eligible for a $150 stipend. Striking workers are not eligible for Employment Development Department (EDD) benefits in the state of California. In addition to that, because, as of now, Disney has not committed any Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) during the duration of this campaign, this would be considered an economic strike. Due to the economic nature of the strike, Disney has the right to permanently replace workers that participate in the strike if it chooses to do so.

Furthermore, the union cannot obligate any workers to honor the picket line. If a 75% threshold vote is reached to go on strike, the union will strongly encourage all workers to stand in solidarity and not cross the picket line. It is our sincere hope that all workers honor the picket line.

[Spongeocto4]

^Forgot to post the link. Whoops...

[Spongeocto4]

Disneyland Workers Approved Their Contract, There Will Be NO Strike:

Disneyland employees averted a strike and voted for a new contract that includes a 19% pay hike of $3 per hour over three years and bonuses for long-time workers after a contentious union negotiation that threatened to disrupt the Happiest Place on Earth.

Disneyland union members represented by Master Services Council voted on Friday, Dec. 3 to accept a new three-year contract after rejecting an identical proposal on Nov. 17.

“The Disneyland resort is pleased that cast members of the Disneyland park represented by the Master Services Council ratified a new collective bargaining agreement,” according to a Disneyland spokesperson. “Cast members from Disney California Adventure park and Downtown Disney District previously ratified the same offer on November 17th. We are proud of the competitive wage and benefit offer, which provides historical increases over three years, continuing to outpace the California minimum wage.”

To answer Stormy's earlier question, this applied to 40% of DLR's cast members(about 10,000 employees).

[micromind]

Can 2 people (without kids) survive in SoCal, each making 18.50/HR?

That's 74,000/YR. Around here, they'd do ok but not great.

[Mr Wiggins]

Can 2 people (without kids) survive in SoCal, each making 18.50/HR?

That's 74,000/YR. Around here, they'd do ok but not great.

And chances are that they won't be able to earn that at Disney, which plays the game of scheduling employees for less than full 40-hr. weeks, and not paying them benefits.

[Eagleman]

And chances are that they won't be able to earn that at Disney, which plays the game of scheduling employees for less than full 40-hr. weeks, and not paying them benefits.

I did not think of that........
But your Right
Disney does play that gameimo

[micromind]

And chances are that they won't be able to earn that at Disney, which plays the game of scheduling employees for less than full 40-hr. weeks, and not paying them benefits.

You're right.....I forgot about that.

Yet another college-educated MBA way of screwing the employees..........the very people whom they derive their obscene compensation packages from........

[Eagleman]

You're right.....I forgot about that.

Yet another college-educated MBA way of screwing the employees..........the very people whom they derive their obscene compensation packages from........

IMO it darn wrong.........Disney and other Big Business/Store's ect.- have done it...
YES.....screwing the employees.......
IMO - employees need be wise......of the games !

[Yamamoto364]

And chances are that they won't be able to earn that at Disney, which plays the game of scheduling employees for less than full 40-hr. weeks, and not paying them benefits.

I mean if you’re hired as part time yes, you’re paid part time hours. Usually how that works. If you’re hired as full time you’re paid full time hours. Just depends on what you’re being hired to do, which you know going into it.

[Tamandua]

So there will be no strike. This is an interesting situation because Disney needs every employee now more than ever. If there was ever a time to leverage labor against disney, it's now... And they blew it.

[_Bluebird]

So there will be no strike. This is an interesting situation because Disney needs every employee now more than ever. If there was ever a time to leverage labor against disney, it's now... And they blew it.

If I can spill a little bit of attractions tea, our union is 100% the reason for this. We had the momentum. Disney sent us their first offer, the 50 cents. In response, our union set up a townhall and it had us fired up and ready to fight for a real wage. Then Disney talked to the unions and gave them a "better" offer. It was a $1 raise per year, technically double the first offer, but still off from what people wanted. This is where the trouble began. Our union, Teamsters, tried to keep this "better" offer under wraps until the day of the vote. They claimed it was so that disinformation wouldn't spread, but it was clear from the beginning that they were trying to force this offer through. Luckily, someone (I think from SEIU) leaked the contract three days early so a lot of us had a chance to read up on it, discuss, and be informed. A lot of people saw the specifics and knew that it still wasn't good enough. In response to this offer, the Teamsters cast at both parks overwhelmingly voted No on the contract. (Quick caveat: yes, technically the DCA cast passed their contract, but the breakdown for the Teamsters portion of the vote was majority No)

The vote itself was a little scuffed. All in all, only about 1/3 of all attractions CMs made it to vote. Factors like understaffing and long commutes made voting less accessible. These were things that were brought up before, but the union refused to address. During the day, there were so many reports of our business agents being rude to us. A lot of CMs (including myself) felt like our reps were talking down to us, as if we lacked the judgement or experience to understand how a No vote would affect us. This was even more clear as the votes were counted. We had poll watchers in the room, and as the no votes started piling up the union reps grew a lot angrier, saying that we don't know what we're doing. The poll watchers eventually got kicked out of the theater for the final tally, something that (as far as I know) hasn't happened before. The unions knew the result that night, but didn't share it officially until noon the next day. We had to rely on those poll watchers to know what was happening.

Things got even messier from here. In response to the no vote, the Teamsters union, along with the rest of master services, went back to the company for a response. The company's response was essentially "that's our final offer, take it or leave it." And what did our union say to this? Did they try and counteroffer, or use the momentum of the vote to ask for more? Nope. They relayed that message to us and proceeded to do everything in their power to prevent a strike. Over the past couple weeks, our union has stifled communication, shared disinformation, and made it clear that our leadership wouldn't support us in the event of a strike. They acted like the company was being super generous to us, giving us a second chance to vote on the exact same contract. Disregarding the fact that we said no for a reason. And as a cherry on top, they blamed us for it. They said that we "didn't engage with the union enough" and that we "wouldn't show up for a strike". Our reps were trying to gaslight us into thinking that we deserve the proposed contract and nothing more because we wouldn't work for it. So as we got closer to the second vote everyone started to realize that a strike literally couldn't happen if we didn't have our leadership leading, and DL ratified their contract. Now we're in a position where the contract has passed, but a ton of attractions CMs are very unhappy with their union leadership. We had an opportunity for real change, but our union leaders sided with the company instead of with us.