The parks are NOT understaffed

[Tamandua]

I've heard a lot of comments lately about how the parks are understaffed and how everyone should be understanding. While I sympathize with overworked cast members, the idea that the parks are understaffed is false. Understaffing is a temporary problem when you cannot meet the staffing needs of the organization due to unforeseen or last minute issues that reduce your staff or increase the amount of labor needed. This is not a temporary issue at the parks. It's been going on for a long time now, and the parks are staffed exactly the way the company wants them. They could easily get more staff quickly with better compensation and/or benefits, but they aren't willing to pay the market price to increase staff to levels that customers expect. Don't mistake this for being understaffed. Disney chose this situation. Consider this the new normal.

[Mr Wiggins]

^ Sadly, that's totally true. Since Pressler's day, management has been dropping the CM-to-guest ratio, lowering effective CM wages, diminishing the depth and quality of the CM training program, and slashing CM perks -- all as a method of increasing profits.

They'll continue to do so as long as customers continue to vote Yes with their wallets.

[DisneyPilot]

Understaffing is a temporary problem when you cannot meet the staffing needs of the organization due to unforeseen or last minute issues that reduce your staff or increase the amount of labor needed.

Yeah...that is called the Pandemic.

It is not just a simple numbers game of enough available employees vs wage rates. It is also a large number of legacy and experienced employees chose not to return leaving a massive knowledge and training gap with the new workforce that does show up.

While I agree with the wage argument in principal...that is a bit over simplistic to describe the nuance of all the labor issues at hand. Disney has never put value in their employees...that has been a known corporate culture for decades across all their holdings, not just the Parks.

[Darth Scottie]

I've heard a lot of comments lately about how the parks are understaffed and how everyone should be understanding. While I sympathize with overworked cast members, the idea that the parks are understaffed is false. Understaffing is a temporary problem when you cannot meet the staffing needs of the organization due to unforeseen or last minute issues that reduce your staff or increase the amount of labor needed. This is not a temporary issue at the parks. It's been going on for a long time now, and the parks are staffed exactly the way the company wants them. They could easily get more staff quickly with better compensation and/or benefits, but they aren't willing to pay the market price to increase staff to levels that customers expect. Don't mistake this for being understaffed. Disney chose this situation. Consider this the new normal.

Anybody else read this all in caps?

[mickdaddy]

I've heard a lot of comments lately about how the parks are understaffed and how everyone should be understanding. While I sympathize with overworked cast members, the idea that the parks are understaffed is false. Understaffing is a temporary problem when you cannot meet the staffing needs of the organization due to unforeseen or last minute issues that reduce your staff or increase the amount of labor needed. This is not a temporary issue at the parks. It's been going on for a long time now, and the parks are staffed exactly the way the company wants them. They could easily get more staff quickly with better compensation and/or benefits, but they aren't willing to pay the market price to increase staff to levels that customers expect. Don't mistake this for being understaffed. Disney chose this situation. Consider this the new normal.

The being understating part usually is in reference to how you are treating said CM's that are being overworked and doing their best to keep things running. There are many factors involved with their being a lack of staffing and yes part of that is how the company is handling the rehiring of staff and what they are willing to pay and offer as far as benefits. The part of the equation that you are not looking at is many people that were forced out of customer service jobs during the lock down are simply not willing to come back to customer service jobs because of the abuse they take on a regular basis from people. This is not just a Disney problem it is a whole U.S. Problem and it is not going away until customers figure out that they are not royalty and learn to treat people with kindness for the service they are providing. And yes the companies need to also pay them a livable wage to do that service as well.

[Mr Wiggins]

A reader's comment from the MiceChat Strike Update nailed 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.

[Lighthope]

Understaffing is a temporary problem when you cannot meet the staffing needs of the organization due to unforeseen or last minute issues that reduce your staff or increase the amount of labor needed.

This is not the definition of understaffing at all. The fact that the Park is understaffed all the time and/or it is planned by management to be understaffed to save on labour is something else.

But the park is understaffed by the very definition of the word.

[Yamamoto364]

A reader's comment from the MiceChat Strike Update nailed 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.

This isn’t accurate. At least for non-union and Master services cast. As they will now be starting at $17.50. The area In-N-Outs start at $17.00.

[Mr Wiggins]

This isn’t accurate. At least for non-union and Master services cast. As they will now be starting at $17.50. The area In-N-Outs start at $17.00.

50 cents an hour is a distinction without a difference, and it doesn't address the essence of the reader's comment. Add Disney's notorious scheduling, cutting of perks and the pressures of being a frontline CM, and the reader's comment stands.

[Yamamoto364]

50 cents an hour is a distinction without a difference, and it doesn't address the essence of the reader's comment. Add Disney's notorious scheduling, cutting of perks and the pressures of being a frontline CM, and the reader's comment stands.

So how is working at In-N-Out a better financial decision then? That’s what the comment says. If you work the same hours at each at Disney you’re getting paid more, may be very little more, but still is more.

[SkunkID]

So how is working at In-N-Out a better financial decision then? That’s what the comment says. If you work the same hours at each at Disney you’re getting paid more, may be very little more, but still is more.

While maybe not what Wiggins and the commenter INTENDED there is another level to this comment that comes to mind. Traditionally, a fast food job is considered to "transitionary," at least in the U.S. and many post-industrial countries. Transitionary jobs, such as fast food, retail, and other minimum wage jobs, are often given pay and benefits with the "intention" in mind that the worker will EVENTUALLY move out of said job into a permanent carrier.

With that in mind, it has been a common statement, especially among vetren Disney fans that Disney employment, while often resembling other transitionary jobs; is a job with "career potential." Putting aside ALL the issues tied up in this idealogy. Putting aside the fact that labeling a job as transitionary is simply an excuse to underpay workers. Putting aside that the days of "I started as a skipper and become an imagineer" are long dead. Disney, it's fanbase, and likely the worker who raised the comment that Wiggins quoted, are aware and touch upon the idea that Disney is "more than a transitionary job." And based in the fact that there is currently a forum that we are debating and discussing in dedicated to a theme park; we are aware that SOME kind of difference is there.

No. This doesn't answer the initial question directly. Yes. Technically Disney is "more" and it is paying equal or "more" to In'nOut. No. Technically working at In'nOut "isn't a financially better choice" because you be paid less. But I and most of the people here, seem to understand that there is some difference, even if it's metaphysical, between working at Disney and a fast food place; more different than ¢50 per hour. And by extension of that, there is something almost insulting at the idea that other places, places smaller than Disney, are outpacing them in raising wages, if not catching up.

[Mr Wiggins]

^ Well and eloquently said!

[TacAlert]

Anybody else read this all in caps?

No.

[TacAlert]

The being understating part usually is in reference to how you are treating said CM's that are being overworked and doing their best to keep things running. There are many factors involved with their being a lack of staffing and yes part of that is how the company is handling the rehiring of staff and what they are willing to pay and offer as far as benefits. The part of the equation that you are not looking at is many people that were forced out of customer service jobs during the lock down are simply not willing to come back to customer service jobs because of the abuse they take on a regular basis from people. This is not just a Disney problem it is a whole U.S. Problem and it is not going away until customers figure out that they are not royalty and learn to treat people with kindness for the service they are providing. And yes the companies need to also pay them a livable wage to do that service as well.

Oh, the livable wage answer. And what exactly is that?

[stovk]

While maybe not what Wiggins and the commenter INTENDED there is another level to this comment that comes to mind. Traditionally, a fast food job is considered to "transitionary," at least in the U.S. and many post-industrial countries. Transitionary jobs, such as fast food, retail, and other minimum wage jobs, are often given pay and benefits with the "intention" in mind that the worker will EVENTUALLY move out of said job into a permanent carrier.

With that in mind, it has been a common statement, especially among vetren Disney fans that Disney employment, while often resembling other transitionary jobs; is a job with "career potential." Putting aside ALL the issues tied up in this idealogy. Putting aside the fact that labeling a job as transitionary is simply an excuse to underpay workers. Putting aside that the days of "I started as a skipper and become an imagineer" are long dead. Disney, it's fanbase, and likely the worker who raised the comment that Wiggins quoted, are aware and touch upon the idea that Disney is "more than a transitionary job." And based in the fact that there is currently a forum that we are debating and discussing in dedicated to a theme park; we are aware that SOME kind of difference is there.

No. This doesn't answer the initial question directly. Yes. Technically Disney is "more" and it is paying equal or "more" to In'nOut. No. Technically working at In'nOut "isn't a financially better choice" because you be paid less. But I and most of the people here, seem to understand that there is some difference, even if it's metaphysical, between working at Disney and a fast food place; more different than ¢50 per hour. And by extension of that, there is something almost insulting at the idea that other places, places smaller than Disney, are outpacing them in raising wages, if not catching up.

There is not one thing I disagree with in this statement, and it is true that at one time a job at Disneyland was seen as a "Career". But that ended long ago.

Anyone who is thinking about a "Career" these days at Disneyland should know that the paradigm has shifted. I would assume that anyone interested in working at Disneyland would be somewhat more educated about the goings on at Disney than your average "fan", and it should not come as a surprise that the current Executives/Management are a bunch of pencil pushers and bean counters.

So, unless these employees are being shanghaied by Disney, they should know what they are getting into. I have a feeling many of these Employees let their fascination with "Disney" cloud their career decisions.

I'm not placing the blame on the employees, but they do share some of the responsibility for their career situation.

[TacAlert]

There is not one thing I disagree with in this statement, and it is true that at one time a job at Disneyland was seen as a "Career". But that ended long ago.

I have a feeling many of these Employees let their fascination with "Disney" cloud their career decisions.

I'm not placing the blame on the employees, but they do share some of the responsibility for their career situation.

Very well said. In fact, the same can be said for passholders or whatever it is called now that will continue to gripe and complain about DL, but shell out 1000s of dollars to keep going. Their fascination gets to their wallet.

[Lighthope]

Anyone who is thinking about a "Career" these days at Disneyland should know that the paradigm has shifted. I would assume that anyone interested in working at Disneyland would be somewhat more educated about the goings on at Disney than your average "fan", and it should not come as a surprise that the current Executives/Management are a bunch of pencil pushers and bean counters.

So, unless these employees are being shanghaied by Disney, they should know what they are getting into. I have a feeling many of these Employees let their fascination with "Disney" cloud their career decisions.

There is a chasom of difference between TDA and Disneyland that this post misses.

For those of us who made careers out of Disneyland, we know the pay. We understand management wouldn't recognize Walt if he came up and slapped them.

But there really is something different about Disneyland. There is a magic we want to pass on to the Guest. And while I would like to be paid my value, I am willing to give up some of that in order to be part of someone's dream


That doesn't mean There aren't practical considerations. I have to eat and need a roof over my head. So there is a breaking point.

So I take umbrige at the idea that we are all lobotomised Stepford people under the spell of Disney. We know. We understand. And we have made a conscious choice. But that doesn't mean we have given up the idea of being paid comensurate with our value.

[stovk]

So I take umbrige at the idea that we are all lobotomised Stepford people under the spell of Disney. We know. We understand. And we have made a conscious choice. But that doesn't mean we have given up the idea of being paid comensurate with our value.

You can have that "idea" all you want, but Corporate has decided the job pays what they are willing to pay according to what they think your "value" is worth. You may well be more valuable than what you are being paid, but in that sense, many people "think" they are more valuable than what their compensation is. Unfortunately, compensation isn't built around what the employee "thinks" they are worth. The only people really in a position to do that are the self employed, and even then their salary is commensurate to what the market is willing to pay.

I admire your lofty goal of wanting to pass the Magic on to the Guests, unfortunately you work for people who do not share your same values.

This isn't a put down on you or anyone else working for Disneyland/TDA. But there comes a time when you need to do some soul searching on what is more important to you.

Now if the employees want to force the hand of the "Company" and strike (or find other means to force their hand), then by all means fight for what you think is right. I just think it's a losing battle for all involved (Employee, Guest, and Company). Sometimes there is a point of diminishing returns.

That's why I vote with my wallet. If/when Disney/Disneyland returns to something resembling Walt's idea of the Company, then I'll become a "Disney Consumer" again. However, until then, I'll spend my dollars elsewhere.

[Laugh-O-Grams]

I admire your lofty goal of wanting to pass the Magic on to the Guests, unfortunately you work for people who do not share your same values.

Therein lies the rub. And as long as those "people" keep being rewarded by the sucker...uh...er...Guests putting up with the reduction in quality/services and increase in $$$, it will never change.

I hate to say it, but as bad as Corporate is, sometimes the Guest is their own worst enemy.

[Lighthope]

You can have that "idea" all you want, but Corporate has decided the job pays what they are willing to pay according to what they think your "value" is worth.

And we know that. Your post implied....no came right out and said we were too stupid to know that. That we "let their fascination with 'Disney' cloud their career decisions."

That is what really rubbed me the wrong way and where you really went wrong.

We know. We accept. And I do agree that the CMs really let an opportunity go to waste this last contract. /sigh What can you do sometimes.

So we make a conscious decision. Are we willing to put up with it for the "magic"?

Sometimes the answer is yes. And that doesn't make us "blinded by Disney fascination" nor are we "shanghaied".