Don't Give Me Too Much Work!!! [Disney worker dispute]

[Toocherie]

I would have posted this in the Disneyland News forum, but there wasn't a "Politics" prefix available.

The OCWeekly is reporting that the Disneyland Resort has been charged by the National Labor Relations Board with unfair labor practices. You can find an article discussing this here: http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazin...al-labor-rela/

The funniest part of the article was the following:

"Disney, which has three hotels in Anaheim, recently renovated many rooms, adding new mattresses, more pillows and bigger sheets.

Unite Here union officials say the new luxuries for guests have created extra work for the 2,150 workers represented by Local 11--without the union's consent." (Underlining mine.)

Now maybe I'm old fashioned, or just old, but I don't recall that an employee gets a say in what their job responsibilities are. When I was an employee I don't even recall saying to my boss: "uh, no, sorry--that's too much work." Does that mean that United Here should have had a say in the type of amenities offered to hotel guests? So that they would be "worker friendly" even if they weren't the type of amenities hotel guests would want?

I am usually pro-employee, but in this case I think the union is crazy. And I'm appalled that the NLRB went along with it.

[shna]

Without reading the article (I have too much work to do ), this brought up memories of a story about these folks within the past few months. I could be totally off-base -- but I think the complaint from the union was that the workload increased dramatically without any change in compensation.

Could it be just a matter of degree? I certainly don't think the union should have any say in what kind of amenities are provided to guests -- but I can understand workers being upset if they have suddenly been expected to do a lot more work for the same amount of money.

[codewoman]

I agree with Shna. That's part of what unions are about, is protecting the workers from unreasonable expectations of the employer (and protecting their compensation). I suppose the union and the employer generally disagree about what is "reasonable" and for that purpose they have negotiations. Or in this case, are unable to come to an agreement and have to go to the NLRB.

It seems kind of whiny for an employee to say "too much work" but you can see how the employer could get carried away, too.

[mom22gls]

If you are talking about housekeeping, it could significantly affect their jobs. Let's say they are required to clean X number of rooms, in Y amount of time. If, for example, the mattresses are thicker (and they may or may not have changed the sheets to the really deep pocket kind), it could take longer to make up the bed. A deeper or larger bathtub could take longer to clean. A different type of material, on countertops or tables could take more effort to polish. If they are expected to maintain the same productivity, when the renovations require more time to do the same work, then they may have a legitimate point. I read an article once about hotel housekeepers, and orthopedic injuries, and it's actually a tough job on the back and joints.

[Toocherie]

I have no doubt that it's a physical job--but I have often been given more work than I could handle in an allotted amount of time and haven't gone to my boss (as a salaried employee, mind you) and said--"oh, by the way, I had to work extra hours to get this project done--so you need to increase my compensation by XXXX." Clients make unreasonable demands all the time to get things done in a certain time frame--you don't say to them--well, if you want it done by then my billable hour will be 150% of my usual rate.

I just think the way the article was written--that they couldn't be given more work WITHOUT THE UNION'S CONSENT was absurd. The employer should be able to compete in the market--much to my chagrin most "luxury" hotels have the thicker mattresses, duvets, etc. (I've complained elsewhere about those of us vertically challenged folks trying to get on the high beds.)

The idea that the union could tell the owner of the hotel what type of furniture they can use or what type of linens to stock is absurd in my mind.

[mom22gls]

It's not just the amount of work, it could also be the exertional requirements associated with the work. It's quite possible that the union contract, by the terms negotiated by both the union and the employer, defines a particular job description, consistent with a standard definition of the requirements of the job (a typical source is the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, which is used by the Department of Labor, and referenced by many agencies and organizations-including the Social Security Administration, to determine what a particular job generally requires). Let's say housekeeper is defined as light-no lifting more than 20 pounds, lots of standing and walking, and some bending. Let's also assume that all housekeepers, by the terms of the contract, must pass an employment physical, certifying that they can perform the duties, as defined in the contract. The employer, in renovating the rooms, decides to replace a chair that weighs 15 pounds with one that weighs 50 pounds, and is not on castors, and the housekeeper would have to move the chair to vacuum the room, according to the requirements of the job. That's not just more work, that's a substantial change in work conditions, which contradict the agreed upon terms of the contract. I'm a salaried employee also, but actually in a bargaining unit (which doesn't do a whole lot; mostly gives us flexible working hours), and sure I work as hard as required to do, but if my sedentary job suddenly requires me to lift 75 pounds, then I'd complain too.

[Toocherie]

I can certainly see your point about a chair that weighs considerably more--but "bigger pillows"--I have stayed at the resort lately and the pillows didn't seem humongous to me. Thicker mattresses? If anything, that would seem to me that the beds would be higher and it would be "easier" to make them (not as much bending).

I would complain too if my boss made me lift 75 pounds (well, some of those files might weigh that much!)

[adriennek]

I think that my biggest problem is that it's a smokescreen by the union. That union has been doing NOTHING for their members for years. They have repeatedly not taken Disney's offers to their members. They have refused to negotiate with Disney while spending their time, instead, calling the media and holding protests and press conferences instead. They don't listen to the legitimate concerns of their members who have been without an official contract for some time (while other unions continue to negotiate contracts with Disney on behalf of their members.)

Of course they don't have the Union's consent: The union has REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE WITH DISNEY!!!!!!!!! How can they give their consent to something when they refuse to talk to Disney and refuse to put Disney's offers up to a vote to their employees???

Meanwhile: "Disney officials claim that the workload for hotel workers has stayed about the same because other chores have been eliminated, and that company reps have met with Unite Here to discuss the room changes, according to a report in today's Orange County Register."

Wow! Could Unite Here be misleading with their information? Hold on a minute. I need to sit down to catch my breath. This is pretty surprising and shocking. I need a moment to absorb this...



If I thought there were any merit to anything Unite Here says, I would be curious to know how Disney compares to other employers in the hotel industry. Disney isn't the only resort refurbishing rooms and providing guests with bigger pillows and such. So it would seem to me that it would be worth looking at how other hotels compare to Disney.

Adrienne K

[Teddi]

Actually Tooch, i totally disagree with you on this one. The vast majority of union jobs actually have a VERY defined job title and description of duties and requirements for a said job. So, the work being done, especially changes in the work being done, and HOW it is done, is one of the core elements to the reason unions actually exist (ok, inserting my opinion here... and a key reason they SHOULD exist and one of the primary things they SHOULD be focusing on). It is actually common practice amongst unions of all types that they have "meet and confer" processes in which management and job changes INCLUDE union leadership to discuss the potential impact on employees. In fact Disney *could* be in labor law violation or contract violation by NOT doing meeting and confers. (I'm not saying they are guilty, just that if they did bypass required meet and confer, then they could be guilty)

Now, ultimately, baring an issue substantial enough to be LITIGATED... what management decides is what management decides. Generally a union only retains the right to put their input in, and concerns on the table. The change in bedding, to bedding three times heavier, actually I would EXPECT to put more a physical strain on employees. Perhaps now, based on the weight they are lifting, the ladies (and men) should be wearing back support belts, or wrists supports, or (insert _______) Perhaps the union wants to more closely monitor workers comp claims and be given access to the number and type of claims being filed. HOWEVER changes aren't supposed to be implemented BYPASSING that "meet and confer" process.

AdreinneK- These meet and confer processes, by and large, have absolutely nothing to do with contract negotiations and really the two are two separate issues.... (however, the change in processes and job duties COULD become contract issues). It is common that you could have both "meet and confer" issues going on about the actual jobs being done and the work and how it is done, and then, on another table, with different negotiators or leadership, a contract talk.

Now, that being said, I hope I don't sound defensive of Unite Here. Yes I am a union member (SEIU, oh yay.... and formerly also CWA), but I do agree that a union, ANY union that is more interested in playing politics than resolving their issues as positively as possible for THEIR membership (and not say, the nation as a whole), and who engages in the tactics that Unite Here continues to do, while FAILING to come to contract agreement, is 99% probability not acting in it's memberships favor. Seriously.... GET A CONTRACT already. They ARE hurting their members who pay dues for what??? More "bad" press for Disney? The "bad" press issues aren't ... important enough to actually garner any REAL bad press (for that to happen, it would need to go national). And, might I point out, that a good union shouldn't actually WANT to denegrate their own employer (outside of specific and targeted reasons).

[Toocherie]

AdK I'm glad you chimed in--that was my suspicion (based on things I've read here and elsewhere over the years) but I didn't want to say it without having my facts straight.

Teddi--just curious--how descriptive do the union job descriptions get? Would they say "clean 15 rooms a day including change of bedding, vacuuming, etc." or would they actually say something like "clean 15 rooms a day including change of bedding (weighing 15 pounds), vacuuming with a hotel vacuum weighing 20 pounds, etc."?

I'm not saying all employers are squeeky clean (not even Disney ) but my sense is, like AdK said--that the real motivation here is not to get equitable treatment for the workers but to make Disney look bad. I really wonder how much the union officials get paid. The worst was I think a couple of years ago when the union refused to meet because they didn't like the location.

[adriennek]

AdreinneK- These meet and confer processes, by and large, have absolutely nothing to do with contract negotiations and really the two are two separate issues.... (however, the change in processes and job duties COULD become contract issues). It is common that you could have both "meet and confer" issues going on about the actual jobs being done and the work and how it is done, and then, on another table, with different negotiators or leadership, a contract talk.

That makes sense. Except that...

Now, that being said, I hope I don't sound defensive of Unite Here. Yes I am a union member (SEIU, oh yay.... and formerly also CWA), but I do agree that a union, ANY union that is more interested in playing politics than resolving their issues as positively as possible for THEIR membership (and not say, the nation as a whole), and who engages in the tactics that Unite Here continues to do, while FAILING to come to contract agreement, is 99% probability not acting in it's memberships favor.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!

Seriously.... GET A CONTRACT already. They ARE hurting their members who pay dues for what??? More "bad" press for Disney? The "bad" press issues aren't ... important enough to actually garner any REAL bad press (for that to happen, it would need to go national). And, might I point out, that a good union shouldn't actually WANT to denegrate their own employer (outside of specific and targeted reasons).

Thank you.

I'm a former, reluctant union member but I'm generally speaking, not a fan of unions. In my case, I referred to it as my "malpractice insurance." I saw my co-workers get wrongly sued (teachers and principals) by a complete freak. I wanted the protection of the union behind me. (Irony: I only taught for 5 years but in my last year teaching, the child of the freak was in my classroom. I had decided to join the union before the lawsuit happened, it just reinforced my decision.)

Disney is by and large a unionized workplace. I would MUCH rather see the people who have the Unite Here jobs be able to join a different union. Like, you know, one of the unions whose members have a contract??? (I just deleted a lot of rant about Unite Here's craptacular stunts.)

While I'm not a fan of unions, United Here is the poster child for making unions look bad. At one point I did hear something that made me ever so slightly concerned on behalf of the CMs but the "bad" that Unite Here has done SO INCREDIBLY outweighs anything I could be concerned about from Disney's side. I WISH this group of CMs could get away from Unite Here because the longer this goes on, the WORSE it gets for the WORKERS.

The THEORY about how a union COULD help would be great. But the reality in this case is just fugly.
Adrienne

[AVP]

In fact Disney *could* be in labor law violation or contract violation by NOT doing meeting and confers.

I'm having a hard time understanding how there can be a contract violation, since the contract with the union expired two and a half years ago. There IS no contract. The union declined to EXTEND the contract. I don't see how they have any standing at all, and I'm surprised the NRLB scheduled a hearing.

AVP

[adriennek]

I'm having a hard time understanding how there can be a contract violation, since the contract with the union expired two and a half years ago. There IS no contract. The union declined to EXTEND the contract. I don't see how they have any standing at all, and I'm surprised the NRLB scheduled a hearing.

I could see how there could be two issues in play if they were in contract negotiations before the contract expired. Or a few years back when they were past the contract deadline but the workers were still working under it.

Can the NRLB schedule a hearing to investigate United Here? I'd love to see THAT.

Adrienne

[Drince88]

I agree with Adrienne here, that IF they actually had a contract, not doing the meet and confer would be an issue. But since they DON'T have a contract, there's not exactly anything being violated.

At what point does Disney say to HERE - you have no rights, go away. Or does that have to come from the rank-and-file decertifying the union and/or voting to be pulled into a different union that would actually talk with Disney?

[Burnt Toast]

As someone who used to work for DLR and be in four of the unions that represent Cast Members... all of them are useless.

For you folks that blindly support unions because your families were pro-union or if you were in a tradeskill union in the past (the only unions that should exist anymore), then stop. You have no clue about the sham unions that represent DLR Cast Members.

[Toocherie]

As someone who used to work for DLR and be in four of the unions that represent Cast Members... all of them are useless.

Just curious--do they have unions in Florida for Disney cast members?

[Alex S.]

Yes, something like 60-70% of Disney World cast members are in unions. I believe in Florida you can opt out of union membership as an employee but you're still covered under the collective bargaining agreements.

[Teddi]

Believe it or not, even though the contract has expired, unless they have formally declared an impasse (where one or both parties agree that they don't agree formally) the agreement of the old contract remains the same. If Disney wanted to, they could say "we're at an impasse". Then, if they wanted to they could take next steps (like lock out their employees, etc). If the union wanted to, they could declare impasse and then engage in a strike, etc.

Now some might wonder... well why bother ever getting another contract if the status quo literally just continues on endlessly.....

Well the employees would likely never be offered another COLA, so their wages are essentially frozen. The medical and dental remain the same, except also... frozen (so if in 2008 the company paid "all", that "all" had a dollar amount). When we experienced this a few years ago, our management decided that though they paid "80%" at the end of 2007.... they didn't have to pay "80%" of the new 2008 medical rates. They said, no, the 80% was (and I'm just making a number up here) "$600" per month. So that is all we will pay, regardless of rate increases.

As far as job duties, and how spelled out it is, you can read thru a few I pulled from my counties website.
Scroll to the last page, especially where they discuss the ADA compliance.

A nurse job: http://www.solanocounty.com/resource...ed%20Nurse.pdf

A clerical job: http://www.solanocounty.com/resource...stant%20II.pdf

but more specifically, here's what I found for the disney housekeeping. Sorry, but I didn't want to sign in and go disney job shopping, if someone wanted to go thru that process they could probably find a more detailed description.
http://disney.go.com/disneycareers/d...sekeeping.html

[Janis and Aaron]

As someone who used to work for DLR and be in four of the unions that represent Cast Members... all of them are useless.

For you folks that blindly support unions because your families were pro-union or if you were in a tradeskill union in the past (the only unions that should exist anymore), then stop. You have no clue about the sham unions that represent DLR Cast Members.

And for those of you who blindly denigrate ALL unions because you belong to a bad union, just stop. Look into the history of working conditions before there were unions. There is always going to be a tension between employers and unions because employers want the most work for the least amount of money and unions want the most money for the least amount of work. That's human nature. The pull and tug between the opposing forces makes something approaching balance.

All that being said, it sounds like the Disney unions aren't doing a good job for their workers, and they need to remember why they exist.

[darph nader]

And for those of you who blindly denigrate ALL unions because you belong to a bad union, just stop. Look into the history of working conditions before there were unions. There is always going to be a tension between employers and unions because employers want the most work for the least amount of money and unions want the most money for the least amount of work. That's human nature. The pull and tug between the opposing forces makes something approaching balance.

All that being said, it sounds like the Disney unions aren't doing a good job for their workers, and they need to remember why they exist.

Well said J&A. As much as unions are dised nowadays they did do us well. 40hr weeks,weekends off. Of course they have made their own mistakes.

[Burnt Toast]

Just curious--do they have unions in Florida for Disney cast members?

Yes... but it's a right to work state so you can choose whether to join or not.

[Burnt Toast]

And for those of you who blindly denigrate ALL unions because you belong to a bad union, just stop. Look into the history of working conditions before there were unions. There is always going to be a tension between employers and unions because employers want the most work for the least amount of money and unions want the most money for the least amount of work. That's human nature. The pull and tug between the opposing forces makes something approaching balance.

All that being said, it sounds like the Disney unions aren't doing a good job for their workers, and they need to remember why they exist.

Unions are a relic and unnecessary for entry-level employees. California's labor laws are sufficient enough for entry-level employees. Entry-level (see the pattern here?) employees do NOT need to be in a union. Unions should be for those in craftsman or skilled technical jobs.

If you don't know what you are talking about, have no clue what Disneyland Resort Cast Members have to deal with with their inept and corrupt unions, then stop. Stop living in the past and start looking at today. Unions were needed back then, but they certainly are not needed now for entry-level positions. We no longer have to walk in the snow barefoot for five miles to get to work/school/home like back then.

Unions only exist now to try to ensure their own survival... thankfully they have blind "union can do no wrong because of their past" folks to support them. Talk to most any Disneyland Resort Cast Member and most of them will not have anything flattering to say about them and their constant antics. Not to mention the ridiculous union dues that are forced out of each of their paychecks every month.

[shorty]

and for those of you who blindly denigrate all unions because you belong to a bad union, just stop. Look into the history of working conditions before there were unions. There is always going to be a tension between employers and unions because employers want the most work for the least amount of money and unions want the most money for the least amount of work. That's human nature. The pull and tug between the opposing forces makes something approaching balance.

All that being said, it sounds like the disney unions aren't doing a good job for their workers, and they need to remember why they exist.

Bravo!!! I couldn't agree with you both more!! You speak with Wisdom, simply & to the point!

[Tan Da Man]

being a cast member, in a union part of the park, ill say the unions are bad for disney. Disney lets them run their operations basically and without them, I feel Disney could offer better service, run more smoothly, and have better relations with their employees amongst other things.

[orchid2]

In todays world people need to understand that here in California your lucky if you have a job to start off with.... next lucky if the company your working for doesn't move out of California like so many have already and are still doing... the unions in many ways need to get their employees interests and not there own in the front.... remember the union reps. get paid while the union workers don't.... my father was in a union for over 40 years I understand about unions.. so don't think I don't....