PDA

View Full Version : Fighting to keep the Keys to the Kingdom--Disneyland Security NO vote x3



10-8
07-15-2004, 12:38 AM
It's official, and this time it seems like it was an overwhelming turn-out, and an overhwhelming vote to reject the Companies offer to the membership of the IESA. The next week should be interesting.

Old Blue
07-15-2004, 01:03 AM
Did you read the article in the business section of Wednesdays Orange County Register?

BJW
07-15-2004, 01:19 AM
That threat letter mentioned in the Mouseplanet article was the lowest of the low. I'm beginning to hate the Rasulo/Ouimet regime more and more. I would expect this out of Pressler's people. That is very low to threaten someone's family and livelihood just to try to sway them to vote in an 11 month contract that will probably cost them their jobs anyway when Disney outsources.

Seems like something similar to this happened years ago when McKenzie advised Pressler to cut the maintenance budget by $16.9 million per year. Now look what's happened at the resort since then. Scary... :eek:

10-8
07-15-2004, 01:56 AM
Just read the OC Register article and it sums it up well... http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2004/07/14/sections/business/oc_region/article_166561.php ...I thought you might enjoy the letter Tom Fox sent all of us...

July 2, 2004

Dear Cast Member,

The proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement is being
submitted to you again for your ratification. The last time that
this offer was submitted for ratification, a disappointingly large
number of Cast Members failed to vote. We want to ensure that
everyone understands the importance of this process and the potential
consequences of not voting or voting "no," so that any decision you
make is based on a thorough understanding of the facts.

So now let me come to the purpose of this letter: to tell you what
may be the outcome for you if the offer submitted is not ratified, so
that you will understand the potential outcomes of the vote and be
able to cast your vote on a fully informed basis.

To begin with, please understand that the management of the
Disneyland Resort values the role that you as Security Officers play
here at the Resort. Contrary to some of the concerns that we have
heard regarding the duration of the Agreement, there are no current
plans to "outsource" Security. Rather, the duration of the Agreement
simply provides time to analyze the potential impacts of pending
California health care legislation as well as other general business
issues.

We believe in the fairness of the terms proposed and have advised
your Association that this is the last, best and final offer. If a
majority of Cast Members again reject this final offer, you should
know that the understanding reached by your Association and the
Company may not be implemented. Because impasse has been reached at
the bargaining table, with neither the Association nor the Company
representatives prepared to further change their position to
accommodate the other, the management of the Resort has the right to
implement some or all of the final offer.

With all of this in mind, you have some important decisions to make.
If the Agreement is ratified, you will receive increased compensation
and other favorable changes outlined in the communication that has
been mailed to you by the Association. If the Agreement is not
ratified, you may continue to work under the terms and conditions of
employment that have been implemented.

If employees choose not to work under these conditions, the
Disneyland Resort will continue to operate, providing all employees
who wish to work with the opportunity to do so. Further, temporary
or permanent replacements may be legally employed for those employees
who choose not to report to work. Obviously, their pay will end with
the final day of work. Health benefits for all covered events
occurring after an employee stops working will also end, subject only
to their ability to continue coverage by paying the full cost, not
just the weekly deduction amount.

I hope this information assists you in making this critical
decision. The offer you are currently voting on represents the best
package that the management of the Disneyland Resort will propose.

We encourage you to carefully consider the consequences of your
decision for you and your family when you vote. Remember, this
decision will be made by a majority of Association members who vote.
We encourage you to vote yes and ratify the Agreement.

Sincerely,

Tom Fox
Director, Labor Relations
Disneyland Resort

Photographer
07-15-2004, 09:42 AM
We encourage you to carefully consider the consequences of your decision for you and your family when you vote.

I'm envisioning Joe Pesci looking really angry and tilting his head every so often while holding onto the lapels of his suit jacket. Capiche!

JeffG
07-15-2004, 10:54 AM
I really didn't see anything unreasonable in that letter, although the language was definitely firm. Basically, it was just making it clear that the company wasn't prepared to alter the offer again and it outlined the standard consequences of a strike (pay and benefits end while replacement workers take over the jobs).

Obviously, the big question now would be whether either side was bluffing.

-Jeff

AVP
07-15-2004, 12:26 PM
I really didn't see anything unreasonable in that letter, although the language was definitely firm.

Obviously, the big question now would be whether either side was bluffing.
I think it's all an issue of semantics and tone. There are ways of making a point, and ways of making a threat while you make a point. I imagine that the negotiators on both sides of the issue are well-versed in these tactics. Take this phrase:

"We encourage you to carefully consider the consequences of your decision for you and your family when you vote."

On one hand, this is just a bare statement of facts. In another light, it's very threatening - you aren't just talking to an employee about their job, you're bringing their family into it. People don't react with warm and fuzzy feelings when you threaten their families.

I don't necessarily feel that either side has a moral high ground here. In the reply letter, David Cox, the negotiator for the union, wrote "...any attempt to implement some or all of your inadequate offer if it is rejected again..." which really makes me question the motives of the union. If this is an inadequate offer, why did the union advise the membership to approve it during the second vote? If I were a member of that union, I don't think I would be happy about paying a union to negoatiate and recommend what their own consultant calls an inadequate offer.

I imagine both sides are heading back to the table. Neither one wants a strike.

AVP

TP2000
07-15-2004, 01:14 PM
I really didn't see anything unreasonable in that letter, although the language was definitely firm.
-Jeff

I didn't see anything unreasonable or unprofesional about that Disney letter either.

Perhaps those Security Officers should go chat with all of the supermarket employees here in SoCal that spent six months on the picket lines this winter, destroying their families savings and living standards. Security CM's should ask those supermarket employees what they have to show for it, what they gained versus what they lost.

Exactly like the supermarket situation, I think the union is doing a disservice to their CM members by pushing them to the brink like this.

10-8
07-15-2004, 01:35 PM
We don't have a Union pushing us to the brink...our Union is composed of fellow Union Members...President, Board, Trustees, all are fellow Security Officers. What's failed to be mentioned is what came right before Fox's letter was sent. We were told after the last round of negotiations that not only did the Company believe the no vote was due to low voter turn-out, but that the membership did not, and possible could not understand the contract. This of course, was recieved very poorly by the college students and many teachers that make up the work force, as they felt they were perfectly capable of interpreting a contract. But we had open minds, and went to a forum where we were told that Fox was going to answer questions and explain the Companies point of view. What happened was the opposite. Fox would not answer anything! ANYTHING! What was seen by many as the ideal time for the company to make its case, to convince us to vote in favor of the offer did quiet the opposite. Take that into context, and perhaps you can appreciate the decision that the membership of the association.

Squishy
07-26-2004, 11:05 AM
Anything new happening with this. Wondered how the whole process was going?

danyoung
07-26-2004, 11:14 AM
That is very low to threaten someone's family and livelihood just to try to sway them to vote in an 11 month contract that will probably cost them their jobs anyway when Disney outsources.

I don't see where this comes from. The letter clearly stated "temporary
or permanent replacements may be legally employed for those employees
who choose not to report to work. Obviously, their pay will end with
the final day of work." Seems to me that the loss of someone's livelihood is their own choice in this case.

And the letter also stated clearly that "Contrary to some of the concerns that we have heard regarding the duration of the Agreement, there are no current plans to "outsource" Security. Rather, the duration of the Agreement simply provides time to analyze the potential impacts of pending California health care legislation as well as other general business issues." It comes down to believing in the company. Perhaps there's some prior history that would lead some to disbelieve. But it seems to be pretty straightforward.

I'm not a union fan at all, so I don't have too much sympathy for people in this situation. Play your games, push your hand, and when it comes down to it, do what's best for you and your family. And when things don't go your way, blame the evil company for screwing you. That's not the way I've tried to live my professional life.

AVP
07-26-2004, 04:18 PM
Anything new happening with this. Wondered how the whole process was going?I heard yesterday that Disney had submitted the same proposal for vote with one change - a $150 signing bonus if the agreement is ratified. No idea when the balloting will take place.

AVP

Nowhereman
07-27-2004, 02:00 AM
I heard yesterday that Disney had submitted the same proposal for vote with one change - a $150 signing bonus if the agreement is ratified. No idea when the balloting will take place.

AVP

wow. they offer them $150 so they can get screwed for the next 11 months and maybe after it. Vote NO

BJW
07-27-2004, 02:30 AM
I don't see where this comes from. The letter clearly stated "temporary
or permanent replacements may be legally employed for those employees
who choose not to report to work. Obviously, their pay will end with
the final day of work." Seems to me that the loss of someone's livelihood is their own choice in this case.

And the letter also stated clearly that "Contrary to some of the concerns that we have heard regarding the duration of the Agreement, there are no current plans to "outsource" Security. Rather, the duration of the Agreement simply provides time to analyze the potential impacts of pending California health care legislation as well as other general business issues." It comes down to believing in the company. Perhaps there's some prior history that would lead some to disbelieve. But it seems to be pretty straightforward.

I'm not a union fan at all, so I don't have too much sympathy for people in this situation. Play your games, push your hand, and when it comes down to it, do what's best for you and your family. And when things don't go your way, blame the evil company for screwing you. That's not the way I've tried to live my professional life.If Disney were confident that they were providing an amicable solution to this they could have discussed the issues here and not made threats. Instead of pressuring the employees to vote in their favor they could have explained why they thought they should vote in their favor. This letter pretty much showed Disney was anticipating losing the vote on legitimate means so they had to stoop to this.

Of course this letter is going to say they aren't outsourcing, that is not something that they would admit. What would stop them from outsourcing a year later and saying that they weren't planning it this year but decided it a year later based on consultation, such as what Pressler sought with McKenzie. This worries me as Disney has some of the best security in the business and I would hate it if it got as bad as the maintenance.

danyoung
07-27-2004, 06:13 AM
If Disney were confident that they were providing an amicable solution to this they could have discussed the issues here and not made threats.

I'm guessing, with this coming to vote more than once, that all parties have had plenty of opportunity to discuss the issues. I still don't read the letter as threatening. It just seemed to be a realistic statement of what could happen if the vote was no again. Only time will tell if Disney was being forthright in their statement about outsourcing. While they don't neccessarily have to put all cards on the table, I find it hard to believe that they would make a public statement like this if their intention was the opposite. Going on record like that if that wasn't their intention seems like a big blunder. And whatever Disney is these days, they're not stupid.

GrumpyUTboi
07-27-2004, 07:02 AM
This kind of ruins the magic of Disneyland. Anybody with half a brain would understand that that a contract that is for only 11 months will not be renegoitated in a year. Our company did the same thing to our employees. No one had ever talked about outsourcing, but the company sent out a memo stating that they were not going to outsource. I believe that they were giving notice to some people that a change was coming and boy did it ever. The whole corporate office was outsourced. Maybe 5 people that were vital to the company were left in the end.

3894
07-27-2004, 07:06 AM
We encourage you to carefully consider the consequences of your
decision for you and your family when you vote. Remember, this
decision will be made by a majority of Association members who vote.
We encourage you to vote yes and ratify the Agreement.


I do support organized labor and never cross a picket line. I have been a member of two unions and my husband is an active member of his union.

That said, the quote above is not a threat. It is reality. It is also condescending, as if the rank-and-file don't already know these things.

The Mouse Is Back
07-27-2004, 04:53 PM
My father is a Teamster, and I remember him walking picket lines many times when I was a kid. He didn't always agree with what the Union was doing, but he did understand something that I understand also - collective bargaining is the one thing that keeps many (not all) companies from returning us to 19th century working conditions. In the current sociopolitical climate, there has been a resurgence of union-busting tactics on the part of politicians and business owners.

As long as corporations are permitted to make end runs around the law and do everything it takes to improve their profits at the expense of the human beings on whose backs those profits are made, unions will be a necessary evil.

And FYI, even though there were concessions made in the supermarket strike, current employees got what they wanted in the three-year contract. Unfortunately, new employees won't get the same benefits. The grocery industry will lose even more of the already declining customer service that has kept people loyally shopping at their stores. If they don't learn from the examples set by companies such as Costco, who know that how you treat your employees translates into a larger and better customer base, they will eventually cease to exist.



-Allegra-