Articles | Disneyland | Walt Disney World
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Abigail Disney's controversial effort to improve CM's lives

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    S. California (from Wisconsin)
    Blog Entries
    1

    Abigail Disney's controversial effort to improve CM's lives

    Howdy Mousplaneteers!

    ("HOWDY, FORMER JUNGLE CRUISE GUIDE, JCRUISE86!")

    This topic got heated on another Disney site & it gets into the heart of the ethics of capitalism, and sorry if there is also a thread on this on this forum.

    Regarding Abigail Disney's admirable effort to close the gap between Disney's American CMs and Iger, someone pointed out, "Interesting in Googling Abigail Disney's net worth, she claims $120 million. Why doesn't she donate some of this to the employees who are getting their food out of trash cans."

    I do admire and agree with Abigail Disney's effort to improve the lives of Disney CM's, but I also wondered if she got to know these impoverished CMs & then gave them each 25K to help them out. I'm very much in favor of Iger making just 30xs what the lowest paid, full-time American CMs earn, but Abigail is not the best messenger.

    In the past she said that rich people should pay more in taxes, but in her case this is not very admirable. It's like "People like me should contribute more, but I'll only do it if a gun is put to my head and everyone in my situation is forced to." Rich people can voluntarily pay more in taxes if they choose. Articles have been published on how to do this.

    ALSO, I remember how she jumped in on Meryl Streep's side when Streep (yes, the greatest film actor in America history), ignorantly attacked Walt Disney.
    I loved Jim Korkis' two part reply to the Streeps & Abigail Disneys of the world, published on right here on Mouseplanet, but I couldn't share the text of the articles. But you should be able to easily find them on Google by searching "Debunking Meryl Streep Jim Korkis."
    Note: there is a Part One and a Part Two.

    So she's a rich, Walt-bashing hypocrite, but she is right that CM's should earn more & that Iger doesn't need to be compensated so outrageously. Warren Buffet also argues that corporate executives don't need to be compensated so heavily, but don't get me started on him.

  2. # ADS

    Join Date
    Location
    Posts
     

  3. #2

    She can't really just voluntarily pay more taxes, even with a gun to her head. It's pretty well documented that she donates a lot to charity. More than half of her net worth. And her net worth is about 2-3 years of Bob Iger's salary.


  4. #3
    Don't get eliminated!
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Long Beach

    I believe she has given over 70 million or so to charity.


  5. #4

    Another interesting point that she apparently misses is that cost of living is so high in that area(all of CA actually but SoCal is as outrageous as the SF Bay Area for housing costs) that most people cannot afford to buy a home or even rent one in some cases, near the area that they work in. My husband worked for the refinery in the Benicia area and made a good wage but with a 3bd/2ba house starting at $500k, there was no way we could buy a house near his work but we didn't go bashing the company for not paying more. We live in NorCal and my son works at a grocery store, full time(6 days a week) and still can't buy a home and has to share rent on a 2bd apartment with 2 other people.

    And not to be cynical(but I am of any overly compensated CEO or anyone who is essentially living on the money that previous generations made) but the extremely wealthy who donate huge sums to charity, usually do it to reduce their tax bill, not always out of the goodness of their hearts.

    If she's so Anti-Disney, she can go ahead and renounce her inheritance and then maybe her complaints will be more valid. She's not exactly impartial when she is living off the money she inherited FROM her Disney relatives AND still holds stock in the company. I'd bet my sweet bippy that if Disney stock became worthless and was not generating income, she would be singing a different tune.

    I also don't think Iger or any CEO of any company needs to make that much money but then again, money doesn't solve anyone's problems and usually tends to make people easy targets for others.


    Darlene aka MotoGP Goddess

  6. #5

    "By the time she was in her 20s, the documentary filmmaker and Disney heiress Abigail Disney was "embarrassed" by the family money she'd inherited, she told The Cut" Well, it's perfectly legal and legitimate to refuse an inheritance especially if it truly embarrasses her. Nothing in the inheritance law says that she has to accept it or even keep it. Nothing at all. Nothing is forcing her to keep the Disney name but I can bet you it opened doors for her film career even as she claims to be embarrassed by it. Hmmmmm


    Darlene aka MotoGP Goddess

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by KB1ankenship View Post
    I believe she has given over 70 million or so to charity.
    Yes, she has according to her interview with The Cut but it's over 30yrs, she's not giving away that much annually. "About how much money have you given away?
    I’ve given away in the range of $70 million in the last 30 years. I’m proud of that. I’m in a position to continue giving a lot of money away until the day I die. I really considered giving it all away at a certain point in my 20s, and I know people who did that. And I wish I could tell you that it was courage that kept me from doing that, but it was mortal fear. I didn’t think I would be able to survive. I was afraid I was a hothouse flower. I didn’t know if I could live on my own.

    Now I’m glad I didn’t give it all away, because my money has grown. Now I’ve given away so much more than I inherited. And I’m so much smarter now. What I would’ve done in my 20s would have been great and nice, but I’m so much more effective now."
    https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/abiga...ver-spend.html

    Darlene aka MotoGP Goddess

  8. #7

    Disney also limits most CMs to 20 hours per week. And they schedule them for short shifts on multiple days, which discourages a second job. It's easy to say they should find another job before they criticize their employer. Many don't. Anaheim is a company town and people know the situation of the ones who work for Disney and will tell the story for them. Keeping your employees under 20 hours benefits Disney. They could have fewer overall employees and given some more hours. If Disney paid their employees less, treated them worse and told them too bad, people at the Benecia refinery can't afford a $500k house then what would the park experience be like for the already demanding guests? Just look at this forum, full of complaints about Disney not meeting expectations and not spending money on entertainment and expanded menus, shorter hours, not enough extra events, etc. If you think that CMs should be homeless and silent, maybe Disney isn't a company you should do business with either.


  9. #8

    I never said they should be homeless and silent and I never said that they should just find another job(no one has the ability to "just quit and go work somewhere else", at least not in most areas). We live in CA because that's where the job was. We live in CA now even though my husband retired for the simple "the Devil you know" issue. Could we sell our house and move now?(we no longer live near the Bay Area, and live in a small ag town) Sure, but who's to say we would not be in a worse situation in another state the same as who's to say that people who quit jobs of any kind due to whatever reason(hours, pay, schedule, etc) are able to find jobs that are better than where they are? It's all a crap shoot. And again, not just Disney as a corporation, Rite-Aid and WalMart in this area will not hire full time workers(most places actually don't anymore) but will work them right up to 29.25hrs/week so that they get the most out of them but don't have to give them benefits. This is nothing new. Businesses have been doing this since I got my first part-time job 32yrs ago. My older son who works full time was actually working 48hrs a week for the first year of his job but as a part time employee so that they did not have to offer benefits. His schedule was 4 days a week but they called him in to work two extra days a week while keeping him on the payroll at part time(it's legal in CA to do that because CA says the employee is not required to go in on his/her unscheduled days even if they are asked to come in by the manager)and it wasn't until he was there for 1yr tht he was given benefits but is still classified as a part time employee so his SOC for his medical benefits is higher than a full time employee. Could he refuse to work extra days? Sure. Could he afford to live in his apartment and pay his bills and try to find a second job to work with his first job schedule? Sure. Would it happen? Very unlikely so he stays, pays extra for his medical benefits and makes $15/hr after 2yrs and still has to pay union dues. LOL Disney is only more high profile so people can point to it and say "Evil corporation" because saying the same thing while pointing to a mom & pop store or non-chain restaurant does not get the headlines and there's no story but the small businesses face the same problems and share the same problems. They'd rather hire 16 part time wait staff and not pay benefits so they can keep overhead low than hire 8 full time wait staff and have to offer them benefits. I don't bash Disney because I see it in all business and there are always two sides to every story(well three sides. The employees, the companies and the media LOL)


    Darlene aka MotoGP Goddess

  10. #9

    I don't understand what your past inability to afford a house at a certain price point in a certain area or your son's inability to buy a house or his need for roommates or his work hours has to do with Disney employees. People seem to have a response when someone tries to point out these kinds of issues that's like, "You inherited money, so your opinion isn't valid." Or "Other people have it bad too, so they shouldn't be complaining." Well, if all someone wants to do is talk about themselves and use false equivalencies to shift the conversation, I'm not sure how much weight their opinion should have either.

    So I ask, what exactly is wrong with what she is saying, other than your issue with her inheritance?


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •