Disney lays off workers, makes them train their foregin replacements

[Meshugger]

 

//edit: I am always under the assumption that the employee see honest work as the best pay in itself. The wage is just a matter of negotiation of self-interest between the interested parties.

Go home Mehugger, youre drunk.

 

 

I am an eternal positivist. It's my doom

[Malcador]

 

I bet all those pinko-commie leftist garbage people here will come to complain soon.

Reporting for duty!

 

 

Disney is a publicly traded company, their only loyalty is to the bottom line. If you want better conditions and protection for US citizen jobs look to legislation, not Disney doing the 'right thing'.

Yeah, one shouldn't expect corporations to do the right thing, because... reasons. Regardless, I wouldn't hold my breath for legislation to fix this mess, because legislation is literally bought and paid for by the corporations it benefits.

 

So I can't expect corporations not to **** me over, and I can't expect the Man not to **** me over. Hmm, that's nice. But not to worry, I'm sure that putting a piece of paper in a plastic box next year will totally change things this time.

 

 

 

*thinks of puppies and sunshines*

Putting brass in that steel container will..

 

 

(Not really, but that one liner feels natural at this moment)

Edited June 4, 2015 by Malcador

[Zoraptor]

I think the outsourcing works well enough, for companies, for certain things (eg texture farms in gaming) and in certain situations (mostly natural monopolies or those with a high cost/ high inertia towards moving provider) but is generally a false economy. It's one of those things, if I go into a retail store and am served by an Indian or Filipino or Chinese I couldn't care less- but if I phone someone or someone phones me and I get "Hi I'm Sanjiv Philip, I will be reading a script to you today, be unable to respond to any questions outside my flow chart and not be able to fix your problem as a result" I'm immediately expecting crap service designed solely to save the company money and my problem not to be fixed. Life is too short to spend four hours talking to someone whose job is basically not to provide service but to be as cheap as possible instead.

 

Not "Philip's" fault of course, they're just doing their job with very little leeway and very little actual cultural understanding and training. But every time I speak to his equivalent I end up annoyed frustrated and basically with a asterisk you [companyname] attitude, hardly constructive for them. Despite the stereotype it has also happened with a British based call centre, though at least the person I talked to then admitted straight away that they wouldn't be able to fix the problem and needed a supervisor; shame that the supervisors were on duty 9-5 UK time- ie 9pm to 5am our time, with the hours the business I was working at being... 6am to 8pm.

[Nonek]

The humble migrant interviewee is told by the Disney executive that she has good news and bad news for him, so of course he asks:

 

"What is the good news kind Madam?"

 

"You've succeeded and won a job at Disney."

 

Filled with elation the young man smiles, and then frowns. "If I may ask Madam, what is the bad news?"

 

"It's Disneyland Paris."

 

"****!"

 

Edit: Can you imagine a Disneyland opening in England though, the poor customer service, the painfully rendered smiles on wan English cheeks, the awkward attempts to be jolly, Micky sneaking off for a pint and a cigarette every half an hour, Sleeping Beauty nine months due and swearing like a docker. I think we'd be worse to be honest.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Nonek

[Guard Dog]

Well, after this I can say I will never go to Disney World again! Of course that was pretty much true before I read this but still....

[Syraxis]

These decisions to replace local tech workers with cheap foreign labor tend to be reversed a couple years later when the "talent" turns out to lack the advertised skills and project managers start getting fired for missed deadlines.

 

It used to happen a lot in the early 2000's, nothing new here.

[Gromnir]

lay off workers for cheap foreign replacements? add robots is better, but it's not cyberpunk enough to be genuine interesting to us.  

 

DisneSoft becomes involved in the privatization o' prison and corrections and manages to get groovy new legislation passed.  criminals can sell their brain space or bodies to get reduced sentences. DisneSoft could then use networked prisoners' sleeping brains to do complex computer processing tasks, or could use the functional lobotomized (albeit temporary)  prisoners to do all kinda monotonous tasks for no pay save reduction o' sentences. program a serial rapist to do shaddysands job?  have the rapist work 20 hours a day with no pay for 2 years to be getting sentence reduced from 8 years.  even better, complex tech skills forced into the criminal brain would remain after completion o' sentence, and the criminal, once released, would have much better chance o' gaining employment... if not made irrelevant by other DisneSoft convict drones.

 

wake us up when this story brakes.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements/ar-BBkE3Ud?ocid=HPCDHP

 

I have to say this is a good example of the principles of Capitalism going too far 

 

 

For better or worse, it's capitalism working as intended. The much lauded invisible hand working its magic.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements/ar-BBkE3Ud?ocid=HPCDHP

 

I have to say this is a good example of the principles of Capitalism going too far 

 

 

No, as JadedWolf has accurately pointed it out, this is capitalism doing what capitalism does.

 

Which is, incidentally, why libertarian "let the free market run its course, it will work out in the end, honest" views fill me with utter dread.

 

 

That's the thing Capitalism doesn't have to be like that, the doctrine of Capitalism doesn't say "  profit at all costs "

 

There is an expected balancing act where you consider things like basic human rights. I live in a  country where we see this all the time, Capitalism works...it can really uplift people if they are prepared to work. But this type of thoughtlessness and greed needs to be condemned 

[213374U]

 

 

I bet all those pinko-commie leftist garbage people here will come to complain soon.

Reporting for duty!

 

 

Disney is a publicly traded company, their only loyalty is to the bottom line. If you want better conditions and protection for US citizen jobs look to legislation, not Disney doing the 'right thing'.

Yeah, one shouldn't expect corporations to do the right thing, because... reasons. Regardless, I wouldn't hold my breath for legislation to fix this mess, because legislation is literally bought and paid for by the corporations it benefits.

 

So I can't expect corporations not to **** me over, and I can't expect the Man not to **** me over. Hmm, that's nice. But not to worry, I'm sure that putting a piece of paper in a plastic box next year will totally change things this time.

 

 

 

*thinks of puppies and sunshines*

Putting brass in that steel container will..

 

 

(Not really, but that one liner feels natural at this moment)

 

 

Damn son, you got that from a Clint Eastwood flick?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/last-task-after-layoff-at-disney-train-foreign-replacements/ar-BBkE3Ud?ocid=HPCDHP

 

I have to say this is a good example of the principles of Capitalism going too far 

 

 

No, as JadedWolf has accurately pointed it out, this is capitalism doing what capitalism does.

 

Which is, incidentally, why libertarian "let the free market run its course, it will work out in the end, honest" views fill me with utter dread.

 

 

That's the thing Capitalism doesn't have to be like that, the doctrine of Capitalism doesn't say "  profit at all costs "

 

 

But it does tend to foster a culture where personal worth is closely tied to material worth, which leads to the rise of "temporary profit at all costs" thinking at the top.

Edited June 5, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Rosbjerg]

This is why you, at minimum, need a flexible system that's also secure for the worker and employeer.. a flexicurity! Administered and legislated by the local governments. So laying off people when it's time to downsize doesn't destroy the local community.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

That's the thing Capitalism doesn't have to be like that, the doctrine of Capitalism doesn't say "  profit at all costs "

It doesn't? Then what does the doctrine of capitalism say?

 

There is an expected balancing act where you consider things like basic human rights. I live in a  country where we see this all the time, Capitalism works...it can really uplift people if they are prepared to work. But this type of thoughtlessness and greed needs to be condemned

 

It can also create large swaths of people enslaved by various debts who are required to spend most of their earnings paying off those debts. This is compounded in low-income areas, where payday loans keep people in a cycle of perpetual debt. A few people becoming millionaires because of a lucky investment doesn't negate that.

[Amentep]

 

That's the thing Capitalism doesn't have to be like that, the doctrine of Capitalism doesn't say "  profit at all costs "

It doesn't? Then what does the doctrine of capitalism say?

 

AFAIK unless there's some newfangled definition, Capitalism only states that means of production, trade and industry aren't controlled (or aren't majority controlled) by the State, that generally private ownership and accumulation of capital are expected.  There is wage labor, competitive markets and negotiation of prices. There's actually nothing in that that inherently says anything about profit (or for that matter, treating people ethically).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

That's the thing Capitalism doesn't have to be like that, the doctrine of Capitalism doesn't say "  profit at all costs "

 

It doesn't? Then what does the doctrine of capitalism say?

AFAIK unless there's some newfangled definition, Capitalism only states that means of production, trade and industry aren't controlled (or aren't majority controlled) by the State, that generally private ownership and accumulation of capital are expected.  There is wage labor, competitive markets and negotiation of prices. There's actually nothing in that that inherently says anything about profit (or for that matter, treating people ethically).

Well he did say "doctrine of capitalism" so I assumed he was talking about something different than the definition. Granted I have a hard time understanding what Bruce is on about most of the time.

[Amentep]

Yeah I read "doctrine" as "definition" so I may have been ass-u-me-ing us all.

[BruceVC]

 

 

That's the thing Capitalism doesn't have to be like that, the doctrine of Capitalism doesn't say "  profit at all costs "

It doesn't? Then what does the doctrine of capitalism say?
 

There is an expected balancing act where you consider things like basic human rights. I live in a  country where we see this all the time, Capitalism works...it can really uplift people if they are prepared to work. But this type of thoughtlessness and greed needs to be condemned

It can also create large swaths of people enslaved by various debts who are required to spend most of their earnings paying off those debts. This is compounded in low-income areas, where payday loans keep people in a cycle of perpetual debt. A few people becoming millionaires because of a lucky investment doesn't negate that.

 

 

 

That's the thing Capitalism doesn't have to be like that, the doctrine of Capitalism doesn't say "  profit at all costs "

It doesn't? Then what does the doctrine of capitalism say?

 

AFAIK unless there's some newfangled definition, Capitalism only states that means of production, trade and industry aren't controlled (or aren't majority controlled) by the State, that generally private ownership and accumulation of capital are expected.  There is wage labor, competitive markets and negotiation of prices. There's actually nothing in that that inherently says anything about profit (or for that matter, treating people ethically).

 

 

Well there are various definitions but the most accurate one I use is similar to yours but adds something like "  and profit made is reinvested into the company to provide for growth"  so yes there is nothing in Capitalism to justify the appalling behavior at Disney

 

You see every company also has a code of conduct or manifesto that would say something like "   and we believe in a healthy, happy and fair work environment for our staff "  so quite simply Disney should have balanced this view with the impact of replacing staff like they did. And they should have come to the decision thats its immoral and a contradiction to what Disney stands for and or should stand  for 

[BruceVC]

Yeah I read "doctrine" as "definition" so I may have been ass-u-me-ing us all.

 

 

 

 

 

That's the thing Capitalism doesn't have to be like that, the doctrine of Capitalism doesn't say "  profit at all costs "

It doesn't? Then what does the doctrine of capitalism say?

AFAIK unless there's some newfangled definition, Capitalism only states that means of production, trade and industry aren't controlled (or aren't majority controlled) by the State, that generally private ownership and accumulation of capital are expected.  There is wage labor, competitive markets and negotiation of prices. There's actually nothing in that that inherently says anything about profit (or for that matter, treating people ethically).

Well he did say "doctrine of capitalism" so I assumed he was talking about something different than the definition. Granted I have a hard time understanding what Bruce is on about most of the time.

 

 

Yes I meant definition

[Ineth]

 

That's the thing Capitalism doesn't have to be like that, the doctrine of Capitalism doesn't say "  profit at all costs "

It doesn't? Then what does the doctrine of capitalism say?

 

"Pursue happiness in whatever way you wish, as long as your interaction with others (be it cooperation, trade, etc.) happens on a voluntary basis and respects everyone's civil and property rights."

 

[JadedWolf]

[Citation needed]

[BruceVC]

[Citation needed]

 

Why would you need one, its more a view and perspective that people adopt which then would influence general corporate culture

 

The company I work for has similar morals and business principles 

[Meshugger]

"Touch my stuff and i will shoot you, and if I touch your stuff, just go ahead and shoot me. But you and me both like to own stuff, ain't that a bugger?"

 

Citation - me

Edited June 5, 2015 by Meshugger

[HoonDing]

I was going to make a Marvin the Martian joke, then I realized that one was Warner Bros.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I'm glad I'm in a job where it's legislated by the Government that I must be physically in the Commonwealth to do my job. With current Technology, I could do my job outside of Australia but I'm not allowed to. So I'm safe from being outsourced.

[Oerwinde]

I saw in some documentary somewhere that corporations by law have to put profits before people. At least in the US.

 

Found a link that sort of explains what I'm talking about

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm

[kgambit]

I saw in some documentary somewhere that corporations by law have to put profits before people. At least in the US.

 

Found a link that sort of explains what I'm talking about

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm

 

Sorry but NO.  There is no such mandate in US corporate law. 

 

The author's reference to section 716 in section A of the Maine Corporate Law is false.  The entirety of Section A of the Maine Corporate Law statutes was repealed in 2001 and replaced by section C.  The clause the author refers to DOES NOT EXIST any longer (and in point of fact, it did not exist when he wrote that article). And there is no similar clause in section C.

 

Although the duties of the director's section in section C now reads as follows:

 

Title 13-C; §831. Standards of conduct for directors

6. Interests of other constituencies.  In discharging their duties, the directors and officers of the corporation may, in considering the best interests of the corporation and of its shareholders, consider the effects of any action upon employees, suppliers and customers of the corporation, communities in which offices or other establishments of the corporation are located and all other pertinent factors.

 

That's hardly a profits over people clause now is it? 

 

http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/13-A/title13-Ach7sec0.html

 

http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/13-B/title13-Bch0sec0.html

 

http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/13-C/title13-Cch0sec0.html

 

 

Now I'm not about to check all corporate statutes for all 50 states but I did check NC and there is no such clause that mandates "profits before people" in the North Carolina Corporate statues either. 

 

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_55.html

 

In fact, there is no requirement in the Maine or NC statutes that obligates corporations to pay dividends to share holders.  In NC, the statute says this:

 

§ 55-6-40.  Distributions to shareholders.

(a)        A board of directors may authorize and the corporation may  make distributions to its shareholders

 

There is no compulsory distribution required, and no legal requirement that "profits come first".

 

PS:  And just so there is no confusion, I don't agree with what Disney did at all.

Edited June 7, 2015 by kgambit