Frequently seen but rarely noticed, the 579-member Disneyland Resort
security department helps reunite lost children with their parents, patrols
the resort and parking areas, and controls backstage access. Since September
11, 2001, the department has been increasingly responsible for implementing
new security measures to protect the resort from a terrorist attack.
Now the security team faces another challenge: negotiating with Disney for a new contract. Last week, for the third time in a contentious negotiation that began in May, Disney’s security employees went to the polls to vote on a proposed contract.
The two prior votes went against the company, but Disney is convinced that low voter turnout skewed the most recent balloting. Though the offer was not changed in any way, Disney is so certain that a new ratification vote will be decided in its favor that it paid the expenses for a revote.
To make sure security cast members knew “what may be the outcome for [them] if the offer submitted is not ratified,” Tom Fox, Director of Labor Relations for the Disneyland Resort, sent a form letter to employees shortly before the election, encouraging them to approve the new contract.
Should the employees again vote down the contract, his July 2 letter warns that “the Resort has the right to implement some or all of the final offer” anyway, and that “understandings reached by [their] Association and the Company may not be implemented.” If the contract is rejected, employees will have a choice – work under the new terms imposed by the company, or find themselves out of work.
The letter goes on to remind employees that Disney has a legal right to replace those security members who “choose not to report to work,” and that those members risk losing their health benefits unless they can make the full COBRA payments to retain their coverage.
Fox ends the letter to cast members with this suggestion: “Carefully consider the consequences of your decision for you and your family when you vote.”
David Cox, representing the Independent Employees Service Association, a small labor organization that represents the security employees, characterized the letter as a “threat,” and rejects claims made by Disney that the negotiations are at an impasse. “The letter from Tom Fox is a threat,” one security officer said. “Many officers were offended by this letter.”
In a written response to Fox, union representative Cox said, “While Disney may believe that it totally controls the process of negotiations, they do not determine when an impasse is reached… Any attempt to implement […] your inadequate offer if it is again rejected will be illegal and result in unfair labor practice charges.”
Labor disputes are nothing new at Disney—it seems that there is always some negotiation issue taking center stage. With so many different unions, it’s almost inevitable. But this time, the dispute could have serious impacts—for everyone.
The Independent Employees Service Association currently represents Disneyland security. The IESA is not affiliated with the AFL/CIO or any of the other large labor organizations. As such, they lack the access to the teams of negotiators many of the other unions have. Instead, the union’s strength is Cox, who spent 15 years on the other side of the negotiating table as the former Senior Vice President for Labor Relations for Walt Disney Attractions. Now retired from Disney, Cox works as a consultant and arbitrator.
The old four-year contract expired back in April, and negotiations began on a new contract. Disney made its first formal offer in early May. That offer was submitted to the members, and rejected substantially. After the offer was modified, it was again resubmitted to the members for a vote.
This time, Cox says that the union reluctantly recommended a yes vote on the proposal, primarily to prevent “economic action” (union-speak for a walk-out or strike) against the company. Despite the union recommendation, employees again rejected the proposal.
On June 28, after cast members rejected the second proposal, the two sides returned to the table. But rather than continuing negotiations, Disney insisted that yet another vote be held on the second proposal. Although more than half of the members voted, Fox claims that a “disproportionately large number of Cast Members failed to vote.”
The union reluctantly agreed to the revote, and new ballots were sent out. Disney held informational meetings with the members, ostensibly to explain to them the reasons for a short contract and the company’s concern. Opinions of the meeting were mixed, with some claiming that Disney representatives were glossing over the concerns of the employees.
In fact, the key issue for the employees boils down to a single issue: Disney is only offering workers an 11-month contract. According to Cox, this is unprecedented. He acknowledged that although there have been a handful of short contracts that were similar in length, those were typically bridge contracts that are readily agreed to by both parties. Disney’s approach in this case, he said, is “highly unusual.”
One officer complained, “The company is refusing to give an explanation on why they want it to last 11 months.”
In the letter to members, Disney claimed, “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.”
Cox says that Disney is referring to California SB 2 (link),
which requires employers to provide health coverage for any employee who
has completed three months of service and who works more than 100 hours
in a month. California voters may repeal SB 2 in the November 2004 election.
Disney’s claims ring hollow for some workers, especially considering that two other unions recently signed contracts with Disney. The Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union signed a four-year contract in April, while the Hotel Engineers union signed a new three-year deal in May. In neither case was SB 2 raised as an issue, nor were shorter contracts demanded of those organizations.
Instead, cast members are concerned about rumors that Disney is planning on outsourcing the security department. Some claim that the short contract is just to buy time for Disney to contract with some other company to take over. While existing contracts prevent a total outsourcing of the department, Disney is allowed to outsource up to 10 percent of the staff to outside companies, and can expand beyond that in certain circumstances. Layoffs or staff reductions as a result of outsourcing are explicitly prohibited. Any changes to that policy would require a modification to the contract. When asked about Disney’s claims that there are no current outsourcing plans, one officer replied, “Many are suspicious, and have no doubt they will eventually try.”
The results of the revote are expected tomorrow. If the offer is again rejected, Cox says that the IESA is ready and willing to return to the bargaining table to continue to negotiate a new settlement. Although Fox called the current offer, “the best package that the management of the Disneyland Resort will propose, he expects that Disney will continue to work towards an agreement.
When contacted for a comment, Tom Fox said, “We have had productive discussions with the IESA leadership and proposed a competitive package that we believe meets the needs of the IESA membership and the Resort. We are hopeful that the package will be ratified.”
