Disney Asking Employees To Help Fund Copyright Lobbying

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
This seems pretty legit—after all, Disney is a relatively small company whose CEO only managed to earn a paltry $45 million in the last fiscal year.

The Walt Disney Company has a reputation for lobbying hard on copyright issues. The 1998 copyright extension has even been dubbed the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act” by activists like Lawrence Lessig that have worked to reform copyright laws. This year, the company is turning to its employees to fund some of that battle. Disney CEO Bob Iger has sent a letter to the company’s employees, asking for them to open their hearts—and their wallets—to the company’s political action committee, DisneyPAC.
 
Why doesn't the CEO take a pay-cut to help pay for the copyright battle, since he has the most to lose. The people below him make way way less money. :(
 
My local IATSE Union tried to get me along with all the rest of my local members to do a anti-pirating video, I walked away...

Some of my Union brothers weren't very happy with me, but I don't believe pirating is to blame. The guys on top keep making more and we keep getting less, hell, they took our raises from last year away and drop our holiday pay from 8hrs to 4hrs. Every year something else gets lost in contracts and every year the top above the liners make more and more.
 
Last edited:
My only question is "why?".

Why does Disney need it's employees money to fight it's own battles? This genuinely has to be the weirdest thing I've seen today.
 
"For your convenience, DisneyPAC has implemented a payroll deduction system, through which your contributions to the PAC will be deducted from your weekly paycheck," Iger explains.

LOL!!!!

While they're at it, they should ask their employees to donate to a fund to help the company purchase office supplies.
 
Yes, stuff like this happens and yes, it is perfectly legal, but No. This is in bad taste. If he cared that much he could bankroll the entire thing himself and leave his poor employes alone
 
This is how I feel every time I see some actor or actress on tv asking for you to give money to some charity they started. Fuck you, you have money and most that you are asking to give you money don't. Same here, fuck you, you have money, the people you are asking to give you money don't.
 
Did you know that the DIsney Princess line by alone makes DIsney 3 Billion a year? Just a fact I learned some time ago, it could be more today. A stunt like this... makes no sense at all.
 
so the company that is fighting a legal battle because they trusted a company with assets, who then turned around and used those cg assets to make a snuff film... after firing three quarters of it developers because infinity was costing too much because they wanted to price match sky landers only slightly higher because some one thought that the Disney name carried more weight with kids... humm maybe they should have cleaned the park in California, leaving it dirty so that it looks old and used by kids because it does not rain that much... hummm Disney started in Florida where it rains every day but moved teh head quarters to California to be a corporation instead of the original company the Walt Disney company because the original company was a sole proprietorship owned by Walt Disney and you can not use company in the trade mark. so that the existing corporation or the Walt Disney media group or the Walt Disney family of companies is either a new company with a different setup as you can buy shares in it... or they converted it to a company with shares at his death and are trying to convert it to a corporation with everyone one owning shares investing in it and claiming that is their vesting amount... funny that means they are either going to transfer all the assets to the new corporation and fold the shares at zero dollars for the existing companies or corporations... it is investment fraud but most people usually do not read what they sign if it is required to get a pay check. When I worked there I cross stuff out and got the Disney Rep to initial it without her getting approval because she just shrugged. I only own share in what was the Walt Disney Company but I think it is funny that clearly someone is playing fast and lose like usual.
 
It's not unusual for a company to ask its employees to back causes that the company thinks is beneficial. But of course some of Disney's actions recently might not help inspire employees to do so.
 
Last edited:
heatlesssun said:
It's not unused for a company to ask its employees to back causes that the company thinks is beneficial. But of course some of Disney's actions recently might not help inspire employees to do so.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that Apple employees are asked to pay part of their paycheck to pay the lawyers for all the lawsuits they fight in court?
 
Exavior said:
So you are saying that Apple employees are asked to pay part of their paycheck to pay the lawyers for all the lawsuits they fight in court?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I was just saying the companies will often solicit employees to chip in for certain causes. I've been there and I know many others that have been there as well. Probably not minor things like specific patented suits though.
 
drakken said:
so the company that is fighting a legal battle because they trusted a company with assets, who then turned around and used those cg assets to make a snuff film... after firing three quarters of it developers because infinity was costing too much because they wanted to price match sky landers only slightly higher because some one thought that the Disney name carried more weight with kids... humm maybe they should have cleaned the park in California, leaving it dirty so that it looks old and used by kids because it does not rain that much... hummm Disney started in Florida where it rains every day but moved teh head quarters to California to be a corporation instead of the original company the Walt Disney company because the original company was a sole proprietorship owned by Walt Disney and you can not use company in the trade mark. so that the existing corporation or the Walt Disney media group or the Walt Disney family of companies is either a new company with a different setup as you can buy shares in it... or they converted it to a company with shares at his death and are trying to convert it to a corporation with everyone one owning shares investing in it and claiming that is their vesting amount... funny that means they are either going to transfer all the assets to the new corporation and fold the shares at zero dollars for the existing companies or corporations... it is investment fraud but most people usually do not read what they sign if it is required to get a pay check. When I worked there I cross stuff out and got the Disney Rep to initial it without her getting approval because she just shrugged. I only own share in what was the Walt Disney Company but I think it is funny that clearly someone is playing fast and lose like usual.
Click to expand...





confusion-gif.gif
 
This is an almost perfect combo of things I think are wrong in business:

1. Paying lobbyists to change the law.
2. An enormous corporation trying to exercise even more power.
3. An overpaid CEO.
4. A fantastically profitable company trying to shift costs on to workers.

It's kind of amazing actually.
 
tetris42 said:
This is an almost perfect combo of things I think are wrong in business:

1. Paying lobbyists to change the law.
2. An enormous corporation trying to exercise even more power.
3. An overpaid CEO.
4. A fantastically profitable company trying to shift costs on to workers.

It's kind of amazing actually.
Click to expand...


It's pretty much "Capitalism: the thing"
 
Mut1ny said:
My only question is "why?".

Why does Disney need it's employees money to fight it's own battles? This genuinely has to be the weirdest thing I've seen today.
Click to expand...

It's all part of the trend to externalize as many costs as possible onto someone else. As long as MY bottom line isn't affected, who cares what impact it has on the wider economy? Hilariously short-sighted, but that's what unchecked, crack-cocaine capitalism does. So long as there is a hard-core group of short-term thinkers, everyone else is put at a competitive disadvantage and has to play the race to the bottom in order to remain in the race at all.
 
The CEO isn't overpaid, he's worth every cent.

/republicans
/most of this site

Plot twist: I generally find that republicans have the right ideas about the economy, except that one and a few others.

I bet most people at Disney contribute for fear of not looking like team players if they don't.
 
OEM said:
The CEO isn't overpaid, he's worth every cent.

/republicans
/most of this site
Click to expand...
Wut? At least in this thread, it seems people think this "request" is retarded and that the CEO should shell his own money out.
 
KazeoHin said:
It's pretty much "Capitalism: the thing"
Click to expand...

There is a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism (Crony capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). These large corporations shouldn't have more influence over laws and the country vs. the general public. Personally, I think it's getting out of hand. I like capitalism, but when it becomes a corporate owned government (pretty much headed there), it's too far. Some are resisting, but they can still have laws changed to their favor with lobbyists (with a little extra clout and cash) and such.
 
Companies ask their employees for money or support of company causes all the time. As long as they don't coerce their employees to participate I don't see anything wrong with this. Ultimately it is no different than companies doing their annual United Way charity drives with specific monetary targets they are trying to hit (and encouraging employees to take payroll deductions to hit the goals). I think there are also some limited controls on the PACs that prevent a single individual from just plopping 100 million in the PAC, so they are forced to seek donations from multiple sources. Ultimately a Disney PAC probably does more to help Disney employees than a non-Disney oriented PAC though.
 
My company has a PAC, but it's not pushed on people like that. We are aware of it, but it's never put into the Girl Scout mode where they are begging for donations.
 
OEM said:
The CEO isn't overpaid, he's worth every cent.

/republicans
/most of this site
Click to expand...

Where in the HELL are you getting "/most of this site" from??? Pull your head outta yur ass and quit assuming everything.
 
kbrickley said:
Companies ask their employees for money or support of company causes all the time. As long as they don't coerce their employees to participate I don't see anything wrong with this. Ultimately it is no different than companies doing their annual United Way charity drives with specific monetary targets they are trying to hit (and encouraging employees to take payroll deductions to hit the goals). I think there are also some limited controls on the PACs that prevent a single individual from just plopping 100 million in the PAC, so they are forced to seek donations from multiple sources. Ultimately a Disney PAC probably does more to help Disney employees than a non-Disney oriented PAC though.
Click to expand...
Don't see anything wrong with this huh? Disney is raising money to pay lobbyists to change the law even more in their favor while they're already prospering tremendously. That's hardly the same thing as a food drive for United Way. Not only is that anti-democratic, but since we're talking about copyright, this mentality has brought us such hits as CISPA, SOPA, and lately, the TPP. Letting wealthy interests do the representing instead of the people is everything that's wrong with politics today.
 
tetris42 said:
Don't see anything wrong with this huh? Disney is raising money to pay lobbyists to change the law even more in their favor while they're already prospering tremendously. That's hardly the same thing as a food drive for United Way. Not only is that anti-democratic, but since we're talking about copyright, this mentality has brought us such hits as CISPA, SOPA, and lately, the TPP. Letting wealthy interests do the representing instead of the people is everything that's wrong with politics today.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree with Disney's position on copyright legislation but I support their right of free speech to ask their employees for help. When I worked for Intel back in the 90's they generally stayed out of the overt political arena and they never asked for monetary support for their lobbying, but they did send global emails to employees twice asking them to write to their Congressmen and Senators on pending stock option changes and H1B visa rules (neither broke in Intel's favor). As I said, I see nothing wrong with an employer asking their employees for help on a political issue, as long as the help is voluntary.
 
kbrickley said:
I don't necessarily agree with Disney's position on copyright legislation but I support their right of free speech to ask their employees for help. When I worked for Intel back in the 90's they generally stayed out of the overt political arena and they never asked for monetary support for their lobbying, but they did send global emails to employees twice asking them to write to their Congressmen and Senators on pending stock option changes and H1B visa rules (neither broke in Intel's favor). As I said, I see nothing wrong with an employer asking their employees for help on a political issue, as long as the help is voluntary.
Click to expand...
First off, paying lobbyists to pressure legislators to get laws changed is not free speech. It's buying government influence and a lifetime ago it would have been considered a form of bribery. Stuff like this is ground zero for how government is corrupted. It begins to represent the interests of whoever is paying the most, rather than the constituency.

Second, while not as big an issue, employers asking for employees to change things politically adds additional pressure that a peer doesn't. A person's livelihood depends on the income they get, so there's implied pressure to fit in with the company culture in order to advance. It's of course not as blunt as "contribute to this or you won't get promoted", but it does influence the individual to a certain degree. You say as long as it's voluntary, but you are literally being paid by the company making the political request of you, so I don't see how that can ever be a completely voluntary relationship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top