Remove ads

Taking the Mickey: A Save Disney Quest

Reader mode
rumours and hearsay might be great for press headlines but they suck for anything legal.

i think us being a farily open company that takes care of our personnel / actors might do more on that front then us trying to push anything.

also maybe not have us have some of the minor dick move rules disney in RL has for its personnel and others might open up more but who knows your talking about high level social crap.
 
Perhaps we should focus on leading by example, rather than rededicating our entire company to vague goals of "rooting out Hollywood corruption" and "purge the filth"?
 
Rumours is enough to provide some form of motivation to actively pursue them however. You asked me how we'd IC know to do anything - that's how. At which point we'd need to find further evidence in support of the abuse.

KnightDisciple said:
Perhaps we should focus on leading by example, rather than rededicating our entire company to vague goals of "rooting out Hollywood corruption" and "purge the filth"?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Why not both? It really is absolutely rampant during this time period from what I recall. I'm not entirely comfortable with sitting back if there is something we can do about it. Leading by example is well and good, but it promotes little change in the heads of Hollywood who have already grown comfy with the current state they're in and would see little reason to flush out the disease in the industry. Leaving it alone isn't going to change anything, just make us a paragon when things do eventually come to light years down the line, wherein we're found to be one of the only industries clean of scandals.
 
DaOneInDaCorner said:
Rumours is enough to provide some form of motivation to actively pursue them however. You asked me how we'd IC know to do anything - that's how. At which point we'd need to find further evidence in support of the abuse.



Why not both? It really is absolutely rampant during this time period from what I recall. I'm not entirely comfortable with sitting back if there is something we can do about it. Leading by example is well and good, but it promotes little change in the heads of Hollywood who have already grown comfy with the current state they're in and would see little reason to flush out the disease in the industry. Leaving it alone isn't going to change anything, just make us a paragon when things do eventually come to light years down the line, wherein we're found to be one of the only industries clean of scandals.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We do not have the mechanisms to prosecute this crusade directly. We can refuse to protect our own people who do these things, we can work to protect victims if we know of them, and we can certainly speak to encourage reform.

But I am hesitant to reach much beyond that.
 
DaOneInDaCorner said:
Why not both? It really is absolutely rampant during this time period from what I recall. I'm not entirely comfortable with sitting back if there is something we can do about it. Leading by example is well and good, but it promotes little change in the heads of Hollywood who have already grown comfy with the current state they're in and would see little reason to flush out the disease in the industry. Leaving it alone isn't going to change anything, just make us a paragon when things do eventually come to light years down the line, wherein we're found to be one of the only industries clean of scandals.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We're running a company, not a counter-espionage operation. We have neither the capacity, nor the reason to specifically target and go on crusades to end Hollywood sexual debauchery and power abuse.
 
PyrrosWarrior said:
We're running a company, not a counter-espionage operation. We have neither the capacity, nor the reason to specifically target and go on crusades to end Hollywood sexual debauchery and power abuse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Beyond the fact that we really should and the next three decades nobody does anything about it (OOC)? For all that this seems like a huge endeavor, what it comes down to is offering a voice to victims and speaking publically about these issues whenever we have evidence to support it. In similar manners to how we've involved ourselves politically, we can do so with this as well. I'd like to kickstart this so there can be active government involvement of some sort. The hope isn't to head it. It's to get things rolling in the hopes of doing this decades in advance.

Admittedly, I get a bit heated when it comes to this topic. However I'm trying to at least remain realistic in regards to this being a quest.
 
Putting the entire Hollywood industry against us right now would probably give us a much bigger Malus than our current -25 from solar for very little gain.

Really, it's just not that kind of quest.

The solar thing was a special case, and it can be argued that solar power advances and the massive pr gain are worth the prices we paid in boards rep, money and possible enmity from big oil, especially because we're actually not at the point they started the REALLY big pushes against global warming, so they could still backtrack if we make it costly enough.

If it happens in our own offices/studios, then that's different
 
Pittauro said:
Putting the entire Hollywood industry against us right now would probably give us a much bigger Malus than our current -25 from solar for very little gain.

Really, it's just not that kind of quest.

The solar thing was a special case, and it can be argued that solar power advances and the massive pr gain are worth the prices we paid in boards rep, money and possible enmity from big oil, especially because we're actually not at the point they started the REALLY big pushes against global warming, so they could still backtrack if we make it costly enough.

If it happens in our own offices/studios, then that's different
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Issue being that it does occur in Disney during this time period. Sexual scandals occurring under Disney's noses can be found going back quite a long ways. The point I was trying to make wasn't to just fight Hollywood, but work towards pushing these issues to light rather than allow it to go on for as long as it did IRL. Ignoring the issue entirely is only going to allow it to continue.
 
I'm not really groking the whole hollywood crusade part of the conversation but I think pushing the wellbeing of people under our employ and indeed giving them public voice and support if need be seems rather clean and unambiguously a right action. Like, we're going to end up knowing about that shit happening in our company because it will happen and won't be the best kept of secrets and at that pointI think doing the right thing is a pretty clear thing.

As for the rest of hollywood outside our banner? We're not a counterespionage group but we can refuse those malign elements as we understand them into our business and specifically ignore whatever shitheap industry blacklisting there is.

Disney as it is is part of the whole covering shit up thing, we don't need to crusade but we could, y'know, not do that and instead focus on the wellbeing of our people.

That's all I think we can do for a good long while and that's all I think we need to do for a good long while and frankly speaking I don't think that's all too hard to so.

Imma be real here, I think the list of situations where we shouldn't be doing that kind of in house cleaning is when our house is clean, it isn't so we should.
 
DaOneInDaCorner said:
Issue being that it does occur in Disney during this time period. Sexual scandals occurring under Disney's noses can be found going back quite a long ways. The point I was trying to make wasn't to just fight Hollywood, but work towards pushing these issues to light rather than allow it to go on for as long as it did IRL. Ignoring the issue entirely is only going to allow it to continue.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
then we'll deal with it IF and WHEN it comes up in the options. I wouldn't be against it then (depending on how the action is presented)

Though we should also deal with that "park employees' wages thing. A bit late, but better than never.
 
Pittauro said:
then we'll deal with it IF and WHEN it comes up in the options. I wouldn't be against it then (depending on how the action is presented)

Though we should also deal with that "park employees' wages thing. A bit late, but better than never.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Seriously, we should hit wages and farmers ASAP
 
Keani said:
Seriously, we should hit wages and farmers ASAP
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think it's too late for farmers, and it wasn't really as important anyway.

Slynnwen said:
-[] No Country For Farmers: You've missed the hearings. All that's left now is the endless congressional debates on how to interpret that information. You can still offer some support, but it's not going to be as effective. This time, it'd also be explicitly political, and not in favor of the current administration or their party. Still, though, it might be worth it.

DC: 65.

Benefits: +10 to all film quality rolls. ???. ???.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We already went political for solars. The administration doesn't really like us right now.

This might be pushing them a bit too far for relatively little gain at this point.
 
Eisner is currently (in quest) peripherally aware of Hollywood's issues, but generally thinks that it's not as bad as it actually is. If asked about the issue, he'd probably mention thinking that Roman Polanski business was terrible, but that things haven't generally been as bad as all that. Not to say that's the case, obviously, but this is still the 80's, and there's still very much a "Boy's Club" mentality at the top of many corporations, and there's still not a very good network for people to talk about these things beyond closed door meetings. That's also not to say you won't have an opportunity to address things coming up, depending on your actions, but you won't see very many explicit options to address these issues just yet.

Keani said:
Seriously, we should hit wages and farmers ASAP
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Too late on farmers, as the legislation under discussion needed to be written for September, and you're moving into OCT-NOV-DEC. You can still talk to the workers, but they've been under a year of pay freeze at this point, and it'd take some doing to work things out.
 
Slynnwen said:
Too late on farmers, as the legislation under discussion needed to be written for September, and you're moving into OCT-NOV-DEC. You can still talk to the workers, but they've been under a year of pay freeze at this point, and it'd take some doing to work things out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But it needs doing, because we should be aware of prices still rising. And it'll be an incredible PR coup if we can come to an agreement that allows us to pay our employees a living wage going forward. And egg on the face of every board of executives that says it's not possible while remaining profitable.
 
KnightDisciple said:
.....How? Like, literally how would we "purge Hollywood", and how is that our responsibility?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Using Disney's influence to alert the public as well as protecting our actors. It's not, yet hollywood is a major source for movie actors, and it's apparently an epidemic. Also, it's an incredible long term goal, so why not? We have already pushed science forward.
 
Slynnwen said:
Too late on farmers, as the legislation under discussion needed to be written for September, and you're moving into OCT-NOV-DEC. You can still talk to the workers, but they've been under a year of pay freeze at this point, and it'd take some doing to work things out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
fair enough, but if we don't unfreeze their pay at some point they'll probably go on strike again.

We can probably sell it as "first we had to make the company profitable again/make some innovations. Now that we're done with it we can afford to raise your wages. Here's some extra, sorry for taking that long"
 
Pittauro said:
fair enough, but if we don't unfreeze their pay at some point they'll probably go on strike again.

We can probably sell it as "first we had to make the company profitable again/make some innovations. Now that we're done with it we can afford to raise your wages. Here's some extra, sorry for taking that long"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmmm, if we raised the pay, and then delivered on back-pay for the time the wages were frozen, it'd be an expensive one-time issue but it would get us some serious love from the workers I think.
 
Pittauro said:
fair enough, but if we don't unfreeze their pay at some point they'll probably go on strike again.

We can probably sell it as "first we had to make the company profitable again/make some innovations. Now that we're done with it we can afford to raise your wages. Here's some extra, sorry for taking that long"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The pay freeze was set to last for 2 years, so there is an endpoint already known.
 
TempestK said:
Hmmm, if we raised the pay, and then delivered on back-pay for the time the wages were frozen, it'd be an expensive one-time issue but it would get us some serious love from the workers I think.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
IF we can take some more actions that raise board relationship then I'd be ok with that. We need to balance the coming hit to our rep from this move with whatever bonuses we can get.
Slynnwen said:
The pay freeze was set to last for 2 years, so there is an endpoint already known.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
good to know, though I can't see how going back on that deal IN THEIR FAVOUR could possibly end badly (except for -x points relationship board)
 
Pittauro said:
good to know, though I can't see how going back on that deal IN THEIR FAVOUR could possibly end badly (except for -x points relationship board)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's more along the lines of their reluctance to come back to the negotiating table after the fight they've just had getting the current deal, rather than them being particularly upset about what exactly you're offering.
 
Slynnwen said:
It's more along the lines of their reluctance to come back to the negotiating table after the fight they've just had getting the current deal, rather than them being particularly upset about what exactly you're offering.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
ok, I don't really understand. Is it that they don't trust we're going to offer them a better deal and fear we're going to prolong the pay freeze? Because I can't see any other reason for the reluctance
 
Pittauro said:
ok, I don't really understand. Is it that they don't trust we're going to offer them a better deal and fear we're going to prolong the pay freeze? Because I can't see any other reason for the reluctance
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They're concerned that things will break down and any potential deal offered will be worse than the current one. At this point, they've lasted through a year of the two year pay freeze, and they'd rather just wait out the rest than come to the table and get a number of options that are all worse than the current ones. They're particularly concerned that even should you offer a better deal, you won't be able to follow through on it and potentially cause further problems down the line. The union knows that you're fairly well liked by the board, which generally doesn't bode well for them. The recent stance on solar power that you made in opposition to some of the board and in favor of more liberal policies has made them more hopeful, but they're still wary.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top