Walt Disney

Introduction

Walt Disney in the Third world - Sweatshop Labour

When most people from the developed world think of ‘Walt Disney’, they consider Mickey Mouse, Disney Land in Florida, cartoons and cuddly toys as key components under the subject of ‘Walt Disney’. However the real truth is that millions of children in Third world countries are being forced to work in sweatshops to make toys and goods for Walt Disney. Whilst the directors make millions of pounds in profits, millions of children suffer through being exploited and working in terrible conditions for abysmal wages. In 2005 the company had revenues of $31.9 billion.^[1]This is a fine example of globalisation and how it has affected developing countries in the way of sweatshops and their treatment of workers.

Walt Disney sweatshops are heavily involved in producing goods such as clothes, toys, books and games. Children of the Developed world enjoy such goods through using them to play and learn with. However children from Developing countries like Bangladesh, China and Pakistan work for very little wages, barely enough to survive , and in terrible environments. In sweatshops workers injure high accounts of abuse both physical and mental. They have no right to speak out against conditions in case they lose their job and trade unions are forbidden. Many anti globalisation activists “argue that corporations who sell their product in wealthy western countries – at western prices – have a responsibility to pay their workers according to basic western standards�.^[2]However supporters of globalisation and free trade “point to a lower standard of living as an explanation for the low wages and argue that their (corporations) operations benefit the community by providing needed jobs … the choice isn’t between high-paid and low-paid work, but between low-paid or unemployment�.^[3]

An example of sweatshop use by Walt Disney is Niagra Textiles Ltd in Bangladesh. Workers at this sweatshop are treated terribly through the following: - Physically abused through punching and slapping if they are not working fast enough. - Forced to work extremely long hours (14 hours a day seven days a week one day a month off). - Drinking water is very unhealthy. - Sewers paid 11 – 20 cents an hour; helpers are paid 7 – 8 cents an hour. - Docked two days’ wages if they talk back to managers or supervisors. - No one has heard of Disney’s code of conduct. ^[4] These are just some of the conditions which workers face. Workers at such sweatshops have no life apart from working in horrendous conditions for a small pitiful wage that barely buys them enough food to get by. This sweatshop is near the city of Dhaka and employs 1,500 workers, 60 per cent whom are women. Along with Walt – Mart and Sorbino, Walt Disney employs workers to make clothing. Walt Disney accounts for 40 – 50 per cent of total production and benefit greatly from the lack of restrictions placed on working conditions and treatment of workers in Third world countries like Bangladesh.

Workers at this sweatshop came up with their own recommendations which they would like to see changed. All they are looking for is the following: - Provide one day off, Friday, the Muslim holiday. - Immediately end all forms of physical abuse. - Pay overtime and wages correctly and on time. - Pay legal maternity benefits. - Provide a proper place to eat. ^[5] They however are calling for help from people especially developed countries who care about there plight. One interesting point is that workers do not want people to boycott products. This is because if sales slow down, then the production plant will close and workers lose their small livelihood. Instead they want to work with management and Disney to meet their recommendations. Every worker should have the right to safe conditions. “However it is important to be aware that the Disney Company has a long history of punishing workers who dare ask for their basic rights. In the face of such modest demands, Disney has pulled its work from factories in Bangladesh, Haiti and China leaving thousands of workers on the street.� ^[6] Since there are so many Third world countries able to provide sweatshops to translational corporations, Disney are in a powerful position through choice of where they can locate.

Another example of Walt Disney’s poor treatment of Third world workers is that of Chinese sweatshops. China has a large population and therefore can provide vast amounts of cheap labour, ideal for production through the use of sweatshops. Also government suppression is favourable for Disney sweatshops in China with “workers not allowed to organise themselves and having no collective bargaining power.� ^[7]The names of the factories could not be identified in case workers faced punishment as a result of damming reports on the sweatshops. Many of the workers who are keen to work in these sweatshops are migrants from poor rural areas. They move to South China to try and find work, this is the only option available to them. Married women usually are discriminated against and it is usually the young who gain the upper hand in getting jobs. There is a really good example of the massive difference between the top and bottom of Disney. A Chinese worker earns US$62.5 per month, US$750 a year. Michael Eisner CEO of Disney earns an incredible US$4,221,666 per month, US$50,660,000 ‘to the power of 3’a year. This wide gap typifies globalisation. It would take a Chinese worker 260 years to earn what Michael Eisner makes in a day. ^[8]In some sweatshops workers are forced to live and eat in dorms which are described as “pig fed.� Conditions in such dorms are a shambles with workers being forced to sleep 12 in a room. Records holding data are falsified so sweatshops do not get into trouble. “The management often taught workers how to answer the monitors’ interviews.� ^[9]

So how does Disney not get punished for its disgraceful role in the use of sweatshops? Disney does not own the sweatshops that produce goods, it conveniently subcontracts to them. Through subcontracting, Disney can “keep their hands clean by shutting problematic factories. By doing so, Disney can immediately walk away from the disgrace and find new suppliers … there are thousands of factories waving their hands to Disney to show interest in getting contracts.� ^[10] With regards to sweatshops in China, Disney commented by saying “We have a strong International Labour Standards Code of Conduct for Manufacturers and conduct regular social compliance audits of the independently run factories that produce Disney branded merchandise.� ^[11]However this is clearly not the case with sweatshop workers being forced to work in horrendous conditions. Factories only take sufficient action to sort out problems when international pressure is applied against corporations like Disney.

One common development in developing countries where Disney sweatshops are used is the negative environmental impact created. These sweatshops are often built on land which was originally used for agricultural practices. Pollution is a major problem with waste dumped in nearby rivers which has a major affect on water supplies. “Free trade sparks a "race to the bottom" in domestic environmental regulations, fuelled by a bid to attract foreign investment and jobs, or whether countries that maintain high environmental standards face investment and job losses to countries with lower environmental laws (Called the "pollution haven efect")." ^[12]Form this Disney obviously will choose countries which offer lower environmental laws so they do not have the added burden of preserving the environment. Pollution indicators are often adjusted to levels that suit corporations like Disney, damaging the environment as a result. Most governments in developing countries see corporations like Disney as key providers of employment and “lack the financial, technical, and human resources required for regulatory enforcement, even where the regulations exist and enforcement is desired.� ^[13]Before sweatshops arrived to developing countries, agricultural practises were important to the local communities. At least back then the local people have some sort of life instead of being detained and enclosed in these sweatshops morning, noon and night.

Haiti is another example of Disney using sweatshops to produce goods. Historically Haiti has been a prominent location for Disney to use and exploit poor people through the use of sweatshops. “Disney has been buying clothes from the same contractor for 20 years.� ^[14]In Haiti the sweatshop workers face the same poor pay and conditions that have been described earlier in Bangladesh and China. However Haiti was the focus of attention after 12 year old girls were found working in abysmal conditions in a sweatshop which produces goods for Kathie Lee Gifford clothing line. Kathie Lee Gifford clothing works with Disney in producing clothing however this was a scandal which Disney managed to get away with. “Disney continued to escape media scrutiny of its own consumer products; the company did what it could to stabilize Kathie Lee Gifford’s career. When she failed to shake off the scandal, Disney wheeled out the big gun: ABC News.� {re|monitor}} Disney owns ABC News and as a result organised “Prime Time live� which was used to portray a caring attitude to sweatshop workers and bolster Kathie Lee Giffords image. However her image had another set back when employees had not been paid in a sweatshop making Kathie Lee Gifford blouses. “Disney managed to stay clear of media brick bats over sweatshops. Such avoidance is easier when a company owns many large media outlets.� ^[15] This shows that Disney has enormous power and ability to stop any real accusations affecting the success of the company and its sweatshops.

In conclusion Walt Disney’s use of sweatshops and treatment of workers is very poor. Allow many kids and adults in the developed world find Walt Disney fun and friendly, the developing world see it as an almost dictatorship through its controlling practises and poor pay and conditions. In Bangladesh, workers are paid between 7 and 20 cents an hour with conditions that are totally unacceptable. Workers either choose to work in sweatshops or face unemployment. Another example of Disney’s use of sweatshops is that in China was the massive availability of workers. This is a bonus for Disney through millions of people willing to work for poor wages and conditions. Disney manages to use sweatshops through using subcontracting work; this is a safeguard to stop any charges being brought against Disney. The environment is another casualty as a result of corporations like Disney using sweatshops with countries offering less environmental restrictions gaining production. Media control is important in stopping negative campaigns and being in control of situations as shown in the Kathie Lee Gifford and Disney scandal with sweatshop production in Haiti.

Notes

1. ^Wikipedia webpage on Walt Disney
2. ^Wikipedia webpage on sweatshops
3. ^Wikipedia webpage on Sweatshops
4. ^National Labour Committee report on Walt Disney Sweatshops in Bangladesh
5. ^National Labour Committee report on Walt Disney Sweatshops in Bangladesh
6. ^National Labour Committee report on Walt Disney Sweatshops in Bangladesh
7. ^Centre for Research on Multinational corporations Disney's sweatshops in South China
8. ^Centre for Research on Multinational corporations Disney's sweatshops in South China
9. ^Centre for Research on Multinational corporations Disney's sweatshops in South China
10. ^Centre for Research on Multinational corporations Disney's sweatshops in South China
11. ^Disney sweatshops alleged
12. ^Global Trade and Environment
13. ^[www.cal-osha.com/articles/COR04-20050214-000.pdf.aspx White Paper on Occupational Health, Safety, and Environmental Conditions in Sweatshops]
14. ^Kathy Lee, Disney, and the Sweatshop Uproar
15. ^Kathy Lee, Disney, and the Sweatshop Uproar
16. ^Kathy Lee, Disney, and the Sweatshop Uproar

Walt Disney's links to Lobbyists and PR Firms

Mickey Mouse Goes to Washington

As we have seen, the Walt Disney Corporation is not quite the family friendly corporation the general public believes it to be. In this section of the report we will be taking a look at how the Disney Corporation lobby’s politicians and public officials to get what they want and we will also look at how Disney is involved in the political process through their media branch.

On the eve of the second Gulf War, the Walt Disney Corporation won a rare prize when the Federal government permanently closed the airspace above its theme parks in Florida and California ^[16]. The reason for this unprecedented move was to protect the theme parks from terrorist attacks.

What this means is that Walt Disney World and Disneyland now have 24 hour security zones. This means the parks have the same security as President Bush’s Texas ranch and perhaps more incredibly, the same security as such military installations as nuclear submarine bases and storage facilities which house both chemical and nuclear weapons (globalsecurity.org). Perhaps more surprising is the fact that there was no public debate as to whether Disney theme parks should be granted and likewise the Homeland Security Department did not make the request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Congress bent its own rules to help Disney get the no-fly zones because of Disney’s lobbying efforts (globalsecurity.org). The Republican Senators Ted Stevens and Richard Shelby were the driving force behind Disney’s successful request and both of these men were influenced by Disney lobbyist Mitch Rose. Rose just happened to have been one of Senator Stevens’ most trusted aides for nearly a decade, until he left Stevens’ office in 2000, to go and work for Disney, on good terms. This goes way beyond asking an influential friend for a small favour. Granting theme parks the same level of protection as important military facilities is a joke. Naturally though Disney have no qualms about what they have done. Disney officials are unrepentant and insist that they have done nothing wrong by ‘persuading’ lawmakers to order the FAA to give Disney theme parks special protection for the foreseeable future (globalsecurity.org).

The decision has angered pilots across the country however. These pilots have accused Disney of deliberately playing on the nation’s fear of terrorist attacks in order to gain a competitive advantage by closing off the airspace above their theme parks as a means of banning competitors’ aerial advertising planes and sightseeing helicopters (globalsecurity.org). Disney has been fighting against these self-styled guerrilla advertisers who try to lure customers away from Disney to nightclubs and other local attractions for decades. During the height of the Orlando air wars, biplanes towing advertisements and blimps competing for attention were an everyday occurrence (globalsecurity.org). It looks as though Disney has finally found an effective means of defence against these advertisers but these may be the only aircraft which the no fly zones protect the parks from.

According to security experts, the no-fly zones which bar planes from flying below 3000 feet within 3 miles of the centre of the parks- do not provide much protection from potential terrorist aerial attacks. This is because a terrorist in a small aircraft could conceivably fly from outside the zone and reach a park within a matter of seconds (globalsecurity.org). John Pike, the director of globalsecurity.org says, “Apart from warning away law abiding pilots, it’s not clear to me what this is going to buy you. It’s not clear to me what difference this would make unless they’re going to put some SAMs (surface to air missiles) in front of the castle to enforce it.� Despite this assessment, Disney is likely to be delighted that they have finally gotten rid of those pesky aerial advertisers which is likely to have been their aim all along and all it took was to ask for a favour from friends in high places. It is still crazy though to think that Disney had no-fly zones over its theme parks before another potential symbolic target like the Sears Tower in downtown Chicago which happens to be the largest building in the US and one would think an easier target to hit with an aeroplane.

The no-fly zone issue is not the only time in recent memory when Disney has tried to influence the lawmakers. A few years back Disney faced the prospect of losing the copyright on Mickey Mouse and a whole host of classic Disney characters. Of course Disney did not take this lying down and their answer to the problem was to have the company’s chairman Michael Eisner go to Washington and have a quiet word in the ear of the Senate Majority leader Trent Lott, needless to say the meeting was unpublicised (cnn.com). On Michael Eisner’s agenda was tax breaks, visas for animal trainers and transportation to Disney theme parks and of course at the top of the wish list was a plea to Congress to help his company’s number one priority, the HR2589 bill to extend the copyright on Mickey Mouse (cnn.com).

This meeting showed how powerful the Walt Disney Corporation is and how it is not afraid to use its position as America’s largest entertainment company to get what it wants. Moreover, the meeting between the Senate Majority Leader and the corporate executive shows the bipartisan reach and the behind-the-scenes lobbying tactics of Disney (cnn.com). Disney’s covert lobbying campaign is typical of a company that industry insiders say jealously guards its image as a family friendly entertainment company and an all round good guy whilst hiding the other image of a savvy business and political force.

The reason behind this cloak and dagger activity was that Disney stood to lose billions of dollars in revenue if the copyrights were not extended. Critics of the HR2589 bill argued however that Disney had already earned plenty of money from classic movies and characters and that now was the right time to allow other companies to offer videos and other products based on Disney characters when their copyright expires (cnn.com). Critics believe that Disney movies should be available in the public domain the way the works of Shakespeare and Mark Twain are as this means the works are more accessible to more people at a lower price (cnn.com). Another criticism is that it is unfair for one company to get preferential treatment for sweeping legislation that would enable Disney to continue to charge premium prices for products featuring Mickey Mouse and all of his friends.

If we go back a few years further to 1993, Disney was once more involved in a lobbying campaign. This time the company was fighting over its proposals for an American history themed amusement park near the village of Haymarket, Virginia which lies just 35 miles west of Washington D.C. Local officials were enthusiastic as they saw Disney’s America, as the park was to be called, as a major generator of jobs and tax revenues and they also thought that the theme park would significantly boost the states tourist industry (Brooks 1997). Naturally many local people were against the park as they were worried that if the theme park were built then it could cause much harm to northern Virginia in the form of increased pollution, traffic congestion and urban sprawl (Brooks 1997).

The battle heated up once Disney insisted that the state should pay a significant portion of the start up costs associated with the project. Disney argued that this was fair because the park would pay its way in the long-term and so proposed that a tax-incrementing scheme be put in place wherein the funds which were being sought from the state would be repaid out of Disney’s future tax payments (Brooks 1997). This effectively meant that the state would be left out of pocket and not Disney if the project went belly up, which is a great bit of business for Disney but not so great for the taxpayer.

Disney go its way when the General Assembly passed a Bill on the 12th March 1994 which approved a $152.8 million package for Disney. $131.5 million was to spend on road and highway improvements with the rest of the funds to be used for training workers and promoting tourism (Brooks 1997).

Just previous to this announcement, Disney submitted a rezoning request for the site. Approval was sought for 1340 hotel rooms, 2500 residential units (houses, condominiums and apartments), a water park, a zoo, two million feet of commercial space adjacent to I-66 and a 27 hole golf course (Brooks 1997). Astonishingly the rezoning request was approved and so Disney had the go ahead to build its new community.

How was this possible? How had Disney managed to get approval for what was effectively going to be a new community and substantial financial help from the State? The answer is by lobbying very hard behind-the-scenes. Disney’s staunchest ally was the Republican Governor George Allen and it was he who worked tirelessly to convince the Virginia legislature that the state should provide some of the start-up costs of the project (Brooks 1997). In fact, Disney representatives had been working with George Allen when he was just Governor-elect and not even in office. This shows the lengths that Disney were prepared to go to in order to get their project started. Eventually however Disney were forced to pull the plug on the project as the negative press the company was receiving was proving harmful to the company’s squeaky clean image. This only goes to prove that you can buy elected officials but not the average Joe.

As we have seen, Disney has used its lobbying power to influence politicians’ decisions but the company is more deeply involved in American politics than this. During the recent American presidential elections, Disney’s subsidiary Miramax refused to distribute the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11 on the grounds that they did not want to be involved in the middle of a politically orientated film during an election year (fair.org). This is despite the fact that nearly all of Disney’s talk radio stations broadcast Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and both of these shows promote an unremitting Republican political agenda (fair.org).

Furthermore, the Disney Corporation has significant ties to Prince Al-Walid bin Talal who, coincidentally is the primary figure whose connections to President Bush are investigated in Fahrenheit 9/11. Al-Walid first became involved with Disney when he made a large investment into Eurodisney which was in financial difficulties at the time. Disney also scrapped a plan to describe Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in an Epcott Centre display because al-Walid personally asked Michael Eisner to intervene and stop this (fair.org). Disney is thus in the thick of the political process on the side of the Republicans which explains why they decided not to distribute a film which seriously undermines the Bush presidency.

Notes

Conlcusion

According to Wikipedia:

the Walt Disney Company (most commonly known as Disney) (NYSE: DIS) is one of the largest media and entertainment corporations in the world. Founded on October 16, 1923 by brothers Walt and Roy Disney as a small independent animation studio, today it is one of the largest motion picture studios and also owns nine theme parks and several television networks, including ABC.

Disney's corporate headquarters and primary production facilities are located at the Walt Disney Studios in Burbank, California. The company is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. It had revenues of $31.9 billion in 2005.^[17]

Notes

1. ^ Wikipedia page on Walt Disney