Walt Disney World Cast Members on furlough told to expect a continuation beyond 6 months

Aug 25, 2020 in "The Walt Disney Company"

Posted: Tuesday August 25, 2020 8:55am ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

Walt Disney World Cast Members that have yet to be called back to work have been advised that their furlough could extend beyond six months.

In an email sent to furloughed Cast Members, Disney said that, "We continue to manage through this pandemic, and based on your role, you will continue to remain on furlough until further notice. When we initially notified you of your furlough, we could not have anticipated that it could exceed six months. However, due to business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time and given the unprecedented and ongoing nature of the pandemic and its impact on our businesses, we regret to inform you that we now reasonably expect your furlough could extend beyond six months from your initial furlough date. We wish we had been able to provide you with more notice, and we have acted as quickly as we could, given the rapidly changing situation."

The email goes on to say that although the company hopes the furloughs are temporary, the unpredictable nature of the pandemic creates uncertainty.

Among the worst hit departments is entertainment, which has been affected particularly hard with very little character dining, and no character meet or parades taking place. Restaurant workers, servers and house keeping are also heavily impacted by the reduced operational status throughout the resort.

Discuss on the Forums
View all comments →

HauntedMansionFLAMay 11, 2021

Maybe you sit in your living room with a mask on, search for your favorite cruise video on YouTube and stay safe??😉

SirwalterraleighMay 10, 2021

BUMP!!!

nickysMay 10, 2021

Pardon? What are on-line cruises?

GaharitMay 10, 2021

In principle, attendance during the quarantine period cannot be evaluated. Let's talk about the sites where online cruises are open and argue about the visit and the audience. It seems to me now that the total horror has come, and no one knows what will happen next, it is better to engage in self-education. I constantly sit on forums dndguide.net where they can tell me something new, I do self-study and not self-flagellation. This is much better, and on dndguide you can learn a lot of things for self-development. It is better to spend time in 4 walls than to spend it on exclamations and surprise that tourists do not come, and the country is in full ***

jkh36619Jan 21, 2021

Cinderella remake is pretty good. The rest are meh..

Shouldigo12Jan 20, 2021

Anyone else ever read through these threads and have to stop themselves from liking/responding to six month old posts? The temptation is killing me.

TrainChasersJan 20, 2021

Same.

Brer OswaldJan 20, 2021

If I casually mention “modern Disney isn’t good” to a group of ordinary people, without fail, I get “yeah those live action remakes suck”. Occasionally I get “they ruined Star Wars”. Do these people still pay to see these films? Bizarrely, yes. But I think it’s more out of curiosity than anything. They liked the animated film as a kid, and want a dose of nostalgia. They see the remake. It “sucks” or “isn’t as good as the original”. Rarely do you get “that was great” or “better than the original”. But they still pay to fill those seats. Here’s the problem. There’s a limited catalogue that they can chose from to remake. So what happens when they run out? These should be used as tools to get the casual market more interested in Disney’s unique products. But if Disney can’t even be trusted to make something great out of what’s familiar, how will they be able to hold the interest of the masses when it’s new content?

UNCgolfJan 20, 2021

Yep, and there has been a gap of at least 15 years between each version, as I said. The Jungle Book is a bit of an outlier though, because all three versions are different. All adaptations of the same Kipling story, but neither of the later versions were really straight re-makes of the original animated film. Not that that means they were necessary or even needed.

lazyboy97oJan 20, 2021

The Jungle Book has had three iterations and we’re about to get a third iteration of 101 Dalmatians.

UNCgolfJan 20, 2021

I could see a re-make of a re-make too, but I think they'd have to give it 10-15 years to ensure anyone would go see it. I think even diehard Disney fans might balk at seeing two live action Beauty and the Beasts within a relatively short time frame. They'd at least need a new generation of kids!

HauntedPirateJan 20, 2021

They can always re-make the re-make...(Sadly, I’m not kidding) Disney is a very green company, remember - There’s no limit to the amount of recycling of ideas they’ll do these days. 😉 You’re spot-on: The live action remakes are creatively bankrupt, no matter how much money they bring in at the box office. Quite a damning statement for a company founded on creativity. (Yes, I know Disney has used public domain fairy tales for decades. Absolutely not the point here)

UNCgolfJan 20, 2021

I agree that it's hard to call them a failure with how much money they've made. I think they're creatively bankrupt and ultimately pointless -- they're all apparently worse than the animated films on which they are based (the only one I've seen is Beauty and the Beast, but I have not seen many people claiming Aladdin or the Lion King are better than their animated counterparts), and they are likely to be forgotten eventually in favor of those animated versions -- but they printed money for the company and that's really all they care about. It's not a long-term strategy, though. This live action remake thing will peter out in the next 4 or 5 years because they will run out of movies. It's incredibly unlikely they'd try to release live action versions of movies like the Aristocats or the Great Mouse Detective.

TrainChasersJan 20, 2021

Jungle Book 2 got a theatrical release? Man in a game of Disney Trivia poker I would have lost all my chips on that one!