Member Services Furloughs/Layoffs

[zakdavid]

I don't know - but they are going to have to figure out something. If they are closed for six months that's 30 million points that people own that CANNOT be used - you can argue all you want, but the points can't be used within the DVC system because the resorts are closed.

They are going to have to do something, I'm just suggesting one possible way they could do it. Remember, the "points" are just a representation of your fractional ownership. Think about it this way - if a resort burned to ground - would you still expect to get your points for that resort? Would Disney still be required to give you your points in that case? I can answer that - no they wouldn't. This is no different from the resort burning to the ground, just it's all of them at once. They are being forced to close the resorts by circumstances. What they do will have to be in the realm of legality - but we should all plan on our points being affected in some way.

I think they might play the timeshare card that if you owned a fixed week you would have lost that week so if your points expired sorry. (Harsh but I am loosing points too). I don't know if they can reduce the points we get though since it's on the deed

 

[Sandisw]

I don't know - but they are going to have to figure out something. If they are closed for six months that's 30 million points that people own that CANNOT be used - you can argue all you want, but the points can't be used within the DVC system because the resorts are closed.

They are going to have to do something, I'm just suggesting one possible way they could do it. Remember, the "points" are just a representation of your fractional ownership. Think about it this way - if a resort burned to ground - would you still expect to get your points for that resort? Would Disney still be required to give you your points in that case? I can answer that - no they wouldn't. This is no different from the resort burning to the ground, just it's all of them at once. They are being forced to close the resorts by circumstances. What they do will have to be in the realm of legality - but we should all plan on our points being affected in some way.

If it burns to the ground, and they don’t rebuild, you get your share of insurance. May not be what you paid, but still based on ownership.

First thing they can do is to not allow the late banking and Let the points expire. Then they can make those 7 month charts. They can suspend banking and or borrowing.

From that point, it is what is is and if owners can’t use points because they have no rooms, more expire.

To me, while it could be similar in terms of losing points, it fits, IMO, in line with the system.

 

[skier_pete]

If it burns to the ground, and they don’t rebuild, you get your share of insurance. May not be what you paid, but still based on ownership.

First thing they can do is to not allow the late banking and Let the points expire. Then they can make those 7 month charts. They can suspend banking and or borrowing.

From that point, it is what is is and if owners can’t use points because they have no rooms, more expire.

To me, while it could be similar in terms of losing points, it fits, IMO, in line with the system.

How is that more fair than say telling everyone that in 2022 they will only get 75% of their points? Your says the stop all banking and borrowing, but what about people that rely on banking and borrowing for their trips - then they get screwed.

I am not saying my answer is THE answer - but they SHOULD try and find an answer that's equitable across all membership - that we all lose in equal measure. That's just my opinion, but i admit I am a liberal.

 

[Sandisw]

How is that more fair than say telling everyone that in 2022 they will only get 75% of their points? Your says the stop all banking and borrowing, but what about people that rely on banking and borrowing for their trips - then they get screwed.

I am not saying my answer is THE answer - but they SHOULD try and find an answer that's equitable across all membership - that we all lose in equal measure. That's just my opinion, but i admit I am a liberal.

Definitely see it differently, but since we are all speculating, and not the ones deciding, whatever happens, some will like it and some will not, So your thoughts certainly could be possible

As long as what they do is deemed legal, and in line with the POS, I’ll be accepting of it. But I am not willing to give anything up that doesn’t fit that definition.

 

[skier_pete]

Definitely see it differently, but since we are all speculating, and not the ones deciding, whatever happens, some will like it and some will not, So your thoughts certainly could be possible

As long as what they do is deemed legal, and in line with the POS, I’ll be accepting of it. But I am not willing to give anything up that doesn’t fit that definition.

I agree - but they have written themselves an awful lot of leeway into the POS.

 

[Sandisw]

I agree - but they have written themselves an awful lot of leeway into the POS.

It why the thoughts that I shared are all part of the program we signed up for and yes, some owners may lose more than others.

But, they will figure it out and make sure it doesn’t stretch beyond what legally allowed because they have to know if they try anything beyond that, it will get messier Than it already is,

Look at how upset people already are in the decisions they have made, regardless of why or that it checks all the boxes of being consistent with their powers,

 

[zakdavid]

How is that more fair than say telling everyone that in 2022 they will only get 75% of their points? Your says the stop all banking and borrowing, but what about people that rely on banking and borrowing for their trips - then they get screwed.

I am not saying my answer is THE answer - but they SHOULD try and find an answer that's equitable across all membership - that we all lose in equal measure. That's just my opinion, but i admit I am a liberal.

I get that folks rely on banking/borrowing but everywhere it mentions that they could suspend it at anytime if they need to for balance in the central system. I haven't been a member for that long. Have they ever actually done it before?

 

[jarestel]

Ultimately, DVC's obligations are to the system as a whole and not to any individual members. Hard decisions may have to be made in the coming weeks but as long as those decisions are made for the good of the system I would think most of us could buy in.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I think to say this will not effect our dues is crazy. I would expect that the costs to operate the resorts right now are much less than normal, and they will have to adjust dues accordingly. My suspicision is that they will likely use the savings to adjust the number of points we receive in 2021. I.E. Dues will remain the same, but you only get 75% of your points. Just hypothesis, but who knows how this will be handled. While I wouldn't expect them to let a lot of MS people go since people are still trying to make things work.

The real estate deed and/or contract outline the % of the unit you have purchased and the equivalent number of points that represents I do not think they could legally arbitrarily change that amount. It's as close to fixed in stone as anything is with DVC. Using the 7 month exchange charts is a legal way they could accomplish some of that though it will only apply to those who want to trade vs stay at their home resort.

I get that folks rely on banking/borrowing but everywhere it mentions that they could suspend it at anytime if they need to for balance in the central system. I haven't been a member for that long. Have they ever actually done it before?

No they have not unless it was in the first year or two of DVC's existence. What they have done is change banking rules, once I believe, but not suspended them.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I don't know - but they are going to have to figure out something. If they are closed for six months that's 30 million points that people own that CANNOT be used - you can argue all you want, but the points can't be used within the DVC system because the resorts are closed.

They are going to have to do something, I'm just suggesting one possible way they could do it. Remember, the "points" are just a representation of your fractional ownership. Think about it this way - if a resort burned to ground - would you still expect to get your points for that resort? Would Disney still be required to give you your points in that case? I can answer that - no they wouldn't. This is no different from the resort burning to the ground, just it's all of them at once. They are being forced to close the resorts by circumstances. What they do will have to be in the realm of legality - but we should all plan on our points being affected in some way.

I find it tongue-in-cheek humorous that if it's 30 million points and over half the membership for 6 months, suddenly something has to be done and Rome is on fire. When it was just those of use with APR and JUN UYs, it was mostly too bad so sad.

Actually, it's not humorous at all. Any of it.

 

[skier_pete]

I find it tongue-in-cheek humorous that if it's 30 million points and over half the membership for 6 months, suddenly something has to be done and Rome is on fire. When it was just those of use with APR and JUN UYs, it was mostly too bad so sad.

Actually, it's not humorous at all. Any of it.

I don't think it was ever humorous. So far I am unaffected unless my trip in October is affected. (I have a trip in may that will likely be cancelled but those points are current UY and can be banked as long as they don't put them into holding.

That doesn't mean I am not sympathetic to others. No one wants to lose points. I'm just saying, the longer this goes on, it seems to me they can't just let us hold onto our points as is. Something will need to be done. Otherwise a system with that much extra points will be untenable. Everyone will be booking everything at 11 months and it will become near impossible to even USE your points, Another theoretical - what if they are closed a year. An entire year of extra points? Please tell me how they just let people have their points?

What I am suggesting is that somehow they will have to compensate unused points. The resorts are closed meaning the cost of operating them are significantly less than the MF they charged. Minimal staff, low power usage, no transportation costs. Maybe they end up offering point buy-backs. If you are willing to not use your points, they give you your MFs back. i just don't know - i can come up with a dozen things they COULD do.

They could just ignore it and have all those extra points in the system and just have us duke it out for the next 10 years until the excess points fade out.
They could suspend banking and borrowing, forcing the problem to resolve itself within a year.

There has to be some regulation around this as well. I used the example of fire, but certainly in the history of timeshares there's been units that have been damaged severely by a hurricane that were uninhabitable for many months - what does the timeshare law say in THAT case. Anyone look at Florida law?

 

[Sandisw]

I don't think it was ever humorous. So far I am unaffected unless my trip in October is affected. (I have a trip in may that will likely be cancelled but those points are current UY and can be banked as long as they don't put them into holding.

That doesn't mean I am not sympathetic to others. No one wants to lose points. I'm just saying, the longer this goes on, it seems to me they can't just let us hold onto our points as is. Something will need to be done. Otherwise a system with that much extra points will be untenable. Everyone will be booking everything at 11 months and it will become near impossible to even USE your points, Another theoretical - what if they are closed a year. An entire year of extra points? Please tell me how they just let people have their points?

What I am suggesting is that somehow they will have to compensate unused points. The resorts are closed meaning the cost of operating them are significantly less than the MF they charged. Minimal staff, low power usage, no transportation costs. Maybe they end up offering point buy-backs. If you are willing to not use your points, they give you your MFs back. i just don't know - i can come up with a dozen things they COULD do.

They could just ignore it and have all those extra points in the system and just have us duke it out for the next 10 years until the excess points fade out.
They could suspend banking and borrowing, forcing the problem to resolve itself within a year.

There has to be some regulation around this as well. I used the example of fire, but certainly in the history of timeshares there's been units that have been damaged severely by a hurricane that were uninhabitable for many months - what does the timeshare law say in THAT case. Anyone look at Florida law?

My reading of the FL timeshare law so far has t specified what happens, other an each association has to account for things such as additions, delegations, changes, etc,

So, I think they are required to have a plan, which our POS does in the section that discussed loss of use.

Here is the part that discusses emergency powers from the Fl statues. It is under the real property section and not specific to timeshares, but condominium section.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/0718.1265

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

From my several readings of the POS over the years, but not pulling it out to quote exactly right now, it covers what happens when the building is destroyed and it does have some help for the members as well as outlining that you don't get your points but owners can get insurance proceeds or if they elected to DVC could substitute access to similar type unit in which case you would have your points. What the POS doesn't cover is this current situation beyond a snippet that they can close and don't have to do anything for members although there were allowed to have insurance but it was discretionary and apparently they did not. The building destruction outline would be some sort of foundation for them to build from to assist those affected from these closures though albeit missing the insurance aspect and that is an important part of that scenario.

 

[stewart715]

I'm sure someone will tell me why this is impossible, but they should just keep all rules in place so the system isn't overwhelmed for several years and then add a year onto all contracts and be done with it.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I'm sure someone will tell me why this is impossible, but they should just keep all rules in place so the system isn't overwhelmed for several years and then add a year onto all contracts and be done with it.

Consider just the legal reasons alone as to why this can't be done.

 

[Sandisw]

I'm sure someone will tell me why this is impossible, but they should just keep all rules in place so the system isn't overwhelmed for several years and then add a year onto all contracts and be done with it.

First, extending requires Disney to agree to an extra year for all owners on the ground lease,

Second, it does absolutely nothing for issues now, They could have decide to do nothing for any points. But, they are under no obligation to make sure owners don’t lose points.

There only obligation is to make sure that the system as a whole remains balanced for supply and demand. With the glut of points in the system, even if they had done nothing for borrowed points, they still have to figure out short term solutions for availability issues for the next few years,

So, an extension does nothing to help what is going on, other than say to owners you are not losing because we giving you those points back in 22 to 50 years from now,

 

[kmorlock]

I'm no expert on the POS jargon so, I'll leave it to those who are...It has been posted before and pretty dismissed at the time. I do get the huge difference between the Disney Resorts "Hotel" side vs. Disney Vacation Club "Timeshare" side. Since attendance is already speculated to be low, why couldn't the rule of only direct purchase points being used for Disney Collection be lifted? If people are willing and want to use their points for a Hotel side of the resort, cruises or cabin stays, it seems the decision makers between the two entities could enter into a limited agreement? At one time, every point was purchased direct and would never be otherwise in some Direct Purchase only DVC Execs Utopia. Those points were accounted for since the beginning and with every point still being sold direct today. If not for the recent efforts to increase direct sales by limiting "perks" those points would still be eligible to cross over right?

 

[Sandisw]

I'm no expert on the POS jargon so, I'll leave it to those who are...It has been posted before and pretty dismissed at the time. I do get the huge difference between the Disney Resorts "Hotel" side vs. Disney Vacation Club "Timeshare" side. Since attendance is already speculated to be low, why couldn't the rule of only direct purchase points being used for Disney Collection be lifted? If people are willing and want to use their points for a Hotel side of the resort, cruises or cabin stays, it seems the decision makers between the two entities could enter into a limited agreement? At one time, every point was purchased direct and would never be otherwise in some Direct Purchase only DVC Execs Utopia. Those points were accounted for since the beginning and with every point still being sold direct today. If not for the recent efforts to increase direct sales by limiting "perks" those points would still be eligible to cross over right?

DVD could change that rule for points, However, the way the program works is that for every trade into the Disney Collection, a DVC villa is taken out of inventory and given to Disney to sell as a cash reservation to cover the cost of the hotel room booked on points,

Unless Disney agrees to not require a DVC villa to be exchanged, the lifting of that restriction doesn’t do any good.

And that is why it is complicated because a change in the current program has to be changed that really requires Disney to give DVC rooms for free..which puts Disney in the drivers seat to say yes or no.

Of course, we have no idea if this type of prorgram is being discussed, but if DVCM is told by Disney we are not going to give you rooms for free, then it doesn’t really matter if DVD removes the restrictions from all points.

 

[kmorlock]

Yeah, the element of trading a villa slipped my mind. I guess that's not the best laid plan then. Disney really doesn't get the revenue outside of money spent in parks, on food, tickets/passes which probably doesn't outweigh the monetary loss.

DVD could change that rule for points, However, the way the program works is that for every trade into the Disney Collection, a DVC villa is taken out of inventory and given to Disney to sell as a cash reservation to cover the cost of the hotel room booked on points,

Unless Disney agrees to not require a DVC villa to be exchanged, the lifting of that restriction doesn’t do any good.

And that is why it is complicated because a change in the current program has to be changed that really requires Disney to give DVC rooms for free..which puts Disney in the drivers seat to say yes or no.

Of course, we have no idea if this type of prorgram is being discussed, but if DVCM is told by Disney we are not going to give you rooms for free, then it doesn’t really matter if DVD removes the restrictions from all points.

 

[dismedvc]

I mentioned this 20 days ago, but had it spread over two different threads., so I will consolidate it here.
I think the various divisions of TWDC will work this out if it benefits the corporate bottom line. Potentially, TWDC could increase profit if the resorts division gave rooms that would otherwise be vacant to DVC, since the people occupying those otherwise vacant rooms would spend a additional money on-property

There is a discussion on another thread about TWDC management creating a corporate environment of internal competition rather than synergistic thinking to the detriment of the paying customer. Because of the corporate environment, upper management of TWDC, would need adjust some internal incentives to get the individual divisions to do what is best for the company.

Upper management at TWDC needs to get involved to get divisions to do what is best for entire company. Otherwise, you could have a situation where the resorts division will not do something because it costs them $1 even though if the resorts division did that something, another area of the company would make $3.

This is actually a classic internal transfer pricing problem discussed in Managerial Accounting courses. One solution is for upper management to internally pay the selling division at a higher internal price than the buying division is internally charged. The difference is adjusted at the corporate level.

Before someone criticizes this as violating GAPP accounting, there is no requirement in GAAP that intercompany transfers have to be at fair market value. The only requirement is that if segmented information is disclosed, the intercompany transfers between those segments has to be disclosed. Every CPA who graduated in the last 50 years took a managerial accounting course where transfer pricing was discussed, and those CPA's were taught that one solution is the one I described above. (Would they all be taught something that violates GAAP?).
Another less recommended solution is for upper management to require the selling division to sell at a specified internal price, even if that would lower one divisions internally reported profit, since the other division would have an increase in internally reported profit that was greater, so the overall company bottom line would improve.