An open letter to Disney about mandatory room checks.

[ENJDisneyFan]

I get housekeeping every day because I like a cleaned room. So, for me it’s always been “will enter” and I plan accordingly. I lock up my valuables or don’t bring them. I pick up my socks and underwear.

When I’m in the room, I use the bar lock. Because I expect that someone can come in at any time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Same!

 

[darrengs]

I think you are splitting hairs. Disney has given prior knowledge that they can enter the room at any time. Once a day or once a week there should be no surprise.

Whatever.

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

Sounds like Disney needs to do "security checks" on themselves! If they are willing to check each and every hotel room each and every day, seems like they should also check each and every employee!

Disney does background checks on employees, but they don't catch everything. It seems that everytime there is a "sting" operation here in NE FL for "meeting minors", they catch at least one WDW and one Universal employee, as well as a teacher/educator/coach.

 

[disneymagicgirl]

From this article: "Simmons ultimately received judicial diversion in 2014, which meant if he stayed out of trouble, the charge could be expunged. There is currently no record of him having a criminal background in the court system."

I am glad you can read. Google could have probably found the info on the guy...ya know, the one who smuggled contraband. Actually the quoted head of security in the article said he would have not hired the guy and a better background search would find all of the missed information. But hey, defend Disney all day long...that is what Disboards is for, lol.

 

[Jennasis]

I'm most amused that I'm upset about a policy that has no affect on me (parking fees...we are DVC won't won't have to pay) but not at all upset about one that could (daily room checks). I've always thought I was a bit odd.

 

[Lilsia]

I thought of this discussion recently when I checked into my Universal resort. There was a problem with the deadbolt, so I called maintenance. My room phone rang 20 minutes later, as the maintenance guy was outside my door but wasn't allowed to knock on it because i had the DND sign out. I am done with Disney on-site stays.

I have posted this on another thread, but this has ALWAYS been my experience at any hotel chain I have stayed at. They will NOT knock on your room door, even if you have requested something when the DND sign is up. Only in an emergency do they disturb you. The new Disney policy is too invasive and big brother.

 

[darrengs]

Big difference between "could enter" and "will enter".

I agree, yet I have been told that I am splitting hairs.

I would actually like to know what the policy really is, as I cannot find the info anywhere.

The news reports that came out late last year only stated "The sign accompanies another new policy that requires Disney employees to enter each hotel room at least once a day to ensure". And although I did not experience it myself, I have read reports here of multiple entries a day even beyond housekeeping, and of housekeeping demanding access to clean the room even when occupied and at times waiting outside the door until allowed to clean the room. Perhaps this is the actual policy, but until Disney gets out in front of this, and explains/tells its guests of its policy we will never actually know what to expect.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I'm still triggerred by shampoo dispensers.

 

[tex1989]

So much going on here but it really boils down to some simple concepts. Disney owns the property and has certain rights to access, and I can assure you they favor Disney. Look into it enough and they actually have two sets of rights, one for hotel occupants, and a second different set of rights for DVC owners. But basically they all lead to the same thing, for the sake of "saftey" they pretty much have access to your room any time they want it. Same goes for all hotels and rentals. Second concept Disney is out to make money, lots of money (which as a shareholder is okay by me!). As a result they don't want bad publicity but as proven by the responses to this thread some people have problems with the policy, some don't. If they felt the policy would somehow significantly cut into occupancy or DVC ownership they would address it and accomidate folks. If it does not affect those things they won't change. The third concept is liability, Disney sells dreams, and family fun, and fantasy and as I said earlier they make a lot of money doing it. However the amount they make and their public image could be severly impacted by an incident on property. They could lose a lot of money and believe me many here who cry foul for the current policy would also be some of the first to sue along with many others if there was an incident that people say could have been avoided via more security or more policies, or more dliigence, etc.

It boils down to what it almost always does, if it bothers you enough don't go, if it does not, have fun. If you still love Disney but hate the policy then stay offsite and still go. There is always a solution for whatever level of comfort you may or may not have. This is an age old conflict in a free society, how many rights are you willing to forgo in the name of security? This can be applied to many issues we currently face as a nation.

 

[Three60guy]

tex1989

I will repeat here again what Benjamin Franklin said:

Those who sacrifice essential liberty, to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

[mamamelody2]

tex1989

I will repeat here again what Benjamin Franklin said:

Those who sacrifice essential liberty, to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

"

I don't actually think we're talking about essential liberties here.

 

[Allison]

tex1989

I will repeat here again what Benjamin Franklin said:

Those who sacrifice essential liberty, to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This is a luxury vacation being discussed.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I am glad you can read. Google could have probably found the info on the guy...ya know, the one who smuggled contraband. Actually the quoted head of security in the article said he would have not hired the guy and a better background search would find all of the missed information. But hey, defend Disney all day long...that is what Disboards is for, lol.

Change Disney to any private or publicly-traded company and I will still provide the exact same response. Not in defense of the/any company, but of an individual's legal rights. From https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-law-and-procedure-expungement/ "Expungement is the process of legally destroying, obliterating or striking out records or information in files, computers and other depositories relating to criminal charges. State laws, which vary by state, govern the expungement of criminal records. The records cannot be accessed for general law enforcement or civil use. An expunged record may usually not be considered by any private or public entity in employment matters, certification, licensing, revocation of certification or licensure, or registration. However, some states allow expunged records to be accessed for employment or licensing in certain sensitive positions, such as law enforcement or work involving children or elderly persons. "

I don't consider a privately employed security guard who checks bags or operates a metal detector to be in law enforcement. The man does not appear to be doing or working for any of the entities where an expunged record actually can be accessed or used to prevent employment https://expungement.uslegal.com/expungement-of-criminal-records/florida-expungement-law/

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

tex1989

I will repeat here again what Benjamin Franklin said:

Those who sacrifice essential liberty, to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Actually you're quoting it in a far different context than did Franklin. Franklin was not writing about civil liberties or personal privacy when he wrote it. He was writing about a tax dispute between the Penns and the governor and the Pennsylvania legislature. The legislature wanted to Tax the Penns' land to pay for frontier defense. The Penns instructed the governor to Veto. Later, they offered to pay for frontier defense in exchange for the legislature acknowledging it didn't have the power to tax them. The liberty being talked about by Franklin is not civil liberties. It's the liberty of the legislature to govern. And by purchase temporary safety, he meant pay for the frontier defense. So he's arguing that the legislature should not cede its authority in order to pay for the frontier defense.

 

[Three60guy]

Actually you're quoting it in a far different context than did Franklin. Franklin was not writing about civil liberties or personal privacy when he wrote it. He was writing about a tax dispute between the Penns and the governor and the Pennsylvania legislature. The legislature wanted to Tax the Penns' land to pay for frontier defense. The Penns instructed the governor to Veto. Later, they offered to pay for frontier defense in exchange for the legislature acknowledging it didn't have the power to tax them. The liberty being talked about by Franklin is not civil liberties. It's the liberty of the legislature to govern. And by purchase temporary safety, he meant pay for the frontier defense. So he's arguing that the legislature should not cede its authority in order to pay for the frontier defense.

Ok, then I will say it because I feel it is true.

 

[Nancyg56]

I'm most amused that I'm upset about a policy that has no affect on me (parking fees...we are DVC won't won't have to pay) but not at all upset about one that could (daily room checks). I've always thought I was a bit odd.

Me too. That parking charge has my bloomers in a bunch. WE use DME and never rent a car, so it has no effect on my family, but I am really mad about it just the same.

 

[Nancyg56]

tex1989

I will repeat here again what Benjamin Franklin said:

Those who sacrifice essential liberty, to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Oh for goodness sakes. I have been hearing this for every intrusion done for safety reasons. I believe most have no effect on my personal safety, but if I choose to go to any public place I will have to agree. I am no fan of pat downs when I go to a concert, but I will endure them, especially if I want to see Rod Stewart. Or Bare Naked Ladies. I do nto thnk they make a real difference, but if it is part of the deal....I make a choice. I really feel it is an intrusion on my personal liberty but there you go.

I also put up with taking my shoes off, and going through that X-ray contraption, or whatever it is, to board a plane. Again, I think it is silly, but it is an agreement I make if I want to fly.

I have had my suitcases ruffled through even though they went through the scanner, and have had to dump my purse out.

At some point we are going to have to agree to things that are personally repugnant or choose to stay away from these events. They all infringe on my personal civil liberties. I am not ridiculing your aversion to this policy, but I am questioning the statements you continue to use to convince those of us who are okay with this policy that we are somehow lacking.

You have every right to dislike the policy, and you have every right to choose to stay elsewhere If I felt so strongly, I would do just that. I will say that quoting amendments that do not apply, or Ben's statement, which has been used in every one of my above examples, BTW, is not helpful to your cause. All this does is offend people who also have the right to disagree with you and who have been respectful about your opinions.

 

[tex1989]

tex1989

I will repeat here again what Benjamin Franklin said:

Those who sacrifice essential liberty, to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Once again you are taking a quote/amendment out of context. Cannot_Wait explained the situation correctly. If you read even more you will find that Franklin and the other Founding Fathers were very much in favor of private ownership and rights of the owners. This idea further supports the fact that Disney or any company or individual has rights of private property that allows them certain liberties. In a strange twist on that law currently in states that grant a licsense to carry for a handgun business owners can prohibit guns on their property. If you take a firearm onto their property you are not violating the right to carry law, you would actually be charged with criminal trespass.

So Disney accessing your room is within their rights and you cannot apply laws that grant certain liberties and rights that protect you from the government to private situations. Once again if the policy bugs you, don't stay on property. As far as sacrificing liberty for security, you are not. Disney is trading potential liability for your inconvinience. An incident would cost them greatly and they are trying their best to avoid that liability.

 

[Three60guy]

tex1989:

Point taken. But this world has changed much since those times. I doubt Franklin would argue, given the circumstances of today, that his words would fit perfectly. Given what is quoted of him, I really believe our country is currently slipping into a combination of indifference and ignorance regarding our citizens privacy. The terrorists on 9/11 have succeeded in changing our country in many ways unimaginable prior to then. Safety is being used beyond reason to take privacy and other rights inch by inch over time. Taken one step at a time it’s no big deal in many peoples mind. But, over time, a picture is emerging which is irrevocably changing our nation, dividing us as a people and creating the exact scenario the terrorists wanted. It is sad to see it happen. This is what I think about when I dwell on the words of Benjamin Franklin when he said:

“Those who sacrifice essential liberty, to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”

 

[patty57]

Some care...some don't. Twenty-two pages of this.