 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
What is "honest" about some people taking/expecting "free" lunches from the punters, whilst censuring reps for taking a rake off from the guides? This is just hyprocrisy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Benzknees, maybe because most punters are aware and generally approve of the concept of 'free' lunches? That's certainly been true of ski groups I have been in. OTOH, I think being pointed at a guide, because there is a kickback, is another matter. When I was in the SCGB, I trusted reps - and if a specific guide had been suggested, I would have thought the advice was independent, and based on a knowledge of the guide and his/her suitability for my needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Benzknees, it's a question of degree. One is a gift generously offered and gratefully accepted, the other is a specific business deal done behind closed doors for the mutual financial benefit of both parties. Surely you'll accept the two cases cannot be judged by one black/white ruling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
As a SCGB Freshtracks customer, when being taken into a mountain restaurant by their appointed guide, I have no idea (until the time to pay comes) if the lunch is being provided "free" or not. Most of the time it is "free", but I have no say in that. It's not a gift under my control. It is a business deal that only involves the guide and the restaurant. It is of little concern to me, as I end up paying the same amount.
When a SCGB member, if my rep employs a guide direct, and secures a kickback, it is also not a gift under my control. It is business deal that only involves the rep and the guide. It is of little concern to me, as I end up paying the same price (as all guiding companies have a set menu of prices).
When SCGB employ a guide on Freshtracks holidays/book a number of rooms in a Mark Warner hotel/promote SkiSet to those wanting to hire skis, they no doubt secure a discount/commission. This is not in my gift. It is a business deal that only involves SCGB and the relevant company. It is of little concern to me, as I end up paying the same amount.
I can't really see any substantive difference between these scenarios, sufficient to justify disciplinary proceedings/dismissal of an otherwise satisfactory rep (or "leader" if you prefer).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Benzknees, the quality of a guide affects my safety. If a guide is recommended to, or selected for me, I want that done without a kickback being any influencing factor. I well know that all guides have to be highly qualified. I also know that does not make all equally suitable for a particular group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Benzknees, I think there probably is a difference if you are forced to think along the lines that someone running a public-facing organisation like SCGB has to. ie The "what if" or "take it to its logical conclusion" scenario. Free lunches and free drinks won't injure or kill anyone but selling guiding for profit might.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, in a larger context I agree it's very important that the guide is suitable. It would be foolhardy in the extreme if, say, a local on piste ski school instructor was selected to take a party well off piste. I don't think any rep would risk being personally sued for vast amounts, just to earn some beer money.
However, the thread refers to reps taking commissions/kickbacks. If we assume the quality of the guide had no bearing on the matter, then is it right to apply different standards depending on whether you are a rep, guide or the SCGB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Benzknees wrote: |
| I don't think any rep would risk being personally sued for vast amounts, just to earn some beer money. |
well, clearly, if we are to believe the allegation, a rep or more has risked it. Presumably they are insured for third party liability while they are working anyway. It's probably the club that gets sued which is why they'd be right in stamping out sneaky side arrangements - arranging guiding for money possibly alters the terms of their insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Public liability insurance, for third party risks, covers employees/representatives of a company if they are acting within their general terms of reference. SCGB reps normally engage local guides, so this is within their terms of reference. They would be covered by the SCGB public liability insurance, regardless of whether they took a commission or not.
If the guide was negligent, the SCGB and the rep could claim an indemnity from their insurers. However, if the guide was grossly negligent, and the rep knew (or ought to have known) beforehand that he/she was incompetent, then it is unlikely that the SCGB insurance would provide an indemnity. The rep would then be at risk of being held personally liable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
