 Poster: A snowHead
|
| feshiebridge wrote: |
| What is the SCGB position in all this? |
The position is ... according to former SCGB chairman Neil Britten at last November's AGM ...
| Quote: |
| Recently the French authorities supported by the ESF challenged a UK tour operator regarding on and off piste guiding. We have sought advice from French lawyers. The advice was unambiguous. The law states that without the appropriate qualifications individuals, for remuneration, are not permitted to guide or instruct. As our leaders are volunteers we were advised that this member benefit fell outside of the particular law that has been cited. Thus it is the Club’s intention to carry on leading but we would watch events. |
As I understand it, however, the Club is not independently defending itself (which I endorse) and has tagged itself with the Le Ski action and the other tour operators, who are maybe contributing to the costs of the defence.
Therefore, I assume that if Le Ski lose the case then the Club (which re-branded its reps as 'leaders' to differentiate them from tour op 'reps') will either soldier on - and maybe have to defend a potential separate legal action - or quit this activity in France and serve skiers in other ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Presumably the resort decided not to support a rep any more. Could the Ski Club afford to pay lift-pass and accommodation for a rep in resort?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
It would seem that the SCGB can afford to do just about anything to keep the show on the road ... but (as a member who is one of 85%+ of members who don't use the leader service) ... I'd prefer that the Club does things that appeal to the broad majority of members.
The reported cost of the SCGB resort operations in winter 2011-12 was over £230,000. Approximately 5000 skiers (members and non-members) ski with a SCGB leader each winter. That's around £46 per person (much more if the service is costed per member, by stripping out non-member use).
I pay £65 annual subscription, a large chunk of which cross-subsidises the leader service for other members. My taxes also subsidise the Royal Opera House, but I'm not sure that these two things are comparable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Masque wrote: |
| abj, I know two (Crystal) were stopped and questioned and details taken but no arrests. |
That must be the effect of Chinese Whispers from two valleys away then 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| My taxes also subsidise the Royal Opera House, but I'm not sure that these two things are comparable. |
a small round of beers in Val D'Isere can easily cost three tenors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please don't drag Domingo, Carreras and Pavarotti into this. There's enough of a racket in here already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the real bettle will take place after the Feb 18 judgement assuming there is a right to appeal. This will raise all the issues of lack of a suitable leading/on piste guiding qualification, European law etc. with the aim of getting a final judgement in time for the 2013/14 season brochures to come out. I wonder if the SCGB would aim to get their Leader's course accepted as an equivalent qualification for on piste guiding? Or will the blue jackets be binned to be replaced with a secret handshake known to members only
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
It would seem that the SCGB can afford to do just about anything to keep the show on the road ... but (as a member who is one of 85%+ of members who don't use the leader service) ... I'd prefer that the Club does things that appeal to the broad majority of members.
The reported cost of the SCGB resort operations in winter 2011-12 was over £230,000. Approximately 5000 skiers (members and non-members) ski with a SCGB leader each winter. That's around £46 per person (much more if the service is costed per member, by stripping out non-member use).
I pay £65 annual subscription, a large chunk of which cross-subsidises the leader service for other members. My taxes also subsidise the Royal Opera House, but I'm not sure that these two things are comparable. |
I very much doubt you earn enough to actually pay tax. But, anyway, the SCGB seems to spend 10% of its turnover on resort operations that are used by 16% of the members in any given year. Seems like a fair enough allocation of funds to me.
And this 'large chuck' you say you pay is actually about £6 or just over 9%. Not really a large chuck, just yet another example of you being a tw@t with facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the chances of any "piste-leading" qualification appearing are very slim. This is because there would be an immediate avalanche of people with BASI1 or similar claiming "equivalence" to whatever qualification they come up with. Hey presto, BASI 1's can work in France...
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| stevomcd wrote: |
| I think the chances of any "piste-leading" qualification appearing are very slim. This is because there would be an immediate avalanche of people with BASI1 or similar claiming "equivalence" to whatever qualification they come up with. Hey presto, BASI 1's can work in France... |
Yeah, but not teaching and for a pittance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
PJSki, (not very) thin end of the wedge... probably less of a pittance than instructors get paid in most countries too...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stevomcd, instructors are getting less than £200 a month?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Lizzard, + accom, food, lift pass....
But I know quite a lot of ski hosts and most of them make more than double your figure.
In any case, for a qualified position, wages are likely to go up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
It would seem that the SCGB can afford to do just about anything to keep the show on the road ... but (as a member who is one of 85%+ of members who don't use the leader service) ... I'd prefer that the Club does things that appeal to the broad majority of members.
The reported cost of the SCGB resort operations in winter 2011-12 was over £230,000. Approximately 5000 skiers (members and non-members) ski with a SCGB leader each winter. That's around £46 per person (much more if the service is costed per member, by stripping out non-member use).
I pay £65 annual subscription, a large chunk of which cross-subsidises the leader service for other members. My taxes also subsidise the Royal Opera House, but I'm not sure that these two things are comparable. |
I very much doubt you earn enough to actually pay tax. But, anyway, the SCGB seems to spend 10% of its turnover on resort operations that are used by 16% of the members in any given year. Seems like a fair enough allocation of funds to me.
And this 'large chuck' you say you pay is actually about £6 or just over 9%. Not really a large chuck, just yet another example of you being a tw@t with facts. |
PJSki, I think you meant 'chunk' rather than 'chuck' [don't make the same mistake with music, depending on the company: e.g. "I love fuck music".].
The points you make, your quips, and your general attitude bear an extraordinary resemblance to those of a current SCGB director. You should get together with him sometime, as you have so much in common. You'd get on like a chalet on fire.
If you're an SCGB leader, and you're determining or influencing SCGB policy with that kind of 'analysis'/argument, then you have a great deal [sic] to answer for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Re. the above ... to repeat a recent point ...
In 1992, SCGB leaders (reps) cost £85,406. They skied with 15,000 people and recruited 1108 new members.
In 2011, SCGB leaders (reps) cost £263,451. They skied with 5,281 people and recruited 229 new members.
[Source: 1992 and 2011 SCGB annual reports. The equivalent data was omitted from the 2012 annual report.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, based on the above and the fact that they cant provide accurate resort conditions and the forum is almost as dead as a Dodo and you dont use their ski leader service - why are you still a member and why do you waste any time/money on them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Shimmy Alcott, I belong to the SCGB to honour Sir Arnold Lunn (1888-1974). He makes monkeys of the lot of us, but it's important to fight his fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Shimmy Alcott, OH FOOK! You had to go there 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, you should only fight the battles worth fighting. This is not one. Enjoy skiing, enjoy the discussion about skiing - enjoy it here; but forget about the SCGB as it seems to bring you no joy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Shimmy Alcott wrote: |
| Comedy Goldsmith, you should only fight the battles worth fighting. This is not one. Enjoy skiing, enjoy the discussion about skiing - enjoy it here; but forget about the SCGB as it seems to bring you no joy. |
hear hear
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it contravenes the law then it's "goodnight Vienna". Have to say I think it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut I regularly ski with a group of friends, up to 12 in the group, mixed ability and we always have a designated leader, it saves an awful lot of faffing and debate. None of us are instructors, and you would have to be senile to ask any of us for skiing tips, why should it make any difference if I'm paid for this (on piste) service?
My real query though is "why now"? I can't help but feel that it is money that is the driving force, it can't have escaped certain parties attention that in St Anton Mark Warner, for example, offer 2 days hosting but they have to use ski instructors for this service...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I belong to the SCGB to honour Sir Arnold Lunn (1888-1974). He makes monkeys of the lot of us, but it's important to fight his fight.
|
What fight? He invented ski racing and tour ops. A landmark in skiing history etc etc, but not a lot to do with the ski club in its current incarnation. He isn't going to notice if you leave either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
PsychoBabble, I think the "why now" is a combination of factors. A lot of focus has been put on the leading/guiding and the qualifications, or lack of, surrounding this whole thing. We need to remember that there's also an employment law issue here too, in that the host in question was being paid below French minimum wage. As I understand it, spot checks by the relevant government body have been carried out in the past. I suspect the 'why now' is a result of the combination of both the guiding and employment law issues. A bit of "we've turned a blind eye in the past but now you're taking the wee wee"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lizzard, you're displaying ignorance now. It was Henry Lunn (Arnold's father) who pioneered a form of tour operating - though let's not forget Thomas Cook and his packaging of rail travel for The Great Exhibition on Hyde Park in 1851.
I don't think Arnold Lunn had any interest in running a travel business. The only thing I can suggest to you is to read one of his books (The Story of Skiing is great) to understand what his various fights were about. Journalism and writing in general were his clear passions - but he seems to have been a classic joker too, poking fun at authorities and authoritarians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| feef wrote: |
| PsychoBabble, I think the "why now" is a combination of factors. A lot of focus has been put on the leading/guiding and the qualifications, or lack of, surrounding this whole thing. We need to remember that there's also an employment law issue here too, in that the host in question was being paid below French minimum wage. As I understand it, spot checks by the relevant government body have been carried out in the past. I suspect the 'why now' is a result of the combination of both the guiding and employment law issues. A bit of "we've turned a blind eye in the past but now you're taking the wee wee" |
You also have to consider that this isn't a sudden decision; its been building and building for a number of years. Hence Tour Operators changing the term of "ski hosting" to "ski escorting" or "social skiing". In some resorts (Courchevel and VT that I alone know of) TOs have faced substantial opposition to hosting and, as a get around, had in recent years been hosting without wearing company uniform. This seems to have become more and more prevalent in recent years, and I guess there was an incident with Le Ski that was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Were this case to be in a normal court of law I could see the trial going either way. Being as its being held where it is, and in tandem with the ESF, its clear which way the decision will come down. What will be interesting is to see how/if the TOs decide to fight it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Ref the ski club, if (as they openly have written) "The law states that without the appropriate qualifications individuals, for remuneration, are not permitted to guide or instruct" then by providing a lift pass and accommodation to its leaders, who are guiding, they are breaching this. Renumeration includes giving people things that would otherwise cost money for them to buy in return for a service. Remuneration isn't just paying people.
So they are likely to find themselves in the bag with the TOs in the same position, because they offer a similar service and give their hosts/leaders/guides payment in the form of a lift pass and somewhere to stay for free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Monium wrote: |
| Ref the ski club, if (as they openly have written) "The law states that without the appropriate qualifications individuals, for remuneration, are not permitted to guide or instruct" then by providing a lift pass and accommodation to its leaders, who are guiding, they are breaching this. Renumeration includes giving people things that would otherwise cost money for them to buy in return for a service. Remuneration isn't just paying people. |
It's more to do with the fact they are receiving nothing over and above the minimum to provide the service. The lift pass, accommodation and whatnot would be required to provide that service irrespective of whether they were paid employees or volunteers, therefore they are not seen as benefits in kind. If they were skiing recreationally and not 'working as volunteers to provide a service', then you'd be right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
feef, not sure it's quite as black and white as that. There are hundreds of thousands of people in London who don't get their accommodation provided ... and work for minimum wages of c.£7/£8 per hour.
I would have thought that provision of accommodation is certainly a benefit in kind. Any lawyers present?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I have to agree with Comedy Goldsmith, on this though I suspect it's slightly more complicated as effectively they are getting expenses but not being paid and receiving benefit in kind, I have no idea how the French legal system would look at such things, but probably not dissimilarly
Now if the reps were paying their own bills things would be very different but I can't see that occurring
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| feef wrote: |
It's more to do with the fact they are receiving nothing over and above the minimum to provide the service. The lift pass, accommodation and whatnot would be required to provide that service irrespective of whether they were paid employees or volunteers, therefore they are not seen as benefits in kind. If they were skiing recreationally and not 'working as volunteers to provide a service', then you'd be right. |
In the UK if someone paid for me to go to Scotland and show somebody about, paid for my lift pass, and all the rest of it, even without giving me a penny in cash, I could quite sensibly claim to be in the workplace, as I am receiving remuneration for my services. Effectively I am at work, but I am working as a volunteer. If that is the same in France, I think the ski club can expect to find themselves in a similar position to the TOs, who pay their staff less than minimum wage but give them a lift pass, accommodation, travel and other perks. The fact they get it topped up with a bit of beer money is almost irrelevant compared to what they are being given in return for their work.
If I were the ESF, I'd certainly be keen to make sure that the ski club got dragged into this too, otherwise everyone is just going to join the club instead of paying the ESF a bunch of money every week to have someone show us about a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
I would have thought that provision of accommodation is certainly a benefit in kind. Any lawyers present? |
Not a lawyer, but can tell you that I have to pay income tax on my accommodation in France because it is a benefit in kind.
| feef wrote: |
| A lot of focus has been put on the leading/guiding and the qualifications, or lack of, surrounding this whole thing. We need to remember that there's also an employment law issue here too, in that the host in question was being paid below French minimum wage. |
I don't think this is a minimum wage issue - otherwise it would be every single seasonal worker affected and not just ski hosts. The reason non-French EU registered companies employ non-French EU employees on short term contracts is because employing on a French contract would cost the company 10 times the amount it costs them now. Someone on another thread worked out that employing someone on minimum wage doing 50 hours that a chalet host does would cost them €850 a week (minimum wage + obligatory social security payments).
(edited to remove some of the unnecessary waffle)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Re the Ski Club leaders as far as I know (in Tignes) the resort welcomes them by providing the pass and the accommodation. Free meals come from attracting paying punters. So the club is not paying them in kind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| miranda wrote: |
| Someone on another thread worked out that employing someone on minimum wage doing 50 hours that a chalet host does would cost them €850 a week (minimum wage + obligatory social security payments). |
I haven't seen that, but can have a stab at it. Current French minimum wage is 1430.22€ 'brut' or 9.43€ per hour, so incorporating French over time regulations, anyone doing 50hours a week should be paid 2,265€ 'brut' and receive 1775€ in their pocket. They wouldn't be, of course, because it's illegal in France to work more than 48 hours a week but we'll ignore that...
The employers charges can vary wildly depending on the size of the business (number of employees) and if the hours worked are over time or not, amongst other things, but they seem to be at least the same as those paid by the employee ie the difference between brut and net. In this case then, a ski host/rep/chalet host working 50hours a week would cost the chalet company 2750€ per month or 635€ per week in salary and charges.
Interesting point to note is that a ski host on a French contract would actually receive compensation for being accommodated by his employer, it certainly wouldn't be a salary deduction for rent as is the case with the UK tour operators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| gohuwgo wrote: |
We have taken lots of advice (many of it paid for professional advice from our French accountant). If we go down the French route, if you stick to the letter of the law, this is what we pay, which makes catering too expensive for many weeks, as its just not worth it. We're thinking about pulling the catering option for 2013/14 because of this.
Pay = 9 Euros per hour (min wage in France)
Hours (honestly) = 50
Wage = 450
Wage + social taxes = 850 Euros
Two chalet staff = 1700 Euros per week.
|
| albinomountainbadger wrote: |
Interesting point to note is that a ski host on a French contract would actually receive compensation for being accommodated by his employer, it certainly wouldn't be a salary deduction for rent as is the case with the UK tour operators. |
Very interesting, as my charge for accommodation was quite clear on my tax bill!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
The Tignes expert SCGB crowd hire an ESF instructor for a day problem solved, Mickey's Ears, Pisteurs couloir or anything that takes your fancy by someone that has skied it recently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| chocksaway wrote: |
| Re the Ski Club leaders as far as I know (in Tignes) the resort welcomes them by providing the pass and the accommodation. Free meals come from attracting paying punters. So the club is not paying them in kind. |
And the resort does this (I assume) because SC members will be more likely to go there on holiday rather than to a resort without a leader. So will the resorts be happy if ESF prevent SC having any leaders in France? More grist for the Austria v France thread 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
miranda, I think gohuwgo has done more of an estimation rather than a calculation there, my figures are based on payslip analysis over the years which has led to me developing an Excel spreadsheet to do it automatically. French overtime is paid at different rates depending on which band it falls into (and even that can vary if there is an agreement between the employee/employer...).
Regarding the accommodation, don't confuse annual tax with monthly social charges (National Insurance). Someone on a French contract may still declare their accommodation as a benefit in kind at year end, no-one I know ever has but that doesn't mean they shouldn't...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
albinomountainbadger, yes, I pay income tax on my accommodation as a benefit in kind... you and your friends might not declare it, but some of us do as we are told by the French tax authority!
Whatever the detail, it's still a lot more expensive to hire on a French contract - the TOs surely aren't spending €635 a week per chalet host?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| miranda wrote: |
| albinomountainbadger,the TOs surely aren't spending €635 a week per chalet host? |
A month maybe errr nope on that as well 4 x £80 ish = 373€
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
