 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
My understandings is that ISTD/MoUs can currently bring in their own clients from abroad for 2 weeks at a time. To open a ski school in Austria I believe that it is more restrictive than France in that you currently also need an additional mountain guide and tourism qualification and also own a property in Austria. My interpretation is that the EU could settle on the ISTD/MoU qualification as the standard required to operate independently and that the additional requirements in Austria may no longer be allowed in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| My understandings is that ISTD/MoUs can currently bring in their own clients from abroad for 2 weeks at a time. |
Why the time restriction 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
stewart woodward, I heard similar from an ISTD mate that even with MoU etc, you cant set up shop as independent and if working outside of an Austrian school are limited to 4 weeks a year in two week increments. Illegal of course and being challenged as you can see...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Time restriction in practice is probably because if you source and bring in your own customers from outside Austria you are filling up the hotels withoout impacting the local ski schools. The restrictions also apply to local Staatlichergeprüft who need the additional qualifications to set up a ski school and which it appears the EU is objecting to.
All France and Austria need to do though is bring in more stringent language tests which are specifically referred to under the EU laws and indicate the level required where you get an exemption from a language test is a degree in the foreign language ie fluent without being native standard. In practice this would bring ski instructing in line with most jobs where it is perfectly legitimate to specify that you must be fluent in the local language in order to get a job. Already in Austria the main restriction on working in a ski school in Austria is not skiing ability but language ability. Its entirely possible that ski instructors may have to invest as much time and money in their language skills as their skiing skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
under the EU laws and indicate the level required where you get an exemption from a language test is a degree in the foreign language ie fluent without being native standard.
|
Where have you seen this? Most references I have seen language skills are dependent on EQF level of the job in question and also vary if working on a temporary basis or seeking right of establishment. Host nations are not allowed to impose onerous language tests to restrict movement of labour. A degree standard of language skills would seem to be too stern for job which isn't at degree level itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forget where the exact link is but I found it in some EU guidance notes when I was reading the EU directive so it is somewhere on the EU website. It does not specify you must be degree level but does specifically say that a degree in a foreign language would be suffecient proof that you do not need to take a language test. The judge was also reported to note in the SB case they were working in France without speaking French. The judge noted that the case was being tried under EU law so regardless of the interpretation of the law I think it is clear that the French judge was familiar with the EU law and the language requirements.
From a continental European perspective, degree language level is not that high ie C1 (B2 is A level standard which is not functional in the real world and C2 is fluent but not native). Most young continentals have English that is above degree level standard and is the normal prerequisite for getting a job working in an international environment so it is perfectly legal and a market place reality. In Austria there is lots of young Dutch ski instructors because they are fluent in German; English and obviously Dutch. A C1 language test would also more easily satisfy the EU law justifiable appitude test requirement from a safety perspective than the Eurotest. I'm not saying it will happen but it could happen based on my reading of EU law, the SB judge's reported comments and what is already happening in the market place. Aspiring and current ski instructors could be well advised to spend the summer working on their language skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The language discussion is included in the pdf guidance at the bottom of the following link: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/work-abroad/recognition-of-professional-qualifications/index_en.htm. It basically says fit for purpose and a degree would demonstrate exemption. The question is what is meant by fit for purpose. A) The current in my experience inadequate ISIA language test. B) That you can actually communicate effectively with the local operating staff which in my experience many ISIA qualified can't or C) does it mean that you have to be actually capable of teaching in the local language. As ski instructors are typically allocated customers based on language skills and based on my own working experiences I would vote for B.
The guidance is written is more clear English that the EU Directive. In particular, what I had not noticed before is that while the general EU Directive is open to interpretation regarding appitude tests the guidance includes a specific exemption stating whether you agree with it or not that the French and other countries have the right to apply an appitude test for ski instructors. This is consistent with the recent court verdict. A certain someone may have saved themselves a lot of time, effort and money if they had read the guidance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TTT, do you seriously believe that "a certain someone" is not well read in these matters, or that the law is not subject to interpretation? I could go into chapter and verse here, but will spare everyone.
Meanwhile, "a certain someone" is reducing his Megève operation next season, and opening for business in Crans Montana, with active assistance from local officialdom. Ironic how setting up shop in a non-EU country seems to be easier than in some EU ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
More back on topic while checking the language position I found this piece on the EU website which I think is the most definitive piece I have read on the whole EU instructor debate.
Straying again somewhat. There is a lot of noise on FB. Generally. I find it best to go back to the original source. I think as in the recent court verdict the position on the Eurotest whatever the rights or wrongs is very clear under EU law. It appears that the opportunities for instructors with the MoU will increase but without the Eurotest you will not have the right to work unless you could for instance demonstrate that you would have had the right to work under the old system e.g. you had previously passed the prior "cap" test. It appears that the requirements are indeed EU law as opposed to French law as has been suggested. It seems that BASI have been correctly advised by their lawyers while some others haven't. In their position, I would be less than happy at the end of the day with those people who had miguidedly advised and supported me for their own agendas.
On 26 February EU Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier issued the following statement:
“I have just met with Malcolm Harbour MEP, Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and Emma McClarkin MEP.
As I explained to them, I can’t comment on the details of the Butler case as it’s an ongoing legal case but suggesting the single market does not work for ski instructors is wrong.
There may be a few specific problems which need to be tackled on a case by case basis, but the facts are clear:
- Ski instructors are a regulated profession in a number of Member States, such as Italy, Austria or France. This is in line with EU law.
- There is an agreed procedure to be followed to have a qualification recognized in another Member State.
- Around 35,000 professionals (doctors, nurses, architects, etc.) benefit from it every year (up from 25,000 few years ago).
- Over 350 fully qualified British ski instructors have benefited from the recognition procedure and are currently established in France. (More British ski workers can work as seasonal workers.)
- Since I have been Commissioner, I have pushed strongly for a specific European recognition mechanism for ski instructors to cut red tape, sparing ski instructors the administrative checks on their qualifications.
- The recognition mechanism for ski instructors, a scheme backed by 11 Member States – including the UK, Italy, Austria and France – allows any fully qualified ski instructor who fulfils the conditions without any formality other than a declaration to:
- work for any ski school
- provide private coaching, for example on a freelance basis
- or to open their own ski school in any of those 11 member States.
I confirmed to both Malcolm Harbour and Emma McClarkin that my staff have received complaints on the recognition of qualifications for ski instructors in France and we are investigating them, seriously and efficiently in the way we investigate all complaints.”
Background
Well-established European rules (new Directive 2013/55 which strengthens and modernises Directive 2005/36) exist to ensure the recognition of qualifications and diplomas between Member States.
The profession of ski instructor is regulated in a certain number of Member States (the Alpine countries: Austria, Italy, Germany (Bavaria) and France) in particular for reasons of mountain safety. This is in conformity with EU law.
A ski instructor with a diploma from another Member State has the right to exercise his profession – in a self-employed or other capacity – in another Member State.
Nevertheless, pursuant to a procedure which is fully harmonised under EU law, the host Member State may impose two conditions concerning the freedom to provide services (health and safety) or the freedom of establishment:
1. Prior notification to the competent authorities – this is the case for France, Austria, Italy, and Germany (Bavaria).
2.The competent authorities have the right to check qualifications of ski instructors established and exercising on their territory during a pre-determined period (3 months) in order to compare national requirements. In case of occasional service provision, Member States can check qualifications for professions with health and safety implications and must decide within one month whether compensating measures are required. Once this has been done, and in the case of ski instructors, certain Member States have been entitled to impose a specific compensating measure, for reasons of mountain safety – the EUROTEST.
In the context of a pilot project and in order to create an AUTOMATIC RECOGNITION MECHANISM, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was agreed and signed in 2012 between nine Member States (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Romania and UK) Two more Member States were added in 2013 (Czech Republic and Slovenia)
Under the MoU, instructors with the highest level of qualifications in their home Member State and having passed the EUROTEST can benefit from a professional card and from automatic recognition, thus exercising freely their profession in one of these Member States, establishing themselves there, opening their ski schools or freely providing their services.
[Note: a French ski instructor who wants to open his own ski school in France or work independently must also pass the EUROTEST.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
TTT, key phrases from above:
| Quote: |
| There is an agreed procedure to be followed to have a qualification recognized in another Member State |
| Quote: |
| The competent authorities have the right to check qualifications of ski instructors established and exercising on their territory during a pre-determined period (3 months) in order to compare national requirements. |
All of this follows from France's derogation for ski instruction (and some other outdoor activities, granted in 2000:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/docs/ski/com-2000-2262/com-2000-2262_en.pdf
Articles 2,3 and 4 hedge France's right to impose an aptitude test. Keywords, at the heart of the dispute, are "procedure", "substantial difference" and "professional experience". The derogation seems pretty clear that the need for aptitude test must be considered on an individual basis, and come at the end of the declaration process, not as a pre-requisite for consideration. Anyway, the judge in Bonneville has decided otherwise now (though it seems counter to a decision involving the same issue, the same people and the same court a few years ago), but we know that the final decision does not rest there.
As an aside, everyone seems to believe that the 2000 derogation remains in effect (and everyone may be right). I'm puzzled though, because it is a derogation from a directive specifically repealed by the directive of 2005 - and I would assume it therefore died at the same time as the old (1992, from memory) directive. Is anyone aware of a legal instrument that extended its effect?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laundryman, our posts crossed. I am sure that a certain someone as I htink you are is well read in these matters but suspect as people do that their reading is through the perception prism of what they want to understand. I am also sure that the French judge is also well read in these matters. I would fully agree as I have alwas done that the EU directive, in particular the old version of the directive which applied to the case, is inherently generic in nature and therefore open to interpretation. Hence I found the EU guidance which contains a surprising amount of reference to ski instructing and the EU statement informative in interpreting the EU Directive. I really don't have a specific vested interest in the case other than an interest as a punter and someone who has a more general personal interest in the EU law on recognition of professional qualifications and therefore my views are based on the law. Not having the opportunity to work in the EU would certainly reduce my ski opportunities though. The EU statement does mention a case by case basis so as I have suggested before some compromise in this specific instance may be found but the general position under the EU guidance is clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Laudryman to repeat I think the previous directive is less clear but my interpretion of the previous directive is supported by the Judge's verdict, the EU guidance, the EU Statement and the MoU which is being introduced i.e that the ET is permissable so I do believe that is the appropriate interpretation of the old directive.
I did hear from an "inside" source though that the strongest position in the defence case was concerning whether the correct procedures had been applied so you may well be correct on this point. However, while this may help in this specific case it would not change the position going forward and also the defence position is not helped going forward by the new directive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
TTT, a very well considered series of posts.
The 2005 directive was as you say rather broad based and generic and it is this that has been translated into French law. The court case looked at a) what the law was regarding instructors being able to teach in France under the 2005 directive and b) had the correct procedures been applied. The argument for the defense was based on the 2005 directive as written into French law, the argument for the prosecution was based on the fact that France have a permanent derogation on safety grounds from exact application of the directive. (Made permanent in 2005 and includes Austria and Italy.) The argument for the prosecution followed the MoU agreement that in order to teach in France a declarer needed their countries top qualification plus the Eurotest and the European Mountain Safety exams.
The judge described these as EMS - a safety test and Eurotest a technical test. The prosecution also argued that a 3 month limit for a decision was too short when the declarer did not furnish of the necessary information straight away.
The 2013 directive acts as an amendment to 2005 and although it shortens the time frame on making a decision, it takes away the necessity to accept one level of qualification below that of the host nation. It also requires previous experience to be ratified by an appropriate national body i.e. Basi. So far the French derogation from exact adherence to the directive holds.
So far the argument for the prosecution stands, as does Basi's advice to it's members.
The French so far broadly treat foreign instructors the same as their own nationals, this is clearly not the case with Austria who have imposed different work restrictions in the Tyrol and in Styria's case different qualification requirements to that of their own nationals. Italy for example ban any Italian national who has not passed Italian exams!
Simon Butler's own case is more on whether his "Grandfather's rights" should have been accepted and on whether he should have been given his MoU stamp by Basi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Thanks Saint. It sounds as if you have the benefit of seeing the judgement which I have not. I think the argument for lower levels under EU law is difficult going forward although in practice I'm sympathetic to at least ISIAs having greater market access to working in ski schools.
That is also my understanding of SB's position. I find the debate on FB regarding Grandfather rights and the MOU stamp murky at best as I've never read any definitive balanced explanation and much of it may have been lost in time. I did think that prior to the ET the CAPA or what ever it was called was required and I suspect that just saying there was no ET at the time is not suffecient and not the whole story, although I also suspect some personal politics on both sides has also played a part. The lack of an EMS reassessment on the license may have caused the MoU stamp issue this year. No one seems to have disclosed the whole story though.
Appreciate that the debate on here regardless of people's views is more edifying than some of the comments on FB, although the subject for some on FB is understandably emotive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I have not read the judgement but have put together some sources I regard as accurate. The old Teste de Capacite was similar in speed to the Eurotest but was a slalom. it was followed by a judged bump run, which was taken out in European terms since it could have been subject to bias. You can though read it as essentially the same thing as the current Eurotest. The MoU simply demands each country's top qualification plus the Eurotest and the EMS to have free movement as an independent professional.
Therefore the current law in France means that to get a professional instructors license means you must meet the MoU criteria. Requirements for previously qualified instructors stay as they were, providing the paperwork has already been issued. Simon Butler's own case remains an enigma and will make an interesting appeal. I am not so sure about his other instructors though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
great posts guys, at last some reasoned and thoughtful arguments instead of FB conjecture and bullying.
TTT thanks for cross posting the commissioners Feb statement, hadn't seen that before. Worth noting that commissioner Barnier is from the Savioe and in league with the ESF trade union, he retires this month and in the lead to replace him are UK or Irish nationals which may help with negotiations. It is clear that Austria's position is illegal and is worth noting that Austria was hit with a "reasoned opinion" in July by the EU which gives them 2 months to comply with EU directives or face prosecution.
the aptitude test is the EMS and ET and is only applicable for RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT, there is no requirement for ET/EMS for temporary and occasional working rights or for those in renumerated training schemes as per the ESF/ESI schools. The EC2013/55 directive removes the one level below rule but strengthens mobility rights on a a temporary basis and the host nation must give an answer to declarations in a shorted timescale. France will no longer be able to ignore declarations and then claim they never received them as per Simon's case as this loophole seems to have been closed with the introduction of a pan EU IMI database. The MoU stamp holders will be added to this database and then crucially there is talk that trainees and lower level instructors from nations with multi tiered systems will be added. This is crucial and will be argued I am sure over the coming 12 months so is conjecture at this point.
For alls interest there was a meeting in Brussels last week with all signatories of the MoU along with an EU department head. The MoU had expired 30 June and has been extended for another year. This is the third extension and the EU has made it clear that no further extensions will be tolerated and that agreement must be reached by Jan 2016 or the directive EC2013/55 will come into force. From what I gather the French walked out of the meeting stating that not a single change to the ET will be tolerated, BASI has offered to coordinate working groups to discuss potential changes. A follow meeting is due in the Autumn with ALL EU member states being invited along, crucially there is not enough votes with the current MoU signatories and more nations are required to sign it into law. Hopefully some compromise can be reached. BASI is due to release an update to the members in the next few weeks and i hear they will try to canvass opinion as to what the members feel should be key negotiating points. Stay tuned.
On the language issue I find it funny that the ISIA set the minimum standard but this standard is not recognised by the MoU signatories. One option would be to use the ISIA levels of Card for right of establishment and Stamp (BASI L3) for temporary working in other member states with levels below restricted to working with groups from the home nation or in the home nation itself. worth noting that BASI had to change from a written test to an oral exams after review of its training. To me the oral test covers the basics of safety, etc and is about right for ocassional working but could be strengthened for right of establishment to set up shop in a foreign country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I think the truth is everyone has agendas to some extent which influence their views. My reading is that ski instructing has a derogation on safety grounds and therefore regardless of timing the MOU ET/EMS requirements apply to setting up a ski shcool and working independently but not to working for ski schools. Ski schools though like any employer are perfectly entitled to set appitude tests.
The BASI site notes that independent instructors wishing to work in Austria must be able to converse in German on safety gorunds. My reading of the directive and the guidelines is that this requirement is in line with EU law. I know many ISIA/ISTDs can not converse in the local language i.e. for example have a basic conversation with lift operators. Therefore, it is a legal option that I would look to apply if I was an authority with an interest in restricting foreign workers. It is something after all that employers do legally all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| My reading is that ski instructing has a derogation on safety grounds and therefore regardless of timing the MOU ET/EMS requirements apply to setting up a ski shcool and working independently |
Can you tell us your 'reading' of what exactly? I'm not so much interested in guidelines which is just someone's interpretation (though quite possibly influential), not the law.
I've linked to the 2000 derogation before. I said I didn't see how it could be still valid, as it is a derogation to a directive that has been repealed. You said that such a derogation had been made permanent in 2005. I believe you - but I'd like to see the legal instrument that effected it. Have you seen it, or have a reference? Is the substantive text of the derogation applying now exactly the same as previously?
I refrained from quoting from the 2000 derogation before since it's an image and I couldn't be bother to re-type it. Anyway here goes, with an extract (my italics):
| Quote: |
Article 1
France is authorised to require applicants who are seeking to have ski instructor's … qualifications recognised for the purpose of establishing themselves or providing a service in France and whose training displays substantial differences from that required in France, to undergo an aptitude test.
Article 2
France may not consider that there is a substantial difference between the migrant's training and French training without first having verified whether the migrant can lay claim to professional experience, and whether that experience may wholly or partially compensate for this difference.
Article 3
Each request for recognition must be the subject of a reasoned decision specifying in particular the substantial differences existing between the training received by the migrant and the French training.
Each decision must be made as quickly as possible and must take into account the date on which the migrant wishes to start work in France. |
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/docs/ski/com-2000-2262/com-2000-2262_en.pdf
My reading of that is that France does not have an unfettered right to impose an aptitude test and must prove that a substantial difference with French training exists, taking into account professional experience on a case-by-case basis, and within a reasonable timescale. Simon's defence is that none of that happened, nor the similar prescriptions in the 2005 directive which applied last season.
Maybe there is something that gives the MoU process legal force and that legally negates the 2005 directive and any derogation that applies to it. Maybe the 2005 derogation has different wording and a different effect to the 2000 one. I would be grateful for any chapter and verse in this area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Has anyone got an example of what the C1 and B2 language levels are like? I did French at highschool and a little at uni, but I'm far more conversant than either of those qualifications suggest but I've no idea where I sit in terms of ability or fluency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laundryman, the law simply does not work like that because the law can never cover ever individual circumstance so ultimately you always end up looking at the relevant guidance (here the EU guidelines), agreed best practice (here the MoU) and authoritive statements (here the EU statement). That is the reason that they are introduced not just here but in all fields of law and regulation. I don't think I ever said that the derogation had been made permanent but then I'm not aware that it has ever been specifically repealed and therefore a lawyer would look at what had been previously agreed unless it had been specifically repealed and this is also want the EU thinks based on their guidelines and statements.
Furthermore, I would argue that whether or not the ET is part of the training does constitute a substantial difference. If it was not a substantial difference then they would not be such a fuss about it. I understand that SB has another interpretation of EU law but based on my experience that is not my reading of the directive or its intention. But that is irrelevant. I think the reality is that SB has a tough task arguing that his interpretation of EU law is correct when his interpretation is contrary to BASI and their lawyers, the new directive, the police, the judge, the EU guidelines, the EU statement and the MoU. I think ihe would be well advised to move from denial of this reality to acceptance and focus on his new set up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B2 you can understand the news and deal with every day situations. C1 you can easily converse with the locals in the real world but stuggle when it gets difficult - dialekt, specific technical language. Reality is C1 you are not fluent but you are able to conduct a job interview in the local language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
TTT, I suppose we're both being barrack-room lawyers here, but I don't see how (relatively) waffly stuff created by civil servants, trade groups, etc can overturn what is plainly stated in a law. Elaborate on it maybe, if authority is granted by the law to other bodies to fill in the details. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if the judge in Bonneville alluded to some or all of those things. Whether or not that will stand is, of course, an open question.
I really don't see how a derogation (exemption) from a law that no longer exists can have any status or meaning, though I think you're right to the extent that lawyers can be persuaded to argue most things for money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laundryman, I hope for my clients' sake that I am more than a barrack room lawyer otherwise it could get expensive. I really don't think that the police, Judges, BASI and EU lawyers constitute civil servants or trade groups. The EC-OE on the other hand who pleads the defence case , let's be honest is not even a trade group but a group of individuals with a grudge. The references I have quoted most certainly do not overturn what is plainly stated in the law. They are in agreement with my reading of the law. They are providing specific examples and clarification. If the EU law alone was plain then we would not be having this debate. The problem with the defence case is that they always quote specific statements out of context without actually referring to the complete text or background. It is also standard legal practice to refer to previous agreements in order to clarify parties intentions. We can though at least agree on your very last point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| I really don't think that the police, Judges, BASI and EU lawyers constitute civil servants or trade groups. |
Some of them are.
Can you point to anything specifically that may have overturned or caused to be re-interpreted the "substantial difference" and "professional experience" wording (that appears throughout the 2005/36 directive and the - quite possibly defunct - 2000 derogation) since Simon Butler won his case in 2008 in Bonneville, which turned on the first of those phrases in particular? Or anything that suggests the procedural requirements in 2005/36 should not apply to the French administration?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Laundryman, You are quite right we are no-experts. The only real experts are the judges, (at least until their ruling is overturned or agreed with, the European Commission and the government who validate the laws (even there I have my doubts!).
The trouble is with the practical application of a generic law, (the rules for Doctors for example are much more detailed and advanced). The derogation for skiing also applies to sky diving and scuba diving, it is easy to see why those sports can be particularly dangerous too. Funny enough mountain guides had already agreed a path forward so a derogation was not necessary. It is easy to see that specific case law will develop for specialised activities.
The French point of view is a rather simple one, since (qualified) ski instructors are all independent workers who can choose or not to affiliate to a ski school, they must be able to work independently, which includes racing etc. Since independently means unsupervised, anyone who wishes to teach skiing in France at all must be qualified at an MoU level. (Even on a temporary basis)
The Basi framework says that (let's use level 2's as an example), they cannot work independently, are we logically expecting the French to suddenly grant them permission, even on a temporary basis to do so?
I am highly in favour of Basi instructors being able to gain meaningful employment, but surely independence for level 2's is stretching things a bit. Because as sure as eggs is eggs, the minute they are unsupervised they will push the boundaries of what they are allowed to do.
Do you have a common sense solution for this situation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A swift reading of this suggests that, as I'd long suspected, British ski instructors are more fairly (or less unfairly) treated in France than they are in Austria. Or have I got that wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Laundryman, OK fair point - they are hardly admin staff with no knowledge of the law though are they.
Regarding the rest I don't need too. There is a substantial difference between someone whose training and professional experience includes the EMS and the ET/FIS points or its previous incarnation otherwise SB and his team could just rock up and pass it, end of issue. Everyone agrees but SB with his selective reading and interpretation. If I was SB's advisor, I'd be saying their is a point of law that could be interpretated in your favour but that is an incorrect reading and the overriding evidence and general consensus is against you. The first time I read the directive in its entirety, my immediate reaction without knowing all the history or anything about the parties was that legally the prosecution has much the stronger case. Everything else I have seen since supports this view. The law works on the basis of determining the parties intentions so you simply can not take part of a clause out of context. You can not make a successsful case on that basis. A jury and judge are required to consider all the available evidence, not just one phrase.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Wed 16-07-14 17:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Yes Pam W you are correct!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Pam W, despite what SB would claim it is easier for those with the MoU to work in France than Austria in that they can currently set up a ski school and work seasons independently. But is easier for lower levels to work for a ski schools in Austria as they is no Test Tecnique requirement as in France
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Yes this is interesting, the situation is upside down.
In France, do as we do and you can come in and you are treated the same as us and are well paid,- but be warned it's not easy to qualify and until you do, do not come in!
In Austria, get almost any qualification and come and work for us - it's easy! In return you can make profit for us and we will feel good and get richer (You will not be paid very well). Please do not think of getting the same qualifications as us though, because we do not want you to get any of our profits!
The Swiss version is in-betweensy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
TTT, common sense would say that a British owned ski school run by a couple of ISTDs could employ a few lower level BASI instructors to teach pre-booked British groups at appropriate levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| A swift reading of this suggests that, as I'd long suspected, British ski instructors are more fairly (or less unfairly) treated in France than they are in Austria. Or have I got that wrong? |
Has there been any evidence of discrimination against "foreign" instructors in the Tirol? I agree that the Austrian rules imply that it is possible, but I have seen instructors of many different nationalities teaching all and sundry. English, Irish, Dutch, German, Scandi's (and one beautiful young Argentinian). Funnily enough no Frenchies though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
France - Austria which one - I think they can in Austria, but then ISTD' can't run a business. In France I doubt anyone can employ them 'cos they essentially unqualified to MoU levels. So which one is worse? One can't run a full time business and the other has to get more difficult qualifications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
laundryman, there is commonsense and there is the law and the case concerns the law. I work in a legal and regulated environment. I've lived these legal principle arguments in an analgous situation for the last year where the other side continually argued certain phrases in a legal agreement while ignoring the rest of the relevant clauses, the entirety of the agreement, prior agreements and agreed best practice. They were also equally resolute but ultimately they knew and accepted that even though they had a valid argument based on what might be considered fair that the best course of action was to accept defeat given their weak legal interpretation arguments and not to incur the cost and hassle of a court case.
If you ask me if someone with an MoU should be allowed to employee ISIAs to teach your typical occaisional holiday skier within the remit of their qualifications then that is a different question to which I would be supportive. However, that is likely to be most effectively argued by those who are fully qualified, who are fluent in the local language and who understand and respect the lcoal culture because someone is very unlikely to win the argument under current EU law for the reasons that I have given.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TTT wrote: |
| The lack of an EMS reassessment on the license may have caused the MoU stamp issue this year. No one seems to have disclosed the whole story though. |
What do you mean by this comment. Since when was a EMS reassessment required
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand your point of view, I do not entirely disagree. If ways can be found to accept ISIA's into ski school environments I am all for it, particularly peak season. I am not sure if the European stuff is yet up to speed with different countries needs and the various qualifications that exist in skiing. Interesting though isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
TTT, sorry, I was replying to Saint who asked me for a common sense solution and I inadvertently used your name. I agree this a matter for the law. Have you any explanation for the question I posed earlier as to why Simon won in 2008 but not 2014? Neither his nor his crew's skiing qualifications nor their French were any better then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saint, oh yes, it's interesting. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
