TO Contracts and minimum wage?

A snowHead

Apologies if this has been discussed before.

With all this talk about local minimum wage rules being applied in Switzerland and Austria then I can only assume that the TOs currently rely on UK minimum wage law.

If this is true then if we assume the employee is paid every 28 days then how do they manage to pay the employee only £350ish a month (or is this way too low)? Under UK law the minimum hourly rate for an 18yo is £5.13 per hour and an allowance of £5.08 a day for accommodation. No other freebies are included. On this basis the employee is working 25 hours a week. Clearly a nonsense.

My question is how do the TOs get around this? Do they pay a proper rate based on an agreed maximum no of hours (say 50 per week) with no overtime ever required (sic.) with free accommodation and a daily deduction of say £20 for food etc.?

From a purely academic point of view I'm intrigued to know how this works, how many hours are they paid for and what's the daily charge for food etc.

A snowHead

@tarrantd, I think that £350 a month is high rather than low for most TO's...

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

25 hours a week, have you been in a chalet? They would be the square Bears.

It's not digging roads up either.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Chalet hosts will typically be on £60 - £80 per week.

The low wages avoid the minimum wage threshold due to the fact that provide accommodation, insurance, transport out to resort etc, so those costs are factored into it (or they were).

I can give an example from my year of working for Crystal as a rep, this is from 2010-11 though so a bit old. Per month, basic salary was £700 and subsistence allowance £300. Crystal then charged a provision of service of just under £500, to cover lodgings, transport and other costs.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Also, TOs will typically pay a flat monthly rate but expect staff to sign the waiver for not working more than a 48 hour week. Chalet staff and reps work a 6 day week, probably averaging around 60 hours + per week.

You'll need to Register first of course.

If you pick up the phone and phone the nmw helpline they will tell you that its because the staff are seconded abroad and so should be covered by the laws of the country they work in, so uk nmw does not apply. Upto now most of the countries they were seconded to turned a blind eye, could n't be bothered or just had not noticed.

If your chalet staff or a rep averaging 60 hours a week, sorry but your doing something wrong - 45 to 50 would be closer, over 6 days.

As I recall Crystal introduced those contracts with provision of services when the French authorities a few years ago started looking at the pay in order that it would appear they were actually paying something, even if they then subsequently took most of it back.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

@hsdee, An average of 45-50 hours would have been a dream. In actuality (in my case anyway, and that of my colleagues and other reps in resort at that time) it's a best case and happened all too rarely, certainly from my experience repping for Crystal, and as an RM for a chalet company. Perhaps 60+ as an average was an exaggeration, but certainly not all that uncommon. 50 - 60 hours is definitely a fair average though.

Transfer day was up in the am between 5am and 6am, every week and if you finished by 10pm you'd done well. I had many a crazy weekend of transfer day (Saturday) followed by lift pass delivery (Saturday evening / Sunday morning), ski hire/ski school coordination, staff post-transfer meeting and customer welcome meetings where, by the time I went to bed on Sunday evening, I'd easily worked 30 hours. Add in crazy airport delays and it's not a stretch to have to work a 24 hour transfer day. Every other week I'd have to do ski hosting on the Sunday too, so there was no break from getting up at 7am until cashing in after the welcome meeting around 10pm.

Add in daily visits to guests and hosting daytime/evening excursions such as bar crawl, moonlight meal, bobsleigh, ski away day (typically got 2 or 3 of these a week, the shortest of those in time was probably bar crawl at 4 hours or so, the others were longer). Then add in sorting out customer problems (often required time during the day), random non-scheduled jobs, another ski hosting day in the week if you were scheduled for double that week, and we're well on the way.

Chalet hosting, granted, is not quite so long on the hours but I'd argue more labour intensive. If you're any good you will be starting around 730ish for 8-9 breakfast service and be finished by 10 every morning, 1030 latest. But you're still looking at 2-3 hours per morning service/chalet clean, 4 hours or more per evening service, and Saturday is turn around the chalet for new guests which can easily run to a 15 hour day without even thinking.

Good luck to you if you averaged 45 hours a week, because I certainly didn't and neither did everyone else I worked with. Plus I worked in les Arcs and had to factor in journey times, either by minibus or the navette. Getting from Arc 1800 (where I lived) to Arc 1600 (where I repped) then Arc 2000 (where the office was) then back home was a mission.

That said, even as someone who was on the wrong side of 30 at the time, it was still the easiest 60 hour week that I've ever worked in my life, and will remain so. And probably the most enjoyable. But repping is a bloody long old chore and no mistake. And if anything I saw chalet hosting as harder work, despite the shorter hours.

After all it is free

Is it possible that the poor old TOs relied on UK authorities thinking that the employment was covered under the locations rules and the locations being told that the employment was all under UK arrangment??

Only recently, the various ski locations starting to ask proper questions about it.

If it wasn't all in the too difficult bracket I wonder if the TOs would be nervous of the authorities having a look under the cover at compliance with all the various employment rules and regs?

@Dav, So another good reason not too work for Crystal if you were having to do that many hours...

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

@hsdee, as I said, it may have been long hours but it was the easiest job I've ever done and ever will do, and I loved it (especially as it was a career break having spent the best part of 15 years working indoors).

Personally I have no problem with crystal, I've been on many holidays with them before and since working for them, and they were actually very good with me when I did my season. And I got much, much more time to ski as a rep with them than I did as a resort manager for a different, much smaller chalet company.

Horses for courses really. And when you're talking about your working week being made up of ski hosting and being paid to get boozy, I don't think you can really complain about having to do long hours!

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

@hsdee, those hours are typical for the industry, it's not a Crystal thing.

snow reports

@Dav, I am happy you have had such a positive experience, but back to topic, did you make minimum wage with them for all those hours worked ?

@hsdee, good Lord no. And I knew I wouldn't either. My view was that as long as it gave me free accommodation, lift pass and transport plus a bit of beer money it was worth doing. If I hadn't rented out my house while away I would have eaten in to savings doing seasons. But again, I knew all that beforehand and had the attitude that it was a sacrifice worth making to be able to ski and have the time of my life. Exactly the same decision for everyone else too.

You know it makes sense.

@Dav, renting out a house and going away to do that sort of stuff strikes me as a great idea. Lots of people could do it, or something similar, if they put their minds to it. And quite a few do, of course - they tell us about their experiences here on snowheads. But lots just hanker and dither, rather than act.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

@Gämsbock, Well if this is the case as well as not meeting minimum wage requirements the working time directives are also being neglected !

@Dav, Of course not and based on the information you have provided, 700+300 ppm before deductions, 60 hours a week equates to a grand hourly rate of £3.83 give or take a few pennies. I have no issues that people go into this work knowing this and if there was no min wage legislation then all is well. However where minimum wage regulations exist, along with other working regulations, they should be adhered to or we may as well not have any at all.

A snowHead

A snowHead

It's hardly a fair comparison with local businesses using local staff as they don't have to pay for accommodation and relocation costs for the staff. British TOs do. And having all that paid for you and organised for you is what makes the whole deal so attractive to people who work for TOs.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Dav I'd say that local businesses still have to accommodate most of their staff.
Most of the seasonal staff in our village are from outside the area and are usually provided with accommodation as well as pay and conditions complying with local employment laws.

After all it is free

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

I'm amazed by the amount of people who say something along the lines of

' well, people find it acceptable to live in a tiny room, eat poor food, get paid barely enough to buy beers etc, so I think it's ok'

well... just because people do it, doesn't make it right!

Just because some rich kids are lucky enough to do a season at mummy and daddys expense as some kind of 'rite of passage' before they come back and take up the job that Daddy arranged for them to have when they were born doesn't mean everyone is! and still doesn't make the meagre wages right!!

it's a job at the end of the day, perks are skiing or not, it's still a job and employees deserve at least minimum wage for the hours worked, not a blanket contract making them work at least 50 hours a week, in some cases the wage works out a £1.50 an hour, how is this right or just?

the conversation seems to be going in circles, the fact is that the majority of accommodation is shocking, food IS normally left overs, the company doesn't have to pay for the Ski Hire which usually comes free in exchange for supply of clients, and invariably ski passes are either massively discounted or in some cases free (it happened to me... TWICE) plus insurance which is supply at no charge of the TO as they sell insurance anyway, and same with flights

Just because a perk of the job is skiing doesn't mean employees MUST take a meagre wage in exchange! it's a perk of the Job - that's all

snow reports

@Lizzard, The hotel next door to us provide accommodation for their staff, they usually rent the apartment about 3 doors down from our studio for some of them. I think only the chambermaid lives locally, the kitchen and waiting staff are usually from outside of the area. They do have a lot of staff returning each season so maybe it is not that usual, however I know at least one of the other two hotels in our village also provide accommodation.
Our studio used to be owned by another hotel owner to accommodate some of his staff before we bought it off him. I'm not sure where they stay now but it had been left in a bit of a state when we bought it so I assume it was easier for him to sell it than do it up for his staff.
I also know of another local bar owner who provides accommodation and local contract so I don't think it's that unusual.

You know it makes sense.

@skichampcouk, I didn't say it was unique. It's just not usual.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

I think its about time this came in. Even if making upto minimum wage puts the average wage upto £100/ week after the deducted expenses for a hotel/chalet host would be a bonus as it would give you more money to do stuff, it would make living in a hole with 10 other people slightly better as most of the time the "perks" of the job such as included accommodation, you wouldn't expect your pets to live in and the food can be terrible

A snowHead

All these calculation is well meaning and such. But in practice, there're just many, many young people perfectly willing to work for that meager wages.

So let's say the alpine countries decided to enforce the local minimum wage standard. All the TO has to do is relabel the cost of transport, accommodation/food, lift pass etc. at full price. I would think it wouldn't be too hard to work it out so the net pay remain the same despite a higher hourly wage. They could also coheres their willing staff to claim a much shorter working hours per week...

As long as the demand of young people to work a season or two in ski country, it will likely be easy enough to get around the local wage standard.

Here I am in New York, I've been working in mostly top tier banks. They have spots for software engineers coming straight from China or India at extremely low wages (above minimum but far, far below "market"). How did they get the visa for their Chinese & Indian staff at substantially lower wages than local? The companies that supply the engineers just mark up the lodging and transportation cost! So it looked like they're pay a fair wage for their staff but in reality their net pay was a fraction of what we locals got paid.

A snowHead

Haven't all the TOs pulled out of Switzerland (media wording) because they enforced the local minimum wage rules? The majority of uk punters are after lower prices and hence employers have a squeeze on margin. Wages could go up but then prices would also increase to preserve margin and then everyone would complain that snow sports are elitist.

"Doing a season" is expensive no one would consider having 4 months off to work at a London bar and go out several nights a week whilst also taking in all the sites... Is that not similar (expensive place expensive experience)?

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Well, costs across the board have been going up, food, petrol, tax, electric, accountants etc.... so it's only a matter of time before prices go up anyway... People generally are too used to having it 'too good' and expect generally too much for their money - it's not reasonable to pay £200pp catered and expect champagne on arrival and cheese after dinner every night (some people DO expect this) as well as the pre-requisite of a Hot Tub, swimming pool AND sauna. all these things cost money and prices will go up soon to compensate... Businesses are run for profit, and profit alone, costs will get passed on to the consumer otherwise the TO will go bust... then other prices will go up any way because supply is smaller and demand is higher....

If people reigned in their expectations of value a little they'd realise that actually Champagne and cheese are perks of a good company who supply quality... quality is to be paid for... just like staff.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@Insiders, absolutely £200 pp catered I'd be asking what I was getting, not saying what a good deal I got... I pay more than that in London for 1 night in a hotel....

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Twas the great man Einstein himself who said: not everything that counts can be counted: not everything that can be counted counts.

The perceived value of a job to s/he who is doing it includes not just cash but lifestyle, learning opportunities, and a whole host of other intangibles that means you can't measure it simply by the number of Euros.

That's why some of us take lower paid jobs with lower commuting time. Some prefer to work only three days a week...
And some prefer to take the opportunity to live in the mountains, earn tips from visitors, ski whenever possible, and have a whale of a time in the evenings before embarking on a career.

HOWEVER.

I'd suggest that conflating the two separate issues: "are Brit workers exploited by the TOs?" and "are the TOs gaining market advantage by paying low wages?" on one thread, only muddies the water.

You'll need to Register first of course.

@Arctic Roll, no doubt... I think they are inextricably linked however; best shown by the recent ruling in Switzerland resulting in the 'we can't operate in that environment' noise. That being said I would say the answer to both is probably no...?

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

I know a youngster that did this work last season. Will not say who he worked for at his request.

I asked him about the low pay and conditions. He said it did not bother him that much. He went to have fun and did not think anyone was exploiting him. I did this myself many years ago, even did it again one summer for PG while at UNi. I look back on it with fond memories. Pay and conditions were rubbish then as well, but I also did not care. I was 18 and just wanted to have fun. Smile

IMO there are to many people worrying about the way the youngsters are treated. Most of them are not stupid. Know what it is going to be like and just want to do something different before heading in other directions after leaving school. Good on them and I hope they still get the chance to do these jobs despite the pay and conditions not being very good. I know some of my younger relations want to have this experience when they are old enough. Very Happy

I hope this kind of work is still around for them with all these changes taking place.

After all it is free

In some respects working for a TO could be viewed as an internship. Internships can be up to a year and are essentially unpaid (most employers make a small allowance for expenses). The idea is that you gain valuable post-education experience to enable you to get a foot on the career ladder. I worked for a TO for a season between universities (degree and postgrad). The experience taught me some essentials of customer service and time management, plus enabled me to practice my languages. I didn't really care about the 'salary' as long as it didn't cost me to be there. After I finished my postgrad I embarked upon an internship with the same view, the 'salary' was unimportant, the experience was paramount.

I suppose the category here is do we regard doing a season with a TO as a job/career? I think in most instances it's a stop-gap experience for people who enjoy skiing, it's rarely a career choice but does offer some CV-worthy benefits. You could say the same for people who pay to take part in volunteer schemes in various parts of the world. In essence they are working, but not being paid, they are doing it for the experience.

When is it a job and when is it an experience?

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Internships are also "jobs".

I know someone who organises accommodation for a large number of British season workers and the way he tells it, many of them are certainly there for the experience. Or to put it another way, to do some growing up.

All these tears about 50-60 hours weeks. If after their season they want to return to middle-class jobs paying middle-class salaries, 50-60 hours and more is something to get used to, especially for under 30s beginning their careers.

I know a young man who is on an internship in a bank in central London. 50-60 hours would be an expectation on him he could only dream of. He's being paid something around the national average salary and by the time he's paid for rented accommodation in London I doubt he's got much more cash in his pocket than a season worker.

We are in a world where the children of the middle classes are finding it very tough indeed to match the living standards of their parents without parents subsidising them into adulthood. It's the same in UK, rest of Europe and the USA.

Help!!

TO Contracts and minimum wage?

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste