 Poster: A snowHead
|
@jimmer,
| Quote: |
charging that much and paying that little is exploitative
|
It's only exploitative IMO if the instructors have no choice but to work at VR and they DO have a choice. There are something like 22 resorts in Colorado alone.
| Quote: |
It's wages like that that drive down the quality of instructors and spoil the skiing experience for students.
|
You may be right, but Trip Advisor reviews give the ski school 4/5 stars so there's no sign of it spoiling the skiing experience so far. Vail resorts is a business, not a charity for ski instructors. If FairWages wants to persuade them to pay instructors more then he'll need to find a compelling business case for it. I rather suspect that the ESF get paid a lot more and you can't say they do a great deal to enhance the skiing experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| olderscot wrote: |
| Quote: |
How exactly has VR paid for exclusive rights? Their SUP says "Nonexclusive..."
|
We've discussed this before on the 'monopolies' thread. It's only non exclusive for activities that don't interfere with the rights granted under the special use permit.
"E. Nonexclusive Use. This permit is not exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part
of the permitted area for any purpose, provided such use does not materially interfere with the rights and privileges hereby
authorized."
As far as running a ski resort goes. It is effectively exclusive.
If you're going to argue a case there's no point trying to mislead people about the facts. It's going to come back and burn you. |
I think it really depends if you consider competition in and of itself "material interference." I tried researching this, but there doesn't appear to be a lot on point other than http://thesandtrap.com/t/77497/golf-lessons-is-competition-material-interference In that discussion, most felt that given the "Nonexclusive use" heading, that "material interference" would "mean a lack of access to space or equipment." Had VR negotiated for exclusive use with the FS, why have a contract that says "Nonexclusive use"?
I agree that VR is most likely to change if the guests start insisting upon it. By our nature, most Vail instructors want to provide as good a guest experience as possible- that is one of the reasons that we got hired because VR has correctly identified that this is critical to their bottom line. I see it as a bit of a Catch-22: We want to continue to deliver as good a lessons as possible to prove we are worth more than what we are currently paid, but if the customer is getting a great lesson, there is nothing for them to complain about (unless they are made aware of the discrepancy between Instructor pay and lesson price. So what is the best way to make customers aware of the discrepancy without hurting the guest experience? Forums like this help, but only a fraction of the skiing public read them.
There was an interesting thread over on EpicSki http://www.epicski.com/t/125872/tipping-etiquette-for-ski-instructors It seems that much of the skiing public dislikes paying the Resort so much and having the Instructor get so little. One poster said "If what I am tipping is close to twice the instructors hourly wage I don't see that it is a 'tip'. More like the ski school is saying 'hey, it's $800 a day if you and your family would like to learn to ski' and oh by the way, you need to hire an instructor as well."
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
@jimmer,
| Quote: |
charging that much and paying that little is exploitative
|
It's only exploitative IMO if the instructors have no choice but to work at VR and they DO have a choice. There are something like 22 resorts in Colorado alone.
| Quote: |
It's wages like that that drive down the quality of instructors and spoil the skiing experience for students.
|
You may be right, but Trip Advisor reviews give the ski school 4/5 stars so there's no sign of it spoiling the skiing experience so far. Vail resorts is a business, not a charity for ski instructors. If FairWages wants to persuade them to pay instructors more then he'll need to find a compelling business case for it. I rather suspect that the ESF get paid a lot more and you can't say they do a great deal to enhance the skiing experience. |
Except pretty much all the mountains in the US pay that badly. I can't really see it changing either, but that doesn't mean someone shouldn't try. The reviews on tripadvisor don't sound all that great, 9 'terrible' ratings out of 49 reviews, lots of positive ones as well which give it a 19th place ranking in Vail attractions.
ESF, and european instructors in general, can at least be described as professional, most US instructors do it as a hobby or something just for a few seasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@jimmer, how many US instructors do you know? Most that I know are professional and aren't doing it just as a hobby or just for a few seasons.
The wage question is argued out every year, and the idea to unionise come around every 6 or 7 years - it has been tried before but didn't work, which isn't to say it wouldn't work now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I know a lot of professional US instructors, I know (or knew when I worked there) even more part timers, retirees, and kids fresh out of college. Not to say there aren't some great instructors there, just the typically terrible pay doesn't really encourage people to stay in the industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Ski instructing is a job that too many are happy to do for very little money and one where supply exceeds demand. Unionising is unlikely to make much difference unless you can rapidly achieve critical mass and then take industrial action. With uncertain jobs that are not seasonal I can't see many instructors risking either their current earnings or their future employment by striking. There's a link below that shows the total remuneration of an instructor at Vail is around $28,000. I presume that figure is annualised and doesn't include the few perks that may exist, but I suspect that FairWages M&A just have to accept that this is the going rate.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Vail-Resorts-Ski-Instructor-Hourly-Pay-E6662_D_KO13,27.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@foxtrotzulu, they show the base pay at $13/hr and seem to be including TIPS and then assuming an instructor works 52 weeks a year.
TIPS vary a lot depending on who you are teaching- I have noticed that more experienced skiers and those who have friends/family who are familiar with Instructor compensation often TIP more while inexperienced skiers and those who come from cultures who tend not to TIP much, tend to TIP far less or not at all (unless they are somehow educated). Many of these inexperienced guests just assume that Instructors are getting a bigger % of the lesson fee than we do (and this seems logical to me as the Instructor appears to be the biggest component of the lesson). VR doesn't make any mention of tipping and has increased marketing efforts in countries where tipping is not as common as the US. If Instructors are being asked to rely on their TIPs as one of their main sources of compensation, what steps do you feel should be taken to inform clients of this fact? Personally, I think clients are paying enough for lessons that I shouldn't have to do anything to encourage them to Tip other than give a great lesson.
As far as having 22 (to 25 ) Ski areas in Colorado alone, consider this- Colorado is about double the size of England. In total, I believe there are 6 areas that have lodging and are within a 2 hour drive (with good roads) of Denver. Of those 6, VR owns 4. Copper & Winter Park are the other 2- they used to have the same owner and have very similar pay structures to the VR resorts (but lower lesson prices). Colorado is the biggest Ski destination in the U.S.- imagine if all the law firms (or accountancy or golf courses, etc.) within 2 hours of London were owned by only 2 or 3 companies with no option for a competitor or entrepreneur to open their own?
A free market wouldn't guarantee higher Instructor wages, but it would definitely close the gap between what the customer pays and the instructor receives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Fairwages, That website does include tips because tips are part of the total compensation as far as the purpose of the website is concerned. The website does not assume a ski instructor works 52 weeks a year it simply annualises the salary. Without doing that it would be meaningless.
| Quote: |
TIPS vary a lot depending on who you are teaching- I have noticed that more experienced skiers and those who have friends/family who are familiar with Instructor compensation often TIP more while inexperienced skiers and those who come from cultures who tend not to TIP much, tend to TIP far less or not at all (unless they are somehow educated). Many of these inexperienced guests just assume that Instructors are getting a bigger % of the lesson fee than we do (and this seems logical to me as the Instructor appears to be the biggest component of the lesson). VR doesn't make any mention of tipping and has increased marketing efforts in countries where tipping is not as common as the US. If Instructors are being asked to rely on their TIPs as one of their main sources of compensation, what steps do you feel should be taken to inform clients of this fact? Personally, I think clients are paying enough for lessons that I shouldn't have to do anything to encourage them to Tip other than give a great lesson.
|
I don't think 'inexperienced guests just assume that instructors are getting a bigger % of the lesson fee'. I don't think they consider it at all. I think that people generally view tips as being a reward for service above and beyond what you have already paid for in the price of the service. Nobody is 'asking instructors to rely on their tips as one of their main source of compensation'. Nobody is asking them to rely on anything. It's down to the instructor what he relies on. My view is that VR's duty is to pay their employees for the service they provide. If they don't pay enough they won't get the staff they need. If they pay too much (i.e. more than necessary from a business perspective) then they are disadvantaging their shareholders, and as a publicly listed company that's just as likely to be a granny's pension scheme as opposed to a billionaire.
What steps do I feel should be taken to inform clients of the tipping situation? None. It's none of their business and it would be incredibly unprofessional of an instructor to even mention tips. (A sackable offence I'd have thought) If clients feel service has been above and beyond what they expect they will tip anyway. If they don't, they won't.
| Quote: |
As far as having 22 (to 25 ) Ski areas in Colorado alone, consider this- Colorado is about double the size of England. In total, I believe there are 6 areas that have lodging and are within a 2 hour drive (with good roads) of Denver. Of those 6, VR owns 4. Copper & Winter Park are the other 2- they used to have the same owner and have very similar pay structures to the VR resorts (but lower lesson prices). Colorado is the biggest Ski destination in the U.S.- imagine if all the law firms (or accountancy or golf courses, etc.) within 2 hours of London were owned by only 2 or 3 companies with no option for a competitor or entrepreneur to open their own?
|
I'm sorry, I don't quite get this point. If you can't find what you want in the 22-25 resorts in Colorado, then go elsewhere. Even Tennessee has a ski resort! A quick Google suggests that there are 481 ski resorts in the USA and about 170 in Canada. Why do they have to be within 2 hours of Denver? Imagine an English ski instructor saying that he's only going to work within two hours of London!
You seem to be pursuing three different arguments at the same time:
1. There should be a free market in ski schools in Vail - I can't see any major reasons why there shouldn't be one, but this is an argument between the FS and VR. I'm not sure anyone else has a right to a say in this. If the other ski schools will fully compensate VR or the FS for the reduced revenue to them then I can see no reason why not.
2. Ski instructors at VR (and elsewhere by the sound of it) are paid far too little. - Well, the wages aren't high and they are less than Europe. However, they are above the minimum wage and are clearly in line with the market. Whether you can live on them is another matter. I might want to make my living as an artist or a porn star, but I'm not going to earn a living so I have to find another job.
3. Instructors at VR are paid too little in relation to the lesson prices. - Completed unrelated issues. Do you thing a Chinese worker sewing Prada handbags makes that much more than one sewing Walmart handbags?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
@Fairwages, That website does include tips because tips are part of the total compensation as far as the purpose of the website is concerned. The website does not assume a ski instructor works 52 weeks a year it simply annualises the salary. Without doing that it would be meaningless.
| Quote: |
TIPS vary a lot depending on who you are teaching- I have noticed that more experienced skiers and those who have friends/family who are familiar with Instructor compensation often TIP more while inexperienced skiers and those who come from cultures who tend not to TIP much, tend to TIP far less or not at all (unless they are somehow educated). Many of these inexperienced guests just assume that Instructors are getting a bigger % of the lesson fee than we do (and this seems logical to me as the Instructor appears to be the biggest component of the lesson). VR doesn't make any mention of tipping and has increased marketing efforts in countries where tipping is not as common as the US. If Instructors are being asked to rely on their TIPs as one of their main sources of compensation, what steps do you feel should be taken to inform clients of this fact? Personally, I think clients are paying enough for lessons that I shouldn't have to do anything to encourage them to Tip other than give a great lesson.
|
I don't think 'inexperienced guests just assume that instructors are getting a bigger % of the lesson fee'. I don't think they consider it at all. I think that people generally view tips as being a reward for service above and beyond what you have already paid for in the price of the service. Nobody is 'asking instructors to rely on their tips as one of their main source of compensation'. Nobody is asking them to rely on anything. It's down to the instructor what he relies on. My view is that VR's duty is to pay their employees for the service they provide. If they don't pay enough they won't get the staff they need. If they pay too much (i.e. more than necessary from a business perspective) then they are disadvantaging their shareholders, and as a publicly listed company that's just as likely to be a granny's pension scheme as opposed to a billionaire.
What steps do I feel should be taken to inform clients of the tipping situation? None. It's none of their business and it would be incredibly unprofessional of an instructor to even mention tips. (A sackable offence I'd have thought) If clients feel service has been above and beyond what they expect they will tip anyway. If they don't, they won't.
| Quote: |
As far as having 22 (to 25 ) Ski areas in Colorado alone, consider this- Colorado is about double the size of England. In total, I believe there are 6 areas that have lodging and are within a 2 hour drive (with good roads) of Denver. Of those 6, VR owns 4. Copper & Winter Park are the other 2- they used to have the same owner and have very similar pay structures to the VR resorts (but lower lesson prices). Colorado is the biggest Ski destination in the U.S.- imagine if all the law firms (or accountancy or golf courses, etc.) within 2 hours of London were owned by only 2 or 3 companies with no option for a competitor or entrepreneur to open their own?
|
I'm sorry, I don't quite get this point. If you can't find what you want in the 22-25 resorts in Colorado, then go elsewhere. Even Tennessee has a ski resort! A quick Google suggests that there are 481 ski resorts in the USA and about 170 in Canada. Why do they have to be within 2 hours of Denver? Imagine an English ski instructor saying that he's only going to work within two hours of London!
You seem to be pursuing three different arguments at the same time:
1. There should be a free market in ski schools in Vail - I can't see any major reasons why there shouldn't be one, but this is an argument between the FS and VR. I'm not sure anyone else has a right to a say in this. If the other ski schools will fully compensate VR or the FS for the reduced revenue to them then I can see no reason why not.
2. Ski instructors at VR (and elsewhere by the sound of it) are paid far too little. - Well, the wages aren't high and they are less than Europe. However, they are above the minimum wage and are clearly in line with the market. Whether you can live on them is another matter. I might want to make my living as an artist or a porn star, but I'm not going to earn a living so I have to find another job.
3. Instructors at VR are paid too little in relation to the lesson prices. - Completed unrelated issues. Do you thing a Chinese worker sewing Prada handbags makes that much more than one sewing Walmart handbags? |
Is it unprofessional for waiters to mention tips (ie 'service not included' on the receipt)? If it's ok for them, why is it not ok for instructors (in places where instructors are paid less than waiters)?
Interesting analogy with sweatshop workers, I guess you think paying them very little is ok, 'because it's in line with the market'?
Shouldn't all jobs be able to be sustainable? Yes Vail has a duty to it's shareholders, but I think companies should also have a duty to their employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@jimmer,
| Quote: |
Is it unprofessional for waiters to mention tips (ie 'service not included' on the receipt)? If it's ok for them, why is it not ok for instructors (in places where instructors are paid less than waiters)?
|
If a waiter were to actually mention that service was not included then I think that's completely unnaceptable. If it's printed on the bill that's a little different.
| Quote: |
Interesting analogy with sweatshop workers, I guess you think paying them very little is ok, 'because it's in line with the market'?
|
I never mentioned the word 'sweatshop' or discussed how little or how much they get. My point was that wages are in relation to the service performed not the end price of the product. Do i think it's acceptable for some workers to be paid very little? Tricky question. Pay them the same price as UK workers and they wouldn't have jobs at all. Broadly speaking I think the market should decide what the value of someone's labour is. I'm not completely against the idea of a minimum wage but once again you have to assess the side effect of making some people unemployable.
| Quote: |
Shouldn't all jobs be able to be sustainable? Yes Vail has a duty to it's shareholders, but I think companies should also have a duty to their employees.
|
Interesting argument and I'm not sure it necessarily follows, but irrelevant to the ski instructor argument for several reasons. One of which is that ski instructing is, for the vast majority, seasonal work and effectively self-employed. To a degree, FairWages' argument seems to be "I want to be a ski instructor. I want to be near Vail and won't consider going anywhere else. And I want you to pay me this amount to do it." There are hundreds and hundreds of resorts at which FairWages could go and work but for whatever reason he doesn't think he should have to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Instructing is a seasonal job - everyone I know has another form of income and does not rely on their instructing wages to live for the entire year. It is possible to make enough to live comfortably for 6 months out of the year but you have to have something to cover the other six months.
At a rough estimate, I'd say it takes at least 4 or 5 seasons to start to build a decent private lesson client list that you can rely on, and this takes work outside of what the ski school already does for you in scheduling lessons. It's going to take about this long (or longer) to get to the level of certification needed to be recognised as a strong part of the ski school and to give an excellent lesson, which is what is needed in most ski schools to be assigned those lucrative clients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@foxtrotzulu, why do you keep on mentioning choice, when all resorts in the US pay similarly low wages? He works at Vail, why shouldn't he try and change the wages there?
The market is only a good way to determine value when there is competition, as Vail (and the majority of US mountains) has a monopoly, it is allowed to exploit it's workers.
I'm getting kind of bored of this thread, I can see why FW wants to be paid more, but don't get why do you care if he is or is not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| ... ski [instructors are] effectively self-employed. To a degree, FairWages' argument seems to be "I want to be a ski instructor. I want to be near Vail and won't consider going anywhere else. And I want you to pay me this amount to do it." There are hundreds and hundreds of resorts at which FairWages could go and work but for whatever reason he doesn't think he should have to. |
If I am "effectively self-employed" shouldn't I be able to say "Yes" when someone offers to pay me directly to teach them for the day? [FWIW, underground lessons have become a more common occurrence for Vail Instructors as some clientele realize the spread between what they pay resort and what the resort pays Instructors is so huge.]
@foxtrotzulu, you seem to think competition is generally good, but think that I shouldn't complain that the lack of competition in the Vail Valley keeps my wages low and lesson prices high. Why should I move rather than trying to improve the situation locally?
I agree with you that the Forest Service is the one who will allow competition or not, but I think they are more likely to make this change if the public makes it clear that they don't like Vail Resort's monopoly power which results in lesson price being marked up 750% over the typical instructor salary with a net ski school profit of 54.6%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
FWIW when Whistler first opened a private lesson was ~$250 and the instructor was paid ~$150.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@Kenny, Thanks for that. I have been told that in the early 70s, Vail Instructors got paid about half of the lesson revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Back in the '70s and '80s it was common for instructors to get a much higher percentage of the lesson price, plus a higher percentage af skiers took lessons.
I don't know what has changed but, Vail used to be held up as the highest standard in instructor wages - I know a couple of years ago they were still getting a better deal than we were and our pay structure was changing to be more in line with Vail, which was better for us.
Resorts will procecute if they catch you undergrounding on a regular basis - I'm not sure it's worth it. However, there are many instructors who will travel away from their home resort to teach established clients who seem to get away with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
just saw this thread and thought I would add a bit on European pay... Lots of BASI types see France as the holy grail, get your ISTD and then you can make a living wage there. Yet most of the recently qualified ISTD's I have trained with over the last couple years did their instructing and further in Switzerland and when they looked at the bottom line they were better off staying in CH. They had a client base, typically working at a ski school with a pay structure that rewards length of service and additional qualifications, pick of the lessons, higher on the priority list and when they weighted it up were better off in CH.
For me a lightly regulated market like CH where there is value in obtaining the top certs is a good model
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
