Vail employees - now required to wear helmets while on duty starting 09/10 season

Can we have a thumbs down symbol for posts as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tog 

 

Well people will make all sorts of reason why they don't want to wear them - including the neck thing.  None of that changes the fact that most of them are garbage. Yeah, that's my complaint and I'm sticking to it. Why not take a few steps forward for some sort of standard? No, that would make too much sense. Let's just require piece's of crap so we look good to our kids. (rant still on)

 

You're claim that "ski helmets are exactly where they should be on the mass vs. durability continuum" is based on what? A bunch of people talking on a website? Bike racers who'd cut their toes off to save weight if it worked?  More junk 'science' for the masses including the people who make policy.

 

And another thing!...What's up with this "well that's what the employer says", "they sign the checks"... etc. Good God! Half the people here are likely to barricade themselves in a bunker with weapons and they're talking like this? Look what we've lost now that communism is dead.... (now turning rant down to 2...)

 

 

Whaaaat?!?!?!?! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DtEW 

 

 

Uh, there's quite a bit of precedent in the cycling industry that shows lightweight can still be protective (at the cost of durability).  Some of those helmets have been nothing but foam.

 

...So let's take a step back.  Here we've got you complaining about the flimsy, lightweight nature of ski helmets.  In a few posts back, we get others complaining that the added mass of helmets may contribute to neck injury.  The assault from both sides on the same issue suggests to me that ski helmets are exactly where they should currently be on the mass vs. durability continuum.

The mass, durability, and type of foam Qs depend in part on what you want from something like a helmet (surviving severe impacts but still being left with severe brain damage vs. protecting some against mild "bell-rings" with a softer more absorbent foam but being less-protected against more-severe impacts;    protecting against penetration vs trying to dissipate energy) but you're correct that the people currently designing them ain't stupid.  What they can't do is create magic:  e.g. there is no magic helmet that magically protects your neck; a lower-profile lightweight helmet will other things being equal be less protective against at least some things.  No surprise there.
 

Wow, alot of emotion here.  Can't wait to add my $0.02....

I'm in the Philpug camp here.  Employer calls the shots here, you can comply or walk.  What's more American than that?

Here's what I have to do to stay employed:

I have to wear long sleeves, even in the summer.  Steel toed shoes, long pants, and birth control glasses (call them that because, hey, have you ever gotten lucky while wearing safety glasses w/ side shields?).  I can't have a beard or excess facial hair, even if I haven't worn a respirator in 9 years.  Subject to random drug testing, have to carry a cell phone at all times (even away from work), have to wear a name tag with my picture, a hard hat with my name on it; I go through a security gate that swings open easily coming in and real squeaky slow trying to get out.  I have to be politically correct while supervising lazy crybaby employees.  All for the pleasure of signing the back of a really big check every 2 weeks.  I'd trade up to Vail in a heartbeat, but only if the check was the same amount. 

Those who don't like it can walk.  But I bet very few will............wow, I feel better now.  Disclaimer - I have 2 ski helmets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mogulmuncher 

 

 

This looks pretty similar to a policy started at Blue Mt. in Ontario this season.  Blue instructors & coaches were already under a mandatory helmet policy, and now it's extended to other staff doing work on open ski runs. (I think the groomer operators are the only ones exempted.)

 

Craigleith ski club, next door to Blue, extended their mandatory helmet policy for staff to their members while skiing.  Any visitors to the club, including parent volunteers for race events (even just for running coats) are also required to wear helmets.  Since the number of skiers without helmets was becoming a pretty small group anyways, people seemed to just take the new rule in stride, no big deal.

Personally, I'm in favour of Vail's action. And as employer, they're entitled to set the dress code.

One difference with Blue, though, I don't believe in that case the employer ever supplied helmets. Kudos to Vail for doing that. 

VSP, how do you feel about being required to wear a uniform jacket?

Gotta love the:

Helmets suckHelmets rule

threads...

Helmets just might be the tip of the iceberg.  That really opens the way for the "safety bar down" mandates now that the excuse about getting hit in the head is moot.

In relation to TR15s post and about uniforms in general, would people feel any differently if Vail was mandating the wearing of hats that matched the uniform jackets instead of helmets?

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

Gotta love the:

...would people feel any differently if Vail was mandating the wearing of hats that matched the uniform jackets instead of helmets?

"Hats don't work!  Hats contribute to more injuries than they prevent!  It's all "pop science", so I won't wear a hat unless they establish better standards for performance!  Do you know how many people catch frostbite on their heads due to the overconfidence that hats engender???" 

When I was teaching, there was a rule against wearing a cowboy hat. I didn't think that was fair, but there were no cowboys among us to raise a ruckus over it. A couple of the lady instructors defiantly wore them free skiing. 

BWPA, you forgot the main con against helmets, they mess up your hairdo. 

Geez, this is why our country is in such a mess.  This is a simple request from an employer to have its employees follow a new corporate safety standard yet we're blowing it up way beyond the attention it merits.  If someone started a thread about hostile management at a resort, a resort cutting salaries or hours or something that really affects its employees lives we'd read it and move on.  We are obsessing on things that don't matter much and ignoring the stuff that really does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rio 

Geez, this is why our country is in such a mess.  This is a simple request from an employer to have its employees follow a new corporate safety standard yet we're blowing it up way beyond the attention it merits.  If someone started a thread about hostile management at a resort, a resort cutting salaries or hours or something that really affects its employees lives we'd read it and move on.  We are obsessing on things that don't matter much and ignoring the stuff that really does.

Yeah...that's what we need....

More "YES" men

 I think Rio is suggesting that many workers are subjected to much worse conditions and being required to wear a funny hat isn't really that big of a deal. Have you contacted the ACLU yet? Department of Labor? Unionize!

Actually, Vail Resorts is cutting pay of all employees next season and a couple of years ago we all had to wear one of several approved hats.  No joke.  They did remove the hat requirement but there are approved colors for hats.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rio 

Geez, this is why our country is in such a mess.  This is a simple request from an employer to have its employees follow a new corporate safety standard yet we're blowing it up way beyond the attention it merits.  If someone started a thread about hostile management at a resort, a resort cutting salaries or hours or something that really affects its employees lives we'd read it and move on.  We are obsessing on things that don't matter much and ignoring the stuff that really does.

Actually, I'm thinking more along the lines of who is Vail's perceived greatest competition in CO???

I'd go try and get a job there......

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Re: the kids helmets and image:  nothing wrong with kids wearing them, but it's very interesting to me that other than POC the "mainstream" helmets co's don't, so far as I'm aware, take into account the simple fact that kid's heads weigh less.  (Maybe this has changed or will be changing.)  So the foam is the same as for adult helmets and the worth to the kid in energy absorption will be much less.  But, it "looks" super-safe, which is the main thing people want.

They don't because its marketing garbage.   

Marketing garbage that lets POC have *thinner, cosmetically more acceptable adult helmets*

If the force exceeds the foam crush strength, then

mass*(deceleration)*(compression distance)= 1/2mass*(impact velocity^2)

mass cancels out:

(deceleration)*(compression distance) = 1/2 (impact velocity ^2)

One thus only need use foam having low enough crush strength to protect both kids and adults.   It will, of course, make for thicker adult helmets than if you use foam with a higher crush plateau for adult helmets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by telerod15 

When I was teaching, there was a rule against wearing a cowboy hat. I didn't think that was fair, but there were no cowboys among us to raise a ruckus over it. A couple of the lady instructors defiantly wore them free skiing. 

 

BWPA, you forgot the main con against helmets, they mess up your hairdo. 

HAHA, my little sister is a Spa Technician(Beautician)

She refused to wear a helmet because it would mess up her hair, OH NO!!!!

But one night her husband, (a radiology technician at the local emergency room) came home from work and told her that she would not be skiing until she got a helmet.

My Brother in law is extremely passive and never demands much of baby sister, but this time he did.  She wears a helmet now, because she loves her husband and it was THAT important to him after something he saw at work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rio 

Geez, this is why our country is in such a mess.  This is a simple request from an employer to have its employees follow a new corporate safety standard yet we're blowing it up way beyond the attention it merits.  If someone started a thread about hostile management at a resort, a resort cutting salaries or hours or something that really affects its employees lives we'd read it and move on.  We are obsessing on things that don't matter much and ignoring the stuff that really does.

And you are surprised by this? Welcome to the internet. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rio 

Geez, this is why our country is in such a mess.  This is a simple request from an employer to have its employees follow a new corporate safety standard yet we're blowing it up way beyond the attention it merits.  If someone started a thread about hostile management at a resort, a resort cutting salaries or hours or something that really affects its employees lives we'd read it and move on.  We are obsessing on things that don't matter much and ignoring the stuff that really does.

Rio- this has already happened! VR cut instr wages by 2.5% for next seaon, with no COLA/ annual merit increases. So basicly, we are going to start next season 5.5% behind.
 

As a full time instr, I was also cut back to 4 days a week on the schedule, instead of the normal 5. But we are still required to make our points by the end of the season.

But these are the results of hard economic times. And these are issues which we as employees have no say in either, though they do impact us directly. The idea of being treated like uneducated little children, unable to make our own choices is the sticking point over this issue. It is merely to make YOU, the skiing public, happy that Vail is supposedly doing something in the interests of safety.

Again, as Phil said , and I agree- its all about image!

Quote:

Originally Posted by vail snopro 

 

Rio- this has already happened! VR cut instr wages by 2.5% for next seaon, with no COLA/ annual merit increases. So basicly, we are going to start next season 5.5% behind.
 

 

As a full time instr, I was also cut back to 4 days a week on the schedule, instead of the normal 5. But we are still required to make our points by the end of the season.

 

But these are the results of hard economic times. And these are issues which we as employees have no say in either, though they do impact us directly. The idea of being treated like uneducated little children, unable to make our own choices is the sticking point over this issue. It is merely to make YOU, the skiing public, happy that Vail is supposedly doing something in the interests of safety.

 

Again, as Phil said , and I agree- its all about image!

Look at the bright side, you will get a free helmet. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by telerod15 

VSP, how do you feel about being required to wear a uniform jacket?

 

 

Believe it or not, I'm proud to wear the uniform I work in, whether it's my ski school or my pilots uniform! They reflect that I'm a professional in my field. And as a professional, I expect to be treated as such, not as an unthinking imbecile!
 

And yes, the uniform is part of what customers expect to see, and greatly influences their opinion of a person's professionalism.

But given the knee jerk reactions to the few highly publicized incidents, this has gone over the top. From the issue of safety to purely public image for the benefit of the ski company.

Next you will want ski instrs to return their govt bail outs and bonuses! Oh ya! We didn't get any! But isn't that how public perception works?

Like when the automaker CEO's FLEW the company jets to Washington, the public made a spectacle of it... Hmmm, the facts... Each jet moved between 8-12 people. Each jet cost about $20k PER ROUND TRIP!  Try flying that many people round trip anywhere for that money, First Class. Yes, First Class because they were able to actually get some work done while in the air. You ever try to get anything really accomplished in Cattle Class?

And here is the topper- in almost every CEO has a codicle in their employment contract which forbids them from flying commercial! This is common, for safety, and security reasons.

Did these facts get in the way of everybody screaming for the automakers to get rid of their jets? (Most were leased anyway, not owned) Absolutely not! But public perception was that a waste of money was going on.

Here, once again, public perception is supporting a statistically unsupported theory of helmets reducing injuries which do not exist anyway!

It will never be known how many injuries have been avoided due to helmets. Because they do not get reported, because there is no way to accurately ascertain if the injury would have happened, helmet or not. But even if a helmet is worn, there is no assurance that an injury will not occur. Some will say the chances are greater.

Believe it or not, people, there is risk in skiing! Either accept the risk and put your boots on and go enjoy it, or stay in the lodge! Everyday, every professional skier has to weigh that risk. If they can't accept it, they quit. If they accept it, they go out and do their job.

But no helmet, no instr, no ski area can guarantee that you will not be injured. Accept the risk, or go back to knitting! (better put corks on the ends of the needles)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

 

Look at the bright side, you will get a free helmet. 

Phil- I already own 5 helmets... and a brand new one in a box... Anybody interested in buying it?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz 

 

....when a snowboarder looking over his blind side and talking backwards to his friends behind him, smashed into me at a high rate of speed.  I had no way of seeing him coming or of avoiding this.

This is exactly what happened to an 85 year old female skiier I met in Vail last month, which is the reason she gave for starting to wear a helmet two years ago, after 60 years of not wearing one.

This is a touchy topic, but I bet this scenario is a lot more common than injury from hitting a tree.  This is the ONE possibility that would actually make me consider having my kids wear a helmet.

Hmm, I was getting from this thread that capitalism sucks, unless you are a capitalist, but I guess even the CEOs have a tough time now and again with those flying restrictions and such. Does your pilot uniform include a goofy cap? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

 

Look at the bright side, you will get a free helmet. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by vail snopro 

 

Phil- I already own 5 helmets... and a brand new one in a box... Anybody interested in buying it?
 

Look at the bright side, you can sell your free helmet to recoup some of your loss' 

Quote:

Originally Posted by vail snopro 

 

Phil- I already own 5 helmets... and a brand new one in a box... Anybody interested in buying it?
 

We will take it for am Epic Auction. Might draw some interest considering it's history. 

So I guess if your employer requires you to shave, he's not infringing on your personal freedom, because you can always work somewhere else?

What if he asked you to shave your head?  Don't like it?  No problem.  You are free to walk.

Not a health issure, you say? How about if he requires you to abstain from alcohol while off the job? 

Where do you draw the line?

Ski season must be over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by telerod15 

VSP, how do you feel about being required to wear a uniform jacket?

 

The difference being, there's a demonstrably good reason to wear a uniform.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by vail snopro 

Phil- I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I was really hoping someone would generate a logical argument. I still have yet to hear an argument, other than "the company says so"...

 

Seriously? You were expecting logic, non-emotional discourse in helmet thread? Are you new here?