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

Where I work, I"m expected to dress a certain way. I can dress "better" than the expectation, but I can't dress worse than it. It doesnt' bother me. It's the business's right to ask their employees to dress and conduct themselves in a certain manner.

If you work in a machine shop, you're required to wear steel toed shoes. If you work on a highway crew, you're required to wear orange. If you work at at Scores, you're required to wear nothing.

What's the difference with requiring a helmet?  For the people getting their panties in a bunch about it, choose to work somewhere else where a helmet isn't part of the mandatory dress code. There's your freedom of choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marge 

 

What kind of "far reaching consequences" could this possibly have.    You make it sound like they'll be making us sip arsenic at our next rest stop from the slopes.  I truly cannot think of ANY adverse consequences could arise from actually wearing a helmet except maybe an occasional "hat ring" left on your forehead. 
 

Far-reaching consequence: decreased recreation.  Second one:  potential for actually increasing real-world risk.

Skiing's not that dangerous, and certainly most posters here would agree it's a healthy form of recreation.  The goal should be to get as many people to ski (or, say, ride their bicycle) as much as possible, by making it as cheap and easy as possible to do.  Potential tip of the iceberg is right, and if so the result will be fewer people skiing or riding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

 

 

Far-reaching consequence: decreased recreation.  Second one:  potential for actually increasing real-world risk.

 

Skiing's not that dangerous, and certainly most posters here would agree it's a healthy form of recreation.  The goal should be to get as many people to ski (or, say, ride their bicycle) as much as possible, by making it as cheap and easy as possible to do.  Potential tip of the iceberg is right, and if so the result will be fewer people skiing or riding.

  See, now that sounds like a GOOD thing to me.    Sure, I might have to pay a bit more if there are less people on the slopes but I'm willing to do that. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by marge 

 

  See, now that sounds like a GOOD thing to me.    Sure, I might have to pay a bit more if there are less people on the slopes but I'm willing to do that. 

 

I suspect you are not serious and simply think I'm being stupid.  (I actually have also heard people say things to the effect that "if people can't afford a helmet they shouldn't be skiing," which aside from being elitist also ignores the schlep factor.)  Helmet laws have clearly reduced rates of bike riding and some related sports.  More broadly, you increase the cost of something, both in monetary terms and in schlep factor, and inevitably you do get less.  If skiing or riding had extrememly high rates of head injury and helmets clearly were effective in reducing that rate then you could say society benefited from a helmet requirement anyway.  As it is, the rate of head injury is pretty low, EVEN when counting the higher-risk aspects of the sport, and the health benefits from the sport are pretty clear.  Imagine if you required helmets for basketball, which also does have its share of serious head injuries.  Would you get more or fewer people hitting the courts for a game? 

As someone with a medical background, you likely also have seen the effects of, say, a MRSA case from shared sporting equipment.  A couple of those from shared rental helemts, if they DON"T get thoroughly cleaned after EVERY use, and you're talking even more social costs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vail snopro 

Yes, this edict from the Ivory Towers in Broomfield was dropped on us yesterday when we had our morning meetings.

 

"Every employee who has skiing, snowboarding or operating a snowmobile in their job description will be required to wear a helmet while on the job next season."

 

 

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.

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.

Thanks for the little news tip. I e-mailed Blue Mountain and got the full story and added it to my article.

http://tinyurl.com/vailhelm Any one know of any other possibilities like Blue Mountain with the rule? Also, when I contacted Blue Mountain, I learned that guests are required to wear helmets in the terrain park. They also must buy a special park pass $10CDN and you receive an "orientation CD".

Quote:

Originally Posted by vail snopro 

Would anybody on this site disagree that real safety and injury prevention begins LONG BEFORE you would even put on a helmet?

 

It begins with education of the risks, and exposure to better decision making processes.

That would be followed by an assumption of personal responsibility for one's own actions, and an awareness of others around them.

After these conditions are met, then a helmet should be more or less a moot point!

 

I find it most interesting that ASPEN has already publicly announced that it WILL NOT be following Vail's lead on this issue. Does this diminish Aspen's image or reputation in your estimation?

Will all of you who decry those of us who would ask to be treated like adults and allow us the opportunity to make our own choices, trash Aspen for not making the same decision as Vail? 

How about Jackson, Sun Valley, Deer Valley, etc?

Why isn't your home area following suit? But I hear no hue and cry about them!

 

So when Vail Resorts hands along such an edict, and an extremely high percentage of those of us who are affected by this policy are unhappy about it, you are so quick to call us whiners or worse.

 

Most of you, who are willing to place your opinion ahead of ours, are not professionals and do not have nearly the time and experience that a high percentage of our staff have on snow. But obviously you must know what you are talking about, because you read it in a newspaper article, heard some psuedo - expert on the radio or TV, or were influenced by some advertisement for a helmet company.

 

[As so many times it gets pointed out that ski instrs hardly ever ski fast, and are usually standing around talking about skiing... what are we protecting our heads from? Are YOU going to crash into me?]

 

Here is a great point to drive this home... As a part of this edict, it is permissable for an instr teaching beginners on one of our beginner areas to remove their helmet while teaching. Hmmmm... didn't Richardson fall and hit her head while taking a lesson IN A BEGINNER AREA? Kind of defeats much of the importance of the message, wouldn't you say?

 

Internally, it has been acknowledged that the primary thrust of this edict is one of marketing. And boy, have they succeeded! Just listen to you all!

 

Tell you what- come to Vail, pay $700 for a private with me, and I'll guarantee I'll wear a helmet....just to make YOU feel better! 

 

I'm with you on this, AND I feel your pain.

Is there a 'plan' being talked about amongst your fellow co-workers regarding options. Anyone talking about a new mountain? Have you spoken to 'management' about your concerns... ('cause that ALWAYS works)

Best of luck with this unfortunate situation.

suppose they're gonna have to put bowling shoes in an autoclave now that MSRA is lurking everywhere.

NM passed a law that requires ski areas to provide helmet rentals. So far, the local hospitals have not been overrun...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mom 

 

NM passed a law that requires ski areas to provide helmet rentals. So far, the local hospitals have not been overrun...

Actually, I believe that law was only considered and hasn't been passed.  NM ski areas took it upon themselves to offer hemet rentals.  If you can point to a reference that shows the law passed, I'd be interested to see it but a quick Google didn't turn anything up. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaobrien6 

 

You may be right.  I do believe that eventually helmets will be required.  Look at bike helmets, seat belts, etc.  It's probably just a matter of time.  However I just can't get too worked up about it.  I wear a helmet anyway 'cause I think it's a good idea.  Maybe I just don't value my personal freedoms enough but stuff like this doesn't rile me up.

Bike helmets (at least in CA) are only required by law for children.  Obviously, the fear is that a little move like this means that some day they won't let regular skiiers on the hill without one.  When that day comes, I can "maybe" go along with mandating helmets for little kids, although somehow I, my children and hundreds of my skiing friends managed to survive the sport for decades.  The fact that a head injury happens to someone maybe once a year does not matter to me - its a skill sport and each person has to judge whether they have the skill to do what they do (except for when you get wiped out from behind by some snowboarder dude - that IS a problem).

For me, it would ruin the sport and I will never wear one (although I have, when running a downhill).  It totally changes the experience and unlike riding a bike on asphalt or playing hockey on ice, you can fall on snow quite hard and 99.9% of the time (approximately) you won't get hurt.

I have to admit I am suffering from a serious case of job envy so maybe that has made it a little to easy for me to defend Vail's decision.   

I can tell you that if my job description included being on the mountiain skiing or working all day and the main restriction was wearing a helmet I would trade you in a heartbeat for the suit and tie my employer requires that I wear daily.

I will grant you that it is easy to be an armchair quarterback as well and if I was in your shoes I would probably be upset as well.  I don't necasarily agree but I can see the side of those who don't like the policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Lyon 

For me, it would ruin the sport and I will never wear one (although I have, when running a downhill).  It totally changes the experience and unlike riding a bike on asphalt or playing hockey on ice, you can fall on snow quite hard and 99.9% of the time (approximately) you won't get hurt.

To each their own, but I totally disagree.  I skied without a helmet for years, and have skied with a helmet for about 5 years now.  I *don't* think that it changes the experience.  My helmet is light, comfortable, fits my head well, and causes me no problems at all.  The *only* time I don't like wearing it is when the temps get up above about 45-50 degrees.  Then it's too warm even with all the vents open.  Otherwise, no problems at all.

If you don't want to wear a helmet, don't.  I'm not trying to convince you to.  But saying it totally changes the experience... that's just your opinion, and I'm proof that not everyone agrees with you.

 Quote:

Originally Posted by mogulmuncher 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.

Wanted to offer a correction here since I've heard this rumour going around the escarpment a few times. Craigleith has had the staff helmet policy in effect this season and last. However members and visitors ARE NOT required to wear helmets, except for children taking lessons, and anyone in a racing program. In addition, visiting race coaches have been required to wear helmets as well, although this was spottily advertised and enforced this season, I suspect it will be more heavily enforced next season.

With the exception of the visiting coach policy, this is now pretty much standard practice on the escarpment and surrounding areas (with the exception of Alpine, which will be implementing it next season), as I suspect you know.

Personally I don't really agree with the policy, given that it's a choice that affects the individual, and nobody else; however I've worn a helmet for the past two years and really can't say I mind it and have even taken to wearing it freeskiing most of the time. I do enjoy the occasional day without it though, particularly in the spring. Mostly what troubles me is the underlying situation of increased insurance pressures and shift in balance of related court cases - I'm by no means a libertarian, but there does need to be a line where we accept that people are responsible for their own choices and the consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mom 

suppose they're gonna have to put bowling shoes in an autoclave now that MSRA is lurking everywhere.

 

NM passed a law that requires ski areas to provide helmet rentals. So far, the local hospitals have not been overrun...

http://www.freshgear.ca/mrsa_danger_athletes_medical.html

http://esportageneseeco.com/healthtopic2.html

The idea would be to ensure that they don't start finding cases?  I guarantee that the local hospitals were not previously "overrun" by head injuries suffered by the ski-rental population that would have been PREVENTED by their wearing helmets.  Maybe the real-world people who treat shared athletic equipment as an issue are stupid, who knows.  To repeat again, maybe Vail does have this issue sorted, but it is an issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

 

 Helmet laws have clearly reduced rates of bike riding and some related sports.

 

Uhhh....yeah, sure they did. And reduced rates of bike riding have nothing to do with increase in tv/video games/computer use, more sedentary lifestyle, more congested roads (with more distracted drivers), over protective parents, youth having greater access to cars than ever before? Not to  mention that biking, particularly road biking is often seen as an elitist sport -- something which its members (and manufacturers) perpetuate through confusing terminology, comoponent snobbery, and weird clothing.

If you can show an undisputable cause and effect relationship between helmet laws and reduced riding, you are the smartest man alive!! 

Oh, and in what other biking related sports did helmet laws cause a reduction in participation?  Just curious, cause I'm not sure what a biking related sport is. Unless you count squeezing into spandex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyymc 

 
 

 

Oh, and in what other biking related sports did helmet laws cause a reduction in participation?  Just curious, cause I'm not sure what a biking related sport is. Unless you count squeezing into spandex.

Uhh, the phrase was bike riding and some related sports, the context of helmet (and in some cases pad) mandates and motion sports is clear.  Since you're witty enough to crack about spandex you should have wits enough to figure it out on your own I suppose. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by billyymc 

Where I work, I"m expected to dress a certain way. I can dress "better" than the expectation, but I can't dress worse than it. It doesnt' bother me. It's the business's right to ask their employees to dress and conduct themselves in a certain manner.

 

If you work in a machine shop, you're required to wear steel toed shoes. If you work on a highway crew, you're required to wear orange. If you work at at Scores, you're required to wear nothing.

 

What's the difference with requiring a helmet?  For the people getting their panties in a bunch about it, choose to work somewhere else where a helmet isn't part of the mandatory dress code. There's your freedom of choice.

 

 

Simply put, very nicely. Vail is not taking away your freedom, you have the choice to work anywhere you want. 

I hope Vail is offering some sort of reimbersment for the cost of a helmet. I will also ask for the clarification that if you are skiing on your own time if you have to wear a helmet then, at that point it is an invasion, but if you are 'on the clock", I see no problem with it. I do think that instructors and patrollers at all areas should be required to wear them., but that is my opinion.  

I guess one of the things which puzzles me in most of the supporting statements of this new policy is this.... This sport has been around longer than I have been alive. I have been actively involved in it for 35 years. And the number of significant head injuries generated by patrollers and/or instrs has been really minimal.

Are we suddenly skiing faster, taking more chances, or just being more stupid than we were, say, 15 years ago? Ironically, there has been an increase in various types of injuries among non-professional skiers, while said increase has NOT been matched by professional skiers.

So WHY DO YOU FEEL THERE NEEDS TO BE MANDATED HELMET USE AMONG THOSE OF US WHO HAVE PROVEN OVER THE YEARS TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER RISK OF INJURY (of any type)?

Will you, as the general skiing public, take responsibility for the idea that you are making it more dangerous for us? After all, if we are not increasing the risk to ourselves, then the risk must be coming from someone else. You are the only other people on the hill!

What it comes down to for us is that, regardless what other industries have mandated regarding safety equipment, there is not the statistical proof that we are at the same level of risk as the average recreational skier/snowboarder. Given the fact we put much greater numbers of days on our respective sliding apparatus each season, you might think that our risks would grow accordingly. But once again, the statistics do not bear that out.

Anecdotal- Yesterday afternoon I ran into Brian McCartney (Vail employee for the past 30 years), formerly the head of the Vail Ski Patrol and Dir of Mtn Operations until this past January. I asked him what his best recollection was about when the last reported head injury by a skiing/boarding employee. His response was that there hadn't been one in almost 10 years. Whether his response is completely accurate is unknown. But I think this partly confirms the earlier information I received about no head injury WC claims by employees during the past 4 years...

So, once again, I ask that if you support the mandated helmet policy, WHY? Give some specific reasons, and back it up with logic! Not just some spew about because we should, or that because the company says 'jump', we must ask 'how high'.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by vail snopro 

 

So, once again, I ask that if you support the mandated helmet policy, WHY? Give some specific reasons, and back it up with logic! Not just some spew about because we should, or that because the company says 'jump', we must ask 'how high'.....

When was the last time you were in a car accident, and if you were, did a seatbelt have an influence in the outcome of your safety? If there was not a law to wear seat belts, would you still wear one? Did you get this upset when the seatbelt law came into effect? Do you think professional race car drivers feel that they should be excluded because they have been driving for 35 years? Do you think that Nascar drivers had the same resentment when they were required to wear HANS devices after Dale Earnhardts death? That HANS really limits mobility. 

You are welcome to become aspen snopro or copper snopro, but Vail has chosen to set guidelines and requirements to represent them. I am sure this is not the first hoop (or even the last) that they made you jump through let alone other hoops you had to in your life. When you have that Vail jacket on, you are representing the company and it is not much different than a bank employee having to wear a suit or an employee wearing a uniform. And as Judge Smails said... "The world needs ditch diggers too..." 

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"...

Are you seriously going to compare skiing to driving in NASCAR? That's quite a stretch... (but then, maybe that's the way some people view it...) And by the way, yes, there were some drivers who did not want to use the HANS restraints....

I hate to say it so blunty, Phil, but you are still an amateur. Get out and ski 150-300 days a year, make your living at it, and then you may find your view point a bit different!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

...You are welcome to become aspen snopro or copper snopro, but Vail has chosen to set guidelines and requirements to represent them...

^ What he said.

Vail (or any company) has every right to require a reasonable dress code that if not based on pure utility, can also be based on the image the company would like to project.  Frankly, I think that image is not only good for Vail in a business sense, but also a great influence on newbie skiers and park rats, who very well could benefit from that bit of pressure to invest in protective equipment.

Also, the "jump/how high" portrayal of the argument is flawed for one simple reason:  "jump/how high" implies an arbitrary/or and unreasonable requirement.  Requiring a ski professional to wear a helmet would probably be considered quite reasonable in the court of public opinion these days.  It would probably be viewed similarly in a court of law (assuming some sort of ski pro class-action lawsuit), even completely disregarding the resort's desired image argument.

Personally, I support the mandated helmet policy just simply because I'd like to see you instructors in helmets.  I owe no particular reason other than a whim.  And I vote with my dollars. 

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"...

 

Are you seriously going to compare skiing to driving in NASCAR? That's quite a stretch... (but then, maybe that's the way some people view it...) And by the way, yes, there were some drivers who did not want to use the HANS restraints....

 

I hate to say it so blunty, Phil, but you are still an amateur. Get out and ski 150-300 days a year, make your living at it, and then you may find your view point a bit different!

I do make my living in the industry, maybe not all the time on snow but both of us draw our checks from the same source. I didn't wear a helmet for the first 30 years on snow, now I won't ski without one. I like the comfort and everything the helmet brings.  You can be damn sure, if I was on the snow 150-300 days a year I would undoubtably be wearing a helmet. I use my head almost every day, as hard as it is, that extra layer does help. 

There were many logical responses here but just none that you agree with. Quite frankly, there are more logical reasons to wear one then there is logical reasons NOT to. You say, use a reason other than "Because we said so..", well, please give a reason not to other that "freedom of choice". We will agree to disagree, but if you want to work at Vail next year, it looks like you will be wearing a helmet.

As a former employer once told me..""There are two kids of people in world...people that sign the checks on the front, and people that sign the checks on the back" As long as Vail signs your checks on the front and they require you to wear a helmet, you can continue to sign them on the back. 

Logical argument:

If you expect kids to wear helmets, then the people they look up to should wear them too. It's not a case of "do as I say, not as I do"

For many kids, the people they look up to are the instructors, or others who are in uniform, so it's important that when they see someone in uniform, they see someone who has a helmet on, this will make them realise that it's not just something that they are forced to wear but don't want to.

If the first thing an instructor does after a lesson is to take the helmet off to go free skiing, then that's what the kid will want to do too.

Is that logical or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DtEW 

 

^ What he said.

 

Vail (or any company) has every right to require a reasonable dress code that if not based on pure utility, can also be based on the image the company would like to project.  Frankly, I think that image is not only good for Vail in a business sense, but also a great influence on newbie skiers and park rats, who very well could benefit from that bit of pressure to invest in protective equipment.

 

Also, the "jump/how high" portrayal of the argument is flawed for one simple reason:  "jump/how high" implies an arbitrary/or and unreasonable requirement.  Requiring a ski professional to wear a helmet would probably be considered quite reasonable in the court of public opinion these days.  It would probably be viewed similarly in a court of law (assuming some sort of ski pro class-action lawsuit), even completely disregarding the resort's desired image argument.

 

Personally, I support the mandated helmet policy just simply because I'd like to see you instructors in helmets.  I owe no particular reason other than a whim.  And I vote with my dollars. 

Image? If you want to wear one or make your child wear one, that is your choice. Don't put it on someone else to project that for you. It's not their problem (till now) .

There in lies the problem. It shouldn't be. "Reasonable" ? Not to some.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wear The Fox Hat 

Logical argument:

If you expect kids to wear helmets, then the people they look up to should wear them too. It's not a case of "do as I say, not as I do"

For many kids, the people they look up to are the instructors, or others who are in uniform, so it's important that when they see someone in uniform, they see someone who has a helmet on, this will make them realise that it's not just something that they are forced to wear but don't want to.

If the first thing an instructor does after a lesson is to take the helmet off to go free skiing, then that's what the kid will want to do too.

 

Is that logical or not?

I'm fine with kids wearing or not wearing helmets. Again, not my problem to set an example for anyone.

And if I was forced to wear one as a condition of employment and chose to stay working there...you can be damn sure it would come off the minute I was off the clock. Kids are their parents problem, at least for the first 18 years.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi Smash 

Image? If you want to wear one or make your child wear one, that is your choice. Don't put it on someone else to project that for you. It's not their problem (till now) .

 

There in lies the problem. It shouldn't be. "Reasonable" ? Not to some.

 

See, this is where you try to frame the argument like a civil-liberty-issue, whereas in-fact it's far from that.

This is not meddling public dictating to you what you can-or-can't-do regardless of varying beliefs, despite the fact that you owe them nothing.

This is your employer telling you what they want you to do (and how you should do it, "reasonable" to you or not) if you want their money.  Oh yeah, you're under no obligation to take their money if you don't agree.

 Some of the skiers that I hold in the highest of regard do not don a helmet, which is the number one reason I tend to not get into these discussion, even though I choose to wear a helmet and feel uncomfortable on the rare occasion that I have not worn mine.

That being said, Phil's statement here says it all..........

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

 

 

As a former employer once told me..""There are two kids of people in world...people that sign the checks on the front, and people that sign the checks on the back" As long as Vail signs your checks on the front and they require you to wear a helmet, you can continue to sign them on the back. 

Vail made a company policy, if you choose to work for Vail resorts, then you choose to abide by their policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vail snopro 

.

 

...So, once again, I ask that if you support the mandated helmet policy, WHY? Give some specific reasons, and back it up with logic! Not just some spew about because we should, or that because the company says 'jump', we must ask 'how high'.....

Well, I obviously don't support compulsory helmet mandates in general and am concerned that Vail is the tip of the iceberg.  But as regards employees of Vail having to wear them, there's a very good business reason, as opposed to safety: view it as the equivalent of a bell-hop's uniform.  Not practical, but it will make your guests feel good and maybe important.  A large slice of Vail's visitors are people inclined to indentify with Natasha Richardson.  More broadly, yuppies have an incredible amount of faith in "gear" in general.  So, your wearing a helmet will make guests feel that Vail is hip, on the leading edge, and also oddly confirm the sense that they're doing something adventurous (sort of like more people wanting to climb Everest AFTER the highly publicized deaths there in '96 -- the helmet in skiing, for a certain social group, increases the "cool" factor).  In terms of "branding," given Vail's place in the resort marketplace it's probably a good business decision. 

Now, let's say Vail took the same amount of $$, looked at where the majority of head injuries were occuring on the hill, and then figured within the same $$ spent how they could modify either the terrain or skier/rider behavior to reduce the number of accidents.  It might not reduce EMPLOYEE head injuries much, because as you note there aren't many employee head injuries (track the number of head injuries employees sustain walking around the resort and they're likely higher than those sustained on the hill), but head injuries overall would go down.  But there's no press release there; it would not make guests feel that Vail "gets it."   

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

 

Simply put, very nicely. Vail is not taking away your freedom, you have the choice to work anywhere you want. 

 

I hope Vail is offering some sort of reimbersment for the cost of a helmet. I will also ask for the clarification that if you are skiing on your own time if you have to wear a helmet then, at that point it is an invasion, but if you are 'on the clock", I see no problem with it. I do think that instructors and patrollers at all areas should be required to wear them., but that is my opinion.  

When I interviewed Vail's spokesperson about it, she said they're providing the helmets to employees. They're purchasing about 6,500 for employees and more (they don't know how many yet) to stock their owned and operated retail outlets to be part of the standard rental equipment packages for kids 12 and under.