or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Should part time Instructors support BC Instructor Unionization Efforts?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should part time Instructors support BC Instructor Unionization Efforts? - Page 3

Poll Results: Should part teim Instructors support BC Instructor Union Efforts?

 
  • 66% (12)
    Yes
  • 16% (3)
    No
  • 16% (3)
    Undecided
18 Total Votes  
post #61 of 88
Ya society sure failed miserably in the 50s-70s when the top tier payed higher taxes and capital gains weren't exempt. Trickle down is working much better for the middle class and ski instructors. Horror stories about the most extreme communism are just the wealthy trying to scare those that have the most to gain voting Democrat.
Edited by crgildart - 4/6/16 at 4:37am
post #62 of 88
So Bode do you live in a socialist country?
post #63 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

So Bode do you live in a socialist country?

Only in the past.

Highly unionized workforce, high minimum wage, fewer hours for salaried employees, huge transportation and other public works projects, all supported by 90% marginal tax rates.  The 1950's seem like a foreign country now.

 

BK

post #64 of 88

The 1950s were also good for the USA because we were the only major nation with our production capabilities still in tact and not destroyed in WWII.  In fact, our mass production capabilities expanded greatly during WWII while those of Europe and Japan were pretty much bombed in to desolation.  The whole world had to buy our goods for decades while Europe and Japan recovered with Germany and Japan under sanctions and Russia forming the Communist, isolationist CCCP.  Our stuff wasn't as great as we touted it to be... We were the only game in town for the entire planet when it came to steel,rubber, plastics, etc..  That's a big reason why everyone prospered with plenty to go around for all even with production owners paying 90% tax rates. 

post #65 of 88
The 50s sucked for many. Immigrants and minorities had it pretty rough. Unless you think segregation and prejudice are good things.
post #66 of 88
Ultimately the BC teaching pros are hardly forced to work there. Unless you are a visa worker...
post #67 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
 

This is another example of zero sum thinking.  

 

First of all, losing purchasing power is not such a big deal if your marginal purchase is your third pair of designer sneakers. And purchasing power is not the same as financial security, and maybe low wage workers would be better off by buying less stuff, but also worrying less about making the rent. But the better answer is that the economy is moving to where the median income is falling further behind the average income.  Maybe policies that support low wage workers bring them closer to the median, and grow the economy as well.   

 

Ironically, the socialists will save capitalism...again.

 

BK 

 

I am far from an expert on this topic so could you let us know when and where it was that socialism saved capitalism in the past?

 

It seems to me that capitalism has been adopted by China to save their economy and keep their centralist undemocratic government in power.

 

Ronald Regan wanted to get the Soviets engaged in a Star Wars arms race in order to bankrupt them, but he didn't need to because they were already bankrupt.

 

Socialistic Greece has found out that things don't work too well once you run out of other people's money to spend. Not only is their standard of living going to drop but economic recovery is going to be hampered because the best minds and most talented Greeks will be forced to leave Greece to find work and then send money home rather than stay home with no work.

 

As far as I can see Greece is just the start of economic troubles for socialist Europe but I may be wrong so please enlighten.

post #68 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

The 50s sucked for many. Immigrants and minorities had it pretty rough. Unless you think segregation and prejudice are good things.


I said there was "plenty to go around". I never said it was shared equitably across all segments.

post #69 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

The 50s sucked for many. Immigrants and minorities had it pretty rough. Unless you think segregation and prejudice are good things.

I agree with you about all that, but that doesn't mean that the libertarian free trade big business agenda hasn't been a disaster for the lower middle class. High marginal tax rates, defined benefit pensions and unionism were not the cause of the problems of the fifties.  It's more like we tossed the good parts of the fifties and kept the prejudice and ignorance.

 

BK

post #70 of 88
But that is the point, equitable for all is a great socialist mantra. Realistically that is not the case in BC. Commuting an hour to work and still living four to an apartment is common. It gave rise to the pejoratives like down valley trash describing the working class workers.
post #71 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post
 
I am far from an expert on this topic so could you let us know when and where it was that socialism saved capitalism in the past?
 

Read the economic history of the US. Periodic depressions, "panics" and bank runs were common from the mid 19th century until the New Deal when unemployment and deposit insurance and other programs were developed.  Market economies are subject to deflation and collapse unless there are strong programs to support markets.  The biggest part of that is income security for workers.

 

It seems to me that capitalism has been adopted by China the US to save their economy and keep their centralist undemocratic government in power.

 

FIFY. No one disagrees that the capitalist system generates wealth, but the distribution of wealth creates its own problems. What we are experiencing now is a revolt by those in the working class who have figured out that the libertarian agenda has left them behind.  Demonizing measures that mitigate the unfortunate consequences of globalization by calling them "socialism" is a defensive tactic which will not resolve the underlying problems. 

 

Ronald Regan(sic) wanted to get the Soviets engaged in a Star Wars arms race in order to bankrupt them, but he didn't need to because they were already bankrupt.

 

The collapse of the Soviet Union occurred after 40 year period of more or less consistent policy  to by the US, one that was originally developed by Democrats .Reagan was just there take the credit, as you seem to agree.  In any event, it's starting to look like the Russian empire is back, so maybe even that win was only temporary.

 

Socialistic Greece has found out that things don't work too well once you run out of other people's money to spend. As far as I can see Greece is just the start of economic troubles for socialist Europe but I may be wrong so please enlighten.

 

Greece's problem is that they have forfeited their sovereignty and allowed their creditors to control their money supply.  A sovereign country would just devalue its currency and begin to recover.   Greece is in the same situation Mississippi would be in if the Federal government limited Federal payments to the amount of Federal taxes collect there.  It has very little to do with socialism, and all to do with the fundamental flaws of the European Union.

post #72 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

But that is the point, equitable for all is a great socialist mantra. Realistically that is not the case in BC. Commuting an hour to work and still living four to an apartment is common. It gave rise to the pejoratives like down valley trash describing the working class workers.

So does it surprise you that the working class is abandoning their Republican corporate overlords?

 

BK

post #73 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
 
 
I am far from an expert on this topic so could you let us know when and where it was that socialism saved capitalism in the past?
 

Read the economic history of the US. Periodic depressions, "panics" and bank runs were common from the mid 19th century until the New Deal when unemployment and deposit insurance and other programs were developed.  Market economies are subject to deflation and collapse unless there are strong programs to support markets.  The biggest part of that is income security for workers.

 

It seems to me that capitalism has been adopted by China the US to save their economy and keep their centralist undemocratic government in power.

 

FIFY. No one disagrees that the capitalist system generates wealth, but the distribution of wealth creates its own problems. What we are experiencing now is a revolt by those in the working class who have figured out that the libertarian agenda has left them behind.  Demonizing measures that mitigate the unfortunate consequences of globalization by calling them "socialism" is a defensive tactic which will not resolve the underlying problems. 

 

Ronald Regan(sic) wanted to get the Soviets engaged in a Star Wars arms race in order to bankrupt them, but he didn't need to because they were already bankrupt.

 

The collapse of the Soviet Union occurred after 40 year period of more or less consistent policy  to by the US, one that was originally developed by Democrats .Reagan was just there take the credit, as you seem to agree.  In any event, it's starting to look like the Russian empire is back, so maybe even that win was only temporary.

 

Socialistic Greece has found out that things don't work too well once you run out of other people's money to spend. As far as I can see Greece is just the start of economic troubles for socialist Europe but I may be wrong so please enlighten.

 

Greece's problem is that they have forfeited their sovereignty and allowed their creditors to control their money supply.  A sovereign country would just devalue its currency and begin to recover.   Greece is in the same situation Mississippi would be in if the Federal government limited Federal payments to the amount of Federal taxes collect there.  It has very little to do with socialism, and all to do with the fundamental flaws of the European Union.

 

I'm also very, very far from an expert, and have stayed out of this one... but I wanted to say I think this is a good post. (Though the crossing out of China seems to be a bit of a cheap shot that weakens the better answers in other places.)

 

I think a lot of folks forget that we have a lot of checks and regulation of capitalism because unfettered capitalism does things like put 10 year olds to work in factories 16 hours a day. Or have late 19th century monopolistic companies with the owner taking 90% of the revenue as a salary and paying workers peanuts. (Although that is starting to sound a little familiar these days in places.)

 

So what usually gets argued is not whether their need to be controls, but how MUCH control their needs to be and of what type. So it's all trades and shades of grey, and not really "capitalism vs. socialism". 

post #74 of 88
Bode, the political ramifications of a failed organizing effort are going to be interesting to watch. I hope the school can mend fences and move forward together but hard feelings are bound to exist for a while.

In spite of being sympathetic in a general way, I am not a supporter of unions any more because IMO the shop will likely turn into a we / they place where workers verses management becomes the primary focus for both sides. Been there, watched it happen, don't see that as a positive in any way. It's like swimming upstream ever minute you are at work and after a while everyone starts looking for an exit point rather than focusing on doing a good job. Personally, I found my way out by turning that around, swimming downstream and planning my exit point on my terms. Interestingly enough that resulted in a promotion and an immediate 40% pay increase, multiple employee recognition awards and a much happier workplace attitude on my part. Something I have maintained to this day. BTW, I still get awards every season from our SSDs and I believe loving your job starts with liking yourself and having pride in your work. That is the easiest path to happiness and better pay. I also realize it's not easy to get up everyday and do a great job without those two ingredients. Myself I use a NLP card on my bedroom wall to remind me every morning why I am here at the resort. Others might find different means to help them show up with their "A" game everyday but happy really does come from within and if teaching skiing doesn't make you happy, then I think you need to find whatever job will make you happy. The money will follow when you find that passion.

As an aside I tried a weird experiment a few years ago when walking and running. I need to say that I don't really enjoy running and dread was a better term for how I felt about it for many, many years. Then while rehabbing a weak knee, I decided to smile as I walked and eventually ran around the lake behind my house. It was weird how my knee literally stopped hurting when I smiled as I walked. When I forgot to smile my knee would hurt again. It's not scientific evidence of anything but for me it reinforced what I learned decades ago about swimming with the current and creating PMAs. We perform better when we feel better about us and our work.
post #75 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

We cannot change political systems and such. At least not immediately. Perhaps a comparison where the line workers here in the US have higher wages doing the ski teaching job is most appropriate. Does that raise lesson prices? No. Compare S3 of Aspen to BCSRS. It doesn't take much more than that to prove that higher lesson prices as a result of higher instructor wages theory is false.
In the end the BC instructors tried to do something about raising their wages and it failed. But at least they tried. Wall street has to be happy and the public probably won't see lower lesson prices in BC. Will that cause the lesson takers to take fewer lessons there? Who knows, the average lesson taker probably knows very little about this and their coach speaking about poor pay would be weird and uncomfortable for both parties.
It is yet to seen how this plays out but failed organizing efforts usually result in some workers moving on, mostly because of too much resentment on both sides. That is a loss for both sides.

Political systems have a nasty way of changing abruptly and often violently when the proverbial crabs finally figure out that the pot is boiling. Of course the irony to this whole discussion is that what free time we have to ski, etc... is a product of unions, government work rules, etc... The 'free market' eventually is free.... from labor costs. Surfs work hard for less until they don't and royalty has a hard time maintaining the connection between head and neck.
post #76 of 88

Right to work (right to screw unions) aside, if resorts can kick people out and ban them for buying a lift ticket and teaching other people how to ski better that also bought a lift ticket.. then can't they also ban people that belong to a union from teaching others.. i.e. just say they're not hiring union workers period?

 

In one breath the resorts will say we only hire people that are members and a of a certain ski instruction teaching organization.  In the next breath they will say but not if they form a labor union to negotiate better compensation as a collective group.

post #77 of 88
Except for that being an explicit violation of federal labor law, great point.
post #78 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2OnSnow View Post

Except for that being an explicit violation of federal labor law, great point.


States pass laws that are counter to federal labor law, but still upheld when deemed "constitutional". Right to work.. More accurately, enforced unless deemed UNConstitutional.

post #79 of 88
"Right to Work" laws don't allow what you said.
post #80 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

... I am not a supporter of unions any more because IMO the shop will likely turn into a we / they place where workers verses management becomes the primary focus for both sides. Been there, watched it happen, don't see that as a positive in any way. It's like swimming upstream ever minute you are at work and after a while everyone starts looking for an exit point rather than focusing on doing a good job. 

I agree with all that, but I still think more unions is better, even if I don't want to be in one.

 

The Woman of My Dreams is a nurse who once worked 2 part-time jobs, one in a non-union hospital, the other in a unionized hospital.  From what she told me, the non-union hospital was a better environment for everyone, and the pay rates were about the same.  But the question is, how much of that was the result of enlightened management, and how much was due to the threat of organizing?

 

This is the answer: The nurses union sued all the hospitals (including the non-union ones) for collusion to suppress wages.  They won and TWOMD got a raise at both shops.

 

Unionizing is the big gun of wage work.  You never want to pull the trigger, but you still want to show it sometimes.

 

BK 


Edited by Bode Klammer - 4/8/16 at 7:34am
post #81 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

... I am not a supporter of unions any more because IMO the shop will likely turn into a we / they place where workers verses management becomes the primary focus for both sides. Been there, watched it happen, don't see that as a positive in any way. It's like swimming upstream ever minute you are at work and after a while everyone starts looking for an exit point rather than focusing on doing a good job. 

I agree with all that, but I still think more unions is better, even if I don't want to be in one.

 

The Woman of My Dreams is a nurse who once worked 2 part-time jobs, one in a non-union hospital, the other in a unionized hospital.  From what she told me, the non-union hospital was a better environment for everyone, and the pay rates were about the same.  But the question is, how much of that was the result of enlightened management, and how much was due to the threat of organizing?

 

This is the answer: The nurses union sued all the hospitals (including the non-union ones) for collusion to suppress wages.  They won and TWOMD got a raise at both shops.

 

Unionizing is the big gun of wage work.  You never want to pull the trigger, but you still want to show it sometimes.

 

BK 


^ Yep.

 

Unions have been their own worst enemies causing untold severe self inflicted wounds. Now corporations are taking a page out of the Union playbook and are rocketing up the leaderboard of Self Inflicted Wounds doing their damnedest to ensure the long and healthy life of Unions.

 

I worked for a BIG corp during college breaks. Union warehouse as a Teamster. There were about eight warehouses around the country. All were closed union shops except one; that one had the highest wage and best benefit package of all of the locations. It was also about middle of the pack for cost of living at that time. I don't know which drove this (but I have my hunch) but to me it seems that one of two things happened: the workers effectively spoke with one reasonable voice (without the assistance of a union) and management listened; or, management decided that it would be more expensive in the long run to have a union shop and so offered a better comp package to the team (probably some of both).

 

There are at least four choices for what to about wages:

-Sit there quietly and take what you get

-Work individually for your own benefit independently of your coworkers

-Work with your coworkers to create an effective unified voice and talk to management

-Bring in a union

post #82 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2OnSnow View Post

"Right to Work" laws don't allow what you said.

I didn't say they did.  I just said that states pass laws that are counter to federal statutes.. and they are enforced until someone fights it.  So, they could theoretically pass a silly law allowing employers to discriminate against unions... the same way that NC and MS and others are now passing laws that clearly state employers can discriminate against gay people.  Until it is successfully challenged, it is the law.

post #83 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2OnSnow View Post

"Right to Work" laws don't allow what you said.

I didn't say they did.  I just said that states pass laws that are counter to federal statutes.. and they are enforced until someone fights it.  So, they could theoretically pass a silly law allowing employers to discriminate against unions... the same way that NC and MS and others are now passing laws that clearly state employers can discriminate against gay people.  Until it is successfully challenged, it is the law.


Theoretically you are right.

 

However, those papers would already be drawn up and someone is standing outside some clerks office with a phone to their ear waiting for word that the Gubna has signed the bill. I figure about 30 seconds - more if there is a line - to get that challenge rolling.

post #84 of 88
We could also say political parties are their own worst enemy of late as well.
post #85 of 88
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
 

Right to work (right to screw unions) aside, if resorts can kick people out and ban them for buying a lift ticket and teaching other people how to ski better that also bought a lift ticket.. then can't they also ban people that belong to a union from teaching others.. i.e. just say they're not hiring union workers period?

 

In one breath the resorts will say we only hire people that are members and a of a certain ski instruction teaching organization.  In the next breath they will say but not if they form a labor union to negotiate better compensation as a collective group.

Its my understanding that it is not illegal to teach a friend to ski, it only becomes an issue when $ exchanges hands. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by H2OnSnow View Post

Except for that being an explicit violation of federal labor law, great point.

Yes,federal labor laws do offer some protection, but the case involving former Aspen Instructor Lee Mulcahy is an interesting one that is still pending- http://www.aspentimes.com/news/15801107-113/former-ski-instructor-regroups-in-fight-with-aspen-skiing

 

Ironically, in 2010-11, he picked the one US resort that pays instructors really well to solicit union support (his major issue seemed to be that the rookie instructors at the time were paid the same low wages that most CO resorts pay while the resort still charged full price when they gave lessons. Aspen has since raised rookie base hourly pay about 80%). This lead to him being fired AND BANNED from all 4 Aspen-Snowmass resorts (which are on land leased from the federal government). According to the article, the lawsuit seems to focus on the freedom of speech issue. He is seeking to have the ban lifted and collect damages.

post #86 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiSchoolPros View Post
 

Its my understanding that it is not illegal to teach a friend to ski, it only becomes an issue when $ exchanges hands. 

 

How about if a fee that is charged for a service that is not offered by a particular ski school such as videography for a movement analysis?

 

Is anyone current on any new ski area policies regarding the emerging use of quadcopters for ma's? This year's new generation of quadcopters are much lighter, smarter and full with autonomous safety features and are not to be confused with the media's monstrosities like the one that nearly flattened Hirscher.

 

Sorry about the drift and didn't think it would warrant a new thread.

post #87 of 88
So how many drones would be too many on any one ski run. Who tells someone no when too many show up?
I ski to get away from the urbanists and their lifestyle. Media especially. It would seem they can't have fun unless they have a video to put on social media.
Edited by justanotherskipro - 4/9/16 at 11:01am
post #88 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro View Post

So how many drones would be too many on any one ski run. 

 

One.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Should part time Instructors support BC Instructor Unionization Efforts?