or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Industry Pay Standards - Page 2

post #31 of 66
Great question Ott!

The first answer is that most ski resorts are not low hanging fruit. The resorts that hire instructors as contractors are at least pushing the edge of that definition and are probably hanging the lowest in terms of being ripe for plucking by the IRS. It also amazes me that the IRS does not treat free skiing time as compensation that should be taxed, but there's probably a fight there in that "free runs" are either "training" or "research". The resorts that don't pay employees for required time on the mountain are pushing the edge of labor law and workman's compensation laws, but there's a half decent argument that ski pros are considered "professionals" and thus are called "exempt" employees. This allows employers to not have to pay "overtime" (i.e. not have to pay for all time that is required for the job). However, if this is the case, I believe that there are some rules that need to be followed (e.g. exempt employees have to be told that they are exempt) that aren't.

The second answer is that it takes formal complaints to the right offices or lawsuits in order to get the wheels rolling.

The third answer is that there is not a lot of political captial to be gained in going after the ski industry.

If you combine the reasons, when there is not a high likelihood of a high value, quick and easy win, the fight does not go high on the priority list.

However, it is only a matter of time before the fecal matter hits the fan. Actually, I suspect that there already has been some action that just has not received a lot of publicity. At my resort, we're not covered by workman's comp during clinics (including required clinics), unless the clinic is formally scheduled and we sign up in advance to take the clinic. When that change was implemented, it smelled like a lawyer was involved.

The final answer is that resorts get away with this because there is a ready supply of people who are willing to work under these conditions.
post #32 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty

The final answer is that resorts get away with this because there is a ready supply of people who are willing to work under these conditions.
I hope you aren't suggesting that we are somehow responsible for resort behaviour towards their employees? That our desire to work in this profession is mainly responsible for our work conditions. Resorts make a concious choice on how they choose to treat their employees. There is the world of what's legal, and the world of what's right. Some let their values of what is right guide them in the market place to success, and some simply try to sidestep their values by letting what is legal guide them. It is a choice plain and simple. Let the chicken come home to roost! Later, RicB.
post #33 of 66
RicB,

Yep, that's exactly what I was suggesting. The key word there is "somehow".

Resorts are not charities whose sole purpose is the health and welfare of their employees. They need to make a profit as their first priority and that is pretty hard to do. So it's understandable when they look to the law to determine what is the minimum that they must do and when they look to profitability to determine what the maximum is. Defining what is legal is pretty tough. Defining what is right is even harder. And the laws of economics are a harsh mistress. There are a lot of different opinions out there. I respect most of them.

Resorts set their instruction compensation packages (pay plus benefits) based on how many people they have versus how many people they need, with two exceptions: the minimum wage and incentive pay. At my resort I've seen two "increases" as a direct result of "employee" actions. A couple years ago, we saw minimum instructor pay increase above minimum wage. The reason was that the mountain believed that there were not enough people applying for jobs because of what the fast food joints etc. were paying. There is some evidence to show that this was effective, but that the effects were greater in other departments. Another change I've seen was a reduction in the minimum number of shifts that part timers needed to commit to. This was done in direct response to a large number of instructors not returning to work the previous season. Although this change did not address all of the reasons why people were not returning, it did help stem the tide. I've also seen one season where we had incentive pay based on the number of hours worked. If one worked beyond a set number of hours in a pay period, ones hourly rate was increased substantially. I personally did not work any more hours because of this, despite an approximate 15% bump in take home pay for the season. I heard that ski school expenses were significantly higher than the previous year. The program was discontinued after one season. Thus the impact on staffing was negilible. We currently have an end of season bonus for working the whole season. Can you hear me laughing now? Many resorts provide incentive pay for certification, but the bottom line for most instructors is that certification costs more than they will receive in increased pay. The results from most incentive pay programs are usually mixed. The results of changes to working conditions and base pay are usually effective.

At my resort, we always need more instructors. But management is willing to live with the pain of having a small shortage. We take little steps to keep the shortage small through things such as more active recruiting, special favors for preferred experienced instructors and "managing" working conditions. But when the shortage gets too big, management takes more direct action like increasing pay. This is economic theory in action.

I've seen a few instructors stop teaching and buy season passes instead. I've seen a few of my fellow instructors choose to teach at different resorts because of working conditions and pay. If enough instructors simply walked away either through not teaching or teaching at other resorts, resorts would either be forced to increase pay/improve working conditions or raise prices to reduce demand. In the sense that any one of us chooses to continue working, we are contributing to the low pay/poor working conditions problem. But I'll admit that this is only part of the equation.

Resorts could choose to improve pay and working conditions out of the goodness of their heart. Economic theory says that this would cause more people to want to work at that resort. In that case, management could choose to either overstaff or become more selective in who they want to hire. In some situations this could lead to reduced profits, in others these actions could lead to increased profits. Factors coming into play include the elasticity of demand for lessons relative to price and quality, and the opportunity cost for not having enough instructors to meet demand. Economic theory says that the resorts that don't have the "right" pay and working conditions relative to other factors will fail. The bottom line here is that resorts have more to consider than employee supply and demand when they decide to set pay and working conditions.
post #34 of 66
Well, it really boils down to whether a business opperates wiht the mindset of compensating the most they can or the least they can. I understand how it works, I balanced a business a ledger for 25 years. The business that delivers the most value to it's customers and emplyees will experience the most return and loyalty all other things being equal. a business that doesn't bring it's values to the decission making process feels eventually what many in this industry are feeling.

Laws give us boundaries, and profitability can give us longevity, but all the area in between and how we view our employees health and well being determines to a large degree our long term profitability and our longevity. By all means be creative in compensation but use good values to temper the pure profit motive in determining employee compensation. Using strictly the most profit generaly boils down to the minimum requirements by law as this will get the largest short term profit.

Charity? This word usually comes out in this context when one wants to divide and not really discuss options or views and minimalize altruism and values and justify selfabsorbed greed. In the end it is still just choices and what factors we consider in these choices. Later, RicB.
post #35 of 66
One of the largest problems I recognize is the quality of the lesson people are receiving. My previous ski school would take any warm boady and have them teach 20 people how to ski. There was very little incentive to increase your knowledge other than self-improvement.

I always felt sorry for the general public because when they purchased that lesson they could have gotten the ski school director or the guy who just started teaching two weeks ago. This is a lack of quality control within our ski schools and PSIA. Ski Schools and PSIA should do a better job of educting the public of the differing levels of qualification and charge for it. Give the public the choice of paying more, but knowing what they get.

So many people that take lessons have varying degrees of satisfaction. I think this is greatly due to the fact that they do not relaize what experience and qualifications there instructor has.

If more was charged for a lesson with a higher qualified intructor than that instructor could be paid more and we would see if people were truly willing to pay for experince, a free market concept.
post #36 of 66
Ric,

Great discussion going here. I guess I'm lucky working at my resort. When the current management bought the place, there were fears that they were going to cut things to the bone and make a bad situation even worse. When they came in, they took all the decision making away from the in place management and they did take some drastic steps to stem the bleeding. There are some folks on staff who still do the simple math of calculating what the guests pay minus what they make and add that up to the same "corporate greed" that we had before.

But if you look beyond that, the value of smart management shows up in a healthy resort. What we have today is not just a result of the place being bought for 50 cents on the dollar. We're generating profits even in so so weather (e.g. because we have better snowmaking) and a good portion of those profits are being reinvested in the resort across all departments big and small. Preventative maintenance is being done when it's needed. Employees are treated better (e.g. trainers get paid for teaching clinics) primarily because the resort is not under constant money pressure, but also because management is investing in making things better (e.g. our double wide trailer for a locker room was replaced by a building with actual working plumbing). Although the pay structure and benefits were cut for new hires, we've got more snow to ski on, new uniforms and new rental gear rotated every 3 years, a new magic carpet lift for beginners, regraded terrain, better lighting, free food on the table and a pot to piss in - lots of little things to make our teaching lives better.

Things are not all rosy. We've lost the 3 examiners we used to have on staff. But we lost those guys before the regime change. We've also lost a PSIA clinic leader since the regime change - so we're down to only level 3s as the senior staff members. We've got random drug testing. We've gone through some rediculous free skiing privilege rules.

The funny thing is that I believe that the previous management actually cared more about the employees. I believe that all of our current good fortune was done in order to make more money over the long term. I think where this discussion is headed though is that motivation is irrelevant. Management can make stupidly short sighted pay and working conditions decisions because of either greed or incompetence. The question is "Does the huge disparity between ski school income and cost constitute short sighted greed in and of itself or does what happens to that money make a difference?" Should the cooks make more money because the cafeteria generates huge profits? Should the resort invest more in ski school salary expense to pay for showing up at line ups, taking clinics, etc instead of buying a new magic carpet lift? Or should the resort pay for showing up at line ups because that is simply the right thing to do? How you phrase the question can make a big difference.

You're right about choices and factors. As instructors, we have the ability to influence those choices and factors by voting with our feet. But many instructors get angry about their situation because they believe that an unjust amount of ski school profit goes to the owners pockets. When we make decisions in anger, we only disservice ourselves.

“Many... attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed” (Henry Fawcett).

BTW - there's a game called Ski Resort Tycoon (it's like Sim City). I've never run a resort, but I imagine this is a pretty close approximation. Play it a couple of times and see how much time you spend worrying about ski school. Please excuse me, I must now leave to go find a restroom.
post #37 of 66
theRusty, I consider myself lucky too. I work for a non profit and I like that. we're treated well, and I do feel that we are getting as much as our manager can get for us. The pie is small, but it is nice to know that we are valued and our customers are valued and that the decisions on how to slice up the pie are fair as far as they can be. That our needs are being looked after and treated with respect. I don't think any of us in this business are asking for anything unrealistic, but the issues that Frog brings up amoung other issues certainly need to be called out for discussion. Definetly a good discussion. Later, RicB.
post #38 of 66
Ric,

I agree with the frog. I've mentioned the concept of a "premium lesson" in other threads. I don't think that there is a huge market out there, but there might be a large enough market to help some pros.
post #39 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty
Ric,

I agree with the frog. I've mentioned the concept of a "premium lesson" in other threads. I don't think that there is a huge market out there, but there might be a large enough market to help some pros.
I think the argument can be made that a request private does just this. It gives the customer the ability to select for quality at a premium. Just don't price the private out of reach of the average skier. Later, RicB.
post #40 of 66
Well this is a rather timeless discussion. Only the names, faces and places have changed. Some stuff to ponder.............

At one area when they needed additional Instructors they came up with a whole new catagory "Part time/Full Timer" you would have to work as much if not more than the Full Time folks for less money w/o benefits and no guarantee you would stay on----Eventually, as a group, we told the Director we were going to leave in the middle of the following week if we didn't get the same level pay an bennies as a Full Timer...He said go----we all got our way on Wed...the day before the action.

Another area thought it would be a great idea to "trim" the top of the staff away, so they set a course to do just that. Got it all the way down to the top guy making a whopping $ 10.25 /hr (@ 1990---Major area too folks) and when they unleashed a beginner on an untrained Instr. and he took her where she had no business being it cost them just a little over $ 500,000.

I was in the middle of the pay range when I left a major western area $ 14.85 /hr time and a half after a 24 hr work week and a $2,000 profit sharing check---not bad----that was 1984.

The next area I went to prided itself on the qualified level of its staff, examiners all over the place, a ton of certifieds---I made 1/3 less there. See Ya !

Volunteers---I have a home improvement company here if anybody wants to "come on down" and get dirty doing some construction. I'll keep the money--thank you though.

That sounds really strange outside of the ski industry doesn't it.

Most Part Timers who travel on the weekends to their local ski area actually PAY to teach, once expenses are considered.

"Build it and they will come" comes to mind. As long as there is a quiet group of people, who just love to teach----as I do---nothing will change.

Finally as soon as I retire from my highly successful career in carpentry---(so I can afford to again) I plan on teaching again.
post #41 of 66
This is a very interesing discussion indeed. In Ontario, Canada where I teach, in the mid 90`s, some ski instructors filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour against a small resort.The adjudicators found that the management was not in compliance with the employment standards governing non unionzed workplaces. Specifically they determined that ski instructors must be paid for the time they are required to be on site, not simply for teaching. The resort in question altered its practices to obey the law.

Despite this ruling, not much changed at any of the other ski hills. My own resort, however, had experienced some labour unrest (not specifically related to the
Employment Standards Act) and in response, had formed a committee of pros to sugest ways of improving things. I do believe thay were surprised when we suggested compliance with labour laws would be a good start! It took a bit of time, but over a 3 year period the snow school is now behaving pretty much legally, and wages and working conditions have improved.

Of course, most pros in Ontario are not even aware of this story. We lack an
effective tool to communicate both the issues, and the efforts made to improve things. In Canada, the CSIA`s various publications NEVER have any articles about labour relations in ski schools. The official silence about this in the industry is deafening.

cdnguy
post #42 of 66
[quote=therusty]Ric,

I guess I'm lucky working at my resort.....-snip- Employees are treated better -snip- (structure and benefits were cut for new hires, we've got more snow to ski on, new uniforms and new rental gear rotated every 3 years, a new magic carpet lift for beginners, regraded terrain, better lighting, free food on the table and a pot to piss in - lots of little things to make our teaching lives better. We've got random drug testing. We've gone through some rediculous free skiing privilege rules.
[quote]

ROFL!

This is classic. You talk about how lucky you are to work at your resort and then go ahead with that list????!!!!!

Most of what the ski resorts do in terms of instructor pay is a sham. They get away with it because they are able to get a bunch of losers who can't ski and can't teach but who like to parade around in new uniforms to agree to do it for a ski pass and $7 an hour.
post #43 of 66
>>Most of what the ski resorts do in terms of instructor pay is a sham. They get away with it because they are able to get a bunch of losers who can't ski and can't teach but who like to parade around in new uniforms to agree to do it for a ski pass and $7 an hour.[/quote]<<

Sidecut,

That's pretty harsh don't you think? Or did I just misunderstand you? Because I take offence to being called a loser, and I assure you, I can ski and I'm paid a lot more than $7.00 and hour to do it.-------Wigs
post #44 of 66
[/quote]ROFL!

This is classic. You talk about how lucky you are to work at your resort and then go ahead with that list????!!!!!

Most of what the ski resorts do in terms of instructor pay is a sham. They get away with it because they are able to get a bunch of losers who can't ski and can't teach but who like to parade around in new uniforms to agree to do it for a ski pass and $7 an hour.[/quote]

Sidecut, how did you figure me out so well? I guess it's time to be moving on now. Later, RicB.
post #45 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnguy
This is a very interesing discussion indeed. In Ontario, Canada where I teach, in the mid 90`s, some ski instructors filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour against a small resort.The adjudicators found that the management was not in compliance with the employment standards governing non unionzed workplaces. Specifically they determined that ski instructors must be paid for the time they are required to be on site, not simply for teaching. The resort in question altered its practices to obey the law.
This is interesting. In my experience, there are similar issues here in Colorado. I suspect that most ski areas/resorts do not know the state labor laws and the requirements thereunder.
post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
This is interesting. In my experience, there are similar issues here in Colorado. I suspect that most ski areas/resorts do not know the state labor laws and the requirements thereunder.
Steve, that's putting a pretty positive spin on it don't you think. I suspect that these areas choose to ignore the labor laws. I saw just this in my years in construction, I doubt the ski industry is any different. Later, RicB.
post #47 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigs
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidecut
>>Most of what the ski resorts do in terms of instructor pay is a sham. They get away with it because they are able to get a bunch of losers who can't ski and can't teach but who like to parade around in new uniforms to agree to do it for a ski pass and $7 an hour.
<<

Sidecut,

That's pretty harsh don't you think? Or did I just misunderstand you? Because I take offence to being called a loser, and I assure you, I can ski and I'm paid a lot more than $7.00 and hour to do it.-------Wigs
I think that there is a pretty wide range of instructor, from those who teach as a career to those who do it as a way to buy beer while they have a layover at a ski resort to those like me who do it because we like to be on-snow and share it with others but are fully aware that we can't make the necessary time-in-grade investment to make it even remotely possible to support our families doing it.

Because of these widely varying motivations for those teaching, it actually takes some energy to determine the best way to organize a school around the teachers and the students. There are certainly needs for those who are less experienced and disinterested in a career teaching (for example, taking care of the youngest skiers when they aren't on-snow, helping herd cats, taking care of the facilities both on- and off-snow). There are certainly ways that schools could make use of those who can't commit the time to be a real part-time or full-time instructor (to augment staff on especially busy days, to train and supervise the first type of staff member, to provide administrative support--especially if it can be done after hours or remotely). And, lastly, there are ways that a school can differentiate between these and the career professionals who are the best options for those looking to "break through" beyond skiing blues.

Again in my limited experience, these ways of thinking are typically not part of the repertoire.

Grist for the conversation, I hope...
post #48 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicB
Steve, that's putting a pretty positive spin on it don't you think. I suspect that these areas choose to ignore the labor laws. I saw just this in my years in construction, I doubt the ski industry is any different. Later, RicB.
Me? Put a positive spin on something?
post #49 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigs

That's pretty harsh don't you think? Or did I just misunderstand you? Because I take offence to being called a loser, and I assure you, I can ski and I'm paid a lot more than $7.00 and hour to do it.-------Wigs
Why would you take offense? You're paid more than $7 per hour and you can ski?

Things are a bit different in certain areas of the country such as Aspen. This is especially true in the West where many of the areas are truly of a destination nature and you get more full time help and the areas depend less on part timers. In the East and other parts of the country there are overwhelming numbers of instructors just as I described.

Now if you relate this back to the overall picture you can clearly see why skier numbers and lesson numbers are stagnant. The first time ski experience for most does not take place at Aspen with ti's incredible staff and training. it takes place at a local area or an area within driving distance of major metropolitan areas such as New York, DC, Chicago, Boston etc. This means areas like So VT, PA, VA, So CAL, MA, MI etc.

Many of these areas are primarily staffed with people as I describe and the ones with the skills necesssary to teach effectively are almost never used at the lower levels and if they are it is viewed as punishment.

The discussion here is about pay standards. Through unfair labor practices, illegal workers and the use of incompetent or sub standard employees , ski areas continue to make huge profits from ski schools while at the same time they moan about poor retention rates, people dropping out and flat skier visits. And who do they want to help them solve this problem? Ski Instructors!
post #50 of 66
In my experience advocating for fair (at least legal) treatment in the workplace for snow pros I have found it to be a bit of a lonely enterprise. Although instructors are often more aware of unfair practices than one might imagine, actually doing anything about it is another thing. I understand all the reasons why people do not make a greater effort, but the tough reality is without that organized effort, nothing will change. For those who do make their living as ski instructors, especially the higher certified pros, ask youselves what you are doing to get the ski school to understand that the labour laws do apply. I think it`s worthwhile fighting the good fight.

cdnguy
post #51 of 66
It is easy to get people to populate a snow school. There is an attraction to being on-snow, getting a free pass, deals on gear, etc.

It is difficult to find people who will take the teaching of snowsports seriously.

The organized snowsports school does need a variety of people. The challenge in managing such an environment is making the best of the value while not devaluing the overall experience.
post #52 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdnguy
In my experience advocating for fair (at least legal) treatment in the workplace for snow pros I have found it to be a bit of a lonely enterprise. Although instructors are often more aware of unfair practices than one might imagine, actually doing anything about it is another thing. I understand all the reasons why people do not make a greater effort, but the tough reality is without that organized effort, nothing will change. For those who do make their living as ski instructors, especially the higher certified pros, ask youselves what you are doing to get the ski school to understand that the labour laws do apply. I think it`s worthwhile fighting the good fight.

cdnguy
You're right. It is worthwhile and it can be lonely. What I found is that you have to show up and execute before anyone will care what you are saying. I know in my locker room I'm one of those who speaks out regularly, I'm always tryin to nudge or push towards better pay and working conditions.

What is really interesting is that many times a peer will complain to me about pay and I will ask, "have you asked for a raise"? The answer is always no. If you believe in your own value and you demonstrate that value out on the snow, you should have the confidence to at least ask, and if you haven't asked for a raise and voiced your oppinion about changes you would like to see, then what gives you the right to complain. If we are serious about our work, then we have the right to expect them to be serious about our needs. But, we have to comunicate our needs in a direct and professional way, otherwise it is just grumbling hearsay.

In our locker room the base pay is not that great, but there are incentives to personaly take the initiative and create a clientelle and recieve a real wage. You do your job well enough t ohave people walking into the office and asking for you, whether for a private or a group lesson, and the office will pay attention when you speak up. If they don't, gently remind them. Encourage your students to voice their oppinions, both positive and negative to the office. The more communication the better off we will all be. later, RicB.
post #53 of 66
I think it is a real fear for many instructors to speak up that they may get ousted from the ski school and then what? They now live 30-60 minutes drive from the area and if they lose the job, the next closest area is 3-4 hours drive away, making it unrealistic to teach there as a part timer. The alternative is to buy season passes for themselves and their family, an unattractive alternative for sure.

.....Ott
post #54 of 66
Very true, Ott. Every situation has its own risk/reward scenario. Being able to practice your calling can be more valuable than the paycheck.
post #55 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ott Gangl
OK, so how do we tell the resort that if they require us to be there for six hours they better pay us for six hours just as they pay the lift operator and not tell us they are sorry that because of the weather there were no lesson for us and we just have to lump it and too bad it cost us not just the time but also the gas to travel to and from the area.

There are some areas that don't allow the instructors to free ski while in uniform even though they are not having any classses or even any prospect of a class that day. Taking off your uniform when you are on duty is a no-no. Luckily most of the time they spend some time clinicing and get some runs in.
Friend of mine worked at the local hill. Whenever he was there, it was required of him to show up for the line-up. Although he was unpaid, he was required to freeski in uniform and show up at all lineups.

When he tore his ACL screwing around freeskiing, guess who didn't want to pay workers comp? Guess what happened when said friend hired an attorney?

This "industry" skirts all sorts of ethical and legal boundaries.

Regarding the cost of volunteers to this situation: Who would you rather have respond to a fire at your home? Volunteers, or a full time paid staff? The paid staff is faster, better trained, and less likely to be drunk. However, the vast majority of the country is served by volunteer firefighters.

Volunteer ski instructors are no different. They provide poorer service to the customer, but at a cost that disadvantages professionals attempting to negotiate an appropriate wage.
-Garrett
post #56 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
Friend of mine worked at the local hill. Whenever he was there, it was required of him to show up for the line-up. Although he was unpaid, he was required to freeski in uniform and show up at all lineups.

When he tore his ACL screwing around freeskiing, guess who didn't want to pay workers comp? Guess what happened when said friend hired an attorney?

This "industry" skirts all sorts of ethical and legal boundaries.

Regarding the cost of volunteers to this situation: Who would you rather have respond to a fire at your home? Volunteers, or a full time paid staff? The paid staff is faster, better trained, and less likely to be drunk. However, the vast majority of the country is served by volunteer firefighters.

Volunteer ski instructors are no different. They provide poorer service to the customer, but at a cost that disadvantages professionals attempting to negotiate an appropriate wage.
-Garrett
Where I teach the visitor status (volunteer) instructors are also required to show up to lineup (on their scheduled day), but are not required to free ski in uniform, non of us are. As a matter of fact, these instructors share jackets that are kept at the resort. It's also a benefit for all instructors at our resort that if we're in uniform we can use the cut line, if we're in our personal jacket we can't. This is so that if we're needed on duty or not we can get back to the school to check in , or be at lineup whatever the case may be. It is also made very clear at the beginning of the season that the only time we are covered under worker's comp is when we are teaching or in official training. I think I signed something to that effect. So if I'm on schedule and free skiing a run between classes it's my fault if I get hurt. Then again we are not required to ski in our jacket nor do we get paid unless we're teaching.

I also know for a fact that the level of instruction given by our "volunteers" is first rate. The only way to get visitor status is to be an instructor in good standing who just doesn't have the time to fullfill a part time schedule. These instructors are often L2 (I know 1 is a L3) PSIA with many years of teaching under there belts.

Then again... are they volunteers if they get privledges for compensation for their time? It's not monetary but could easily have a monetary value put on it. Hmmmmm??
post #57 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasternSkiBum
It is also made very clear at the beginning of the season that the only time we are covered under worker's comp is when we are teaching or in official training. I think I signed something to that effect. So if I'm on schedule and free skiing a run between classes it's my fault if I get hurt. Then again we are not required to ski in our jacket nor do we get paid unless we're teaching.
Ski resorts seem to believe that because they don't follow the minimum wage laws, they don't need to follow the Workers Comp law either. You can't sign away your benefits under the WC law. At my last "real" job, I was covered by Workers Comp if I injured myself in the company parking lot. At the resort where I work, the ski school director often encourages us to do more free skiing as preparation for teaching. He would have a hard time preventing a Workers Comp claim, regardless of what jacket anyone was wearing. I've never been injured skiing, but if I were, I would report it as "work related," and let them sort it out afterwards.
I was once part of a class action suit over unpaid overtime which (as I recall) asked for back overtime pay for several years before the suit was filed. I wonder if ski school managment ever thinks about how it would defend itself if all the instructors sued them for past pay for line ups, or a 3 hour per day minimum, or other requirements of the minimum wage law. The ironic thing is that our hourly rates are so pitifully low that it is not worth puttng together a suit to get those payments.

BK
post #58 of 66
Actually, the punitive damages (if fraud was proven) could make it worth it.
post #59 of 66
volunteer-french for taking away someones job
i thought the CSIA/PSIA were unions in a sense? as in pay scales reflect levels attained?
i would hazard a guess that most people in the "ïndustry" work out of love not money but there are labor laws in place to protect you, check the web for your regions regulations as i would bet most resorts are breaking at least one rule(i would love occupational halth and safety to monitor the air in most tech shops)
post #60 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilesB
Actually, the punitive damages (if fraud was proven) could make it worth it.
Yes. My friend could attest to this.
-Garrett
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching