or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Coaching Crackdown at Vail Resorts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Coaching Crackdown at Vail Resorts - Page 9

post #241 of 265
Without the benefit of the exact langauge of any applicable rules and regulations, it would seem that the prudent off-site ski instructor would instead contract for other services (that do not violate any such rules) and include "free" ski instruction as an added benefit and enter into a contract stating the same.  It reminds me of a question a friend once asked about the legality of prostitution in California ... I explained that it was illegal to pay a person to perform a sexual act on you, but that you could get a business license, hire an "actress" and "direct" an adult film which you not only produce, but also star in.  Of course, this is not a valid analogy, but I'm sure that there's a method to contract around the problem if one was determined to do so.  Otherwise, I guess a less than scrupulous skier could just shadow the instruction group and hear the information for free (unless there's a law about how close you are allowed to be in proximity to an instructor). 
post #242 of 265
Quote:
but that you could get a business license, hire an "actress" and "direct" an adult film which you not only produce, but also star in

Okay ... this thread has gone way off on a tangent, but: if you're a lawyer and giving that advice, please go take some CLEs!
post #243 of 265
Seems to me that this thread should be a wake up call to the industry that perhaps, just perhaps, the pricing is starting to get out of line

Although a pipe dream, in the long run it would be better for the resorts to lower their private lessons prices a bit and pay the instuctors more.   The realist in me believes that would never happen.
post #244 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjjohnston View Post

Okay ... this thread has gone way off on a tangent, but: if you're a lawyer and giving that advice, please go take some CLEs!

The process is oversimplified, but in effect it is true.  And no, you are not my client.  
post #245 of 265
Actually, is a mother teaching her own kids violating the instructor rule? I think some one wrote earlier it is not. Even if the mother is a part time instructor in another mountain.

How about her teaching her neighbor's kid while her own takes a break inside the lodge?

How about a nanny accompanying her charge decides to give a few tips, and then the mother decides to raise her salary once she found out the nanny was also a part time instrutor on another hill?  
post #246 of 265
HAHAAH this goes on and on doesn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post

Actually, is a mother teaching her own kids violating the instructor rule? I think some one wrote earlier it is not. Even if the mother is a part time instructor in another mountain.

How about her teaching her neighbor's kid while her own takes a break inside the lodge?

How about a nanny accompanying her charge decides to give her a few tips, and then the mother decides to raise her salary once she found out the nanny was also a part time instrutor on another hill?  
post #247 of 265
Errrrrr ,, at nyc, I'll look it up in the Pee Ess Eye Aye manual but before we go that far .. 

Do you mean the natural .. or ... the adoptive parents of the aforementioned charge ?? 
post #248 of 265
 okay, so quite a few of us are unclear on what is okay and what is not.  Is there anyone out there that wants to put something together to send to Vail resorts?  It should entail our willingness to want to cooperate with the new law, but also our tentativeness to help other skiers on the mountain for fear of losing our rights to ski there.  I don't know, just a thought.  Can you put together an email petition?  Does anyone think it's worth the time?  
post #249 of 265
post #250 of 265


Is Nixon still in office?
post #251 of 265
steveys-

I'm just trying to figure out who you have the greater hard on for---- the police or Vail Resorts?  But you obviously have some issues you need resolved...   
post #252 of 265
1) I totally support Vail Resorts Security calling the police if they have
found someone to be skiing without a ticket, or taking money to teach
2) It pisses me off that vail resorts uses it clout to get the el dorado sheriff to spend weeks doing undercover work.  They dont give the time of day to ordinary citizens, the citizens can tell you that, so it stands to reason that vail resorts is putting pressure on them.

I wouldnt say I have a hard on for the police, I know how they work and accept that
I wouldnt say I have a hard on for VR execpt for the one issue of them getting the EDS to do undercover work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro View Post

steveys-

I'm just trying to figure out who you have the greater hard on for---- the police or Vail Resorts?  But you obviously have some issues you need resolved...   
post #253 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by CR0SS View Post

www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/138752
 

I had never seen any LEO's in 40 years, on any ASC hill, until this Christmas break.  I spoke with them and almost immediately "lack of funding" came up in the conversation.   I have a feeling that this is more about generating revenue for the FS, than enforcing rules.
post #254 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post

Actually, is a mother teaching her own kids violating the instructor rule? I think some one wrote earlier it is not. Even if the mother is a part time instructor in another mountain.

How about her teaching her neighbor's kid while her own takes a break inside the lodge?

How about a nanny accompanying her charge decides to give a few tips, and then the mother decides to raise her salary once she found out the nanny was also a part time instrutor on another hill?  
If you get paid for it, it is usually a violation of resort rules if you don't have permission and it's a violation of law if you're doing it on USFS property without a permit. So the answers are no, no and maybe. In the last case, the nanny would technically be violating USFS rules for getting paid just for taking care of the charges while on USFS property without a permit.

But people need to understand the difference between technicality and reality. The reality is that there is no intent to stop one-offs. The intent is to stop people doing this as a business. The reality is that only a very small percentage of people who do this ever get caught. It is highly unlikely that these sting efforts would catch people who already know each other.
post #255 of 265
Damn! I was gonna go skiing at Fail this weekend, but now I'm not so sure...
post #256 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty View Post



If you get paid for it, it is usually a violation of resort rules if you don't have permission and it's a violation of law if you're doing it on USFS property without a permit. So the answers are no, no and maybe. In the last case, the nanny would technically be violating USFS rules for getting paid just for taking care of the charges while on USFS property without a permit.

But people need to understand the difference between technicality and reality. The reality is that there is no intent to stop one-offs. The intent is to stop people doing this as a business. The reality is that only a very small percentage of people who do this ever get caught. It is highly unlikely that these sting efforts would catch people who already know each other.
 
That is of course unless they are being forced to do it in order to be let off of a drug charge.
post #257 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Boot View Post

Ok . Ive put some real thought into this... LOL just like everyone else.
If I rent a pair of skiis away from the hill and take them to a resort and use them, remember this resort also rents equipment. Am I breaking the law and stealing business away from that resort.
No
If I contact an instructor outside of a resort with no resort affiliation and I pay them to teach me at any hill we decide on , then meet up at that resort or drive together to the resort of our choice am I breaking the law?
No
I am renting the instructors time the same as I am renting skiis from a ski shop hmmmmm I don't think I am breaking any laws.
It's not the same, but that's not the point.
If I solicit on the property of a resort then yes I am taking clientele that came to that resort for the sole purpose of being here and using what the resort has to offer.
Technically, soliciting without actually completing a transaction is something else entirely, but that's not the point.
If I work for the resort and take cash from a customer so they do not have to pay full bat ... I am a thief and stealing from my employer!!
Technically, that's not theft either, but that's not the point.
 

From either the customer or the instructor's perspective, what you are doing is violating a resort rule. This gives them justification, not that they need a specific one, for asking you to leave the premesis. When you don't leave, or come back after being forbidden to return, you are trespassing. That entitles the resort to call in the cops.

When an instructor freelances on USFS property without a permit and without permission from the exclusive permit holder that entitles the resort to turn the instructor over to the USFS for breaking the law that requires you to have a permit to conduct business on USFS property. Since it is very rare for a resort to be able to prove this has occurred between 2 third parties, almost all of the time this is done, it is done via a "sting" operation. The exceptions are when the activity is blatant and/or there are specific complaints made to the resort.
post #258 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoMan View Post

Nonsense. The rules of this game keep changing. First,it's wrong bcause it's illegal, then it's wrong because it's morally unacceptable, then it's wrong because instructors are losing money and their liveliehood is affected. 

Nonsense back to you. The rules of the "game" have been the same from day 1. The Forest Service did change their rules covering conducting business on USFS property a few years back, but those changes did not materially effect this "game". The specific rules of the game are complicated and not well understood. But the general rules of the game are simple: the economics of the service involved are patently obscene on the surface (but more complicated when viewed in detail), you are getting a deal you would not get if you played by the rules, you're not likely to get caught if you do it but you're not likely to get away with it if you do get caught.
post #259 of 265
Lets all go ski in Canada for 1 season, they will beg you to come back
post #260 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveys View Post

I had a jeep cherokiee I wanted to sell.  A neighbor across the street wanted to buy it.  She gave me a sob story about her son being violent and mentally challanged.  She was getting her money on monday, and this was Saturday.  She asked if she could borrow the car until she got the first payment.  She skipped.  Sheriff told me their was nothing they could do it was a civil matter.  This was the theft of a $1000 car, grand theft auto.  They wouldnt do poop to help me. 
 


 

If you had mentioned that you feared the vehicle was going to be used to commit a crime and that you would like their permission to make a recording of the conversation confirming that you had reported this to the police and that you were going to alert the local news media that the police had been fully advised prior to the inevitable carnage; then they might have actually pooped.

Actually, this is a good example of the value of having friends in high places. A couple of phone calls usually clears these kinds of problems right up. Every organization of signficant size has someone with the capability to step on cockroaches (ugly situations) before they become "a situation". When you politely point out the situation and a low cost/low time way to resolve it, they make the cockroaches go away. Hello Chief? I'd like 5 minutes of your time to discuss a community relations issue. There's a violent criminal loose in my neighborhood in a stolen car and your Sargeant won't take a stolen vehicle report. I'd feel real bad if your officers tried to stop him and weren't aware of the situation.
post #261 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty View Post


Nonsense back to you. The rules of the "game" have been the same from day 1. The Forest Service did change their rules covering conducting business on USFS property a few years back, but those changes did not materially effect this "game". The specific rules of the game are complicated and not well understood. But the general rules of the game are simple: the economics of the service involved are patently obscene on the surface (but more complicated when viewed in detail), you are getting a deal you would not get if you played by the rules, you're not likely to get caught if you do it but you're not likely to get away with it if you do get caught.
 


Oh yeah ! Well, double-nonsense back on you !

Anyways, I was referring to those here who were giving vastly divergent reasons as to why they felt it was 'wrong' in a moral or ehtical sense, not what the technical rule-of-law is. As I stated, it certainly is not legal, but neither is speeding or not reporting to the IRS the tips one earns as a ski instructor. You certainly outlined the legal status of poaching from the perspective of the FS. You stated the facts--it is illegal and there are consequences should one engage in the activity and get caught. This was never in question and can't be argued.
post #262 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjjohnston View Post


- If Vail is "forcing" FS officials into doing anything, they've got a very different relationship with the Forest Service than I've seen. Forest Service personnel can certainly be cooperative with ski area operators (or not), but they do not look kindly upon anyone who tries to force them to do anything (unless he's got an office in Washington DC, and then only a really big one in one of the Senate office buildings or the Department of Agriculture).

Is this in regards to what I have said?  I have in no way implied that Vail RESORTS forces the FS.  I have implied that VR forced the el dorado sheriff department, given that people who have had to deal with them dont get the time of day yet they spent multiple days undercover to get 4 misdemeanor working without a business permits.
post #263 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveys View Post

Is this in regards to what I have said?  I have in no way implied that Vail RESORTS forces the FS.  I have implied that VR forced the el dorado sheriff department, given that people who have had to deal with them dont get the time of day yet they spent multiple days undercover to get 4 misdemeanor working without a business permits.
 

Selective enforcement of relatively trivial laws is nothing new. Deterence is sometimes part of the picture and an enforcement agency needs to show up now and then to let people know they are out there. However, unless there is a growing public menace due to violations, when and how such trivial laws are enforced are driven more by economic considerations rather than the need to uphold the law as a matter of principle. Examples of such scenarios are: A local municipality increasing revenue by stepping up enforcement of parking violations, undercover stings to bust scalpers and unregistered vendors outside of a sports venue, or the Forest Service or Sheriff conducting a sting to nab ski instructors scalping lessons at a resort. Heck, technically, a local or government agency could bust children for operating an unregistered lemonade stand on their front lawn.

Likely, Vail complained loudly to your County Sherriff and made it sound like it was a widespread problem, even though it likely wasn't. Probably, the Sheriff saw an opportunity for revenue through citations. They also might have been worried that Vail Corp. would have a hissy and go over their heads if they didn't take the matter seriously. In reality, the Sheriff's office likely thought, "We have better things to do with our time and resources than babysit your ski resort, looking to bust a few instructors working under the table."

post #264 of 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveys View Post
Is this in regards to what I have said?

Given that the post of mine you've quoted is on page 1 (#27), and your first post in this thread is on page 5 (#137), I think it's safe to say it was not.

Unless, of course, the structure of space and time has been altered.
post #265 of 265

what about all the foreign instructors who have been at Vail for years and have developed long standing relationships with their clients. They were not informed by Vail that the visas were not going to be happening until late November - way too late to get jobs anywhere else. Some clients still want to ski with their same instructors ( that they've had for the last 10 years in some cases) The instructors feel like (and are) criminals skiing around with their clients when all their former colleagues must know that they are not actually "friends" How can Vail Resorts prove otherwise?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Coaching Crackdown at Vail Resorts