Can they really do this to instructors?

[James]

FIFY
It’s just good business. Get over it.
dm

Well most businesses aren't operating on Federal or state subsidized land.

Same old shit.

 

[Dave Marshak]

Well most businesses aren't operating on Federal or state subsidized land.

Some ski areas may be on Forest Service land, but the ski area owns the commercial rights by lease. It also owns the lifts and buildings, and maybe the land under the buildings. Good luck running a ski instruction program without access to the buildings or other resort services, or lift line cutting privileges.

FWIW the only difference between trespassing on private property and leased USFS land is that things that are civil offenses on private property become federal crimes on public property.

I don’t know how you subsidize land. You either develop and maintain it or not. Maybe the subsidy would be if you leased it in a way that did not maximize revenue. Maybe not allow exclusive use or something.

dm

 

[SkiSchoolPros]

Well most businesses aren't operating on Federal or state subsidized land.

Same old shit.

Yes, with permits that say "non-exclusive" and "C. Regulating Services and Rates. The Forest Service shall have the authority to check and regulate the adequacy and type of services provided the public and to require that such services conform to satisfactory standards. The holder may be required to furnish a schedule of prices for sales and services authorized by the permit. Such prices and services may be regulated by the Forest Service."

Where the reality is that ski schools on USFS land have a mostly unregulated monopoly.

 

[SkiSchoolPros]

Some ski areas may be on Forest Service land, but the ski area owns the commercial rights by lease. It also owns the lifts and buildings, and maybe the land under the buildings. Good luck running a ski instruction program without access to the buildings or other resort services, or lift line cutting privileges.

FWIW the only difference between trespassing on private property and leased USFS land is that things that are civil offenses on private property become federal crimes on public property.

I don’t know how you subsidize land. You either develop and maintain it or not. Maybe the subsidy would be if you leased it in a way that did not maximize revenue. Maybe not allow exclusive use or something.

dm

Not exactly
"E. Nonexclusive Use. This permit is not exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part
of the permitted area for any purpose, provided such use does not materially interfere with the rights and privileges hereby
authorized."

Regarding building use, the only time I've accessed non public areas with students is with kids group lessons. Some clients are happy to pay more for line cutting privileges but many would rather pay less and wait. Vail currently allows instructors from other resorts to bring clients to Vail a total of 7 days a season, but with no line cutting privileges.

 

[Dave Marshak]

Yes, with permits that say "non-exclusive" and "C. Regulating Services and Rates. The Forest Service shall have the authority to check and regulate the adequacy and type of services provided the public and to require that such services conform to satisfactory standards. The holder may be required to furnish a schedule of prices for sales and services authorized by the permit. Such prices and services may be regulated by the Forest Service."

Where the reality is that ski schools on USFS land have a mostly unregulated monopoly.

The leases may be non-exclusive, but has any freelance ski school ever applied for its own lease or permit on one of those properties? I doubt it. There’s just no market for that or opportunity to run a ski school without the use of the services and facilities that are not part of USFS.

Every owner has a monopoly on the use of his own property and there’s at least enough federal regulation at ski resorts for me.

dm

 

[Steve]

^^^That's fair enough. FWIW I believe that instructors like you, who have put in tremendous effort over many years to develop the knowledge and skill to teach effectively, have more reason to be discontent than the many clueless who just want a free pass.

Well and also to be fair as I said upthread, the school I treat at treats the Instructors well and pays fairly. We have a small school, and being used as one of the 4-5 Private Instructors on weekends is an honor.

You know maybe this is a reason why school teachers are paid so poorly too. To be a good teacher you have to care about other people, so much that you're willing to help them even for crap money!

 

[SkiSchoolPros]

The leases may be non-exclusive, but has any freelance ski school ever applied for its own lease or permit on one of those properties? I doubt it. There’s just no market for that or opportunity to run a ski school without the use of the services and facilities that are not part of USFS.

Every owner has a monopoly on the use of his own property and there’s at least enough federal regulation at ski resorts for me.

dm

I put "non-exclusive" in quotes as the USFS has made it pretty clear they will not issue a permit for a 2nd ski school.

Not sure what you mean by no market for it...between Vail and Beaver Creek you have over 2,000 instructors, some of whom have clients that contact them directly for private lessons...many of these clients would happily pay $800 to the instructor or independent school rather than $1K + to VR, even if it meant no line cutting...not saying a competing school could keep 1,000 instructors working, but it could be a win-win on a smaller level...I know of a former Vail Instructor who owns a ski school in France and a guy from Denver who has one in Japan...if the USFS embraced competition like the French and Japanese, they would likely have businesses here in CO, helping to bring down lesson cost while increasing instructor pay and incentive to provide superior service.

 

[Dave Marshak]

I put "non-exclusive" in quotes as the USFS has made it pretty clear they will not issue a permit for a 2nd ski school.

Not sure what you mean by no market for it...between Vail and Beaver Creek you have over 2,000 instructors, some of whom have clients that contact them directly for private lessons...many of these clients would happily pay $800 to the instructor or independent school rather than $1K + to VR, even if it meant no line cutting...not saying a competing school could keep 1,000 instructors working, but it could be a win-win on a smaller level...

How has USFS made it clear that they won’t issue permits for freelancers? Have you applied for a permit? If they don’t issue a permit to a qualified applicant, they need to explain why. Government agencies can’t do anything arbitrarily.
There may be thousands of instructors and clients, but how is $800 gross enough to sustain a business? How do you run a ski school without lift access? There are thousands of hungry skiers and thousands of locals who could cook them dinner, but you would expect to serve it at Bubba’s Barbecue? Or could you bring your own beers to the Mangy Moose?
There are plenty of specialty instruction programs for advanced skiers that are not run by the ski area ski school, including some on USFS leased properties, they just need the permission of the lease holder. What you are advocating is either trespassing or a change in USFS policy that would result in the loss of revenue for the lessee , and consequently less revenue for USFS. It doesn’t matter how things are done in Europe or Japan. The US industry long ago decided that ski schools were a necessary part of running a ski resort. The USFS has very little to do with that, and it’s not up to them to change it, especially if it means less revenue from public lands.

dm

 

[SkiSchoolPros]

How has USFS made it clear that they won’t issue permits for freelancers? Have you applied for a permit? If they don’t issue a permit to a qualified applicant, they need to explain why. Government agencies can’t do anything arbitrarily.
There may be thousands of instructors and clients, but how is $800 gross enough to sustain a business? How do you run a ski school without lift access? There are thousands of hungry skiers and thousands of locals who could cook them dinner, but you would expect to serve it at Bubba’s Barbecue? Or could you bring your own beers to the Mangy Moose?
There are plenty of specialty instruction programs for advanced skiers that are not run by the ski area ski school, including some on USFS leased properties, they just need the permission of the lease holder. What you are advocating is either trespassing or a change in USFS policy that would result in the loss of revenue for the lessee , and consequently less revenue for USFS. It doesn’t matter how things are done in Europe or Japan. The US industry long ago decided that ski schools were a necessary part of running a ski resort. The USFS has very little to do with that, and it’s not up to them to change it, especially if it means less revenue from public lands.

dm

I'm advocating a change in policy.

I have communicated with the USFS...they will issue multiple permits to rafting companies for the same stretch of river and don't tie this to opening a restaurant, offering fishing or swimming lessons. For ski areas they choose to bundle things and give a monopoly...they consider ski areas their partner.

I think $800 gross for an all day private is a very sustainable business model, even if you paid the USFS 10% (which is more than double what their corporate partners currently give them, so more revenue, not less). Try some math if you don't think that price works, or check out the many schools across the world that charge less and have been in business for years.

Most US resorts will already sell you a lift ticket without a lesson...Elsewhere, you buy the lift ticket from one company with the option to buy a lesson from someone else. Yes, it would represent a change from current USFS policy, but a good change IMO.

Remember the USFS slogan ("Its All Yours" meaning we own the land, not VR) before discounting the possibility that we COULD adopt a policy more similar to France, Japan, Switzerland, Austria, etc IF we wanted to. FWIW, most of those countries have a much higher skier participation rate than we do here in the US, so I don't think they are getting it completely wrong.

 

[scott43]

Change doesn't happen by being quiet...go for it SkiSchoolPros..

 

[fatbob]

Reading this kind of stuff makes me agree more with @fatbob. If instructors collectively can’t defend themselves against this sort of absurd exploitation they have no business expecting students, who are already paying through the nose for their lessons, to
make them whole.

I actually read that rant as a call for customers to boycott lessons entirely. Not sure how that would work out for Chris Silk. A bunch more showing up for no pay before ending up with no job entirely? Problem is not and never the customers and how mean they are with tips - problem is too many instructors willing to work for pocket money.


What would a resort do that had literally no instructors? Well first they'd pressgang every patroller , shop rat and dishpig into teaching to preserve their precious margin, but assuming they all held firm, they would eventually have to start offering a greater cut of lesson price to instructors. But that restriction in supply is never going to happen so accept it's a labour of love or find another career.

 

[oldschoolskier]

Is it fair to put it on the backs of ski schools? Maybe lift tickets need to go up. Dunno.

If they need that little extra to rip the instructors off considering what they charge for walk up day passes. I stand my statement as it further confirms, this is business plan designed to fail.

Seriously something is wrong in the industry considering the issues involved as whole. To put this in perspective about 33-35 years ago, 4 hours at minimum wage got me a bus and lift ticket. Today you are looking at 5-6 hours at minimum wage just for the lift ticket add another 2-3 for the bus. The overall cost to ski has more than doubled to ski vs the increase in minimum wage.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

I actually read that rant as a call for customers to boycott lessons entirely. Not sure how that would work out for Chris Silk. A bunch more showing up for no pay before ending up with no job entirely? Problem is not and never the customers and how mean they are with tips - problem is too many instructors willing to work for pocket money.


What would a resort do that had literally no instructors? Well first they'd pressgang every patroller , shop rat and dishpig into teaching to preserve their precious margin, but assuming they all held firm, they would eventually have to start offering a greater cut of lesson price to instructors. But that restriction in supply is never going to happen so accept it's a labour of love or find another career.

They'd bring in a bunch of J1s. Who cares if they can't ski?

 

[Ken_R]

...many of these clients would happily pay $800 to the instructor or independent school rather than $1K + to VR, even if it meant no line cutting...

This ^^^

It already happens in Colorado. Clients hire independent ski "instructors" for their families for their entire 1-2 week stay. They pay them the Epic Pass and a daily fee and even when you add it all up its much less that what it would cost them through VR and the instructor gets paid a lot more. I found about this a few years ago. I had no clue it was happening.

 

[lisamamot]

Seriously something is wrong in the industry considering the issues involved as whole. To put this in perspective about 33-35 years ago, 4 hours at minimum wage got me a bus and lift ticket. Today you are looking at 5-6 hours at minimum wage just for the lift ticket add another 2-3 for the bus. The overall cost to ski has more than doubled to ski vs the increase in minimum wage.

This can be applied to so much in life; 35 years ago my in-state college tuition and fees cost 1/7 of what it does today at the same state university. An increase of 700%; you can look up salary charts, but the increase in salaries is a minute fraction of this.

 

[SkiSchoolPros]

This can be applied to so much in life; 35 years ago my in-state college tuition and fees cost 1/7 of what it does today at the same state university. An increase of 700%; you can look up salary charts, but the increase in salaries is a minute fraction of this.

Yes...the % of US workers belonging to a UNION has almost dropped in half since 1983...I don't think it is a coincidence that wages haven't kept up. Considering that corporations have gotten bigger and stronger, workers really need to unite to balance the scales.

If they need that little extra to rip the instructors off considering what they charge for walk up day passes. I stand my statement as it further confirms, this is business plan designed to fail.

Seriously something is wrong in the industry considering the issues involved as whole. To put this in perspective about 33-35 years ago, 4 hours at minimum wage got me a bus and lift ticket. Today you are looking at 5-6 hours at minimum wage just for the lift ticket add another 2-3 for the bus. The overall cost to ski has more than doubled to ski vs the increase in minimum wage.

When Vail openned in the 60s, daily lift tix was $5 and Fed min wage $1 (or just above). Now CO min wage is $12 and daily $209, so worse than at your mountain. Overall, buying power of min wage has dropped since the mid 80s.

 

[martyg]

Thanks for all the input everyone, it seems this problem is widespread across our corporatized profession. I came across this sad post on a PSIA fb group page with a lively discussion under it-
''I'd like to shine some light on an issue.
Last year I taught skiing at Bretton Woods. It was my 10th season. I was one of the best skiers in the ski school. I... made $13.00 after 10 years. My W-2 from last year working full time is less than $3,000. I studied skiing, reading and watching. I practiced 6 days a week. I took clinics on how to teach better. I was a PSIA members which cost me $136 yearly. I paid for my certification, my required equipment.
This is my pay for working 6 hours Christmas Eve in 2018. I made $26 before taxes and gas. New instructors now start at $10.00 per hour. HR 275 43-a gives the mountains the right to require ski instructors to be at the mountain all day and only get paid if they have a lesson. I called the Labor Department to have the Mountain reviewed. Even after only needing to pay us for the time we spend in a lesson, they were still not paying people legally.
I was paid $26.00 the mountain made $233.00
Tip your instructor or don't take a lesson through the mountain.''-Chris Silk

Problem is, most customers aren't aware we're basically like waiters hoping for a tip.

Awesome. Well said.

 

[martyg]

I don't have any stake in this, but it seems to me that the PSIA should be doing a better job of protecting their members (those that are certified to teach). If I were certified by them, and paying dues in order to teach and were being treated poorly I'd be pushing for better representation from the association.

I'd suggest something like that if they're going to use certified instructors that each level has a wage bands that must be met in order to use the PSIA brand in order to promote their on site lessons based on resort tiers. For instance Vail would be required to pay more than a mom/pop for the same level.

The brand has value, the costs of lessons shows this. In fact the PSIA brand is more valuable than the instructors that deliver the lessons.. which probably is the root issue. The resorts have a monopoly on who is allowed to teach, and they want PSIA certified. But it is the association who the instructors represent, not the resort. Someone isn't a Killington instructor.. they're a L3 working at Killington.. It should be up to the association to provide better value to the members by holding resorts to account and protecting their brand.

Just my 0.02

I’ve brought this up to leadership. Their reply, “We’re an education based organization”. Note the despite being housed in the same building, there is very little cross pollination between PSIA and NSAA on the leadership level. In many respects, PSIA is a bitch to NSAA.

 

[Nancy Hummel]

Begging for tips from customers is not the answer to instructor wage issues. PSIA will never be an advocate for wages. PSIA is part of the problem with its required education -that requires instructors to pay for 3 day exams and clinics. Ski schools base wages partly on your level of certification which then holds you hostage to PSIA’s requirements. Many instructors can’t afford to pay for the clinics, take off work and travel to clinics.

I attended a 3 day avy class a couple of years ago. In order to get PSIA credit, I had to pay an administrative fee that was equivalent to a 2 day PSIA clinic. While I am ok with paying a small fee, I do not think it is fair to essentially pay for a clinic which required no PSIA resources. I do not see PSIA caring for its members.

The sheer number of instructors at the various resorts allows the potential for organization to deal with the pay issue. Aspen instructors did it many years ago. Our pay rates are tied to lesson prices.

 

[James]

Dump the money spent on the Demo team, and the “educational organization” might produce educational materials that don’t rely on volunteers. Then they might also look to do something about the job of teaching.