Ski Instructor Pay- Details

[FairWages]

Please explain to us how increasing instructor pay will lead to demonstrable increases in shareholder value

From my first letter to Ski School Director Bobby Murphy-

There are a number of benefits that will accrue to VR by raising wages including:


1. Less staff turnover which means lower training/hiring costs and more experienced Pros providing a better guest experience.
2. Higher morale among instructors.
3. Fewer underground lessons- as the spread between lesson price and Pro pay has increased, more people are asking to be taught off the books in order to pay less while giving the Pro more.
4. Fewer Pros having to work a 2nd (or 3rd) job which can cut into their availability to teach and/or make them too tired to be able to deliver the best lesson possible.
5. An improved corporate image.
6. Satisfaction in knowing that you have done right/good and served others.
7. Less pressure on clients to Tip, which enhances the guest experience for some and may increase their willingness to spend more on lessons.

And after 480+ posts a Facebook page is the best he can come up with? Let's look at his options, in no particular order
1. Organize a large group of respected instructors, go to management and explain how a higher wage is in MTN's best interest.

2. File an unfair labor practices claim.

3. Unionize and bargain collectively with MTN

4. Change policy for SUPs at Interior and Agriculture

5. Go someplace that pays better, or get a different job that pays better.

6. Create a Facebook page with a call to action = ??????? I can't figure that part out. Unless it's to create some sort of movement that goes viral, creating massive bad press for MTN, in turn causing Vail customers to desert in droves for other resorts, thereby killing equity values and forcing management to capitulate. Or maybe the point is to make customers feel guilty so they tip more. You know, a campaign along the lines of "$20 in tips for a two hour group lesson doubles my pay."

7. Get his own SUP, build a resort and structure pricing to pay instructors really well.

8. Kill, deport or otherwise remove some large number of instructors from Vail Valley to better balance supply & demand

9. Complain on a skiing forum where everybody knows ski resort pay = shit

Any other options anybody can think of?
Which do you think offer the greatest chance of increased instructor compensation?

Some of the above are definite possibilities...don't agree that all I have done is create a FB page and whine here. Check out the videos at:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCc...cXkirVDO0woemQ

and my tweets- https://twitter.com/Fair_Wage

Overall I agree that the best solution would be

removing the ski school monopoly on public land. Better for skiers with lower prices and higher level of instruction. Better for the instructors with higher pay and more teaching experience. Better for the skiing industry, more people learning to ski better and skiing more because of it. Better for the public, more access to sports on public land.

You keep bringing this up. Most direct solution eh? So explain to all of us the process by which you would go about changing Federal policy on the use of Federal land for private purposes.

BLM, USFS, NPS and a few other agencies I can't think of this early will oppose anything that reduces aggregate user fees or increases their operating expense (thru increased administration for all the micro SUPs). And then when all the SUP holders bitch to their Congressfools, what do ya think will happen? Especially if changing the underpinnings of the SUP program requires amending an existing law.

And then explain how USFS will unilaterally modify Vail's SUP 16 years early without a shitstorm of lawsuits the Feds have zero chance of winning.

All for 2000 ski instructors who want higher base wages.

While the Feds policy in practice would need to change, I don't think there would need to be an actual modification to Vail's SUP which says that it is "Nonexclusive" Yes, VR would be unhappy about the change, but they don't really have any basis to sue as long as the reason for the change is the public interest. VR is fully on notice that the FS has the right to make changes to their SUP. In fact, their annual report says "The Forest Service can terminate or amend these permits if, in its opinion, such termination is required in the public interest."

Additionally, VR itself is routinely seeking amendments ("In order to undertake improvements and new development, we must apply for permits and other approvals. These efforts, if unsuccessful, could impact our expansion efforts."), so the gov has some negotiating leverage if they choose to use it.

Getting rid of the ski school monopoly would benefit more than just the 2,000+ Instructors currently working in the Vail Valley. If Instructors have more $ in their pockets, they are more likely to spend more at local businesses. In all likelihood, Skiers would be paying less for lessons which means more $ to spend elsewhere. The only people who lose would be VR shareholders who unfairly benefit from Vail's ski school monopoly.

[TBS]

From my first letter to Ski School Director Bobby Murphy-

There are a number of benefits that will accrue to VR by raising wages including:


1. Less staff turnover which means lower training/hiring costs and more experienced Pros providing a better guest experience.
2. Higher morale among instructors.
3. Fewer underground lessons- as the spread between lesson price and Pro pay has increased, more people are asking to be taught off the books in order to pay less while giving the Pro more.
4. Fewer Pros having to work a 2nd (or 3rd) job which can cut into their availability to teach and/or make them too tired to be able to deliver the best lesson possible.
5. An improved corporate image.
6. Satisfaction in knowing that you have done right/good and served others.
7. Less pressure on clients to Tip, which enhances the guest experience for some and may increase their willingness to spend more on lessons.

Some of the above are definite possibilities...don't agree that all I have done is create a FB page and whine here. Check out the videos at:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCc...cXkirVDO0woemQ

and my tweets- https://twitter.com/Fair_Wage

Damn, I've really underestimated the amount of effort you've put into this. So far you have:
- Sent a letter to the head of Vail's ski school. I trust you will share any response for the sake of transparency?
- Created a Facebook page
- Produced two cartoon videos, and posted them to Facebook
- Posted 63 times on TGR
- tweeted or retweeted 76 times to 16 people

What did I miss?

And what options are you exploring that I missed upthread?

Overall I agree that the best solution would be {EaglesPDX brilliant idea to change Federal land management policy w/ respect to concessionaires]

While the Feds policy in practice would need to change, I don't think there would need to be an actual modification to Vail's SUP which says that it is "Nonexclusive" Yes, VR would be unhappy about the change, but they don't really have any basis to sue as long as the reason for the change is the public interest. VR is fully on notice that the FS has the right to make changes to their SUP. In fact, their annual report says "The Forest Service can terminate or amend these permits if, in its opinion, such termination is required in the public interest."

OK, have you contacted USFS to get a modification to Vail's SUP based on a public interest of increasing ski instructor comp? What did they tell you? What's the next step in that process?

Additionally, VR itself is routinely seeking amendments ("In order to undertake improvements and new development, we must apply for permits and other approvals. These efforts, if unsuccessful, could impact our expansion efforts."), so the gov has some negotiating leverage if they choose to use it.

I'd love to see some city/county bureaucrat use his negotiating leverage by holding up a sewer permit until Vail increases instructor wages.

Getting rid of the ski school monopoly would benefit more than just the 2,000+ Instructors currently working in the Vail Valley. If Instructors have more $ in their pockets, they are more likely to spend more at local businesses. In all likelihood, Skiers would be paying less for lessons which means more $ to spend elsewhere. The only people who lose would be VR shareholders who unfairly benefit from Vail's ski school monopoly.

You keep bringing up Vail's ski school "monopoly". I would really love to hear the legal basis for your assertion that Vail has materially restrained trade over a large enough area that state or Federal review is warranted. Please share the complaint with us when filed.

One final question if I might. I can't find anyplace where you've disclosed your tip income. You might say that it's for extra service so it shouldn't count, but a snowcat operator gets no tip income for laying down really sweet groom. So how much do you earn in tips over an average season? It's OK to disclose as a % of your base wages. And you declare virtually all tip income on your income tax returns?

[JayPowHound]

$10-$15/hour isn't much when you get 20 hours a week but have to be available for work much more than that. and the food discounts bring a $18 burger down to $10

In my 3 years as a full time instructor in N. VT this was my experience.. when it was mid january, not a vacation week, and shitty snow there just wasn't any work. Luckily I had a good enough relationship with the bosses that I was allowed to make myself useful and still get paid, but I knew a bunch of kids who taught "full time" that would show up to lineup, not catch a group, and then not get to put that morning/afternoon/day on their timesheet.

[EaglesPDX]

You keep bringing up Vail's ski school "monopoly". I would really love to hear the legal basis for your assertion that Vail has materially restrained trade over a large enough area that state or Federal review is warranted.

On the leased Federal land Vail imposes a monopoly on ski instruction. Simple and easy to understand.

Way to approach it in this political environment, sell it as a fight for small business, the job creating machine of entrepreneurship.

[FairWages]

You keep bringing up Vail's ski school "monopoly". I would really love to hear the legal basis for your assertion that Vail has materially restrained trade over a large enough area that state or Federal review is warranted.

According to the Dept of Justice and FTC horizontal merger guidelines "A market is defined as a product or group of products and a geographic area in which it is produced or sold such that a hypothetical, profit-maximizing firm, not subject to price regulation, that was the only present and future producer or seller of those products in that area likely would impose at least a 'small but significant and nontransitory' increase in price, assuming the terms of sale of all other products are held constant.^(56)"

Do you honestly believe that introducing ski school competition in the Vail Valley wouldn't result in at least a small but significant reduction in the price of ski lessons?

[TBS]

Why do horizontal merger guidelines apply here?

Regardless, I look forward to reading the restraint of trade complaint you file with the state and Feds, and the court's ruling. Please keep us apprised.

Still not willing to divulge your tip compensation eh?

[Mike Pow]

Do you honestly believe that introducing ski school competition in the Vail Valley wouldn't result in at least a small but significant reduction in the price of ski lessons?

I can only speak for the Niseko Resort Area of Hokkaido, Japan but the introduction of ski school competition has resulted in an increase in the price of ski lessons compared with what was / is charged by the Japanese ski schools.

This increase has not resulted in a signifcant increase in ski instructor pay.

[Benny Profane]

This dude is getting as bad as the Indian spammers.

[nord]

The OP is wrong to think that increased Competition (Independent Ski Schools) would lead to higher Ski instructor wages. Independent ski schools will lead to lower Ski lesson prices. When we had 22 private Ski schools at Stevens Pass multi-week ski classes were really cheap. Private ski School instructors were probably paid less than at the "Stevens Pass Ski School". Almost all private ski school instructors were weekend only staff. We made about twice as much an hour as part time Race coaches than the part time ski instructors.

One more Thing. Resort ski instructor wages are intentionally low so there will be more turn over. No ski Resort wants a bunch of old instructors.

[southern_expat]

serious first world problems