Ski Instructor Shortages

[markojp]

What power? What leverage?

I think that's his point.

 

[SkiSchoolPros]

The Canyons/PC fiasco actually has very little bearing on renewal of forest service leases.

1) The lessor of the land is Talsiker, not the forest service.
2) The reason the lease was awarded to Vail has nothing to do whatsoever with operational quality, it was because POWDR had a sweetheart rate grandfathered, and when they mistakenly did not renew, Vail made a much larger offer. It was about money.
3) There was zero discussion of employee wages or allowing additional concessionaires.

Consider the next 3 leases coming up in the next 10 years. Do you know what the terms are for renewal? Do you know what contracted options for renewal are already in place?

I agree instructors are underpaid for the level of training and the transient nature of the work. I've seen ads from ski areas recruiting high school students to teach skiing. "No experience? We'll teach you!" In the ski instructor arena (pre COVID), many ski schools have lowered their standards instead of raising wages to fill openings.

However, you don't get to set what price individual products sell for and claim it's in the public interest. You don't get to cherry pick only certain sales numbers and claim the profitability is too high. The lessee is going to be judged on the total package of services offered, and how that compares to other similar lessees. So your burden to change the way ski leases are written in the US as each comes up for renewal is to not only convince the forest service that a particular lessee is not serving the public interest, but that every lessee is not serving the public interest, that every lease should be changed with respect to ski schools even though they all have run that way for decades, and that ski school operations are primary over lifts, snowmaking, grooming and food for determining public interest. That's a high burden.



In Summit County you have far more than Vail properties. You have Copper, A-Basin, and Loveland just over the pass. It is not a monopoly or a (single) company town. Copper is what, 20 minutes from Vail?

Tom Quinn of the USFS reasearched the history of US public land concessionaires which clearly shows they were designed to be REGULATED MONOPOLIES. (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...IQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0-r3MYbG0PNdUzE9vJzg9E )

Loveland and A Basin don't have lodging or local housing. Loveland is not part of the Summit Stage bus service and A Basin a farther/less convenient option from all parts of the county. Copper's strategy is to stay a bit below VR in price/pay and use the Edge employee housing to recruit workers. Upper management of all the Eagle & Summit Ski Areas meet regularly and share info including prices and employee wages. I went to a party at a friend's house in May 2021 and it was very clear there was going to be a big instructor/employee shortage this season...the resorts were all trying hard to recruit without considering a meaningful increase in wages. I'd hardly call the situation in Summit free market competition. In Eagle its worse as VR runs both resorts and the Eagle buses don't run to Summit (& vice versa).

Have you read an Ski Area SUP? (Form FS 2700 5b titled U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
SKI AREA TERM SPECIAL USE PERMIT
AUTHORITY and found at
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...QQFnoECAYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ZZH-_2YraYjFKRMOEsR1i )

A lot of the questions you ask/statements you make are answered/contradicted there including-

VIII. REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION
A. Revocation and Suspension. The Forest Service may suspend or revoke this permit in whole or part:
1. For noncompliance with Federal, State, or local laws and regulations;
2. For noncompliance with the terms of this permit;
3. For failure of the holder to exercise the privileges granted by this permit;
4. With the consent of the holder; or
5. At the discretion of the authorized officer for specific and compelling reasons in the public interest.

B. Opportunity to Take Corrective Action. Prior to revocation or suspension under clause VIII.A, the authorized officer shall give
the holder written notice of the grounds for each action and a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days, to complete the corrective
action prescribed by the authorized officer.

C. Revocation for Reasons in the Public Interest. If, during the term of this permit or any extension thereof, the Secretary of
Agriculture or any official of the Forest Service with delegated authority determines in planning for the uses of the National
Forest System that the public interest requires revocation of this permit, this permit shall be revoked after one hundred-eighty
(180) day's written notice to the holder. The United States shall then have the right to purchase the holder's improvements, to
remove them, or to require the holder to remove them, and the United States shall be obligated to pay an equitable
consideration for the improvements or for removal of the improvements and damages resulting from their removal. If the
amount of consideration is fixed by mutual agreement between the United States and the holder, that amount shall be
accepted by the holder in full satisfaction of all claims against the United States under this clause. If mutual agreement is not
reached, the Forest Service shall determine the amount of consideration. If the holder is dissatisfied with the amount
determined by the Forest Service, the holder may appeal the determination under the agency’s administrative appeal
regulations.
D. Suspension. The authorized officer may immediately suspend this permit, in whole or in part, when necessary to protect public
health, safety, or the environment. The suspension decision must be in writing. Within 48 hours of the request of the holder, the
superior of the authorized officer shall arrange for an on-the-ground review of the adverse conditions with the holder. Following
this review the superior shall take prompt action to affirm, modify, or cancel the suspension.
IX. RENEWAL
A. Renewal. The authorized use may be renewed. Renewal requires the following conditions: (1) the land use allocation is
compatible with the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; (2) the site is being used for the purposes previously
authorized and; (3) the enterprise is being continually operated and maintained in accordance with all the provisions of the permit.
In making a renewal, the authorized officer may modify the terms, conditions, and special stipulations.
X. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UPON TERMINATION OR NONRENEWAL
A. Removal of Improvements. Except as provided in Clause VIII. A, upon termination or revocation of this special use permit by
the Forest Service, the holder shall remove within a reasonable time as established by the authorized officer, the structures and
improvements, and shall restore the site to a condition satisfactory to the authorized officer, unless otherwise waived in writing or
in the authorization. If the holder fails to remove the structures or improvements within a reasonable period, as determined by the
authorized officer, they shall become the property of the United States without compensation to the holder, but that shall not
relieve the holder's liability for the removal and site restoration costs.
XI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS...
B. Inspection, Forest Service. The Forest Service shall monitor the holder's operations and reserves the right to inspect the
permitted facilities and improvements at any time for compliance with the terms of this permit. Inspections by the Forest Service
do not relieve the holder of responsibilities under other terms of this permit.
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: Provided, that the holder shall not be required to charge prices significantly different than those charged by
comparable or competing enterprises.

 

[SkiSchoolPros]

I would agree with the moose above, that if you think that part of the Ski Permit clause of "public interest" means that the agency is going to come down down mid-permit and modify the permit or even throw them out; is akin to Wishing for Superman will swoop down and save you because you prayed really hard.

However, on the flip side, within the next 10 years time at the time of expiry; if OP gets his political lobby in play and happens to runs across US Senator X; Sec. of Agriculture Z; and Billionaire Honcho Z who wants a pet project to atone for his other sins; in his the private clientlist or colleague's clientlists , rather than farting around in the forums; then it is possible that at the next renewal if he has an alternative ready.

Conspiracy theory: this whole thread is filled with paid actors by Ski Resorts just to distract you from the above purpose and use up all your energy on pointless internet arguments.

Vail Resorts used the fine print in the Canyons lease to terminate it...why can't the USFS do the same?

PSIA is not a union and has no intention of becoming one. It has been discussed.

Starting a union not attached to PSIA would be a good idea, but only if it would have a chance of working. It would need enough members to make a difference were it to go on strike across the nation, wouldn't it? Is there a potential labor force waiting to take the jobs of those who might go on strike?

The union's members would probably be people depending on the job to make a living during the winter. What percentage of ski instructors are doing that?

Here on the east coast I can't see the part-timers here interested, and they out-number the full-timers - I think (could be wrong). And... the east has a lot of retired skiers serving in ski schools. They are not in it for the money. Same for skiers with kids teaching part time on weekends - they are in it for the perks (free passes for kids and SOs).

How could a national union ever have any power or leverage? Could regional or local unions work? I don't know.

In Europe, you do have a much higher % of professional ski instructors whose use it as their primary source of income (at least in the winter).

Kinda of a chicken and egg situation...did low wages attract a greater % of hobbyists or??? In any case, it is now clear there is not an endless supply of hobbyists who will work for a free pass. If it didn't mean paying higher wages, I'm sure VR would rather collect $1,200 as opposed to turning away customers looking for private lessons.

 

[justplanesteve]

Wonder how much of the take a NYS instructor receives?

Vail:

https://www.vail.com/plan-your-trip/ski-and-ride-lessons/category/products/Private-3-Hour-AM-Ski-Lesson?date=01/20/2022

Whiteface:

Private Lessons - Whiteface Mountain

ALL AGES | SKIING & SNOWBOARDING | ALL ABILITIES Are you a newcomer to the slopes? Maybe an intermediate hoping to master the mountain? Or an all-terrain skier looking to perfect your technique? No matter your ability, the Whiteface Snowsports School offers private lessons for all ages to help...

whiteface.com

Then there's the local hills (scroll down for pvt rate)

Ski & Snowboard Lessons | SkiCNY

2023-24 RESERVATIONS REQUIRED Song 315-696-5711 Labrador 607-842-6204 Please fill out Kids Towne Application at the bottom of the page prior to arrival Lesson Types Price Ages Duration Tue-Fri Non…

www.skicny.com

So when some of the older guys head west for working vacations mid-winter, their teaching skills suddently improve a few hundred %? Or am i simply not getting the benefit of their truly advanced skills, while they practice on me before heading out?



smt

 

[mister moose]

Have you read an Ski Area SUP? ...

A lot of the questions you ask/statements you make are answered/contradicted there including-

VIII. REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION
A. Revocation and Suspension. The Forest Service may suspend or revoke this permit in whole or part:
1. For noncompliance with Federal, State, or local laws and regulations;
2. For noncompliance with the terms of this permit;
3. For failure of the holder to exercise the privileges granted by this permit;
4. With the consent of the holder; or
5. At the discretion of the authorized officer for specific and compelling reasons in the public interest.

<Lots more boilerplate>

Vail Resorts used the fine print in the Canyons lease to terminate it...why can't the USFS do the same?

It wasn't fine print, and Talisker terminated it after it was not renewed on time by POWDR. Talisker is not the Forest Service, and their action is not in any way necessarily predictive of any Forest Service future actions.

I'm not sure that multiple leases on the same tract of Forest Service land constitutes a "regulated monopoly" as you state. They are different companies offering competitive services. In Vermont, 7 ski areas lease land from the State, that is not a monopoly. The State has recognized the risk factors associated with operating a ski area, and has asserted numerous times the need for leases to recognize this risk. (Vermont had 39 areas fail from 1970 to 1990) Vermont by the way was the guide for all Forest Service Leases.

I don't understand why you keep posting Forest Service Lease content which gives the Forest Service some limited discretion which they have never used or attempted to use. (There will be a reasonableness standard to meet, and a determination if the public interest is met, and as already stated the Forest Service and the courts will look at the performance of the entire resort, not just ski school) Of what purpose is this regurgitating? Do you have a plan? Or are you as @raytseng said, "Wishing for Superman will swoop down and save you because you prayed really hard."

 

[HDSkiing]

There appears to be an inexhaustible supply of hobbyists who are prepared to “teach” essentially for nothing. I’m aware of some who actually lose money when one takes into account their equipment and commuting costs.

Is this a bad thing? Does starting out as a “hobbyist” make you less capable? Most of the readers on this forum fall into this category and most, with their obvious passion for the sport, would likely make awesome instructors if they chose to go that path. In fact how does one become a ”pro” without going through a hobbyist stage?

Why is it so hard for some to grasp the idea that money is not the driving force behind what others choose to do? Nor is it a concern among many who teach how much profit the ski company gets. These are basic truths that run across all professions where the passion for the job is the driving principle. All the rest, like obscure federal land licensing processes are mere noise that will remain meaningless to those of us going to the mountain to ski, and pursue something we love and, gasp, share it with others without a profit motive.

 

[justplanesteve]

Is this a bad thing? Does starting out as a “hobbyist” make you less capable? Most of the readers on this forum fall into this category and most, with their obvious passion for the sport, would likely make awesome instructors if they chose to go that path. In fact how does one become a ”pro” without going through a hobbyist stage?

Why is it so hard for some to grasp the idea that money is not the driving force behind what others choose to do? Nor is it a concern among many who teach how much profit the ski company gets. These are basic truths that run across all professions where the passion for the job is the driving principle. All the rest, like obscure federal land licensing processes are mere noise that will remain meaningless to those of us going to the mountain to ski, and pursue something we love and, gasp, share it with others without a profit motive.

I think the point of the OP is that why should "corporate interests" make "obscene" profits off that "generosity" such that it limits access to other earnest, hardwokring skiers and families by driving a huge cost surcharge between the willing parties.

If a pool of willing PSIA instructors could pay a daily/monthly/yearly, "reasonable" "license" fee to the area and set up shop to all comers or their own private clients essentially as in Europe, wouldn't that be a better system?

 

[fatbob]

I'd say hobbyists are potentially degrading the profession for the future by enabling and facilitating the minimum wage, totally fungible mentality by resorts. Without a prospect of a reasonably paying career how are the younger folk going to enter the profession and become the leaders and trainers of the future?

Might be no harm, no foul now but when the hobbyists/retirees have aged out and the next generations have no experience of teaching?

If I was a hobbyist instructor I'd want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the wishes of my 20something colleagues even if it were not in my immediate interests.

 

[Rod9301]

Is this a bad thing? Does starting out as a “hobbyist” make you less capable? Most of the readers on this forum fall into this category and most, with their obvious passion for the sport, would likely make awesome instructors if they chose to go that path. In fact how does one become a ”pro” without going through a hobbyist stage?

Why is it so hard for some to grasp the idea that money is not the driving force behind what others choose to do? Nor is it a concern among many who teach how much profit the ski company gets. These are basic truths that run across all professions where the passion for the job is the driving principle. All the rest, like obscure federal land licensing processes are mere noise that will remain meaningless to those of us going to the mountain to ski, and pursue something we love and, gasp, share it with others without a profit motive.

In fact how does one become a ”pro” without going through a hobbyist stage?

Like in Europe, you have to take a pretty serious exam to become an instructor. No level 1 and 2 teach there.

 

[SkiSchoolPros]

I'd say hobbyists are potentially degrading the profession for the future by enabling and facilitating the minimum wage, totally fungible mentality by resorts. Without a prospect of a reasonably paying career how are the younger folk going to enter the profession and become the leaders and trainers of the future?

Might be no harm, no foul now but when the hobbyists/retirees have aged out and the next generations have no experience of teaching?

If I was a hobbyist instructor I'd want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the wishes of my 20something colleagues even if it were not in my immediate interests.

You hit the nail on the head Fatbob. I mostly consider myself part of the hobbiest group. As @HDSkiing pointed out, hobbiests can be good instructors, but I also realize that we help suppress wages which makes it harder for young aspiring pros to pursue the profession while raising a family.

By relying on hobbiests (and Visa holders) more and more, you see fewer instructors in their 30s at US resorts and more worker shortages currently compared compared to Europe where there is more of a professional workforce.

I know a number of young adults who grew up in the mountains with a love of the sport and lots of technical experience (first as athletes, but also as assitant coaches with Team Summit) who won't consider instructing as they don’t view it as a viable career to put food on the table, pay rent and raise a family.

@mister moose Check out the piece by Tim Quinn of the USFS that I linked to above. Chapter 11 is The Rise of the Regulated Monopoly

 

[HardDaysNight]

Is this a bad thing?

Yes, it is a bad thing. See above posts for some of the reasons. Also, until the hobbyist has become a competent and experienced professional (in the unlikely event he/she ever does), the client is not receiving the service paid for. Given the very high fees charged, clients have an expectation, explicitly reinforced by the ski school, that they are receiving top flight professional attention.

 

[Dave Marshak]

If a pool of willing PSIA instructors could pay a daily/monthly/yearly, "reasonable" "license" fee to the area and set up shop to all comers or their own private clients essentially as in Europe, wouldn't that be a better system?

That is already happening. Eric Lipton, Matt and Jeb Boyd, Harald Harb and others run programs with the permssion of various resorts. I'm sure they pay a "reasonable" "license" fee, but what makes you thknk "reasonable" means cheap? Why wouldn't the resorts try to extract the same value fro those camps as they do from their own ski schools?
Why focus on this monopoly problem for ski schools only? The food and beverage monopoly is probably more money and more import to most skiers than the ski school situation. Why not generalize to the entire ski industry, where market power allows a few companies to dominate the whole sport? Why not generalize to the whole economy in which is the failure to aggressively enforce anti-trust laws has resulted in market power in important sectors like digital media, broadcasting and energy? Did you ever think that market power by employers is suppressing wages for far more workers than ski instructors?

dm

 

[Dave Marshak]

I don't understand why you keep posting Forest Service Lease content which gives the Forest Service some limited discretion which they have never used or attempted to use. (There will be a reasonableness standard to meet, and a determination if the public interest is met, and as already stated the Forest Service and the courts will look at the performance of the entire resort, not just ski school) Of what purpose is this regurgitating? Do you have a plan? Or are you as @raytseng said, "Wishing for Superman will swoop down and save you because you prayed really hard."

This^^^^^
The USFS allows resorts to operate ski schools in exactly the same way that resorts on private property (which are probably the majority of resorts) operate. It's ridiculous to think that would change based on the interests of ski school customers, which are maybe less than 10% of the less than 5% of Americans who ski.

dm

 

[raytseng]

This^^^^^
The USFS allows resorts to operate ski schools in exactly the same way that resorts on private property (which are probably the majority of resorts) operate. It's ridiculous to think that would change based on the interests of ski school customers, which are maybe less than 10% of the less than 5% of Americans who ski.

dm

Agree.

If people want to checkout a backup case to study
The suing of Alta to allow snowboarders under 14th amendment also included the USFS. Compared to this discussion; it has way more merit as "public interest" as it would increase the public (snowboarders) that get to use the public land. But if you read into that decision, a part of the discussion and reasoning why claims against USFS were dismissed, was that the operator operates the resort without the Forest Service declaring the policies.
So if that didn't succeed, it isn't realistic to think whatever OP is proposing has a snowball's chance in hell. But at least the Alta snowboarders got some lawyers onboard and went to court.

So I don't think there is any chance in the foreseeable future where "public interest" means the Forest service is suddenly going to get into micromanaging resort business or declaring resort policies; using the threat of pulling the permit to do it. This includes if the operator makes bad/good business decisions that could make or lose money. The extra slice of the profits that USFS could get as their fees is a really far stretch for "public interest".

 

[pchewn]

Is this a bad thing? Does starting out as a “hobbyist” make you less capable? Most of the readers on this forum fall into this category and most, with their obvious passion for the sport, would likely make awesome instructors if they chose to go that path. In fact how does one become a ”pro” without going through a hobbyist stage?

Why is it so hard for some to grasp the idea that money is not the driving force behind what others choose to do? Nor is it a concern among many who teach how much profit the ski company gets. These are basic truths that run across all professions where the passion for the job is the driving principle. All the rest, like obscure federal land licensing processes are mere noise that will remain meaningless to those of us going to the mountain to ski, and pursue something we love and, gasp, share it with others without a profit motive.

I'm new to instructing this year. I'm doing it for the outcome, not the income. It's a hobby.

 

[markojp]

IMHO, I think there's room for new, profitable, and sustainable economic models within the USFS ski area lease monopoly world. I also think we'll start seeing them in the next few seasons.

 

[jimtransition]

Is this a bad thing? Does starting out as a “hobbyist” make you less capable? Most of the readers on this forum fall into this category and most, with their obvious passion for the sport, would likely make awesome instructors if they chose to go that path. In fact how does one become a ”pro” without going through a hobbyist stage?

Why is it so hard for some to grasp the idea that money is not the driving force behind what others choose to do? Nor is it a concern among many who teach how much profit the ski company gets. These are basic truths that run across all professions where the passion for the job is the driving principle. All the rest, like obscure federal land licensing processes are mere noise that will remain meaningless to those of us going to the mountain to ski, and pursue something we love and, gasp, share it with others without a profit motive.

Would you employ a plumber who is unqualified and does it as a hobby?

Of course if people are passionate about skiing and want to teach it without care about financial reward that's fine. Just seems bizzare that the country with the most expensive ski lessons would also have the least skilled and lowest paid instructors.

 

[markojp]

Though I sympathize with the thought, most folks appreciate/rely on functioning indoor plumbing more than skiing, and water ingress doesn't really damage ski gear as much as broken pipes damage structures.

 

[HDSkiing]

Yes, it is a bad thing. See above posts for some of the reasons. Also, until the hobbyist has become a competent and experienced professional (in the unlikely event he/she ever does), the client is not receiving the service paid for. Given the very high fees charged, clients have an expectation, explicitly reinforced by the ski school, that they are receiving top flight professional attention.

Would you employ a plumber who is unqualified and does it as a hobby?

Of course if people are passionate about skiing and want to teach it without care about financial reward that's fine. Just seems bizzare that the country with the most expensive ski lessons would also have the least skilled and lowest paid instructors.

Completely predictable responses by keyboard warriors seeking to satisfy their apparently boundless ego’s by trashing others. Yes of course that 20 something L-2 who was a competitive collegiate and junior racer will never become worthy in your estimation and will no doubt join the ranks of the least skilled now populating all of American skidom. I dunno somehow it worked out for me, I’m a full time pro in management with salary and bonuses. My former students, and all the instructors I’ve hired and trained over the years will be so disappointed to learn that I started out simply as a hobbyist who could somehow find his way through NCAA Div l race courses with an occasional respectable time then taught and coached as a mere hobby before going full time. Where do I go to turn in my certs, obviously I’m not worthy…

 

[jimtransition]

Completely predictable responses by keyboard warriors seeking to satisfy their apparently boundless ego’s by trashing others. Yes of course that 20 something L-2 who was a competitive collegiate and junior racer will never become worthy in your estimation and will no doubt join the ranks of the least skilled now populating all of American skidom. I dunno somehow it worked out for me, I’m a full time pro in management with salary and bonuses. My former students, and all the instructors I’ve hired and trained over the years will be so disappointed to learn that I started out simply as a hobbyist who could somehow find his way through NCAA Div l race courses with an occasional respectable time then taught and coached as a mere hobby before going full time. Where do I go to turn in my certs, obviously I’m not worthy…

Nothing I wrote was directed at anyone personally, sorry if you took offense.