everybody may agree in the beginning with the deal “I don’t know your place / I show you my place around”
most of the time (99.99%) everything goes smoothly and ends up at the corner bar
it can smell very bad in the end if something bad happened since insurances will put their big fat nose in there…
digest:
- Ski Olympic tour operator found guilty of escorting guests without any proper qualification: confirmation of original jurisdiction’s ruling
- said original jurisdiction case law admitted “consistent”
kind of, be careful though, there’s two different things there. You can split this into before and after the accident !
Before the accident, there’s a law about who can be leading a group. Just leading a group without proper qualifications and/or registration is against the law. That’s what has just been in court. ( as noted below, only if remuneration is received)
After the accident, that doesn’t matter so much. Now it’s about working out if someone was at fault and now a de-facto leader might be identified. There’s precedent for this in Austria and I think there’s at least another French case but I can’t recall the reference, David may know. But there needs to be some big difference between the people, adult to children or something like that. Just two friends is not so likely to be a problem. You have to establish that one person had some sort of duty of care to the other person.
Some tour operators seem to think they can pretend it’s social skiing by wearing a different jacket and avoid the first law. I think they’re wrong. If they think they’ll avoid the second one they’re hugely wrong, it’ll take a court a few minutes to establish the ski host was working for the company the guests paid money to stay with.
I guess if the prosecutor was really angry they’d charge you with negligence and with illegally leading a group.
Or, another way to look at it, there’s a law about before the accident to stop there being an after
I understand your point but be careful!
It is legal requirement to have a qualification to teach or lead skiing only if remuneration is received.
I may like it or not, but if I offer two friends to follow me on a ski tour, [which for the need of this example they’ve never done before] I’m the leader.
quite right, I should have added (and will) that vital caveat. There’s an irony here, in real economic terms, as we normally define employment, the ski hosts are working for less than nothing. I can’t imagine that being much of a defence “sorry your judgeship, in fact it cost me a couple of grand to do this job”
Interesting to read the various responses. With all due respect, i think many of them miss the point. My own view is different.
The ski industry is going through tough times with dwindling numbers and the businesses and individuals who depend on it for their livelihood being put at risk - the real reason why some French instructors are against guiding.
However, in my opinion, they are missing the point. Ski hosting does not replace tuition or guiding for skiers wanting to get away from groomed runs. What it does is to provide a good service to people who feel they enjoy their stay more by being shown around a ski area - which in many cases can be baffling to a newcomer. It may help persuade them to book a holiday in the first place, open their eyes to what is possible on a pair of skis (or a snowboard), enhance their skiing experience and lead them to ski more in future.
Skiing needs to adapt and to attract more people to start and to keep going skiing. This service helps fulfil that need by making it more accessible and less prohibitively expensive. In turn it is likely to help grow skiing and rather ironically will almost certainly result in more lessons being taken in the longer term and enriching those who are opposing it.
It is a shame that French resorts don’t take a lead from their North American competitors (most of which are far smaller and less needing of guiding) by providing free hosting themselves. This simple, relaitvely inexpensive solution would enable them to ensure a reasonable degree of competence among hosts and to improve the stays of all visitors to the resorts.
quite right, I should have added (and will) that vital caveat. There’s an irony here, in real economic terms, as we normally define employment, the ski hosts are working for less than nothing. I can’t imagine that being much of a defence “sorry your judgeship, in fact it cost me a couple of grand to do this job”
You’re completely right!
In fact, illegal guiding comes always along with other indictments such as illegal work, tax evasion…
.. and all that social misery that shows on TV under the tag “seasonnaire”.
ollye - 19 February 2013 05:13 PM
It is a shame that French resorts don’t take a lead from their North American competitors (most of which are far smaller and less needing of guiding) by providing free hosting themselves. This simple, relaitvely inexpensive solution would enable them to ensure a reasonable degree of competence among hosts and to improve the stays of all visitors to the resorts.
I agree with you. They should do it if it were not so touchy, legally speaking, as we stated above.
However I’m not sure they would do it anyway, for one reason, which has already been formulated before:
In big resorts, ESF and associated ski schools instructors serve most of the time as what we, in France, call “vendeurs de virages” i.e. “turns dealers”.
They show the resort to their wealthy clients for a substantial daily fee, and furthermore are fed in costly restaurants d’altitude. Sometimes they even sleep with their beautiful-and-feeling-lonely client (Oh sorry I’m digressing )
Some of those clients may become regular and sometimes “friends” > those instructors won’t want to be ripped off of such an easy annuity by their own fellow seasonnaires from the tourist office…
However, in my opinion, they are missing the point. Ski hosting does not replace tuition or guiding for skiers wanting to get away from groomed runs.
That’s exactly why Le Ski lost their case. It’s totally immaterial whether it’s instruction of not, it makes no difference. The adverse outcomes from ski hosting or instruction are exactly the same. The same accidents can occur. That’s why people leading or instructing are supposed to be qualified. Le Ski lost precisely because they persisted in the argument it wasn’t teaching when they were being prosecuted for leading which was clearly against the law and for which they had no defence.
It looks like nearly everyone that posted here had a very nuanced understanding of the issue.
The law’s quite clear. You can’t be in charge of a group on the mountain for money unless you’re qualified to do so. That’s perfectly reasonable and it’s not likely you’re going to find many people who are qualified to be charge of a group that disagrees. They wouldn’t have bothered getting qualified if they thought different.
You might find a lot of different thinking about what’s a suitable qualification to lead a group. I doubt you’d even find a consensus that it’s necessary or practical to establish that qualification. Micro differentiated leadership awards don’t generally serve client interests in my opinion and basic technical awards tend to lack the experience element that’s really needed.
You might even reasonably have an opinion that the law is wrong, but if you’re accused of leading a group when it’s against the law your defence can’t be that you weren’t teaching.
I find some of this a bit bizarre, did it really go like this? :
- The accused, you’re charged with leading groups contrary to the law. How do you plead?
+ ah ha, not guilty, I wasn’t teaching. I was just leading.
- guilty, next case.
summer, winter, lead a group in the mountains for money and you’re supposed to be qualified, it’s the law.
Incidentally, on a more general point. There’s not going to be a new award for ski hosting because it’s quite plain what will happen, it’ll be used as a cover for teaching bringing us full circle. A bolt on to another award? Possible but unlikely I think.
However, in my opinion, they are missing the point. Ski hosting does not replace tuition or guiding for skiers wanting to get away from groomed runs.
The law is as clear as it can be (for once !!) : enseigner, animer ou encadrer une activité physique ou sportive ou entraîner ses pratiquants, à titre d’occupation principale ou secondaire, de façon habituelle, saisonnière ou occasionnelle
Under the law, you’re not allowed to:
- teach
- host (right translation for “animer”, like in ski hosting?)
- supervise
- or train
If the discussion is about who is right on a legal basis, then ski hosting probably does not stand a chance. It just seems a shame that it has gone to court and that the inevitable outcome is ultimately likely to be bad for skiers and for people who depend on skiing for their livelihood.
Regardless of the outcome, people will continue to show other people around ski slopes, paid or unpaid. Indeed some companies will probably continue to offer guiding by employees in an even more casual way (no uniform, insurance or training whatsoever). A few of the people will have accidents as they always have (regardless of whether their “leader” is paid, unpaid, qualified or unqualified).
Looks like the only winners will be the lawyers - surprise surprise.
What an active topic - this has definately touched a nerve!
We really need to put this in the correct context.
The ruling appears to be against a simple complimentary introduction to the local resort that visitors expect from their hosts. I guess that these same visitors would appreciate a similar introduction from the Tourist Ofiice or the ESF if it was genuine and free - unlikely.
I can only agree that if the guiding is off-piste or more than just helpful instruction, then a qualified guide or instructor should provide this, but I guess this is not the case.
Its a pity for the ESF to have antagonised this rediculous situation as I believe they have once again “self-harmed” - perhaps that is just their arrogance and why I have never used or recommended them.
Maybe, just maybe, the TO’s will treat this ruling with the same contempt the French do with most of their other laws - I am sure most of us do not need reminding of these - just check out one of my specialities and that is fire doors and exits in Hotels and public buildings.
Thanks for the ski olympic case Riderfou, I’ve heard of this case and this is why the latest case is not “groundbreaking” or whatever some people are calling it. There is also some case law where, I think, Club Med were claiming their hosts were not paid for hosting and this was dismissed by the court. I’ll see if I can find a link. But this argument is often raised.
I can understand professionals being fed-up with unqualified leaders. I can understand people who enjoy social skiing being worried.
I read what Phil had to say. Maybe there will be some shift away but I think the big TOs, like any business, go where they can make most money. In Europe they won’t replace the capacity offered by France. I suspect they may be secretly relieved not to have to offer skier hosting, plus they can blame the French. I doubt they’ll shift work away from the ESF unless the ISS can offer better rates. They run a largely opportunistic business model, taking advantage of legislation to avoid paying minimum wage in host countries, contracting is done on a yearly basis and they go with the operations which can offer the capacity and best margins. Well it is a business, like Findus or Google, maximize profits, minimize costs.
Reps will be pleased, no more skiing with the “billies”, they’ll maybe get a bit of time to ski themselves. Unless things have changed a ski host with Inghams or Crystal will be a transfer rep at the weekends. Buying lift passes and arranging ski school on Sunday and sorting apres the rest of the week as well as the million and one other problems they deal with.
It may breath new life into the Ski Club repping service.
Not sure what effect it will have on the ESF and other professionals. It will be interesting to watch how all this pans out over the next couple of years.
If anyone has a copy of the judgement don’t hesitate to post or link to it.
just check out one of my specialities and that is fire doors and exits in Hotels and public buildings.
That’s true enough, or it was, things may have improved since I last had any involvement in this. TOs are responsible for the hotels they sell and the big ones have to do H&S checks using qualified personnel and sometimes have a job getting French, or Swiss hotel owners to accept that 30 year old flock wallpaper isn’t a great ceiling covering.
Reps will be pleased, no more skiing with the “billies”, they’ll maybe get a bit of time to ski themselves. Unless things have changed a ski host with Inghams or Crystal will be a transfer rep at the weekends. Buying lift passes and arranging ski school on Sunday and sorting apres the rest of the week as well as the million and one other problems they deal with.
It’s not the “big boys” that I would be concerned about - they make up their own rules and have the might to manipulate them. It’s the smaller niche operator that often has adopted a lifestyle occupation whose livelyhood I would be concerned about.
These people are quite numerous in the French Alps and genuinly offer a resort and bar/restaurant familiarisation for their clients - its just good manners, which could never be undertaken by the ESF.
It’s the smaller niche operator that often has adopted a lifestyle occupation whose livelyhood I would be concerned about.
That’s a completely different topic really. But you’re not obliged to support anyone else’s lifestyle choice. When a client gives me money we’ve a professional business arrangement. In my experience there’s nothing worse than being expected to put up with an amateur and sloppy service on the grounds the person delivering it thinks it’s a substitute for having a proper job.
If you want to support small operators then do it because of their service and professionalism not because it’s run by people who’ve decided you ought to pay for their lifestyle choice. We all work to get money to support our lifestyle whether you’re nurse, plumber, banker or a saggarmaker’s bottom knocker. There’s no need to support those of us who couldn’t hack it in the office or decided to take a vow of poverty.
Or, is it a different topic? Or is that exactly what’s wrong with sectors of the British winter sport market, an over supply of people who’ll do it for basically nothing and a market who wants something for nothing?
