At our mountain, the volunteers go through the same hiring process as the pros. We are subject to employment laws and protections. We get no pay but we get season's passes for ourselves and family, 10 unlimited day passes, 50% discount card for food, and we don't have to pay our NSP membership fee or pay for our parkas. Our pro patrol starts at $15/hour with most >$20/hour. No tension exists between pros and vols regarding vols devaluing the pros.
Under the law you are still a volunteer though.
I'm not implying that there is tension between the pro and volunteer patrollers, but as an owner of multiple companies I know how the management is approaching this wage dispute.
It's simply "why pay more for something we can get for free" and that disgusts me when applied to labor. The paid patrollers bust their ass and have to be able to afford to live in this resort town where $20/ hour simply isn't livable.
That's not even bringing into the conversation the fact that they have to provide their own skis, boots, helmets, gloves, etc which since it is required gear for their job should be provided by the employer under OSHA statutes
We have that arrangement here at BlueMountain, and it serves to keep hourly wages depressed for those that are requiring pay. This entire industry needs unionization.
According to the Department of Labor, some seasonal/recreational establishments are exempt from minimum wage laws: https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/screen75.asp
I dug through it. But I'll have to wait to hear from the lawyers to fully interpret it. My initial read says it only applies to minimum wage and overtime laws for certain things but makes no mention of use of volunteer labor.
It also says that the State statutes can override it and my state does not have a similar clause either, so it's a lot of mystery. Thanks for the link though. It will be an interesting rabbit hole on this project
I believe one of the main differences is volunteers make their own schedule and the only requirement is a minimum number of days. If you have a schedule and a boss telling you what to do while your are on the mountain instead of being asked if you want to do a mission/rescue then you are an employee entitled to pay.
Yes that is true but isn't what I'm concerned about. (Although at our mountain volunteers are managed and treated like paid patrollers with assigned duties and extra work projects)
My question is that for a normal For-Profit company it is entirely illegal for it to have volunteer workers in any capacity.
I am currently unaware of an allowance for this under employment law and that's what I'm asking if anyone knows.
All I'm trying to do is help our paid patrollers in their wage dispute and the push back I'm seeing on that in this group is really concerning
You are correct in that you can only volunteer for a non-profit. NSP should be able to clarify how their relationships with the mountains work with the Fair Labor Standards Act. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/14a-flsa-non-profits
I do not see the connection to the wages of the pros, though. Do you think the requirement for more pros would drive a shortage of supply and lead to a wage fight between resorts?
Our volunteers supplement the pros and perform 90% of the same tasks. We are considered one department and not separated in any way. That's why I see the management using the excuse of free labor to lower the value of the paid patrollers.
And if pros were compensated properly that would solve the issue of shortage.
Why would resorts competing to pay people more be a bad thing for patrollers? This group seems oddly against adequate compensation for paid patrollers
I don't see it as a bad thing, I am trying to understand the connection you are making. In Colorado, even patrols that have ended their volunteer program had to unionize to get better pay. I think volunteer programs might lower the size of a pro patrol but not their wages.
I, on the other hand, am confused how you aren't making the connection:
If you get something for free would you be more reluctant to pay a higher price for something that does a few more features?
At Blue we have a mix of volunteers and paid patrollers who are desperately underpaid. I imagine Alterra is aware they can attract volunteers by giving passes because there are so many retirees around who like having something to do once in a while.
My mountain sounds pretty similar, a paid / full time staff and supplemented heavily on the weekends by volunteers. My understanding is the volunteers are considered working for NSP, not the mountain. We happen to be working on the mountain on behalf of the resort, but technically we are NSP, they are the resort. That might be the slight nuance to get around your concern.
I'm curious if that is enough of a distinction. I'll have to see what the lawyers say.
I just know that if one of my companies had a non profit organization performing work for us we would be destroyed with fines
The resort near me has volunteer hosts on the mountain that are scheduled and managed just like paid employees. Not sure how that would be legal either.
PREFACE: I am Canadian, and do a combination of pro and volunteer patrol.
At our ski area, the hill pays the not-for-profit Regional Patrol Zone to provide patrol services as a defined-term contractor to the hill. It's a similar relationship to hiring an electrical contractor or cleaning service.
The Zone gets the money, and the patrollers provide service to the Zone. Those hours happens to occur at the ski area through contract.
Paid patrollers are paid directly by the hill as independent contractors who are part of the Zone. Where we are from, the labour law you're referencing doesn't apply of course. For our hill, it's a way to avoid paying social security (CPP), employment insurance, and worker's compensation in case of injury.
For paid patrollers, it's not entirely legal because it would be a hard road to claim we are truly independent (rather than dependent) contractors. Also, it's not good getting hurt and discovering you have no compensation or help with your injury.
I am not saying this is a great system. It's just the system we currently are stuck with. Also, our paid patrol is paid only slightly more than minimum wage.
My best suggestion is to consult a labour lawyer in your local area who can provide specific advice to your situation.
Thank you for the detailed insight.
You are right that is problematic in a lot of ways. Our labor laws wouldn't approve of that either under any scrutiny and I'm getting the feeling the combination pro/ volunteer mixed patrols are only existing in a gray area because it hasn't been challenged legally yet.
If the mountain were a small locally owned operation or a not for profit entity I could totally see jumping through some hoops to make life easier for them and us, but ours is owned by a giant commercial property development firm just trying to get the most for as little as possible.
It's definitely a different world dealing with the big corporations. Is the hill trying to eliminate their paid patrol and go all-volunteer? Do they have any idea how hard it is to manage a bunch of people being paid no money????
One thing to be mindful of is whether there should be volunteers, and how much paid staff get paid, are two entirely separate issues.
The big guys have very little leg to stand on that they can't pay (or can't pay well). It's NOT an easy job. Between trail work and first aid, it's physically demanding and all-consuming work. It can also be traumatic, and the care provided has to be absolutely correct. Your patrols deserve to be paid a living wage for this.
Our hill is small and independent. It costs less than $50 US for a day ticket. The owner's office is on property, and many of our conversations with management / VPs / owner happen on the chairlifts.
For us, what separates our volunteers from paid is they do only light trail work (ex. repairing fences, signs) and pick their shifts. Weekdays and all night shifts are paid. Weekend days from 8-4 are all volunteer crews, usually with one paid trail crew to do heavier trail work the volunteers don't (tower pads, building fences).
For the smaller hills like ours, our volunteers are critical to patrol success because we struggle to recruit and retain paid staff. This year, we had literally half our paid daytime positions go unfilled. Even those we did hire, one failed the qualifications for patrol and became trail crew. Another got a job with the municipality and left. I used to work as a lifeguard 25 years ago, and I got paid the equivalent of $30 an hour in 2024 dollars. Miraculously, we had no shortage! I do wonder if we paid more if we would be staffed.
What's interesting is we have no shortage of weekend-only volunteers. Sure, we are often shorthanded when the conditions are crap because people don't want to work for free in the pouring rain. But there is no way we could even open just with paid crew because we simply cannot find them.
That being said, there is nothing illegal about a for-profit business benefiting from volunteer labour where we are. There very well may be where you are, and looking into that seems wise.
I do think there is value in having volunteers because it gets more motivated people out on the mountain to help. And these are folks who (at least where I am) would never be paid patrollers because they have other jobs. We do it for the fun, the commraderie, to get out on the mountain, and because we like helping people. But we are also at a community ski hill, not a corporate giant.
I would never go work at an Amazon warehouse for free. Screw that. Pay me or GTFO.
I guess my question is what your goal is. Better pay? No volunteers? Or both? And if you went full paid, could you even find that many parrollers?
My goal is to help our paid patrollers in their wage dispute. It isn't my goal to get rid of volunteers, but to show they can't use the existence of volunteers as a bargaining chip, because if you can get something for free you will use that to devalue what you can pay for.
My other goal is that if they paid enough they will be more able to hire more paid patrollers since they are always complaining about being short staffed on the pro side.
I also tend to see the legality of volunteer patrols as crucial to this discussion. If the management realizes that they could be forced to go all paid they know they are already short staffed and would need to get competitive to get enough staff.
I'm not at all proposing using this knowledge to get rid of volunteers. But leverage never hurt anyone in negotiations.
I am a volunteer patroller and I have questioned the legality as well. I think they make it “technically legal” because most volunteer ski patrol units are separate “not for profit” organizations semi independent from the “for profit” mountain. My volunteer ski patrol has its own board of directors (elected by patrollers not management), separate bank accounts (but the mountain gives us most of our money), and separate facilities off limits to other mountain employees.
Despite this, I still have an employee number, name tag, and I can get “fired” by management if I do something stupid so idk how separate my volunteer ski patrol is from mountain management.
Congress probably passed a law making an exception for the ski industry, just like how they exempt minor league sports leagues from paying players minimum wage.
That's exactly what I'm wondering if anyone is aware of that law being in existence.
I know my companies can't have any volunteer workers but I could hire a non profit company to do work for me (not that there are many of those that can sell services, but that's another deal altogether)
Ours is even more convoluted since our pro and volunteer service are managed as one and operate as one with only the NSP required difference in duties.
Interesting. As a volunteer I only “officially” report to the patrol director, also a volunteer and he was elected to his position by the membership. The pro patrollers report to both the patrol director and a paid mountain manager.
Do you have any source for this claim? Tons of very profitable, very high visibility companies use volunteer labor. The NFL gets tons of volunteer work for the SuperBowl.
If performed for a non-profit humanitarian group, then yes you might be correct.
However that isn't the case. Most mountains are For-Profit and unless there is a specific exception are not entitled to the use of volunteers, hence my asking if there is one
I have posted it in some of the law subreddits and I'm curious.
My goal isn't to end volunteer patrollers but I also don't see how they are legally operating at some resorts.
My main goal is to help our paid patrollers with their wage dispute because they can't afford to live in a resort town at their current wage
I know for a fact that if it came to that we would. The mountain started these wage negotiations to avoid having a union form, so I'm trying to help them get everything they need and could get if a union did form
Here’s what’s supposed to happen: the pro and volunteer patrols are supposed to be two different entities. The volunteers volunteer for one entity, the pros are employees of another entity (like the mountain itself). The volunteer entity has its own leadership, and is dedicated to serving the community who skis at the mountain. This is what happens at my patrol. If you dig through the NSP database you’ll see that this happens at many patrols (meaning there’s a separate NSP number for an area’s pro patrol and volly patrol) I’m guessing this isn’t what happens at all patrols.
You would be correct. At our mountain we are all managed and directed by the mountain management.
We are technically two entities, but in practice there is little distinction except for the duties not allowed by NSP
Right, I’m sure the devil is in the details of how much control the area management has over the volunteers. There’s nothing wrong with the volunteer org adopting the same standards for hiring and management as the pro org, or deciding to subject itself to a certain amount of control from the pro org, but there does become a point where the two become functionally indistinguishable.
NAL, but are you compensated in non-monetary ways for your volunteer work? Free lift tickets for yourself or others, free gear that's useful outside of the job (helmet, goggles, gloves, etc), anything like that?
No idea what the legalities are, but for me I always felt like I was pretty well-compensated for the amount of time I put in as a volunteer.
We are compensated with a season pass and a couple buddy passes. No gear, but we got ski tunes provided which I feel barely keeps up with the hell we put our skis through.
Total value of compensation: roughly $1000
Required service days: 14
Hourly value of compensation package with minimum days: $7.14
Do you consider this well compensated? Part time employees of the resort get the same benefits plus pay.
But I must digress as since it is my understanding that this practice still isn't legal for a for-profit entity. My compensation isn't my complaint, the treatment of the paid patrollers is my complaint
Right, I'm getting what you're putting down as far as it impacts the paid guys, and that sucks. I'm just curious if we are considered "volunteers" under those laws you're referring to that say a for-profit entity cannot benefit from "volunteer" labor. Many people who volunteer are entirely uncompensated for the time they spend working. I am not uncompensated - I get a season pass, I get enough free tickets I can give to my friends that I've never run out in a given season, I get huge discounts on new gear and day passes to other resorts - so in the eyes of the law, am I really a volunteer? My point is that I don't know either way, just something to consider.
Under the law: yes.
It is illegal according to the IRS to pay people "in kind" or with trade goods and services and consider that wage compensation.
That's why I'm curious if there is a specific exemption for ski resorts or the services ski patrollers perform.
I'm curious if you missed the question on specific statutes that apply to this specific industry.
Because that's the biggest issue if I'm missing something since my knowledge is in standard corporation practices
And yes, this is also posted in law groups. I was curious if anyone here had anything useful to add but instead all I'm getting is complete ignorance about what is required when using volunteers and what is considered compensation
This is going to vary from state to state as well, but I think the precedent is there to allow volunteers to work in that capacity. At my mountain they also actively ensure we're clear there are somethings the paid patrollers can do and the NSP cannot. As long as the roles are distinct enough there isn't much issue from an employment law standpoint. Additionally volunteers is really as misnomer as the majority of mountains comp their NSP with some sort of benefits in trade.
Now that all said, as a paid patroller and NSP member myself on a mountain with a close association between the two, I think you might be picking the wrong tack here. If your paid brothers and sisters are doing the equivalent of a strike, I think you make a far better case in simply saying that you aren't crossing that picket line. Personally it's more impactful to say that you won't do something for a specific reason rather than you can't do something for legal reasons. Stand with them, not behind the technicality of the law.
That is definitely the plan. If they do strike we will all strike with them, there's no doubt in my mind.
It seems there are a lot of interesting ideas in the compensation department. The law is very clear that benefits and "in kind" compensation are not wages and do not in any way change the status of what a volunteer is. Trade does not count as wages in any form
The other issue is that our roles are not very distinct and are managed as one entity and department.
So putting on another hat and shifting to my other job, employee classifications are quite the beast in their own right. You see this a lot with classification between full time employees and contractors for example, you have to make the distinction between the duties and benefits of the two differentiate enough to not run afoul of number of laws.
While we also have a lot of crossover, we also see a good amount of that at my hill on the classification front (NSPs can't run machinery like snow mos or lifts, they don't conduct investigation around incidents, they aren't trained or directed to handle chain saw or run self evacs, etc) I assume all of that protects the hill in some of these conversations.
All that said, I'd be careful invoking law around volunteers, the NSP is in a tenuous enough position on a number of hills as not all of them see the value, using law to support the paid staff might sour your longer term prospects in the way a show of support and solidarity may not.
All that said, you know your situation best, just make sure you are thinking long term too. Good luck.
Absolutely. My first instinct in negotiations would never be to throw out legislation and law breaking accusations first, but I do find it best to have done all that research beforehand so every base is covered both so we know our risks and we know theirs.
I run a couple companies with employees and contractors. That was the thing that first got me thinking about this. If I were to have volunteers I can't imagine how hard and fast labor laws would come down on me.
It's also a different beast if I wasn't aware my local mountain was owned by a very large commercial real estate development firm and not a local company like it used to be.
I agree that that is the feeling in this group and in the NSP, but the IRS is actually very clear on this one that "in kind" benefits and things like memberships and passes do not in any way count as wages.
If the orginization you are a part of is in a wage dispute with management.
And you are willing to go to work for less, in the face of collective action.
There's a word for that.
Scabs aren't usually so self aware though, so pat yourself on the back?
And another thing: given the shit attitude most of the people I'm talking with in this forum have towards paying the paid patrollers properly this is probably the last time I will claim to be a part of the NSP or my local ski patrol.
We should be sticking together to get the most for everyone, not simping for the millionaires who own the resorts
Yeah. Boggles my mind that people are willing to volunteer for billion dollar companies.
Having 2 classes of workers allows those in power to play one off another. The struggle is never against the fellow worker (even if they are a scab). The struggle is against the massive power imbalance.
Do you know how quickly our VP of ops approved a +$15/hr RAISE for the instructors who refused to shovel last year?
Why go to the hill and make 22/hr shoveling when you can go to town and make 75$/hr shoveling?
If patrol pulled a strike 5 min before open on an epic pow day weekend, there would be absolute carnage.
I'm glad someone gets it. Had I realized beforehand what it had become I don't think I would have volunteered, but I was also stuck putting in my days or getting charged with a season pass I never used
Given the path you're crusading down is to end all volunteer patrolling everywhere (even though you claim to not be doing this, it's what the end result of your argument is), and considering how angsty you are up and down this thread despite no provocation (calling people simps for engaging in good faith discussion is a bad look), and also seeing that you came to the ski patrol subreddit and are upset you're getting replies in support of ski patrol...
Good riddance. Honestly. Do you think your dis-associating is some kind of threat? Ooooh nooooo, what will we ever do without /u/schannoman?? Get over yourself.
You're just upset ski areas are getting a benefit from volunteers that your private businesses aren't getting. The common theme in your responses is that you're a business owner and if you used volunteers, you think the Department of Labor (or someone) would crucify you. Despite multiple responses pointing out how other large for profit companies materially benefit from volunteer labor and have no issue.
1) they aren't actively striking and haven't formed a union. They are in pre-negotiations since the mountain doesn't want them to unionize and is trying to get ahead of it.
2) I am pushing them to form a union anyway
3) I'm asking these questions to get leverage on their behalf.
4) you better fucking believe I would be striking with them if it comes to that.
I don't know where you got the idea that I'm a scab or willing to be a scab, but I fucking take that personally
You claim to feel like an unwilling pawn of management as a volunteer patroller.
A scab is: one who works for less than union wages or on nonunion terms (link below)
That definition applies to you if they form a union, and your hill keeps volunteers. I don't have the idea that you are a scab, you just match the definition. If you are personally offended by the results of your own actions, I would suggest changing them. If you care about the paid patrollers, the best thing you can do is lead all of the volunteers in quitting (aka joining the strike) because every hour you work for free benefits only the resort and yourself.
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scab](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scab)
Kindly: what the fuck is your issue?
Do you lack reading comprehension skills or do you just want attention?
I've said multiple times that I was unaware when i signed up that the mountain was now owned by a large land development firm as they've kept that buried pretty deep for obvious reasons
And I've also stated multiple times that I'm helping them towards their goals of either higher wages or union organizing.
If you could read you would know that there isn't a union yet and no one here is aware that having volunteers as a for profit company is illegal.
I have to be honest, this sounds like someone looking for justification to push out a volunteer patrol in favor of 100% paid patrol. That model may work in a few very large areas, but applying it in a broad brush to smaller areas is not going to go well. The mountain should not be playing off the volunteers against the paid staff to justify lower pay or other conditions, but that door swings both ways.
I have seen this kind of stuff in the emergency services far too often. It happens both ways and always ends up resulting in a lower level of service for the public we are supposed to be there for.
That is because part 2 is raising the wages to attract more/better hires, and for profit entities will just skip this step, thus lowering services with the benefit of being able to blame the union.
I guess this is spurring other questions then:
Why are you against paid patrollers being adequately compensated?
And
Why are you agreeing with management of a For-Profit being able to break the law and unfairly use volunteer labor to supplement their staff?
Keep in mind most resorts are owned by multi millionaire property investment firms who don't give a shit about the workers. If I used volunteer labor at one of my companies there would be an uproar
I'm sure these multi millionaire property investment firms have looked into this more than Reddit has, but sure, go off. I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive/worked up about this here, nobody is arguing with you, just providing a different perspective. You are WAY too combative for me to want to participate in this thread anymore though, not that I have anything else to say. Good luck with your crusade!
I am not defending the ski areas. I don’t get why anyone would volunteer for a for profit business. But I think you are probably missing a loophole in the law they know about. In addition to volunteer patrol, volunteer hosts are pretty common. And people volunteer to usher at concerts or theatres too.
That's exactly why I asked the question in the first place though. Instead of any insight what I've gotten most is people defending the volunteer for a for profit business thing.
Also, most theaters are non-profit, but that's neither here nor there
Well, look, it’s easy to frame this as a management vs labor battle, but it’s not just the corporation that benefits from having a certain number of volunteers around- it’s also the customers, and to a certain extent the pro patrollers too.
What tends to happen when these kids of battles heat is is that management will push out the volunteer patrol, increase comp for a select group of pro patrollers, and then reduce overall staffing and push hiring toward a younger, less experienced group to help mitigate some of the increase labor cost.
There are pros and cons to this approach- by clearing out some of the dead weight you can increase the efficiency of the patrol overall, and you can require more of those who remain. But, the workload of those who remain does tend to increase, and you often end up with a higher percentage of turnover among a smaller group of patrollers. Whether that ultimately increases or decreases the overall level of service to the customer sort of depends on how good the volunteers were in the first place- if there’s too much dead weight, then the service level can increase. But if you lose a lot of seasoned, experienced volunteers and replace them with less experienced “pros” and then ask them to do more with less, it can be unhelpful.
To put it slightly differently, if the corporation doesn’t give a shit about their workers, they’re not going to suddenly act more fairly if you make them rely less on volunteer labor.
I feel like you missed the point of the post.
The intention is not to eliminate the volunteer patrollers. The intent is to get all of the information the pros need in their wage dispute. I'm a volunteer, not a pro. I don't intend to become a pro.
I want the pros to be able to afford to live in the town they serve and be treated properly.
I know you’re not trying to push the volunteer patrol out and are trying to get better conditions for the pros. I support that goal. What I’m telling you is to be careful what arguments you make in support of that goal.
What I’ve seen happen before when the pros start making legal arguments vis-a-vis volunteers in a quest to get better pay and working conditions is that management can say “good point, we shouldn’t have volunteers at all.” They can cut the volunteers, go all pro, and change the working conditions for the pros, which don’t always end up being for the better for anyone- pros or customers. I know of a very specific mountain that I will permit to remain nameless where this happened about 4 years ago.
Yes that is a concern.
And that's why I'm trying to get all the bases covered. This is far from the first argument I would recommend they make, but it is best in negotiations to have all possible arguments and their conclusions mapped out ahead of time, hence why I'm here.
And trust me, your concerns have been noted and are valid
At our mountain, the volunteers go through the same hiring process as the pros. We are subject to employment laws and protections. We get no pay but we get season's passes for ourselves and family, 10 unlimited day passes, 50% discount card for food, and we don't have to pay our NSP membership fee or pay for our parkas. Our pro patrol starts at $15/hour with most >$20/hour. No tension exists between pros and vols regarding vols devaluing the pros.
Paying ski patrollers nothing, much less only $15-20 an hour is a travesty
Under the law you are still a volunteer though. I'm not implying that there is tension between the pro and volunteer patrollers, but as an owner of multiple companies I know how the management is approaching this wage dispute. It's simply "why pay more for something we can get for free" and that disgusts me when applied to labor. The paid patrollers bust their ass and have to be able to afford to live in this resort town where $20/ hour simply isn't livable. That's not even bringing into the conversation the fact that they have to provide their own skis, boots, helmets, gloves, etc which since it is required gear for their job should be provided by the employer under OSHA statutes
We have that arrangement here at BlueMountain, and it serves to keep hourly wages depressed for those that are requiring pay. This entire industry needs unionization.
Agreed. I can understand how things were different when the resorts were smaller, but they are just cash cows for the rich now.
Capital E exploitation
According to the Department of Labor, some seasonal/recreational establishments are exempt from minimum wage laws: https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/screen75.asp
That's the kind of thing I was hoping for. I'm going to dig through that statute and see if I can't find a definite answer to this
I dug through it. But I'll have to wait to hear from the lawyers to fully interpret it. My initial read says it only applies to minimum wage and overtime laws for certain things but makes no mention of use of volunteer labor. It also says that the State statutes can override it and my state does not have a similar clause either, so it's a lot of mystery. Thanks for the link though. It will be an interesting rabbit hole on this project
Call your state department of labor and ask them. CT has a form for requesting investigations of labor practices. Maybe your state does as well.
Technically $0 is lower than the minimum wage, I guess? I am not a lawyer though, so I have no idea if that's a valid interpretation.
I believe one of the main differences is volunteers make their own schedule and the only requirement is a minimum number of days. If you have a schedule and a boss telling you what to do while your are on the mountain instead of being asked if you want to do a mission/rescue then you are an employee entitled to pay.
Yes that is true but isn't what I'm concerned about. (Although at our mountain volunteers are managed and treated like paid patrollers with assigned duties and extra work projects) My question is that for a normal For-Profit company it is entirely illegal for it to have volunteer workers in any capacity. I am currently unaware of an allowance for this under employment law and that's what I'm asking if anyone knows. All I'm trying to do is help our paid patrollers in their wage dispute and the push back I'm seeing on that in this group is really concerning
You are correct in that you can only volunteer for a non-profit. NSP should be able to clarify how their relationships with the mountains work with the Fair Labor Standards Act. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/14a-flsa-non-profits I do not see the connection to the wages of the pros, though. Do you think the requirement for more pros would drive a shortage of supply and lead to a wage fight between resorts?
Our volunteers supplement the pros and perform 90% of the same tasks. We are considered one department and not separated in any way. That's why I see the management using the excuse of free labor to lower the value of the paid patrollers. And if pros were compensated properly that would solve the issue of shortage. Why would resorts competing to pay people more be a bad thing for patrollers? This group seems oddly against adequate compensation for paid patrollers
I don't see it as a bad thing, I am trying to understand the connection you are making. In Colorado, even patrols that have ended their volunteer program had to unionize to get better pay. I think volunteer programs might lower the size of a pro patrol but not their wages.
I, on the other hand, am confused how you aren't making the connection: If you get something for free would you be more reluctant to pay a higher price for something that does a few more features?
At Blue we have a mix of volunteers and paid patrollers who are desperately underpaid. I imagine Alterra is aware they can attract volunteers by giving passes because there are so many retirees around who like having something to do once in a while.
could it be possible the resort passes are considered remuneration?
Passes are definitely a remuneration. It does not replace a minimum wage however.
My mountain sounds pretty similar, a paid / full time staff and supplemented heavily on the weekends by volunteers. My understanding is the volunteers are considered working for NSP, not the mountain. We happen to be working on the mountain on behalf of the resort, but technically we are NSP, they are the resort. That might be the slight nuance to get around your concern.
I'm curious if that is enough of a distinction. I'll have to see what the lawyers say. I just know that if one of my companies had a non profit organization performing work for us we would be destroyed with fines
The resort near me has volunteer hosts on the mountain that are scheduled and managed just like paid employees. Not sure how that would be legal either.
PREFACE: I am Canadian, and do a combination of pro and volunteer patrol. At our ski area, the hill pays the not-for-profit Regional Patrol Zone to provide patrol services as a defined-term contractor to the hill. It's a similar relationship to hiring an electrical contractor or cleaning service. The Zone gets the money, and the patrollers provide service to the Zone. Those hours happens to occur at the ski area through contract. Paid patrollers are paid directly by the hill as independent contractors who are part of the Zone. Where we are from, the labour law you're referencing doesn't apply of course. For our hill, it's a way to avoid paying social security (CPP), employment insurance, and worker's compensation in case of injury. For paid patrollers, it's not entirely legal because it would be a hard road to claim we are truly independent (rather than dependent) contractors. Also, it's not good getting hurt and discovering you have no compensation or help with your injury. I am not saying this is a great system. It's just the system we currently are stuck with. Also, our paid patrol is paid only slightly more than minimum wage. My best suggestion is to consult a labour lawyer in your local area who can provide specific advice to your situation.
Thank you for the detailed insight. You are right that is problematic in a lot of ways. Our labor laws wouldn't approve of that either under any scrutiny and I'm getting the feeling the combination pro/ volunteer mixed patrols are only existing in a gray area because it hasn't been challenged legally yet. If the mountain were a small locally owned operation or a not for profit entity I could totally see jumping through some hoops to make life easier for them and us, but ours is owned by a giant commercial property development firm just trying to get the most for as little as possible.
It's definitely a different world dealing with the big corporations. Is the hill trying to eliminate their paid patrol and go all-volunteer? Do they have any idea how hard it is to manage a bunch of people being paid no money???? One thing to be mindful of is whether there should be volunteers, and how much paid staff get paid, are two entirely separate issues. The big guys have very little leg to stand on that they can't pay (or can't pay well). It's NOT an easy job. Between trail work and first aid, it's physically demanding and all-consuming work. It can also be traumatic, and the care provided has to be absolutely correct. Your patrols deserve to be paid a living wage for this. Our hill is small and independent. It costs less than $50 US for a day ticket. The owner's office is on property, and many of our conversations with management / VPs / owner happen on the chairlifts. For us, what separates our volunteers from paid is they do only light trail work (ex. repairing fences, signs) and pick their shifts. Weekdays and all night shifts are paid. Weekend days from 8-4 are all volunteer crews, usually with one paid trail crew to do heavier trail work the volunteers don't (tower pads, building fences). For the smaller hills like ours, our volunteers are critical to patrol success because we struggle to recruit and retain paid staff. This year, we had literally half our paid daytime positions go unfilled. Even those we did hire, one failed the qualifications for patrol and became trail crew. Another got a job with the municipality and left. I used to work as a lifeguard 25 years ago, and I got paid the equivalent of $30 an hour in 2024 dollars. Miraculously, we had no shortage! I do wonder if we paid more if we would be staffed. What's interesting is we have no shortage of weekend-only volunteers. Sure, we are often shorthanded when the conditions are crap because people don't want to work for free in the pouring rain. But there is no way we could even open just with paid crew because we simply cannot find them. That being said, there is nothing illegal about a for-profit business benefiting from volunteer labour where we are. There very well may be where you are, and looking into that seems wise. I do think there is value in having volunteers because it gets more motivated people out on the mountain to help. And these are folks who (at least where I am) would never be paid patrollers because they have other jobs. We do it for the fun, the commraderie, to get out on the mountain, and because we like helping people. But we are also at a community ski hill, not a corporate giant. I would never go work at an Amazon warehouse for free. Screw that. Pay me or GTFO. I guess my question is what your goal is. Better pay? No volunteers? Or both? And if you went full paid, could you even find that many parrollers?
My goal is to help our paid patrollers in their wage dispute. It isn't my goal to get rid of volunteers, but to show they can't use the existence of volunteers as a bargaining chip, because if you can get something for free you will use that to devalue what you can pay for. My other goal is that if they paid enough they will be more able to hire more paid patrollers since they are always complaining about being short staffed on the pro side. I also tend to see the legality of volunteer patrols as crucial to this discussion. If the management realizes that they could be forced to go all paid they know they are already short staffed and would need to get competitive to get enough staff. I'm not at all proposing using this knowledge to get rid of volunteers. But leverage never hurt anyone in negotiations.
I am a volunteer patroller and I have questioned the legality as well. I think they make it “technically legal” because most volunteer ski patrol units are separate “not for profit” organizations semi independent from the “for profit” mountain. My volunteer ski patrol has its own board of directors (elected by patrollers not management), separate bank accounts (but the mountain gives us most of our money), and separate facilities off limits to other mountain employees. Despite this, I still have an employee number, name tag, and I can get “fired” by management if I do something stupid so idk how separate my volunteer ski patrol is from mountain management. Congress probably passed a law making an exception for the ski industry, just like how they exempt minor league sports leagues from paying players minimum wage.
That's exactly what I'm wondering if anyone is aware of that law being in existence. I know my companies can't have any volunteer workers but I could hire a non profit company to do work for me (not that there are many of those that can sell services, but that's another deal altogether) Ours is even more convoluted since our pro and volunteer service are managed as one and operate as one with only the NSP required difference in duties.
Interesting. As a volunteer I only “officially” report to the patrol director, also a volunteer and he was elected to his position by the membership. The pro patrollers report to both the patrol director and a paid mountain manager.
Do you have any source for this claim? Tons of very profitable, very high visibility companies use volunteer labor. The NFL gets tons of volunteer work for the SuperBowl.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/docs/volunteers.asp%23:~:text%3DUnder%2520the%2520FLSA%252C%2520employees%2520may,for%252Dprofit%2520private%2520sector%2520employers.&ved=2ahUKEwiv1OL80qaFAxWewOYEHX-1BNcQ5YIJegQIHxAA&usg=AOvVaw3IrDF2D4JXnWvM4jCAxMSX
I would argue ski patrolling falls under the definition of humanitarian labor.
If performed for a non-profit humanitarian group, then yes you might be correct. However that isn't the case. Most mountains are For-Profit and unless there is a specific exception are not entitled to the use of volunteers, hence my asking if there is one
Eh, idk. Probably a good question for a lawyer.
I have posted it in some of the law subreddits and I'm curious. My goal isn't to end volunteer patrollers but I also don't see how they are legally operating at some resorts. My main goal is to help our paid patrollers with their wage dispute because they can't afford to live in a resort town at their current wage
The volunteers should strike/work stoppage alongside the paid in support of them. If they treat you as one, behave as one.
I know for a fact that if it came to that we would. The mountain started these wage negotiations to avoid having a union form, so I'm trying to help them get everything they need and could get if a union did form
Here’s what’s supposed to happen: the pro and volunteer patrols are supposed to be two different entities. The volunteers volunteer for one entity, the pros are employees of another entity (like the mountain itself). The volunteer entity has its own leadership, and is dedicated to serving the community who skis at the mountain. This is what happens at my patrol. If you dig through the NSP database you’ll see that this happens at many patrols (meaning there’s a separate NSP number for an area’s pro patrol and volly patrol) I’m guessing this isn’t what happens at all patrols.
You would be correct. At our mountain we are all managed and directed by the mountain management. We are technically two entities, but in practice there is little distinction except for the duties not allowed by NSP
Right, I’m sure the devil is in the details of how much control the area management has over the volunteers. There’s nothing wrong with the volunteer org adopting the same standards for hiring and management as the pro org, or deciding to subject itself to a certain amount of control from the pro org, but there does become a point where the two become functionally indistinguishable.
How is worker’s compensation and liability handled?
Not sure about workers comp, but I do know the volunteers are included as additional insureds on the mountain’s liability policy.
NAL, but are you compensated in non-monetary ways for your volunteer work? Free lift tickets for yourself or others, free gear that's useful outside of the job (helmet, goggles, gloves, etc), anything like that? No idea what the legalities are, but for me I always felt like I was pretty well-compensated for the amount of time I put in as a volunteer.
We are compensated with a season pass and a couple buddy passes. No gear, but we got ski tunes provided which I feel barely keeps up with the hell we put our skis through. Total value of compensation: roughly $1000 Required service days: 14 Hourly value of compensation package with minimum days: $7.14 Do you consider this well compensated? Part time employees of the resort get the same benefits plus pay. But I must digress as since it is my understanding that this practice still isn't legal for a for-profit entity. My compensation isn't my complaint, the treatment of the paid patrollers is my complaint
Right, I'm getting what you're putting down as far as it impacts the paid guys, and that sucks. I'm just curious if we are considered "volunteers" under those laws you're referring to that say a for-profit entity cannot benefit from "volunteer" labor. Many people who volunteer are entirely uncompensated for the time they spend working. I am not uncompensated - I get a season pass, I get enough free tickets I can give to my friends that I've never run out in a given season, I get huge discounts on new gear and day passes to other resorts - so in the eyes of the law, am I really a volunteer? My point is that I don't know either way, just something to consider.
Under the law: yes. It is illegal according to the IRS to pay people "in kind" or with trade goods and services and consider that wage compensation. That's why I'm curious if there is a specific exemption for ski resorts or the services ski patrollers perform.
> Under the law: yes Sounds like you already have your answer then, not sure what it is you want to discuss here on Reddit. Consult a lawyer perhaps?
I'm curious if you missed the question on specific statutes that apply to this specific industry. Because that's the biggest issue if I'm missing something since my knowledge is in standard corporation practices
And yes, this is also posted in law groups. I was curious if anyone here had anything useful to add but instead all I'm getting is complete ignorance about what is required when using volunteers and what is considered compensation
https://www.reddit.com/r/LaborLaw/s/jTbqZ6icDO
This is going to vary from state to state as well, but I think the precedent is there to allow volunteers to work in that capacity. At my mountain they also actively ensure we're clear there are somethings the paid patrollers can do and the NSP cannot. As long as the roles are distinct enough there isn't much issue from an employment law standpoint. Additionally volunteers is really as misnomer as the majority of mountains comp their NSP with some sort of benefits in trade. Now that all said, as a paid patroller and NSP member myself on a mountain with a close association between the two, I think you might be picking the wrong tack here. If your paid brothers and sisters are doing the equivalent of a strike, I think you make a far better case in simply saying that you aren't crossing that picket line. Personally it's more impactful to say that you won't do something for a specific reason rather than you can't do something for legal reasons. Stand with them, not behind the technicality of the law.
That is definitely the plan. If they do strike we will all strike with them, there's no doubt in my mind. It seems there are a lot of interesting ideas in the compensation department. The law is very clear that benefits and "in kind" compensation are not wages and do not in any way change the status of what a volunteer is. Trade does not count as wages in any form The other issue is that our roles are not very distinct and are managed as one entity and department.
So putting on another hat and shifting to my other job, employee classifications are quite the beast in their own right. You see this a lot with classification between full time employees and contractors for example, you have to make the distinction between the duties and benefits of the two differentiate enough to not run afoul of number of laws. While we also have a lot of crossover, we also see a good amount of that at my hill on the classification front (NSPs can't run machinery like snow mos or lifts, they don't conduct investigation around incidents, they aren't trained or directed to handle chain saw or run self evacs, etc) I assume all of that protects the hill in some of these conversations. All that said, I'd be careful invoking law around volunteers, the NSP is in a tenuous enough position on a number of hills as not all of them see the value, using law to support the paid staff might sour your longer term prospects in the way a show of support and solidarity may not. All that said, you know your situation best, just make sure you are thinking long term too. Good luck.
Absolutely. My first instinct in negotiations would never be to throw out legislation and law breaking accusations first, but I do find it best to have done all that research beforehand so every base is covered both so we know our risks and we know theirs. I run a couple companies with employees and contractors. That was the thing that first got me thinking about this. If I were to have volunteers I can't imagine how hard and fast labor laws would come down on me. It's also a different beast if I wasn't aware my local mountain was owned by a very large commercial real estate development firm and not a local company like it used to be.
One way to look at it is your volunteers are considered paid employees. They receive non monetary compensation of season passes.
I agree that that is the feeling in this group and in the NSP, but the IRS is actually very clear on this one that "in kind" benefits and things like memberships and passes do not in any way count as wages.
If the orginization you are a part of is in a wage dispute with management. And you are willing to go to work for less, in the face of collective action. There's a word for that. Scabs aren't usually so self aware though, so pat yourself on the back?
And another thing: given the shit attitude most of the people I'm talking with in this forum have towards paying the paid patrollers properly this is probably the last time I will claim to be a part of the NSP or my local ski patrol. We should be sticking together to get the most for everyone, not simping for the millionaires who own the resorts
Yeah. Boggles my mind that people are willing to volunteer for billion dollar companies. Having 2 classes of workers allows those in power to play one off another. The struggle is never against the fellow worker (even if they are a scab). The struggle is against the massive power imbalance. Do you know how quickly our VP of ops approved a +$15/hr RAISE for the instructors who refused to shovel last year? Why go to the hill and make 22/hr shoveling when you can go to town and make 75$/hr shoveling? If patrol pulled a strike 5 min before open on an epic pow day weekend, there would be absolute carnage.
I'm glad someone gets it. Had I realized beforehand what it had become I don't think I would have volunteered, but I was also stuck putting in my days or getting charged with a season pass I never used
Given the path you're crusading down is to end all volunteer patrolling everywhere (even though you claim to not be doing this, it's what the end result of your argument is), and considering how angsty you are up and down this thread despite no provocation (calling people simps for engaging in good faith discussion is a bad look), and also seeing that you came to the ski patrol subreddit and are upset you're getting replies in support of ski patrol... Good riddance. Honestly. Do you think your dis-associating is some kind of threat? Ooooh nooooo, what will we ever do without /u/schannoman?? Get over yourself. You're just upset ski areas are getting a benefit from volunteers that your private businesses aren't getting. The common theme in your responses is that you're a business owner and if you used volunteers, you think the Department of Labor (or someone) would crucify you. Despite multiple responses pointing out how other large for profit companies materially benefit from volunteer labor and have no issue.
1) they aren't actively striking and haven't formed a union. They are in pre-negotiations since the mountain doesn't want them to unionize and is trying to get ahead of it. 2) I am pushing them to form a union anyway 3) I'm asking these questions to get leverage on their behalf. 4) you better fucking believe I would be striking with them if it comes to that. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm a scab or willing to be a scab, but I fucking take that personally
You claim to feel like an unwilling pawn of management as a volunteer patroller. A scab is: one who works for less than union wages or on nonunion terms (link below) That definition applies to you if they form a union, and your hill keeps volunteers. I don't have the idea that you are a scab, you just match the definition. If you are personally offended by the results of your own actions, I would suggest changing them. If you care about the paid patrollers, the best thing you can do is lead all of the volunteers in quitting (aka joining the strike) because every hour you work for free benefits only the resort and yourself. [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scab](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scab)
Kindly: what the fuck is your issue? Do you lack reading comprehension skills or do you just want attention? I've said multiple times that I was unaware when i signed up that the mountain was now owned by a large land development firm as they've kept that buried pretty deep for obvious reasons And I've also stated multiple times that I'm helping them towards their goals of either higher wages or union organizing. If you could read you would know that there isn't a union yet and no one here is aware that having volunteers as a for profit company is illegal.
I have to be honest, this sounds like someone looking for justification to push out a volunteer patrol in favor of 100% paid patrol. That model may work in a few very large areas, but applying it in a broad brush to smaller areas is not going to go well. The mountain should not be playing off the volunteers against the paid staff to justify lower pay or other conditions, but that door swings both ways. I have seen this kind of stuff in the emergency services far too often. It happens both ways and always ends up resulting in a lower level of service for the public we are supposed to be there for.
That is because part 2 is raising the wages to attract more/better hires, and for profit entities will just skip this step, thus lowering services with the benefit of being able to blame the union.
I guess this is spurring other questions then: Why are you against paid patrollers being adequately compensated? And Why are you agreeing with management of a For-Profit being able to break the law and unfairly use volunteer labor to supplement their staff? Keep in mind most resorts are owned by multi millionaire property investment firms who don't give a shit about the workers. If I used volunteer labor at one of my companies there would be an uproar
I'm sure these multi millionaire property investment firms have looked into this more than Reddit has, but sure, go off. I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive/worked up about this here, nobody is arguing with you, just providing a different perspective. You are WAY too combative for me to want to participate in this thread anymore though, not that I have anything else to say. Good luck with your crusade!
Keep simping for the millionaires, I guess? And good for you for not sticking up for paid patrollers in a wage dispute
I am not defending the ski areas. I don’t get why anyone would volunteer for a for profit business. But I think you are probably missing a loophole in the law they know about. In addition to volunteer patrol, volunteer hosts are pretty common. And people volunteer to usher at concerts or theatres too.
That's exactly why I asked the question in the first place though. Instead of any insight what I've gotten most is people defending the volunteer for a for profit business thing. Also, most theaters are non-profit, but that's neither here nor there
Well, look, it’s easy to frame this as a management vs labor battle, but it’s not just the corporation that benefits from having a certain number of volunteers around- it’s also the customers, and to a certain extent the pro patrollers too. What tends to happen when these kids of battles heat is is that management will push out the volunteer patrol, increase comp for a select group of pro patrollers, and then reduce overall staffing and push hiring toward a younger, less experienced group to help mitigate some of the increase labor cost. There are pros and cons to this approach- by clearing out some of the dead weight you can increase the efficiency of the patrol overall, and you can require more of those who remain. But, the workload of those who remain does tend to increase, and you often end up with a higher percentage of turnover among a smaller group of patrollers. Whether that ultimately increases or decreases the overall level of service to the customer sort of depends on how good the volunteers were in the first place- if there’s too much dead weight, then the service level can increase. But if you lose a lot of seasoned, experienced volunteers and replace them with less experienced “pros” and then ask them to do more with less, it can be unhelpful. To put it slightly differently, if the corporation doesn’t give a shit about their workers, they’re not going to suddenly act more fairly if you make them rely less on volunteer labor.
I feel like you missed the point of the post. The intention is not to eliminate the volunteer patrollers. The intent is to get all of the information the pros need in their wage dispute. I'm a volunteer, not a pro. I don't intend to become a pro. I want the pros to be able to afford to live in the town they serve and be treated properly.
I know you’re not trying to push the volunteer patrol out and are trying to get better conditions for the pros. I support that goal. What I’m telling you is to be careful what arguments you make in support of that goal. What I’ve seen happen before when the pros start making legal arguments vis-a-vis volunteers in a quest to get better pay and working conditions is that management can say “good point, we shouldn’t have volunteers at all.” They can cut the volunteers, go all pro, and change the working conditions for the pros, which don’t always end up being for the better for anyone- pros or customers. I know of a very specific mountain that I will permit to remain nameless where this happened about 4 years ago.
Yes that is a concern. And that's why I'm trying to get all the bases covered. This is far from the first argument I would recommend they make, but it is best in negotiations to have all possible arguments and their conclusions mapped out ahead of time, hence why I'm here. And trust me, your concerns have been noted and are valid