BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…16781679168116831684…2108

Comments

  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    So Stevo's £15 billion group is doing ok but there may be issues with the costs of skiing holidays and affordability of au pairs

    Good to catch up 😉
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,595
    pangolin said:

    TheBigBean said:

    In case anyone is interested an employer can offset £8.20 for accommodation against the minimum wage.

    So, if someone works 30 hours week, you pay £100 a week and include accommodation, the hourly rate is (100 + 7*8.20)/30 = £5.25/hour. This is below the minimum wage for anyone over 18.


    Does this happen? Do people pay that little? I always imagined an au pair was firmly out of my price range.
    The government website states that pocket money is typically £70-£85 a week with a maximum of 30 hours worked. I understand some people pay more, but not enough that it would meet the minimum wage.

    For a thread where so many people are worried about UK labour laws after Brexit, I'm pretty stunned by the reaction to my point about this.
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,605
    pangolin said:

    TheBigBean said:

    In case anyone is interested an employer can offset £8.20 for accommodation against the minimum wage.

    So, if someone works 30 hours week, you pay £100 a week and include accommodation, the hourly rate is (100 + 7*8.20)/30 = £5.25/hour. This is below the minimum wage for anyone over 18.


    Does this happen? Do people pay that little? I always imagined an au pair was firmly out of my price range.
    They do cost that little.

    I should have binned nursery off years ago!
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,605
    Frankly people need to see this as an opportunity.

    Can't hire cheap European labour to look after your children any more? Look to the emerging labour forces in the UK!

    Who wouldn't want a grizzled ex fisherman around the house 30 hours a week?
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,595
    Incidentally, the issue around visas is that the UK would like reciprocal working visas for young people in other countries, so an extension of the existing scheme that includes Canada, Japan, Aus, Korea etc.

    Therefore, UK kids could still go and be ski bums and kids from skiing countries can still come and be au pairs.

    It is a reasonable request and hopefully it will happen for much of the EU.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    pangolin said:

    TheBigBean said:

    In case anyone is interested an employer can offset £8.20 for accommodation against the minimum wage.

    So, if someone works 30 hours week, you pay £100 a week and include accommodation, the hourly rate is (100 + 7*8.20)/30 = £5.25/hour. This is below the minimum wage for anyone over 18.


    Does this happen? Do people pay that little? I always imagined an au pair was firmly out of my price range.
    Even at £1k a month it is probably cheaper than putting Chico in child care and you have a babysitter, cleaner and chef.

    The deal breaker is whether you want somebody else living in your house which is far easier if you have a gate house, lodge or granny annexe
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    david37 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    david37 said:

    TheBigBean said:

    pangolin said:

    HTH john


    Are there no racist remain voters?
    Apparently not. at least if the teachers and civil servants on here are to be believed.

    The article below makes sense when you read some of the contributions to the thread on this particular area:
    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/05/04/leavers-have-a-better-understanding-of-remainers-motivations-than-vice-versa/
    That article pretty much describes what I see here. That the balance and the nuance of the whole thing is better grasped by the leave side, precisley because they are prepared to see both sides of the argument on its own merits.

    Screaming and stcking fingers in ears is the more widely held remoaner position. The article sums it up much better than I can with the phrase “ progressives’ greater tendency to disengage from their political opponents”

    I.e. just see it from their own perspective and believe their own opinions are fact. Theres a reason why more worldly wise people tended to vote leave and that’s simply their blind ideological zeal has been tempered through experience and knowledge.
    Surprisingly subtle, but too long for most people so bit of a wasted effort 6/10
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,229
    That accommodation offset seems ridiculously low especially when I suspect the majority of au pairs in the UK are based in London where a room in a shared house would cost significantly more.

    I've no axe to grind either way but it always feels like a mutual arrangement in the same way as in internship (if anything it feels like interns are more likely to be exploited).
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,412
    edited February 2021
    TheBigBean said:

    Jezyboy said:

    pangolin said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    For the ski company employees, the French banned counting the cost of travel, food, accommodation , medical insurance, lift pass and ski hire as deductions from salary, and have then imposed their 36 hour week. And the companies now have to pay the French minimum wage with no deductions. Totally protectionist as usual.
    They've always hated the chalet company model.

    It just puts up the cost of the holidays for no great benefit, and assumes the things provided by the holiday comapny are not benefits, which is ludicrous.

    No benefit unless you are working there surely?

    There's an argument to be made that better compensated employees will give better service, such around longer, etc etc.
    I would guess it puts the business model to bed, then it's of no benefit.

    I'd have been plenty happy to take a sabbatical from work over the winter to be exploited with a free lift pass...
    Season passes don't cost that much. They are often around the same as 2-3 weeks skiing. The purpose is to charge the tourist not the local.

    In any case, the whole system is fairly corrupt. The ski company gets the passes free for staff and commission on sales. Same for equipment. The reps often make money selling apres-ski through kickbacks. Chalet reps make money by selling alcohol and other items. All up, a lot untaxed cash and bartered items change hands.
    You are well out of date BB.
    Season pass in the Tarataise is Euro 1,300 upwards for 16 weeks (so £75 pw). The companies have never got them for free. They may have earnt commission from the lift pass company for selling the passes for them, but why not when it saves manpower and admin for the lift company?
    Chalet reps cannot sell alcohol and that's been the case for 20 years or more.
    Ski hire may be free to the company but it's a big benefit to the employee.
    Then food, accommodation plus insurance in a world class resort for 18 weeks is worth quite a lot.

    I don't think many, if any, chalet staff think they're exploited. I did it for 5 seasons in the 1990s, worked bloody hard, but it was a brilliant experience, and I never felt exploited.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,147
    Pross said:

    That accommodation offset seems ridiculously low especially when I suspect the majority of au pairs in the UK are based in London where a room in a shared house would cost significantly more.

    I've no axe to grind either way but it always feels like a mutual arrangement in the same way as in internship (if anything it feels like interns are more likely to be exploited).

    Don't have any strong feelings either way, but agree with TBB, that the arguments for exempting it from employment law are weak. I'd question the quality of unqualified childcare, but agree that the fuss does highlight the mismatch between encouraging parents back to full time work as early as possible and the unaffordability of childcare.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,412
    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    That accommodation offset seems ridiculously low especially when I suspect the majority of au pairs in the UK are based in London where a room in a shared house would cost significantly more.

    I've no axe to grind either way but it always feels like a mutual arrangement in the same way as in internship (if anything it feels like interns are more likely to be exploited).

    Don't have any strong feelings either way, but agree with TBB, that the arguments for exempting it from employment law are weak. I'd question the quality of unqualified childcare, but agree that the fuss does highlight the mismatch between encouraging parents back to full time work as early as possible and the unaffordability of childcare.
    How many people on here have employed a babysitter at £5/6 ph?
    I'd guess most if not all who have had kids for more than a few years.
    Not sure any of them will have been qualified.
  • sungod
    sungod Posts: 17,178
    elbowloh said:

    Who actually has an au pair?

    Anyone here?

    not for a few years now, mrs s still keeps in touch with some

    it's a way to offer a young person a year or two in a safe environment, to study, learn the language/culture in return for a bit of part time help, ideally they are like part of the family

    my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    That accommodation offset seems ridiculously low especially when I suspect the majority of au pairs in the UK are based in London where a room in a shared house would cost significantly more.

    I've no axe to grind either way but it always feels like a mutual arrangement in the same way as in internship (if anything it feels like interns are more likely to be exploited).

    Don't have any strong feelings either way, but agree with TBB, that the arguments for exempting it from employment law are weak. I'd question the quality of unqualified childcare, but agree that the fuss does highlight the mismatch between encouraging parents back to full time work as early as possible and the unaffordability of childcare.
    How many people on here have employed a babysitter at £5/6 ph?
    I'd guess most if not all who have had kids for more than a few years.
    Not sure any of them will have been qualified.
    In my mind there is a bit of a difference to me off loading my 8 and 9 year old onto the neighbours kid for a couple of hours with their parents as backup versus getting some 18 year old chick looking after a 6 month old all day whilst I am at work. I also know the back story to the babysitter. Not sure I would know much about the foreign au pair I had drafted in for the year.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    surrey_commuter said:

    morstar said:

    Re the au pair thing.

    Admittedly it’s bureaucratic but, surely you simply need to properly cost up the value of board, utilities etc. to ensure these can be itemised as expenses against gross salary.

    It’s a tricky area, I worked in France twice as an outdoor pursuits instructor for peanuts as an 18 and 19 year old and made memories ahead of money. It’s a shame for others to miss out on what for me are my most memorable periods of my working life. The period I will refer to as before bills.

    Try earning enough to pay the rent, utilities, council tax, food and car and then £500 in your pocket. I reckon you are talking £2k a month.
    That’s exactly the point though. It will pass minimum wage legislation when all is factored in.
    It’s just a bureaucratic faff to do so but the job isn’t exploitative by those measures.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    surrey_commuter said:

    pangolin said:

    TheBigBean said:

    In case anyone is interested an employer can offset £8.20 for accommodation against the minimum wage.

    So, if someone works 30 hours week, you pay £100 a week and include accommodation, the hourly rate is (100 + 7*8.20)/30 = £5.25/hour. This is below the minimum wage for anyone over 18.


    Does this happen? Do people pay that little? I always imagined an au pair was firmly out of my price range.
    Even at £1k a month it is probably cheaper than putting Chico in child care and you have a babysitter, cleaner and chef.

    The deal breaker is whether you want somebody else living in your house which is far easier if you have a gate house, lodge or granny annexe
    I thought the well off middle aged dad was inclined to want the au pair to share his bed and put the wife elsewhere.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,021
    morstar said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    pangolin said:

    TheBigBean said:

    In case anyone is interested an employer can offset £8.20 for accommodation against the minimum wage.

    So, if someone works 30 hours week, you pay £100 a week and include accommodation, the hourly rate is (100 + 7*8.20)/30 = £5.25/hour. This is below the minimum wage for anyone over 18.


    Does this happen? Do people pay that little? I always imagined an au pair was firmly out of my price range.
    Even at £1k a month it is probably cheaper than putting Chico in child care and you have a babysitter, cleaner and chef.

    The deal breaker is whether you want somebody else living in your house which is far easier if you have a gate house, lodge or granny annexe
    I thought the well off middle aged dad was inclined to want the au pair to share his bed and put the wife elsewhere.
    ...which is why you need the gatehouse, lodge or granny annexe. 😉
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,595
    Dorset_Boy said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Jezyboy said:

    pangolin said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    For the ski company employees, the French banned counting the cost of travel, food, accommodation , medical insurance, lift pass and ski hire as deductions from salary, and have then imposed their 36 hour week. And the companies now have to pay the French minimum wage with no deductions. Totally protectionist as usual.
    They've always hated the chalet company model.

    It just puts up the cost of the holidays for no great benefit, and assumes the things provided by the holiday comapny are not benefits, which is ludicrous.

    No benefit unless you are working there surely?

    There's an argument to be made that better compensated employees will give better service, such around longer, etc etc.
    I would guess it puts the business model to bed, then it's of no benefit.

    I'd have been plenty happy to take a sabbatical from work over the winter to be exploited with a free lift pass...
    Season passes don't cost that much. They are often around the same as 2-3 weeks skiing. The purpose is to charge the tourist not the local.

    In any case, the whole system is fairly corrupt. The ski company gets the passes free for staff and commission on sales. Same for equipment. The reps often make money selling apres-ski through kickbacks. Chalet reps make money by selling alcohol and other items. All up, a lot untaxed cash and bartered items change hands.
    You are well out of date BB.
    Season pass in the Tarataise is Euro 1,300 upwards for 16 weeks (so £75 pw). The companies have never got them for free. They may have earnt commission from the lift pass company for selling the passes for them, but why not when it saves manpower and admin for the lift company?
    Chalet reps cannot sell alcohol and that's been the case for 20 years or more.
    Ski hire may be free to the company but it's a big benefit to the employee.
    Then food, accommodation plus insurance in a world class resort for 18 weeks is worth quite a lot.

    I don't think many, if any, chalet staff think they're exploited. I did it for 5 seasons in the 1990s, worked bloody hard, but it was a brilliant experience, and I never felt exploited.
    Yes, I'm out of date, and my knowledge is mostly of the North American market, but the season ticket/ day pass ratio doesn't seem to have changed that much. Plus, a lot of them used to have early bird discounts. It is, of course, not a trivial amount.

    You are wrong though about getting them free. Or at least, they were free once upon time in some resorts. Also, the commission wasn't about saving admin, it was for bringing guests to the resort and being paid for it.

    The last chalet I stayed in in France a couple of years ago, they still sold alcohol.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 60,768
    tailwindhome said:

    So Stevo's £15 billion group is doing ok but there may be issues with the costs of skiing holidays and affordability of au pairs

    Good to catch up 😉

    That's what has been talked about lately. Not quite the apocalypse that some had predicted or hoped for...
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Stevo_666 said:

    tailwindhome said:

    So Stevo's £15 billion group is doing ok but there may be issues with the costs of skiing holidays and affordability of au pairs

    Good to catch up 😉

    That's what has been talked about lately. Not quite the apocalypse that some had predicted or hoped for...
    You are strange
  • david37
    david37 Posts: 1,313
    surrey_commuter said:

    david37 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    david37 said:

    TheBigBean said:

    pangolin said:

    HTH john


    Are there no racist remain voters?
    Apparently not. at least if the teachers and civil servants on here are to be believed.

    The article below makes sense when you read some of the contributions to the thread on this particular area:
    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/05/04/leavers-have-a-better-understanding-of-remainers-motivations-than-vice-versa/
    That article pretty much describes what I see here. That the balance and the nuance of the whole thing is better grasped by the leave side, precisley because they are prepared to see both sides of the argument on its own merits.

    Screaming and stcking fingers in ears is the more widely held remoaner position. The article sums it up much better than I can with the phrase “ progressives’ greater tendency to disengage from their political opponents”

    I.e. just see it from their own perspective and believe their own opinions are fact. Theres a reason why more worldly wise people tended to vote leave and that’s simply their blind ideological zeal has been tempered through experience and knowledge.
    Surprisingly subtle, but too long for most people so bit of a wasted effort 6/10
    Thanks, it's in there somewhere.
  • david37
    david37 Posts: 1,313
    morstar said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    pangolin said:

    TheBigBean said:

    In case anyone is interested an employer can offset £8.20 for accommodation against the minimum wage.

    So, if someone works 30 hours week, you pay £100 a week and include accommodation, the hourly rate is (100 + 7*8.20)/30 = £5.25/hour. This is below the minimum wage for anyone over 18.


    Does this happen? Do people pay that little? I always imagined an au pair was firmly out of my price range.
    Even at £1k a month it is probably cheaper than putting Chico in child care and you have a babysitter, cleaner and chef.

    The deal breaker is whether you want somebody else living in your house which is far easier if you have a gate house, lodge or granny annexe
    I thought the well off middle aged dad was inclined to want the au pair to share his bed and put the wife elsewhere.

    My wife was the one who chose the Au Pair. She didnt have the same ideolgical zeal as i had and the last one was Italian, overweight and ate with her mouth open.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,147
    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    That accommodation offset seems ridiculously low especially when I suspect the majority of au pairs in the UK are based in London where a room in a shared house would cost significantly more.

    I've no axe to grind either way but it always feels like a mutual arrangement in the same way as in internship (if anything it feels like interns are more likely to be exploited).

    Don't have any strong feelings either way, but agree with TBB, that the arguments for exempting it from employment law are weak. I'd question the quality of unqualified childcare, but agree that the fuss does highlight the mismatch between encouraging parents back to full time work as early as possible and the unaffordability of childcare.
    How many people on here have employed a babysitter at £5/6 ph?
    I'd guess most if not all who have had kids for more than a few years.
    Not sure any of them will have been qualified.
    Nope. I'm aware this is unusual though.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,412
    TheBigBean said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Jezyboy said:

    pangolin said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    For the ski company employees, the French banned counting the cost of travel, food, accommodation , medical insurance, lift pass and ski hire as deductions from salary, and have then imposed their 36 hour week. And the companies now have to pay the French minimum wage with no deductions. Totally protectionist as usual.
    They've always hated the chalet company model.

    It just puts up the cost of the holidays for no great benefit, and assumes the things provided by the holiday comapny are not benefits, which is ludicrous.

    No benefit unless you are working there surely?

    There's an argument to be made that better compensated employees will give better service, such around longer, etc etc.
    I would guess it puts the business model to bed, then it's of no benefit.

    I'd have been plenty happy to take a sabbatical from work over the winter to be exploited with a free lift pass...
    Season passes don't cost that much. They are often around the same as 2-3 weeks skiing. The purpose is to charge the tourist not the local.

    In any case, the whole system is fairly corrupt. The ski company gets the passes free for staff and commission on sales. Same for equipment. The reps often make money selling apres-ski through kickbacks. Chalet reps make money by selling alcohol and other items. All up, a lot untaxed cash and bartered items change hands.
    You are well out of date BB.
    Season pass in the Tarataise is Euro 1,300 upwards for 16 weeks (so £75 pw). The companies have never got them for free. They may have earnt commission from the lift pass company for selling the passes for them, but why not when it saves manpower and admin for the lift company?
    Chalet reps cannot sell alcohol and that's been the case for 20 years or more.
    Ski hire may be free to the company but it's a big benefit to the employee.
    Then food, accommodation plus insurance in a world class resort for 18 weeks is worth quite a lot.

    I don't think many, if any, chalet staff think they're exploited. I did it for 5 seasons in the 1990s, worked bloody hard, but it was a brilliant experience, and I never felt exploited.
    Yes, I'm out of date, and my knowledge is mostly of the North American market, but the season ticket/ day pass ratio doesn't seem to have changed that much. Plus, a lot of them used to have early bird discounts. It is, of course, not a trivial amount.

    You are wrong though about getting them free. Or at least, they were free once upon time in some resorts. Also, the commission wasn't about saving admin, it was for bringing guests to the resort and being paid for it.

    The last chalet I stayed in in France a couple of years ago, they still sold alcohol.
    My experience of working for 5 seasons, and having had long conversations with a small chalet operator in the last couple of years says, certainly in the 3 Valleys, and Tarantaise as a whole, is that season passes have not been free to operators for the last 30+ years.

    Also, if a rep is rocking up at the lift pass office to process 100 passes at once, do you seriously not think that is far easier and a cost saving for the lift company than having 60-100 individuals rocking up and queueing? The lift company doesn't own the resort in Europe, and people will holiday in the likes of the Tarantaise resorts no matter what (Covid permitting). It is different in the US and Canada. Anyway, what is the issue about commission being paid on sales. It's hardly unusual.

    My experience of alcohol sales is not the same as yours. Three different companies in the last 3 seasons, none selling alcohol. Only when it's been a chalet hotel with a bar has alcohol been sold, but they had a full licence to do so.

    When I worked, yes we were permitted to run our own 'cash bar', but that was quite a long time ago, and was subsequently outlawed.

  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,412
    rjsterry said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    That accommodation offset seems ridiculously low especially when I suspect the majority of au pairs in the UK are based in London where a room in a shared house would cost significantly more.

    I've no axe to grind either way but it always feels like a mutual arrangement in the same way as in internship (if anything it feels like interns are more likely to be exploited).

    Don't have any strong feelings either way, but agree with TBB, that the arguments for exempting it from employment law are weak. I'd question the quality of unqualified childcare, but agree that the fuss does highlight the mismatch between encouraging parents back to full time work as early as possible and the unaffordability of childcare.
    How many people on here have employed a babysitter at £5/6 ph?
    I'd guess most if not all who have had kids for more than a few years.
    Not sure any of them will have been qualified.
    Nope. I'm aware this is unusual though.
    Is that nope to the £5-6 ph as you're London based where it is probably £15-20 ph? !!! B)

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,147
    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    That accommodation offset seems ridiculously low especially when I suspect the majority of au pairs in the UK are based in London where a room in a shared house would cost significantly more.

    I've no axe to grind either way but it always feels like a mutual arrangement in the same way as in internship (if anything it feels like interns are more likely to be exploited).

    Don't have any strong feelings either way, but agree with TBB, that the arguments for exempting it from employment law are weak. I'd question the quality of unqualified childcare, but agree that the fuss does highlight the mismatch between encouraging parents back to full time work as early as possible and the unaffordability of childcare.
    How many people on here have employed a babysitter at £5/6 ph?
    I'd guess most if not all who have had kids for more than a few years.
    Not sure any of them will have been qualified.
    Nope. I'm aware this is unusual though.
    Is that nope to the £5-6 ph as you're London based where it is probably £15-20 ph? !!! B)

    Never used a babysitter. Just not comfortable letting some random teenager look after them, and most of our acquaintances have children the same age.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,595
    Dorset_Boy said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Jezyboy said:

    pangolin said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    For the ski company employees, the French banned counting the cost of travel, food, accommodation , medical insurance, lift pass and ski hire as deductions from salary, and have then imposed their 36 hour week. And the companies now have to pay the French minimum wage with no deductions. Totally protectionist as usual.
    They've always hated the chalet company model.

    It just puts up the cost of the holidays for no great benefit, and assumes the things provided by the holiday comapny are not benefits, which is ludicrous.

    No benefit unless you are working there surely?

    There's an argument to be made that better compensated employees will give better service, such around longer, etc etc.
    I would guess it puts the business model to bed, then it's of no benefit.

    I'd have been plenty happy to take a sabbatical from work over the winter to be exploited with a free lift pass...
    Season passes don't cost that much. They are often around the same as 2-3 weeks skiing. The purpose is to charge the tourist not the local.

    In any case, the whole system is fairly corrupt. The ski company gets the passes free for staff and commission on sales. Same for equipment. The reps often make money selling apres-ski through kickbacks. Chalet reps make money by selling alcohol and other items. All up, a lot untaxed cash and bartered items change hands.
    You are well out of date BB.
    Season pass in the Tarataise is Euro 1,300 upwards for 16 weeks (so £75 pw). The companies have never got them for free. They may have earnt commission from the lift pass company for selling the passes for them, but why not when it saves manpower and admin for the lift company?
    Chalet reps cannot sell alcohol and that's been the case for 20 years or more.
    Ski hire may be free to the company but it's a big benefit to the employee.
    Then food, accommodation plus insurance in a world class resort for 18 weeks is worth quite a lot.

    I don't think many, if any, chalet staff think they're exploited. I did it for 5 seasons in the 1990s, worked bloody hard, but it was a brilliant experience, and I never felt exploited.
    Yes, I'm out of date, and my knowledge is mostly of the North American market, but the season ticket/ day pass ratio doesn't seem to have changed that much. Plus, a lot of them used to have early bird discounts. It is, of course, not a trivial amount.

    You are wrong though about getting them free. Or at least, they were free once upon time in some resorts. Also, the commission wasn't about saving admin, it was for bringing guests to the resort and being paid for it.

    The last chalet I stayed in in France a couple of years ago, they still sold alcohol.
    My experience of working for 5 seasons, and having had long conversations with a small chalet operator in the last couple of years says, certainly in the 3 Valleys, and Tarantaise as a whole, is that season passes have not been free to operators for the last 30+ years.

    Also, if a rep is rocking up at the lift pass office to process 100 passes at once, do you seriously not think that is far easier and a cost saving for the lift company than having 60-100 individuals rocking up and queueing? The lift company doesn't own the resort in Europe, and people will holiday in the likes of the Tarantaise resorts no matter what (Covid permitting). It is different in the US and Canada. Anyway, what is the issue about commission being paid on sales. It's hardly unusual.

    My experience of alcohol sales is not the same as yours. Three different companies in the last 3 seasons, none selling alcohol. Only when it's been a chalet hotel with a bar has alcohol been sold, but they had a full licence to do so.

    When I worked, yes we were permitted to run our own 'cash bar', but that was quite a long time ago, and was subsequently outlawed.

    I didn't say I had an issue. I just explained the structure and you said it was all wrong. Yes, north American resorts have more focus on marketing.
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    rjsterry said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    That accommodation offset seems ridiculously low especially when I suspect the majority of au pairs in the UK are based in London where a room in a shared house would cost significantly more.

    I've no axe to grind either way but it always feels like a mutual arrangement in the same way as in internship (if anything it feels like interns are more likely to be exploited).

    Don't have any strong feelings either way, but agree with TBB, that the arguments for exempting it from employment law are weak. I'd question the quality of unqualified childcare, but agree that the fuss does highlight the mismatch between encouraging parents back to full time work as early as possible and the unaffordability of childcare.
    How many people on here have employed a babysitter at £5/6 ph?
    I'd guess most if not all who have had kids for more than a few years.
    Not sure any of them will have been qualified.
    Nope. I'm aware this is unusual though.
    Is that nope to the £5-6 ph as you're London based where it is probably £15-20 ph? !!! B)

    Never used a babysitter. Just not comfortable letting some random teenager look after them, and most of our acquaintances have children the same age.
    Never used one either. If family couldn't look after the kids we didn't go out.
    Simples.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,662
    I've skimmed the posts, so...

    I'm not angry at you Bean.

    Season passes are always discounted for locals, even Verbier was 600 CHF for the year (year!) if you had a local work permit and bought it in early December. It's a stunning bargain frankly.

    I had an au pair as a nipper. Lovely French girl who looked after me and sis-raver during the week and (I now realise) then went out in Plymuff and banged off duty marines on the weekend. She taught me to say Merde...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,147
    ballysmate said:

    rjsterry said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Pross said:

    That accommodation offset seems ridiculously low especially when I suspect the majority of au pairs in the UK are based in London where a room in a shared house would cost significantly more.

    I've no axe to grind either way but it always feels like a mutual arrangement in the same way as in internship (if anything it feels like interns are more likely to be exploited).

    Don't have any strong feelings either way, but agree with TBB, that the arguments for exempting it from employment law are weak. I'd question the quality of unqualified childcare, but agree that the fuss does highlight the mismatch between encouraging parents back to full time work as early as possible and the unaffordability of childcare.
    How many people on here have employed a babysitter at £5/6 ph?
    I'd guess most if not all who have had kids for more than a few years.
    Not sure any of them will have been qualified.
    Nope. I'm aware this is unusual though.
    Is that nope to the £5-6 ph as you're London based where it is probably £15-20 ph? !!! B)

    Never used a babysitter. Just not comfortable letting some random teenager look after them, and most of our acquaintances have children the same age.
    Never used one either. If family couldn't look after the kids we didn't go out.
    Simples.
    This.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,229
    Today's talk is about the visa impact restrictions on touring performers. That seems the sort of thing where some sort of mutual agreement could have been fairly easily reached. I'm not sure if it is due to the same rules but my sister has decided to give up on her aim for a career in opera and retrain due to some form of visa issue due to Brexit making it virtually impossible for smaller opera companies to hire UK singers (plus Covid helping to finish off a lot of the smaller companies where she would have been auditioning back last autumn).

Categories