UKC

Why are most vacancy ads for, for example, climbing wall instructors, shy of salary details? Could it be that employers are embarrassed by the appallingly poor hourly pay rates they award well qualified employees?

In reply to gilliesp:

Supply and demand

An excess of people who want to do the job = no need to pay top-whack.

The end

In reply to gilliesp:

They are not usually that well qualified. Many won' t have SPA and that is pretty achievable for most in a short space of time.

In reply to gilliesp:

If well qualified employees are working in walls, they tend to be doing higher end work in the wall and do get paid better. The wall I work at pays well because we are part of a leisure centre, so if you are floorwalking or instructing then you will generally be the only member of staff in the building who has any climbing knowledge. Therefore, only very experienced and well qualified staff get work there, so it pays accordingly. (It is also casual, so fits nicely around other well paid work that many well qualified instructors also do)

In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:

I'm not really interested in a simplistic lesson on economics. Just trying to start a discussion into the ways that workers in the outdoor industry are exploited. I know one who is actually relatively well qualified but has only ever experienced low wage rates and zero hour contracts - which are de facto non contracts. All because of a love of all things climbing.

In reply to gilliesp:

Exploited?

Its an industry with little money, and as mentioned above ample supply of people willing to do it for peanuts.

If you want cash, you'd pick another field.

In reply to gilliesp:

But the pay is not decided on how well qualified he is. If it is deemed to be an entry level job, as in it could be done by someone entering into the profession, then it is entry level pay. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the way it is.

In reply to gilliesp:

It is annoying that employers don't put salary details on adverts and I don't think you'd be wrong to assume that it's poor pay if they don't include it.

In reply to gilliesp:

If you expand it to include the freelance MLs and other instructors then you will see the same. The £100 day rate for a subcontractor has been the accepted standard for about a decade as far as I know (as long as I have been doing it anyway). Some will work for less, especially during the 'quiet' season October-April. As working in the outdoors is seen as a desirable lifestyle people are keen to take any work they can get when they first start out, only to realise that earning more than £12k per year is a bit of an effort, and that once you factor in insurance, kit, fuel etc that you might not have the spare cash for the trip to the alps or Rjukan that you envisaged. With more people heading into outdoor instruction as a career we are getting closer to saturation point - and I know plenty of people who are heading back into 'normal' jobs as they hit their 30s and start to want weekends off and to have a bit more cash.

It has never been a way to earn lots of cash - but it is also one of the best jobs in the world if you like that kind of lifestyle.

I try to pay £120 per day at least when I need more staff, and higher where possible. That said, when calculating direct costs to quote for a job a savvy client accused me of over-charging because I quoted that amount for every extra ML. There is still a (general) perception that instructors are young folk who are keen and will do the work because they love it - not professionals who have put years into their own development and take pride in what they do.

In reply to gilliesp:


You've answered your own question there by acknowledging the significance of the disparity between supply and demand, exacerbated by the enthusiastic queue of enthusiasts keen to make a life (as opposed to a living) in the outdoor industry.

I would add that I don't think outdoor businesses are ruthlessly exploiting workers, as you put it. It's simply that climbing and hiking, for example, are difficult pursuits to monetise, compared to, say, skiing. So the pot of funds chasing the talent is necessarily small.

In reply to gilliesp:

pay could increase, just put £1-2 on the price of every climbing wall entry cost.

(Edit: I say outdoors but I'm lumping indoor climbing into it as part of the greater climbing profession)

I've toyed with the idea of working in the outdoors. Instead I've opted to work in the indoors so that I have money to go into the outdoors.

But in my consideration, there seemed to be only one obvious path for the outdoors that didn't involve the military:
- Acquire IFMGA as soon as possible.

Its a lot of time and effort and money.

But you know, compared to white collar jobs where a degree minimum is required (you may still feel undereducated amongst all the people with PhDs) for my CV even to get looked at, its not all that bad.

I'm of the opinion that the world doesn't owe anyone a living for some arbitrary job of their choosing. I'd love to get paid for playing computer games, and lots of people would love to get paid for climbing related antics.


I'm not saying don't try to follow your dream career, just don't expect society to pay for your dream.

I suggest people draw a Venn diagram of their possible interests, and what pays well. See that intersection, that's where you want to work.
(Or just start at the top of this and work down:
http://www.careerinfonet.org/oview5.asp?Level=Overall
)

And don't forget moving countries is an option. (I'd aim for Norway initially...).

In reply to gilliesp:

Two points, both sympathetic but begin realistic.

1/ its not just outdoor careers like climbing instructor. Its many jobs in all industries. I think I've only ever gone for one job since (other than min wage stuff as a student or teenager) that quoted a salary and it was still a maxim used to gain interest that no one actually got offered. So already your argument loses any purpose.

2/ you can get a wall qualification in a day (or is it two?) Very cheap. You can get spa very cheap and easy. Why should people pay you much for doing something that is a desirable lifestyle that requires minimal qualifications and effort put in? Are you expecting the same return as someone that's got themselves a degree that took 3 years and gained a lot of debt?
(I do agree the higher qualifications in outdoors get a bit robbed as they take a lot of work, but ts still doing something many people are happy to do with their spare time and in a saturated market)

In reply to gilliesp:


Unlike all those highly paid people who love sitting at a desk all day writing reports or being in meetings talking about what report they're going to write next.

Seriously? You are trolling......aren't you?

In reply to gilliesp:


Your use of the word "exploited" suggests that you don't actually understand the economics
involved.

As someone else has stated why expect society to pay for your dream when there is no economic need to do so?

What do you realistically suggest bearing in mind we are talking about businesses here, not charity?

In reply to gilliesp:

To give a sense of perspective about the 'value' of the various Mountain Training awards.

The Scottish Qualification Authority (SQA) has allocated the Winter Mountain Leader Award within the Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework (SCQF) at SCQF Level 9 and with a Credit Rating of 31 Points

This was done in 2008 and to quote Pam Scott, SkillsActive’s National Manager for Scotland - Sport and Recreation, said, "Our sector has a number of 'industry' awards that are recognised by employers and very valued by them but, being vocational, they have not been given as much respect as they deserve.

"We felt that it would be an excellent case study to have one of these awards credit rated, to provide a bit of a benchmark for the outdoor industry to have one of their key awards on the SCQF but also to have people outside the industry understand it and respect it better."

So it's the equivalent to an ordinary degree. See framework below:

http://www.scqf.org.uk/framework-diagram/Framework.htm

In reply to george mc:


And a shark is equivalent to 0.5 giraffes.

In reply to gilliesp:

It's not solely climbing that has that issue. Any industry where supply exceeds demand results in low pay. I agree with the moral issue surrounding it, but it isn't just climbing by any means, it's most jobs that are "fun".

To turn it round, would we be happy at paying, say, £20 per entry to an average wall, to allow us to increase staff pay?

(It's worth looking at Switzerland as a very high wage country when this kind of thing comes up. It does work, but things involving manual work are *very* expensive, and some jobs just don't exist because they aren't viable, e.g. very many petrol stations are pay at pump only. My local barbers does short back and sides for £8 here in the UK; in Switzerland you'd be lucky to get change out of £25 even with the exchange rate in a sensible place).

Neil

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

It's common across industry for any job where it's not just "turn up and press these buttons" not to specify a salary - this gives the employer more flexibility to vary it.

Neil

Staff in a climbing gyms doesn't need a lot of qualification and learning curve is relatively short and simple. You don't need to be MBA to be couching people how to clip or manage the desk. As the result you get low pay rate.

To make good money from climbing you have to go international. Guiding alpine climbing pays well. A lot of clients and tour operators looking for guides. But it takes a bit of time to get in to it. Still cheaper and quicker than getting PhD in Rocket Science.

Instructing winter climbing pays well, but market is very small.

My cup of tea is hiking and trekking. More clients than in climbing and less hassle.

In reply to summo:

As staff will be one of their larger costs, and as a member of staff typically costs twice their salary to employ when you consider all the costs arising from their employment, it won't be £1-2 unless you are talking a very small increase. You might need, depending on the wall, to add £5-£10.

Neil

In reply to richprideaux:

My issue is those with jobs who work for peanuts as ML's at the weekend..

Whilst the OP says well qualified? Are they? It is sod all financially to get qualified as an ML.. experience plus 500-600 in courses if you chose carefully, then insurance. You can clear that in 2 weeks.

In reply to nutme:



I seriously doubt that it is cheaper and quicker than a PhD in rocket science!

In reply to Murko Fuzz:


too many variables, it really depends on how young you start climbing and skiing, your friends and family, plus your climbing partners. There are limits (usually) as to how young you can start working towards a PhD.. and the more experience and mileage you get when young the easy it is and cheaper it is. For example many Brits have to spend time and money getting their skiing up to speed, which isn't always cheap, you are either paying for instruction or not working / earning (sometimes both).

In reply to gilliesp:

Employees on low wages are only being 'exploited' if the business is generating large profits or is paying less than the market rate. I doubt there are many in the outdoor industry which are doing that, but if you have evidence of that happening then say so. Otherwise, pay is simply a reflection of the economic reality - people are only willing to pay a certain amount for guiding, instruction or to visit an indoor wall.

It's very nice to be paid to do something you enjoy, and even more so if you would willingly do it for nothing. However 'earning a living' means just that - you have to bring in enough to justify your employment. Salaries are not simply a reflection of qualifications or personal abilities but how much you are able to sell the service for. If a wall could charge its customers a pound or two more I'm sure they would already be doing so. It's demand and supply - on the one hand demand is constrained by what customers are prepared to pay, on the other hand there are lots of people chasing jobs in the outdoor industry so they can't be picky about the pay they're offered.

We all have to make compromises. Some people sacrifice financial security to do a job they love, but presumably they achieve job satisfaction from other aspects of it. I briefly toyed with the idea of becoming a professional musician, but realised that I would be lucky to scrape even a basic living from it. Instead I got a 'proper job', which is nowhere near as much fun but which pays me enough to pursue my musical and outdoor interests, whenever it allows me the time to do so.

In reply to Roadrunner2:



Exactly - it's an entry-level qualification for doing something that is not - when you compare to ML(W) or MIA - particularly challenging. The fact that you can do it for peanuts at the weekend tells you why people are!

In reply to gilliesp:
Its supply and demand. Its a popular job route along with others like environmental/countryside ranger type stuff.

When I used to advertise for a climbing instructor I'd get maybe 50 people apply. Most had got SPA which only takes a couple of days to do and little cost. 95% were probably capable of doing what I wanted them to do.

If you wanted, say a summer ML, which takes a little longer to get and costs more then I'd maybe get 20 - 30 applicants. Most could do what I wanted them to do but I chose those with better people skills.

There are lots and lots of folk chasing few jobs.

When I ended up in HR/Training/Management and you advertised for someone - another trainer for example, you'd want someone who had CIPD membership and at least a diploma in personnel/training. These take a year or more to get and cost a few thousand quid for college fees/training courses and so on.

You'd maybe get 15 candidates with the right amount of skills and qualifications. You'd probably only find that a handfull of those could do the work you wanted them to do.

There are fewer people chasing those jobs.

The skill gap is different too. An SPA can do the job. There isn't a lot of difference between those who hold the qualification.

Get a trainer in management and the skill level can vary enormously along with the aptitude. You may well find they've specialist training in other backgrounds too.

If you're talking about a UIAA qualified guide you're talking similiar breadth and depth of skills, which is probably why you'd have to pay (or expect to earn) similiar amounts of money to be one or hire one.

In reply to Dave Perry:

I am mainly concerned about young(ish) adults stuck in arguably dead end jobs in climbing wall/bouldering establishments and some instructors working for local councils. For which I have sensitive evidence. Qualifications range between SP, First Aid and Summer ML (I am dismayed to hear these qualifications belittled and undervalued by so many in the industry). They are subject to zero hour contracts and demeaning pay rates IMO and career opportunities. I am sorry to report that the workers involved are hooked on that employment avenue (so it's their own fault!). They don't seem to realise you can have a successful life working in another discipline and still climb to the highest level. If a partner, a child, a housing necessity comes along, many are indeed up the creek without a paddle!

I had 50 years in engineering, education and teaching. All with well established employers who accepted trade unionism and it's benefits. Against that background, I despair to see so many talented and qualified employees nowadays receiving a taxable wage not really much better than the living wage and settling for this mode of employment. Some climbing walls are doing all right - check company records. Some Councils are despicable in stringing along casual employees. There should be a career structure, pension opportunities, better wages and contractual terms of employment available to this group of workers. We can do so much better than the 'supply and demand' argument.

I go back to my original question - why are most establishments so sensitive about stating their rate of pay for the job?

In reply to gilliesp:


sorry, but whilst these are useful qualifications these are low level.

SPA, you could have a busy month(even a weekend) and tick all the pre-requisites, then go for training/assessment.
ML a year of weekend walking, training cse, a few more months, assessment.
First Aid, a few days every few years.

A competent outdoors activist will not have any problem gaining these, that is why there are so many of them out there. Look at how many ML / SPA courses are held every year, hundreds, if not close to a thousand places annually.

If the jobs market is awash with people, they simply won't ever be paid more. They aren't dead end jobs if you want to get some people skills, outdoors experience, whilst climbing etc. then progress onto MIA/MIC/Guide or to the upper levels of BCU, BASI...

In reply to gilliesp:

In reply to your original question, jobs across all sectors don't display starting rates of pay. I'm currently looking at jobs that i'd expect to pay 40% tax rates and most of the adverts do not mention a starting rate of pay.

In reply to gilliesp:

As noted by others it's not just the outdoors where this takes place. Lots of employers don't give this info, just have a look on one of the many jobs search sites.
Specifically to the outdoors problems of low wages is;
People in full time jobs / or with partners working full time in good jobs 'hobbying' in the outdoors - eg some of the walking operators doesn't pay its instructors to lead treks in the UK or abroad depending on the wish of people who think they are special and only they can lead, or young instructors wanting to travel / or instructors working full time putting cheap courses on? This creates an imbalance of the reality of people's costs and undercuts individuals operating to a buisness model (and we aren't talking Google money here). In a way we are creating a situation where the more realistic operators are put out of buisness.
In regard to the many centres these are run as charitable operations in many cases, and are dependant on lottery funding, in many instances or gov programs NCS etc, which doesn't seem to factor in reasonable wages in many instances, although often this is due to how the contract is agreed and how much money is siphoned off above. This is unlikely to get better in the next government until the deficit is reduced further.
Although we have low wages in this arena, it is compounded by a complete lack of progression, your an instructor or your a manager of a centre, there isn't much inbetween. There is a lot of suggestion that progression through the awards is a good thing and plenty of instructors do this, to then have to pay all of the costs themselves, and to look at having to do CPD or coach updates to retain validity. Meaning if your freelance the this can be a lot of time unpaid by the time you add up your MIA L3 minibus first aid power boat water safety etc, plus costs of travel equipment lunch possible accomodation etc.
Just an observation -?

In reply to TomBaker:

That is indeed how it is. Not how it should be. With lower end employment, cards should be laid on table from outset. That's my simple wish. What's to hide?

In reply to summo:

Well the minimum age for BMG is 22 years and the pre-requisites are such that few start accumulating them earlier than late teens, someone I was working with years ago had roughly worked out that the average Brit takes around 9 years to gain the necessary experience. The cost of progressing through the scheme could go as far as 25k. So in terms of cost and commitment I think it probably exceeds that of PhD by some way.

What do you say?

In reply to Murko Fuzz:

Your thinking is more in keeping with mine but I am not too bothered about BMGs as they are high end professionals and not representative of anyone caught in the near poverty pay of centre workers.

In reply to alpinismo.uk:

You make a lot of valid points with which I agree.

I think I am now getting a 'handle' on the type of person who works in the jobs in question. However, I am concerned when they are still there after years...but hey, that's how it goes these days! Suits them and suits the boss. Win, win....not!

In reply to Murko Fuzz:


I did say there a lot of variables and if people are climbers and skiers anyway much of that 25k would be spent travelling and climbing anyway, although some will be deliberate actions purely to add variety to logbooks etc.

People who want to be guides probably ski every winter anyway, they probably go to the alps every summer and add in a big trip somewhere else in the world anyway. People drift towards it. Often from MIA/MIC where there are couple of training exceptions to lesson the pain on this route.

I'm not doubting your £25k, how much would any of us of spend on our outdoor activities anyway over the next decade? I once consider that route myself, but didn't think I was fully cruising above the grades required, but more importantly (like many Brits), my skiing was $hit.

Age wise, there are plenty young guns in their late teens, early twenties clocking up the routes right now. Most are climbing for fun, they simply haven't thought to convert that experience in quals yet.

In reply to Murko Fuzz: it's an interesting question, but to say it exceeds that of a PhD is hard to justify. Whilst it is possible to get thro' a Phd in 3 years very few do and it's a lot of work and stress 5- 7 years full and part time seems more typical. The 25k thing is irrelevant as the costs of the PhDs surely exceed that, it's just that they're nominally covered.

Don't forget that your prep for a PhDs really starts when you're about 16. If you were go into a Bmg program, full time, no other commitments how long would it take?

It's a very good analogy

In reply to wbo:

Depends on the PhD. In science, the standard is now to aim for 4 years (including submission, so there's no mixing writing up and jobs) and you're paid a stipend during that time. The stipend is somewhere around £15k per year tax free, depending on where you're doing it. I'd say BMG is more expensive!

In reply to gilliesp:

I actually agree with you I was just pointing out that I doubt its due to shame so much as an effort to minimise what they pay by starting any offers as low as possible and working upward to the maximum they are willing to pay rather than starting high and giving the candidate a sense of what they are worth to the company.

In reply to TomBaker:

Its not just what 'they' are willing to pay. Its also what we, as punters, are willing to pay.

In reply to gilliesp:

There is of course one or two other reasons why employers sometimes do not advertise salaries.

a) Some may want to not disclose this because their own salary scales are not known to other employees so they don't want others to know whose earning what.

b) For various reasons the employer may want to employ the new person on a higher or lower pay scale than other employees.

c) They may simply be testing the water so to speak to try and ascertain what the salary expectations are of the candidate/s.

(Please don't get at me - I don't say I agree with these reasons personally!)

In reply to gilliesp:
"I climb trad therefore I'm better and more qualified than you"
Is it me or is this the general view of the majority of climbers in this country. I'm not one to come on and have a rant on here but this is something that I see as a problem. I my self have been climbing for 3 years. 80% of my climbing is sport with a little bit of bouldering thrown in. I have dabbled with trad a few times and find it enjoyable in small amounts and admire those that push them selves above natural pro, however personally I would rather sport climb. Now I work at a climbing wall were we are rewarded for doing courses with mountain training. Other than the usual indoor quals I would also like to do outdoor days with groups. The only down side is that for any outdoor qualification only traditional routes count towards your logged routes. I feel this is wrong, why can sport climbs not be accepted? Surely the routes are just as safe, accessible and enjoyable for groups? With exceptions surely bolted anchors are just as safe and more convenient to use for top ropes (of course with the rope going through two of your own quickdraws)? I appreciate that natural pro should be used for group abseiles, but bolted anchors are becoming more common for these also! Why am I being penalised for not being a trad climber? Why am I losing out on financial bonuses at work because Id rather clip a bolt than a nut? Surely I'm not the only one that feels this way?

In reply to Connor Dickinson:

-you can't see why, yet you work in the climbing sector?
-do you propose yet another climbing qualification for bolted crags, then a separate one for all types of protection?
-you don't think gaining some trad mileage will give you better judgement of the anchor quality?
-how many routes under VS/4c/f5a are bolted? You will have no concept of the easy grades that you are proposing to lead novices on, unless you get out and get some Mod/Diff/VDiff routes under your belt.

Because you have less or a narrower field of experience.

All I'm saying is why is there not a seperate qualification or why are the two disciplines merged? Surely it would give the instructor a wider field of experience logging both rather than just trad?

Wether you climb sport or trad...the principle of a safe (bolted) anchor are the same.

There are plenty of routes between 3-6a, it's the instructors job to choose appropriate crags.

In reply to Connor Dickinson:

The SPA isn't a tough award to earn. If you want to demonstrate extra experience of sport routes use your logbook and/or CV.

In reply to Connor Dickinson:


if you ARE a competent climber you could log enough routes in a weekend to qualify for SPA, do the training. Spend a few weeks getting some routes in and practising what you have learnt. Then go back for assessment. You could be qualified by the end of April. Job done and hundreds do, that's why the UK is awash with SPAers.

In reply to summo:


....which is why even those walls who do require an SPA can pay them little more than the minimum wage. Which I believe is where this conversation started, before going for a wide-ranging tour of the instructional world all the way to BMG!

At any level, most if not all employers will pay the least amount that is required to get the job done. This shouldn't come as any surprise. And at any level, workers can decide for themselves whether it is worth it for them. This applies as much at MIC level as it does for unqualified wall or centre staff.

In reply to Jamie B:
If anything the creation of the new-ish lower tier walking and indoor climbing quals caused a further dilution of a saturated market.

Whilst there are benefits for some leaders, say a scout leader or evening floor walker who wants a very simple niche qualification, the governing body shot itself in the foot as far as providing more rounded valuable qualifications for those who wished to work full time, as the lower level is flooded with folk, unless you can break away upwards.

It's a bit like the BCU bringing in qualifications for; still water where you can touch the bottom, pool trainer qualifications, purely surf kayaking... they'd suck the value and life out of the existing quals.

In reply to Jamie B:

It does but I think some industry minimum would help..

I know guides who will work for peanuts, almost like they want to say 'I'm a guide' (as in ML), yet the have a job paying 30 odd k and the guiding is just pocket money...

I think a lot double dip like that, which is fine, but working for less than those trying to survive, I think is questionable. But there are now 10,000's of ML's. So like biology PhD's you earn less when the market is flooded.

There are US Assistant Professor jobs, at strong universities, paying $37,000 a year, less than £25k... for a PhD, that's barely average graduate wage. But there is a glut of biology PhD's and people will work for that.

In reply to gilliesp:

This will probably come across as quite harsh but here is my opinion. I think people need to be honest with themselves as to the standard of the qualifications we're talking about. As many have said the basic qualifications are just that, basic, therfore equate to basic levels of pay.

The fact that people can do SPA and ML work as a part time hobby whilst doing other jobs should tell you everything you need to know about how hard/time consuming it is to gain the qualifications. Ultimatey they are 'part time' 'hobbiest' qualifications not 'professional qualifications' therefore expect to earn a 'part time' or 'hobbiest' wage, if this means you need to work another job to supplement this 'part-time' income then that is similar to many other jobs. Once you get to BMG/BASI4 these are undoubtedly professional qualifications and you can expect a professional wage.

Don't complain about people who have other jobs undercutting you, if it wasnt possible it wouldn't happen. I can't imagine there are many lawyers or doctors complaining about those who just dabble in it at the weekend, do other jobs during the week and undercut the other doctors and lawyers out there. We are not owed a living by anyone.

In reply to tom.m:

Whilst that is all mostly true and a fair representation of the awards themselves, I feel it is worth adding that the difference between gaining ML(S), SPA etc and actually being good at it can be a world apart.

I've worked alongside and 'employed' MLs who gained their qualification a decade or more ago and have come back to it after retirement - they were fit enough and had most of the correct kit, but their attitudes towards group/client management, safety and even environmental issues were pretty lousy. I've also worked with 20yr olds who gained their ML earlier that summer but have been models of professionalism and good working practice and they are regularly used by myself and others. They take pride in their work and hope to make a lifelong career from it, rather than a bit of pocket money in return for regular trips up Snowdon and Scafell Pike.

The current award schemes do not properly reflect the full extent of the work that a freelance instructor is likely to undertake - but there is no other recognised training programme or scheme out there. The CPD requirements of the MTA help address this, but there is still a big gap between acquiring your ML/SPA/other entry level award and being a 'professional' instructor who is well-recommended and trusted with my clients. The other point to remember is that if you are the sole person 'in charge' of a group of clients in a potentially hazardous environment then you will be treated as a professional if you find yourself in court.

I learned more in my first two years of working solidly after gaining my ML on challenge events, race and event safety, team building and other days than I did in the year or so of working towards gaining the award and the training/assessment itself. As others have said, a decent navigational ability, a good logbook, some simple ropework and a bit of natural history knowledge will probably get you through your ML - but there is so much more to working regularly as a freelancer, or indeed owning your own business.
A good number of training providers still seem to base their syllabus and delivery on the assumption that their course delegates will go off and work mainly in outdoor centres with kids - that is no longer the case, and as with all of the MT awards, an argument could be made for a bolt-on award to cover the gaps in between.

In reply to richprideaux:

It's a full-time job if you take into account the amount of time spent looking for work which is becoming increasingly difficult as the numbers of 'qualified' people increase.

You've hit the nail on the head there Richard in that among a group of clients, you are the professional and that time spent gaining qualifications isn't what defines someone as 'professional'.

In reply to summo:

You need a Years Climbing experience outdoors for SPA (which isn't really a lot). Group management experience on the crag an outdoor first aid qual and yes you have to be a competent climber. You also have to be able to set up and manage group abseils. In my experience they don't just give these awards away. If you don't meet the grade you don't pass. These quals should not be belittled and there are a lot of great instructors out there.

In reply to machine:


I know the criteria, I've worked these courses. I can assure you a competent climber who is already working in a climbing wall and has some climbing experience outside, should be able to have this qualification within a month if they 'chose' to and that's the big thing. It's motivation.

Yes, there are a lot of great SPA instructors out there, many have better communications and teaching skills than MIA/MIC/BMG... but that still doesn't change the fact these are low rung quals that can be picked up quickly by competent motivated climbers. It's the indoors and lowland walking schemes which I was suggesting were very easy and potentially devalued SPA/MLs and making it harder for them to make a full time living out of.