4 ms·

The way the article was written made it sound like Sherpas are paid for their time. So if the climb is called off and they are used for the rest of the season,

by lnanek2 13y ago

The way the article was written made it sound like Sherpas are paid for their time. So if the climb is called off and they are used for the rest of the season, then they don't earn pay for the weeks they are no longer employed. If a beach is closed you don't keep paying your lifeguards the rest of the season for work they aren't doing. Seems fine to me. It's actually worse for them if they were paid the entire season even when a cancelation happens since then there's less reason to call it off.

kalleboo 13y ago
But the expedition companies don't refund any of the money they collected from the climbers that would have gone to the Sherpas, instead pocketing it for themselves. They should either refund the money to the climbers, or pay the Sherpas what they were planning on paying them. Not just go "oh well, it's our money now!"
- ars 13y ago
  Are you sure that money goes to the Sherpas? I think most of it actually goes to the government (hence the anger) and to supplies.
  - michaelt 13y ago
    I think the $50,000-$90,000 is the 'all inclusive' cost covering a $10,000 Nepali government fee, sherpas, western guides, accommodation at base camps, food, drugs, bottled oxygen, trash removal, travel company profit margin and so on.
carlob 13y ago
I want to add something to what sibling poster said (though I agree wholeheartedly). Paying workers for their time and not hiring them works well when said worker is very highly skilled and you will not need them for a very long time: a lawyer, a chef for an event… If you plan on hiring someone for a whole season or longer I believe the right thing to do to protect both parties is to agree on a flat rate for the season. On one hand a contractor can leave you whenever they please, but in practice (and this is the case) the employer will have the upper hand. This is why we need laws to regulate this type of work relations (I know this might get me downvoted here). I know this probably will not happen to the typical HN crowd working as contractors, but think of a housekeeper; I believe it's very important that regulation is in place to prevent this kind of exploitation.

by lnanek2 13y ago

kalleboo 13y ago

But the expedition companies don't refund any of the money they collected from the climbers that would have gone to the Sherpas, instead pocketing it for themselves. They should either refund the money to the climbers, or pay the Sherpas what they were planning on paying them. Not just go "oh well, it's our money now!"

ars 13y ago
Are you sure that money goes to the Sherpas? I think most of it actually goes to the government (hence the anger) and to supplies.
- michaelt 13y ago
  I think the $50,000-$90,000 is the 'all inclusive' cost covering a $10,000 Nepali government fee, sherpas, western guides, accommodation at base camps, food, drugs, bottled oxygen, trash removal, travel company profit margin and so on.

carlob 13y ago

I want to add something to what sibling poster said (though I agree wholeheartedly). Paying workers for their time and not hiring them works well when said worker is very highly skilled and you will not need them for a very long time: a lawyer, a chef for an event… If you plan on hiring someone for a whole season or longer I believe the right thing to do to protect both parties is to agree on a flat rate for the season. On one hand a contractor can leave you whenever they please, but in practice (and this is the case) the employer will have the upper hand. This is why we need laws to regulate this type of work relations (I know this might get me downvoted here). I know this probably will not happen to the typical HN crowd working as contractors, but think of a housekeeper; I believe it's very important that regulation is in place to prevent this kind of exploitation.