Dave Porritt wrote:
I was gently trying to mention that you should not categorize all college jobs as the same. If the situation at USC is as you describe then you are right to leave and lodge a protest.
And what that misses is that deans and administrators don't take that into consideration when establishing salaries for their position. They assume the job is the same from institution to institution. You're absolutely right. Not every job is the same. Heck, the job I left here didn't even resemble the job I took here. As the inventory aged and wore down the older faculty began retiring and being replaced by younger more ambitious faculty who have more energy, higher demands and expectations. But the dean who wasn't here 10 years ago and hasn't seen the evolution doesn't look at it that way. He looks at what UGA, Florida State, UNC Greensboro, etc., pay their piano technicians and sets the salary here accordingly.
Jeff, this is the "Market" at work.
Sort of, in a round about discombobulated way. What I said was that it mischaracterizes the market for our skill. Look, FT CAUTs represent less than one percent of all piano technicians. And I would wager that you charge fees for private work that is comparable to what other RPTs charge. But what we have here is establishing a market for certain demographic groups -- not the skill. We are effectively pitting demographic groups against one another. And what we have allowed to be created by not being proactive is something quite similar to the Wal Mart greeter position from a demographic/economic standpoint. And no amount of effort from the CAUT committee to establish a skills/knowledge-based endorsement is going to result in any improvement as long as we don't also address the reality that it isn't so much skill that is establishing the market here as it is demographics.
The dean here seems convinced that the employer sets the market. I tried to explain to him that it was certain demographic groups - not the employer - who were holding the market down, that the market was what it was only because a small percentage of qualified applicants pursued these jobs because they could afford to live on less. But he couldn't seem to accept that. He seems to think (as does the local S&S dealer) there is an endless supply of qualified piano technicians in the country who would be happy making $40-$50K with full benefits, but at the same time plans to become a piano technician when he retires because he knows it is possible to make 6 figures. (By the way, he seems to have no immediate plans of learning the trade. I think he thinks he'll read a book and start making a lot of money the next day.)
Watching the Today show this morning, there was a segment on how much debt this youngest generation will start out life with and this has been a segment focusing on different generation demographics and debt all week. The average college loan for current graduates is $19,000, and the average credit card debt is $5,000. It was pointed out that the credit card debt was not incurred because of frivolity, but that it was required to survive. I can easily see that, and am surprised it isn't at least double that amount. And I've got to wonder how much today's lottery scholarship assistance (that we didn't have access to) affects that college loan debt figure. I've noticed myself that entry level positions for college graduates today don't pay much different from what was being offered when I was in school 20 years ago. But I didn't start out life with $26K of debt, the average car payment wasn't $400/month and rent/mortgage certainly wasn't $1000/month. And looking at the struggle my parents had compared to the struggle I've had even with a college education, there is no comparison. My parents had $10K in personal savings by the time I started college, and I never had to wear hand-me-downs, we had an average middle class home, reliable cars, and plenty of good food. Instead of savings, I will have $40K or more of personal expenses related debt (not including business related debt) and if it weren't for hand-me-downs my kids would have to wear clothes from Goodwill.
I'm thinking in terms of the next generation and how much more difficult it is even going to be for them than it is for our generation. I think the demand for our work will probably wane in the private sector over time as fewer and fewer people have time to play the piano for simple enjoyment. With that, I think the college positions will probably grow in terms of a market sector percentage of what piano technicians do. But I think it is incumbent upon us to make sure the next generation sees our profession as an attractive one. I mean, my 7 year old son is already looking at me and saying, "Dad, I wish you sold cars." This isn't just a "7 year old wanting to be a fireman when I grow up" mentality. He actually already sees that a good car salesman provides better for his family than does a good piano technician and being a piano technician requires extensively more training and harder work. Before it's over, I may well be selling cars, but I'm giving piano sales and service a good honest effort first.
If it is the collective will to reserve the college positions for singles and empty nesters who don't have the high bills that family breadwinners face, then I really have no problem with it. But I also think that ought to be accompanied with some sort of market campaign to let younger ambitious family breadwinners know that "this probably isn't for you."
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Porritt, David
To: College and University Technicians
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Louisiana State SOM Position
Jeff:
I was gently trying to mention that you should not categorize all college jobs as the same. If the situation at USC is as you describe then you are right to leave and lodge a protest. I'm just saying not all jobs are like it is at USC. My pay suits me, the benefits are very good, I work 37.5 hours a week and have plenty of vacation and holiday time paid.
You said: "I don't mean to pick on Dave and I really do rebutt his response with all due respect, but his post epitomizes why university salaries are what they are. University positions are being taken primarily by either singles or empty nesters who don't require as much income. That mischaracterizes the market for our skill." Jeff, this is the "Market" at work. We all go for the positions that have the benefits we want. No one gets it all. If high income is your goal you have to find the positions, jobs or careers that offer that. Everyone can choose the job they want, or the pay they want, but not both. This choice is always a compromise between many criteria. That's free enterprise at work. When I was younger, more energetic and less experienced I worked hard as an independent tech. I made good money and handled it well. Now I'm old (68) and less energetic but more experienced so I'm doing what I do now - happily.
I hope you can find the right situation - a satifying nitch in our profession that pays well so that when you're my age you don't have regrets.
dave
David M. Porritt, RPT
dporritt at smu.edu
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tanner
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:54 AM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Louisiana State SOM Position
Yes. I think that is being a doormat.
First of all, I did NOT quit in anger. I finally gave up the fight and my colleages across the country who are content with less were no help. I quit because I was basically told that the only way to get change is to be the catalyst for it. I quit because the carrot being dangled out there kept moving farther and farther away. When I'd catch up to it and ask for the reward, the carrot moved again.
As employees, it is encumbent upon each one of us to insist on salaries that are more reflective of the value of what we do, because it affects everyone else who pursues this work. Yes, if we just accept what they want to offer and be happy with it, that's being a doormat, as a collective whole, because we owe it to our colleagues elsewhere to help support their earnings ability. Our profession is quite unique in this way. We are so isolated and job openings occur relatively infrequently compared to other professions and so we must band together in some way to benefit the whole. We are as strong as our weakest link, and as long as we have qualified technicians who accept lower salaries because they don't share the same perspective on economic issues, then we are a weak chain.
Different perspective on economic issues? Either we have a market or we don't. If we are going to market our profession as one that earns a good living (see the PTG brochure on becoming a piano technician), it is incumbent upon us to support that, even if we do not require it ourselves. Just because one person can live on a lower salary is not the reason to accept it. There are others who depend on our profession to actually earn a living. The reason Wim's son, the CPA makes half a million is because other CPAs have worked to increase the market value of their profession. If other CPA's just said, "I'm at a point in life I can live on $50K," then that's what that market would evolve towards. In the private sector, if we have a market of technicians who have built their businesses based on a certain tuning fee, and you have new people move into the market tuning for half price, in a climate where the costs of everything else continues to go up, that is an example of how people in your own profession are cutting their own throats.
I really don't hear from my self-employed friends who stay busy full time that they'd like to increase their workload and earn half of what their making. Many of our colleages would like to do a college job, but see the pay as degrading to their skill level and hard work. These college jobs keep coming open over and over and over not because we have different perspectives on economic issues, but because the work requires twice the effort for half the pay.
If the trade offs were equitable, I could agree with you. But after the trade-offs, we're still 10's of thousands apart (about $30K or so). Wim's example was misleading because it didn't figure in the costs to the employee, nor the tax advantages of being self-employed.
As I said, I left my position, in part, for the benefit of the profession. The next person who comes here will enjoy a higher salary band. Yes, I'm frustrated that they made no effort to do that for me, but it was made fairly clear that the only way that change could be made was if I turned in my resignation. That's just the way the system works. I suppose I could reapply for the position, but I've put too much effort into creating something for me to land on when I resigned that I can't go back now.
I remember well the pressures of a house payment, kids in school, etc. and I'm glad I've lived past that.
Not all the rest of us are financially independent. You must have gotten to that point during your years you speak of as a self-employed tech. If I'd stayed on at the university, we'd never have lived past that. You imply that you are "past" a house payment. Our was getting bigger because of the insufficiency of the salary. I don't know your age, but I know that the costs of basic necessities compared to earnings is not what it was even 20 years ago. There was no way we could have continued, and I know how to live cheap.
My take-home is not as great as my former gross receipts as an independent tech, but somehow I'm living as well or better.
Well, you must have gotten everything paid for as a self-employed tech before you switched to being an employee.
If anything, because of that inequity alone, we owe it to the next generation of piano technicians to do our part to support the market for their work. If we approach it with, "I can live cheaper now", that is letting our next generation down, let alone those across the country who'd like to be able to pay their bills now.
These university positions are unique jobs and they clearly are not for everyone but some of us weirdos are pretty happy doing it.
It sounds obvious that you'd like to keep it that way.
I suppose if we worked to get the salaries up, we might have some competition for our jobs.
I don't mean to pick on Dave and I really do rebutt his response with all due respect, but his post epitomizes why university salaries are what they are. University positions are being taken primarily by either singles or empty nesters who don't require as much income. That mischaracterizes the market for our skill. It undermines the CAUT committee's efforts to establish a CAUT endorsement and creates a model that makes it impossible for those of us who are family breadwinners to be able to fit in.
If that is the collective will of the incumbents in these positions, then that is fine. But rather than wasting the CAUT committee's time on creating an endorsement that should have the effect of improving earnings, let's just put out a statement that says that "Full Time college technician positions are not intended for people who want to work hard and improve their skills and earn a good salary. They are for people who don't require much money to live."
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Porritt, David
To: College and University Technicians
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Louisiana State SOM Position
Jeff:
I hope you're not saying that those of us who are happy with what we are doing, and have a different perspective on economic issues, and are aware of whatever trade-offs are involved and don't quit in anger are doormats. I remember well the pressures of a house payment, kids in school, etc. and I'm glad I've lived past that. SMU has an excellent retirement program (I contribute 5%, they contribute 10%) I have good health benefits, I work with great musicians who are also delightful human beings, I perceive that I am appreciated and my last raise confirms it. My take-home is not as great as my former gross receipts as an independent tech, but somehow I'm living as well or better.
I'm really glad you've made the decision to leave USC as it's been obvious that you have been unhappy for a long time. These university positions are unique jobs and they clearly are not for everyone but some of us weirdos are pretty happy doing it. I hope your independent business picks up quickly and that you earn the lifestyle you want and need.
dave
David M. Porritt, RPT
dporritt at smu.edu
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tanner
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:52 AM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Louisiana State SOM Position
Yes, I became bitter over time as I realized I'd been lied to and misled about the future. I was committed to the university and there was no reciprocal commitment. That will make anyone bitter. But if it paid enough to live on and there had been a commitment from the administration for a real program of maintenance beyond telling the guy they hired to just work harder, I would have been quite happy to stay there on and on.
But the point is, the earnings situation around the country isn't going to get any better until we start standing up for ourselves. As long as we are doormats, that is how we will be treated. If we want to change it, it starts with us. So, that's what I did.
If you don't want to see change, just keep on with the status quo.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Willem Blees
To: caut at ptg.org
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Louisiana State SOM Position
Jeff
I'm sorry you are so bitter about your job at USC, and I hope you find what you're looking for.
Peace
Wim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20080618/7dd24d99/attachment-0001.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC