What I don't understand is why they hire you back with the better pay? David Ilvedson, RPT Pacifica, CA 94044 ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- From: "Jeff Tanner" <tannertuner at bellsouth.net> To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org> Received: 9/10/2008 6:05:48 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Reasonable job descriptions >[CAUT] Reasonable job descriptionsJim Busby wrote: > Jon, > > With no true "credentials" that are universally recognized by administrators, and >when there are ten mediocre techs eager to accept CAUT positions at lower >salaries, how are we supposed to "stand up" to upgrade the field? I'm not trying to >be a jerk, and I'm not offended by your rather blunt statements below, because >you're absolutely correct; we "deserve what we are metered out". But if we all did >what Jeff did, would that force the issue with the institutions? Not necessarily! >Precisely because of what you wrote below; "The attitude of the administration.Dime >a Dozen" > >I certainly don't want anyone to think I've ever implied we should all resign. It >certainly made a point here at USC, in that as long as I happily did my job and >worked hard to impress the boss, no progress was ever going to be made. They >didn't think I was serious until I quit. And after I left, they reclassified the position >to a higher salary, the new guy got the raise I'd been asking for for 9 1/2 years, >more help, more money and a shorter responsibility list. They had Steinway come in >and evaluate the situation and found out they needed 2.5 techs. (Steinway carried >more clout with the evaluation than did the PTG, because the PTG guidelines >unfortunately have the ability to appear self-serving.) They also paid a bunch of >money for Steinway to come in this summer with a team of techs from across the >country and replace something like 10 or 12 sets hammers that didn't need it, but >that's another discussion. >I think the reason it worked here, though, and I really can't stand to blow my own >horn, but the faculty did notice the quality of my work. We had guest artists from >across the country raving about our pianos. And once the faculty saw the >difference, the "dime a dozen" attitude changed. But they either couldn't or >wouldn't make the changes for me. One problem was that the existing HR system is >not set up to allow classified employees to get real raises like employees in the >private sector. The only way to make big changes is to eliminate the position and >recreate it. The other problem is that the music faculty don't make much either. >Although, that really has nothing to do with the market for a piano technician, they >think their degrees are worth more than our craftsmanship. (I found the book >review in this month's journal to hit some points right on the head.) >But what I learned from the process is that there are really two ways to improving >salary, and neither one of them involves someone else noticing how great your work >is and generously offering to increase your salary. That approach didn't work at all. >You can request a reclassification, which may and may not be successful. Or you >have to have some leverage. This is how faculty get salary adjustments. The boss >needs to believe you are about to take a job somewhere else, or about to otherwise >leave. And at the same time, he needs to be well aware of your value as an >employee and what it would be worth to not have to go through a search and hire >someone else, who may or may not perform as well as you do. That's sort of the >way I approached it. In my case, they sort of called my bluff (by continuing to >refuse to acknowledge the job was too big and the salary was too small) and I had >to have somewhere to go. That's why I started the retail store 2 years before I >resigned. I wasn't bluffing, and they got the message and made some pretty >sweeping changes. >I picked a really crappy time to go into retail, but I think we're going to make it. >Now, what is the solution? The options seem to be the following; > 1. Maintain the "status quo" > 2. Boycott, quit en masse, or otherwise show solidarity and force the issue > 3. Gradually upgrade each situation individually, one at a time > 4. Establish a CAUT credential as Eric, Fred and the CAUT committee is trying >to do. > 5. (A combination of the above #3 and #4) > > My choice is #5; to push for a credential while trying to upgrade my own situation. >I have been offered twice the money in the private sector, but that would mean I'd >have to abandon the only place where I may be able to have some influence on the >situation. It would be comparable to someone angrily quitting the union instead of >staying in and trying to change it from within. > >#2 wouldn't work. And if anyone has ever gotten the impression that was what I >meant by "banding together", then, I apologize. That's not at all what I meant. >There's no way to get that kind of commitment without the reinforcement of a union. > (and a convenient "aside" here is that no union member can work as a state >employee in SC, and we're probably not the only state with that rule) >I think there is a modified #3 that the PTG can help with, and that is to gather >information from around the country that could be made available for members. >Information would include not only current salary ranges of as many institutions in >the country as we can gather, but the differences in benefits packages as well >(identify states/schools which have higher and lower employee contributions, which >type of retirement plans, or tuition perks, for example). The fastest way to gather >the information would be to have all FTE techs respond to a standardized >questionaire (that's a heck of a lot faster than a couple of us getting online and >digging through HR web sites). Other highly pertinent information would be average >gross earnings of private sector techs, some formula for calculating a potential >earnings like I've suggested, and other tools that would benefit the employee. The >employer has all the tools it needs to rebutt any request. The employee is the one >who needs the information. >I appreciate the idea of the CAUT credential, but I'm concerned that after all the >work goes into it, it won't be worth the paper its printed on +++except to us+++ >because of the potential for it to be considered a self-serving credential (really, a >sad irony, because many of the attitudes in our group show more concern for the >welfare of the institution than the technician). Somehow, it needs to attain some >element of non-bias. There are only a handful of us, and I can envision real >difficulty in staffing the process. It will be a massive project that could realistically >take 5 to 10 years for a technician to complete if he/she can't afford to go to every >national and regional convention every year. When that's all done, there needs to >be an accompanying financial reward for the effort, or technicians will probably be >reluctant to pursue it. Currently, I am unaware of any kind of credential that >doesn't come from an accredited institution or government agency that is recognized >by any Human Resources department, and the PTG is neither. And until that >infrastructure is in place to recognize and reward the achievement, I'm skeptical it >will be any help at all. >In other words, with or without a credential, the technician will still be faced with #3. >Now, the pursuit of the credential may result in improving the skill levels of some >technicians. There is no criticism from me of that effort whatsoever. But, if higher >competency levels are what we're after, rather than placing that burden on the >small CAUT group, why don't we get the entire PTG behind an effort to create more >classifications -- Registered Concert Technician, Registered Rebuilder, or whatever, >and have the CAUT credential be able to be a part of a modular type of credential >system? Then the CAUT credential could really just focus on the few things that >does make the job different. Otherwise, the CAUT group is going to find itself >burned out. >But it shouldn't take such a credential for a piano technician with solid basic skills to >be better compensated than a starting truck driver with a GED. (I know for a fact >that log truck drivers in South Georgia can make as much money as some of our >CAUT colleagues are paid, and they spend the majority of their day sitting in line >waiting to be loaded or unloaded) We really should be able to produce evidence >that the market for our skill -- even at basic levels -- is higher than what universities >are paying. Right now, what Human Resources departments are using to establish >salaries, is what other Human Resources departments are paying for the same job. >There is just a void of available information. And I'm not picking on you Jim, you >know that. I respect you very highly. Please allow me to use your example to make >a point. But your "posting privately" response is characteristic of why it is so hard to >cultivate that information. We've seen similar reluctance from other prominent >members of our organization. We're a private group. For some reason, we don't >like anyone else to know how well -- or poorly -- we're doing. I think we're going to >have to be more willing to share some things if we're going to be able to help each >other out. >This is more or less what I mean by "banding together" -- sharing information to help >others improve their situations. Sharing successes like the one here at USC and >Dennis Johnson's. When someone hears of successes at other institutions it might >just help them build the confidence to start the process at their place of >employment. >Now, I really respect Jeff and don't mean to say ill of him quitting, because he >needed to quit for many reasons. >The biggest of which was that while you say you are paying down your debt, mine >was going up, even with the extra $20K moonlighting. > When Andrew Carnegie was asked "How much is the perfect wage? What should >be the standard salary for anyone?" He responded, "I know the answer. Here is the >salary that everyone should have; A little bit more." > >Well, I don't think in terms of "perfect wage". But I think we can do a better job of >gathering and providing evidence that the "market range" for our skills is much >different than what colleges are paying. And with all due respect, it seems to me >that that type of project would a more valuable benefit to our membership than >devoting our resources to the monstrous task of reorganizing the CAUT archives, or >some of the other seemingly trivial projects I've read about in the past few weeks. >Jeff Tanner
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC