Let's cut to the chase was Re: Guidelines comments

[Jeff Tanner]

I've been reading this thread with interest, itching to throw in my 2
cents.  I've written two or three posts and discarded them until I've
figured out exactly what I want to say.  I'm still not sure I've got it
right, but maybe you can figure it out by the time I'm done.

It seems to me that the way to improve the qualifications of the CAUT is to
work on ways to improve the salary/income situation.  Over the years, I've
talked with numerous RPT's who've told me something like, "I used to to
college and school work, but I stopped because you can't make any money at
it."  If we put some effort into improving CAUT income for both full time
and contract techs, then perhaps more better qualified techs will become
interested in CAUT work.

Now all this CAUT qualification curriculum sounds wonderful and all, but if
a CAUT isn't making enough money to pay the bills, much less be able to lay
out $1500 or more to go to a national convention, when's he or she going to
be able to take all these classes?  Now, when and if I can afford to go to
where these classes are being taught, I'll be first in line to take them,
because they sound like interesting fodder.  But if I can't afford to go,
they're not worth a hill of beans to me, or to the efforts of the CAUT
committee.

I don't think administrators look at us like they do the rest of the
faculty, when it comes to .  So, I'm not sure that adding any more
qualifications without some serious backing from NASM is going to do any
good for a long time to come.  Sure, some schools are looking for RPT only,
some listings say "RPT preferred".  But even most schools seem to be aware
that just because somebody's taken the RPT exams (which I'm finding so far
to be a measure of minimal ability) doesn't necessarily make him or her a
better tech than somebody who simply chooses not to participate in the
process, or hasn't had the opportunity (which has been my case up till this
past year).

I really think a lot of schools are just looking for somebody who can tune
a piano, make general repairs, and do basic regulation.  And in most cases,
that's really all they need.  If you can do that in the outside world,
putting in roughly the same number of hours as a full-time CAUT, you can
gross from about 70 to 100 grand a year (at about $50/hour and up), with or
without an RPT designation.  But as a full-time CAUT, you're worth less
than half that (about $19/hr on average nationwide) with all the
qualifications you can earn, and commuter mileage is not tax-deductible and
neither are tools up until a certain percentage of income.  Yes, we've
discussed a lot of the pros and cons, but the bottom line is, why would a
qualified RPT choose to sacrifice a standard of living for his or her
family to opt for institutional work?

Forgive me for playing devil's advocate.  I certainly don't mean to argue
the importance of what the committee is focusing on.  I agree
wholeheartedly that increasing the qualifications of the CAUT is very
important, and if I can afford to participate, I will.  But I'm not sure
that a few classes are necessarily going to move the plight of the CAUT
forward any time soon.  There needs to be a degree of return on investment,
which I don't think is going to be there.

Thanks for listening.
Jeff