Jeff & Tom: This is an interesting intersection of two emails. On one hand the cost of health insurance and other benefits making self employment an expensive proposition -- especially as you get older. On the other hand we have the pay at a salaried job too low to make a living and attend conventions. I have been a contract tech at SMU for 17 years and am now working about 1/2 time there. At my age just getting health insurance is difficult and once found, it is expensive -- actually very expensive. I have been investigating the possibility of a staff position so I can qualify for those benefits. Is this simply a case of "the grass is always greener"? I don't really think so, but I'm willing to look at the whole picture. Some of the salaries I've seen in the last CAUT survey would indeed be classified as too low to make a living. I'm hoping that if serious negotiations start in my case that I'll not be insulted with an offer like I've seen others have. I really think that schools are just like any business in that they will pay you as little as they think they can get by with. It then is up to us to politely turn down any offers that don't meet our needs. I was totally self employed for 13 years before I started doing college work, and I would certainly return to that status if it became necessary. CAUT work lets us work with better musicians, work on generally better pianos, have vacations, holidays, and benefits. Independent self-employment allows us to make a higher gross, but requires taking care of our own off-time, insurance, self-employment taxes etc. 70 - 100K$ is a figure I hear but generally only from younger and higher energy people. You have to be very committed and spend a lot of time to make that kind of money in our business. Tune all day, make calls all evening, kiss wife on Sunday. Maybe I'm just getting too old for that drill. Like the CAUT curriculum discussion, this is a very important one for us to have. For me, like Tom, the timing is appropriate. dave ************ REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 6/14/2003 at 12:20 PM Jeff Tanner wrote: >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 > > >_______________________________________________ >caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives **************** END MESSAGE FROM Jeff Tanner ********************* _____________________________ David M. Porritt dporritt@mail.smu.edu Meadows School of the Arts Southern Methodist University Dallas, TX 75275 _____________________________
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC