take this job and shove it (was let's cut..)

[Jeff Tanner]

>Jeff,
>
>I'm not disagreeing with your statement that a qualified technician should
>earn a good living.  I know there are schools that don't put a lot of
>emphasis on piano technology.
>
>I still hold with my original point: If the job is that bad, change it.  If
>it can't be changed, leave.  Life's too short to be miserable.

Rick, all,
I've never tried to imply that this is a terrible job situation.  In fact,
other than salary, it's really a great gig.  Somewhat of a dream job for me
from the time I first entered the field 19 years ago, right here at this
university.

I also have tremendous faculty support, and have been TOLD that we would
probably cut piano faculty before the piano faculty chair would allow this
position to be cut.  How much of that I can bank on, who knows?  But there
is a tremendous respect for piano technology here from the faculty.  It's
just not backed up with dollars, because its not back up with dollars at
other institutions, regardless of the fact that the salary is 2/3 - 1/2 of
what local private techs are earning (one local tech told the school he'd
have to have $63K to consider it 5 years ago.)

>
>I just don't see how complaining about it amongst ourselves, or even coming
>up with some guidelines will change those schools' priorities.  It has to be
>faculty driven - either on their own, or through their organization, NASM
>(see Fred's last post).
>
>Rick

I never intended this to be complaining, although I realize it may sound
like it.  I disagree with you that salary improvements have to be faculty
driven, although that may work for some situations.  A conversation I had
with my assistant dean a few weeks back sort of sums it up.  He said, "I
remember when I was just starting out the hardships we had making ends
meet."  I responded, "But I've been doing this for 19 years now.  I'm not
just starting out."  I don't think it occurs to him, and other faculty
members as well, that unlike them, we have a salary band which constricts
how much we'll ever be able to earn.  And while they're moving up the
salary chart with years of service, tenure, etc., we can only go so far.

The reason our salaries are low is that techs are accepting low salaries,
me included.  I think my whole emphasis in what I've written on this
subject both recently and in years past has been to attempt to encourage
other technicians, either those considering a first full time CAUT
position, or those already in those positions with low salaries to hold out
or ask for a salary which would not require outside work to afford a basic
lifestyle.  What sense does it make to trade one full time job for two?  My
dad didn't have to work two jobs to support a decent living, why should it
take 3 for my household?  I have been pushing for a higher salary since
about my third year here, when my first dean didn't back up his promise of
a 10% increase if faculty were pleased with my work after the first year.
Then on his last day, he told me he'd recommended to the new dean I get a
salary raise.  No such thing.  He also told me in my interview that with
the wife working, and outside work, we would be able to do well until the
salary was better.  In other words, it was going to take 3 incomes for us
to make ends meet, but I really wanted, and needed at the time, this
position.  This is really what I've always wanted to do.  Knowing these
positions don't come available very often in our part of the world, and
relying on his empty promise of salary improvement, I took it.  Now,
nearing the end of 5 years, regardless that the piano faculty is singing my
praises, even though it's now about 10% more than my starting salary, I'm
making about 2% less than what I started at when you adjust it by the CPI.
Now, part of that is a dismal state budget situation.  But the majority of
it is that CAUT positions do not get the salary respect that private sector
techs get.  My position is not alone.  I'm simply using me as an example of
what's going on everywhere.

If I'd been in a better position at the time, like Richard, I would have
held out for more.  But even though I'd been doing this for about 14 years,
and got great referrals from excellent references, I still felt a little
green on my own, and realized I probably needed to prove myself.  I didn't
have the experience level of the other candidate, and didn't find out until
after I was hired that I probably got the job because I was younger, less
experienced, and they could get me cheaper.  This is part of why I'm not so
sure that simply increasing the qualifications of the CAUT is going to
improve the salaries.  The more experienced and qualified you are, the more
you will cost.  I think it's going to have to work the other way around --
better salaries will attract and retain more qualified techs.

So, this is the point of what I've written.  Both to encourage interested
techs to hold out for a base salary that won't require outside work to just
pay basic costs of living, and to make the point that if the CAUT field is
going to attract more qualified techs, the salary average needs to go up.
And that's not going to happen until more CAUTs start asking for more
rather than accepting a salary which qualifies for Medicaid in order to get
lower health insurance costs.

Jeff