Jeff: Wow! Some good thinking in your post about the CAUT survey. Three points: I think the original reason for the difference in types of schools was because of a very direct impact on the instruments. A school that is highly performance orientated has a lot of practicing going on. Hard practicing. This takes a toll on the instruments more than a school that mostly turns out Mu Ed students who spend lots more time in the library. The old guidelines might have this over compensated but there is a difference. The idea of necessary time to spend on each instrument is a very good one. The Steinway survey is a little closer to this but it misses the mark in several areas. If we calculate how much time should be spent on each instrument per year, that would simplify the process. The salary issue is also a very important one. I've had a rule of thumb that has worked for many years as an outside technician. I can expect to gross 1000 times the going tuning rate per year. Back in my early years (and this is admitting my age) when the tuning rate was $18.00 a piano, I grossed about $18,000. It has stayed true for most of my years in this business. Why should a university technician -- who is expected to have high level skills -- have to settle for some of the pay I've heard about. I don't really know what the average salary is in CAUT land, as I am a contract tech here, but I've understood that it is not good. I've wondered if I've been able to do this for nearly 16 years simply because I am a contractor rather than an employee. I spend about half my time at SMU and earn 1/3 or my income there. The rest of the work is what really keeps the bills paid. It's good that we're bringing up some of this. Lets continue to brainstorn these issues and see where it can take us. dave *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 3/13/02 at 4:20 PM Jeff Tanner wrote: >Hi all, >First, thank you Fred, and all the others who have worked diligently on the >original guidelines and the proposed revisions. All your effort is greatly >appreciated. > >I know I've been heard from on the subject already. But I would like to >express some of my thoughts on the existing formula as a whole. These are >simply my observations and opinions. Most of you guys have been at this a >lot longer than I have, so take it for what it's worth. > >It seems to me that our purpose for having a formula in the first place is >to determine the actual needs for a particular situation, not to compare it >to what others are doing to maintain status quo. The bean-counters already >have that information, and this is part of why it is so difficult to >improve our individual situations. > >I really don't see the point of separating institutions into categories >based on reputation, performance orientation, status etc., for the purpose >of the guidelines, nor is it our place as piano technicians. It would seem >that each school or department of music's goal would be to offer a quality >music education. Certainly the quality of administrators, faculty, >facilities, and budgets seem to separate us already, yet at the same time, >a smaller school might be able to offer just as valuable of an education to >a gifted student due to lower student to teacher ratios and other factors. >But the basic need of having well maintained and tuned pianos in order to >provide any level of educational experience does not differ from a local >junior college to an institution of highest regard. > >What we need to evaluate is "need", and let the administrators deal with >whether they are able or willing to devote budget dollars to provide >solutions. If we're fudging our numbers merely to represent "more >realistic" recommendations so that administrators won't laugh, then we are >doing our institutions a disservice. "Properly Maintained" is what we're >after, and what my neighbors are doing in their situation has no bearing on >what my institution needs. Yes, it might be effective to present, for >example, that the University of Georgia, only 170 miles away, has 2.5 >technicians to maintain their 115 Steinways (or whatever the number is), >while there's just one of me trying to maintain our 125 instruments of >various makes here at USC and how that might impact a particular >prospective student's choice of school. At the same time, our faculty also >admits that we're "spoiled" here by having the only full time staff tech in >the state, as overwhelmed as he may be. But that still does not address >what our institution actually NEEDS to properly maintain our inventory. >And I believe that if the PTG is going to go to the trouble to sponsor a >standardized solution as an organization of piano specialists, we are >missing the target if we don't focus solely on the maintenance requirements >of each individual instrument in each individual situation. Whether our >calculations come across to administrators as being unrealistic does not >change the needs. > >That said, in my opinion, administrators might seem more able to deal with >the solution if they have figures based on actual work hours required to >maintain their inventories, rather than what they might perceive as an >arbitrary assignment of 60 pianos per technician, with each instrument >assigned ratings which either increase or decreases this workload. It just >comes across as being abstract, though I fully realize that the formula was >calculated with time requirements in mind. Each instrument would have to >be evaluated for an estimate of the actual time required to perform the >work needed per year. For example, for a concert instrument, the >administrator is presented with a clearer picture of what is actually >required, such as 300 hours per year rather than 60 pianos per tech x 1.4 x >1.3 x 1.0 x 1.3 x 1.3 x 0.8 x 0.7 (=103.3, by the way). Factors such as >humidity control would be represented in terms of the actual time needed >for the additional tunings/regulation work needed due to the level of pitch >changes caused by humidity fluctuation, etc. Certainly, we might be able >to use some of the factors we have in order to calculate the adjustments to >the time required by each instrument, but the end report needs to be >presented in terms of hours. With the needs of all instruments added >together we could present to administrators that in order to properly >maintain the 120 instruments of that institution would require 4500 hours >per year, for example. I simply believe this approach presents a clearer >picture of the need. > >March 16, 2001, Richard West posted to the CAUT list his "Suggested Ideal >Maintenance Program", which I feel is more to the point of how to evaluate >the needs of the institution, at least in a manner which is more >understandable to administrators. His "formula" is expressed more in terms >of dollars than hours, which is probably more applicable to the contract >CAUT, but these figures could be easily converted and expressed in terms of >hours. > >The current Guidelines, either old or revised, might arrive at a reasonable >figure for the overall inventory, but not because each individual >instrument is accurately represented. In fact, each instrument is likely >inversely represented in the formula, which gives rise to serious doubt as >to the validity of the current formula. Consider the above example for >maintaining a concert instrument. Could you honestly maintain 103 concert >instruments per year, each of which requires almost daily attention? Our >current formula says you can. Conversely, for an old spare upright you >might have stashed away unused, the formula might require one tech per 28 >such instruments to do nothing to them! Now change your base to 80 and see >what happens. The changes Fred proposes serve to offset these effects >somewhat, but the overall effect of the formula on each instrument is still >inaccurate. It just doesn't present a clear picture of the actual needs of >the institution, and justifies administrators current perceptions of the >guidelines as unrealistic. > >And last but not least, I think we need to come up with some way to assist >our administrators with determining salary for these technicians they need, >and have this somehow included in the "Guidelines". I really think the >numbers our administrators have don't represent an accurate representation >of the value of a piano technician. Have you all seen the latest >"Occupational Outlook Handbook" description for a "Musical Instrument >Repairer"? It doesn't paint a very pretty picture, and certainly not the >picture Randy Potter appears he will be presenting in his class at the >Mid-Atlantic Regional coming up. > >Thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts. >Jeff > > >Fred Sturm wrote: >>Fellow Cauts, >> Last fall I suggested a couple revisions to the "draft revised workload >>formula." I have received no feedback to date, so am reposting in hopes >>somebody will have something to say. Well, I know plenty of people will >>have plenty to say, so what I am really hoping is that some of you will >>take the trouble to write it down and post it <g>... > >Jeff Tanner >Piano Technician >School of Music >University of South Carolina >Columbia, SC 29208 >(803)-777-4392 (phone) _____________________________ 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