[CAUT] CAUT credential vs. academic program?

[Jeff Tanner]

On Nov 13, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Wolfley, Eric (wolfleel) wrote:

> Jeff,
>
>
>
> This is part of the point of trying to establish a CAUT credential… 
> it’s how we value ourselves as well. Perhaps people will be less  
> likely to accept low salaries if they have made the effort to  
> upgrade their skill level and know what a value they can be to an  
> institution.

Perhaps.  But wouldn't one have said the same thing for RPT?  How  
well is that working to the CAUT's advantage?  We have RPT's all over  
the country working for in CAUT positions for wages I can't for the  
life of me see how anyone can survive on - much less provide for a  
family on.

> A CAUT credential should be a bargaining chip when negotiating  
> beginning salaries.

And what I am saying is that in our own view it would be.  But since  
it is a program designed by piano technicians to benefit piano  
technicians, it runs a very large probability of suffering from a  
dearth of credibility.
>
>
> If you are so down on the current situation, why do you want to  
> accept it as the status quo? All your arguments against a CAUT  
> credential seem to go this way.
No.  If that is what you have heard me saying you haven't listened at  
all.  I am saying that we are approaching the problem with a backward  
solution.  I am more concerned that the endorsement would actually  
make life tougher for a CAUT than it already is -- we're talking  
about possibly even creating a broader expectation of responsibility,  
and unless the technician takes the personal initiative to insist on  
more money, for the same salary.

> You can’t look at the present conditions and say what we are  
> attempting won’t work. It’s kind of like saying, “I can’t go to  
> school…I don’t know how to read.” We are trying to change the way  
> institutions value piano technicians.
>
>
That isn't at all what I'm saying.  I'm saying that if we continue to  
focus on adequate staffing, budgeting and compensation levels,  
develop and provide tools for CAUT candidates and incumbents to use  
in negotiating the latter, that the skill level of technicians will  
improve along with that.  One can't survive a year as a CAUT without  
adequate skill for that position.  Natural selection will take care  
of the skill set.  The complaints I get are completely inadequate  
staffing related.  I am beginning to have serious difficulty meeting  
the "approval of faculty" part of my job evaluation because there's  
just way more than I can do as these pianos age.  Has nothing to do  
with skill set, and yet it will affect my performance evaluation.

I understand that we are trying to change the way institutions value  
piano technicians.  And I think we are taking a backwards approach.   
First of all, from what I've seen, there is nothing about what we are  
doing that implies limits to what can be reasonably expected from the  
"endorsed" technician.  The great majority of us already holding  
positions are probably well enough skilled to handle the tasks of our  
positions as it stands.  If we weren't, it wouldn't be long before  
we'd be hearing from someone that our skills aren't up to  
expectations.  And yet the salaries are what they are.  By taking a  
proactive approach of "improving" our skill sets (which there are no  
complaints about), what we are communicating is that we are willing  
to expand our responsibilities for the same salary we are currently  
receiving.  We're offering to go to all this length with no guarantee  
of any return on that investment.

In other words, we're offering to be the doormat when it comes to the  
negotiating table.  That is the weak side of the negotiations.

What we need to be saying and the committee needs to be supporting is  
that we need to be adequately compensated for what we are already  
worth before we talk about expanding our already impossible to manage  
range of responsibility.  We have already proven our value to the  
school.  If that isn't already enough to command compensation  
comparable to that of other similarly qualified technicians in the  
private sector, how do we think another credential is going to  
improve our salaries?  If it won't improve the salaries of the  
incumbents who've proved themselves, how in the heck do we expect it  
to demand higher respect of CAUT candidates who have no CAUT experience?
>
> Jeff, perhaps they haven’t told you to take a walk precisely  
> because you have upgraded your skills and made them realize how  
> valuable those skills are to their program.
Nice way to BS it up, but I don't think so.  RPT was never a part of  
the job description here and I don't necessarily think of achieving  
RPT as upgrading my skills.  It confirmed them to you guys so nobody  
could give me flack about not being an RPT.  I established the value  
of my skills here long before I became an RPT.  When I passed the  
last exam, there wasn't even so much as a "congratulations" from  
anyone here except PTG members in my chapter.  The one faculty member  
who did say something (and I had to toot my own horn to even have it  
known) was more like, "Well, we knew that already didn't we?"

> What you have described above is precisely what we all must do to  
> improve salary levels.
Yes.  Exactly.  We don't need to get the impression that if I earn  
this endorsement, the dean will offer to shower me with a higher salary.

> You’re contradicting yourself when you say that your getting “rave  
> reviews” from visiting artists had nothing to do with your raise,  
> and yet “They don’t want to lose me because of the quality of work  
> I’ve shown.”
Not exactly.  If I reword it to say, "even though I have had rave  
reviews, and they don't want to lose me because of the quality of  
work I've shown, that isn't why I got a raise," would that clear it  
up?  I got a raise because there isn't anyone else here to do my work  
if I quit and it could take months for them to find someone to  
replace me.  I'm saying that even with all those rave reviews it has  
taken extortion techniques to get raises.
>
>
> State systems don’t recognize merit, they go mainly on job  
> descriptions and are supposed to align job responsibilities with  
> salary levels. If your job description says you are a mechanic that  
> works on pianos, they will equate your position and salary to the  
> state car-pool mechanic. If your job description says you direct  
> and manage budgets and inventories, advise and consult with  
> faculty, supervise student help, prepare instruments for visiting  
> artists, etc, etc, they’ll be comparing you to supervisory or  
> managerial positions.
Unfortunately, the latter is where we are, except only one person in  
this building can direct and manage budgets, and that ain't me.

> In the past you’ve said that you are the only piano technician in  
> the state system…you’ve got to convince them to look at other state  
> institutions for comparisons. That’s what they did here for me. In  
> the end, they had to create a new position in which to put me  
> because I didn’t fit anywhere else.

The state would have to create a completely new employee  
classification -- literally an act of congress.  Not just a new  
position.  There is nothing else there we fit in.  The previous dean  
attempted to get it unclassified (which I didn't particularly want)  
and that failed.  But an endorsement from PTG isn't going to  
accomplish it either.

> In a state system nobody is going to give you anything unless you  
> push for it. It’s completely up to you. You have to keep pushing  
> until you find that brick wall…if you’ve a proven track record and  
> good comparisons for salary equity adjustments, you will have some  
> leverage to move the brick wall as well.
>
>
Exactly what I'm saying.  And I think an endorsement will only serve  
to confirm one technician's certain skill set to other PTG members.   
I don't expect it to mean as much to someone outside the PTG as you  
are hoping it will.
Jeff


Jeff Tanner, RPT
University of South Carolina



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20071113/0b606448/attachment-0001.html