[CAUT] Position Announcement, SIU, Carbondale, IL

[Jeff Tanner]

Ric B wrote:
> Heaven Help Us.  Essentially the above words claim that workers have no 
> rights anymore... and any attempt by workers to band together to look 
> after their common interests is a federal crime.

What I essentially meant was that it seems to me to be in the best interest 
of our profession as a whole, and thus the Guild, to somehow find a legal 
way to encourage members, and nonmembers alike (because their market value 
also affects that of members), that when they are seeking out a full time 
college position, to bear in mind that the salary they accept will affect 
the salaries of all other CAUTs, at least in their geographical region, and 
to be able to provide some tools to assist in that process.  To bear in mind 
that just because they are single and nearing retirement, and have 
everything paid for and have no debt that that may well not be the case for 
a young talented technician who may be trying to start a family, and that 
his worth will be decided by the concessions of the tech who simply has a 
lower cost of living and is at a different place in life.

That is not market econ for the value of the skill, folks.  That is 
demographics econ.  Has nothing to do with the value of our skill.  It isn't 
much different from the Wal Mart greeter.  Doesn't it seem legal for us to 
simple encourage one another to negotiate based on the value that our skill 
would bring elsewhere, rather than by our age, health, marriage and family 
status?  Otherwise, it is no surprise that human resources departments will 
determine that that is what our skill is worth.

It seems legal that we should be able to encourage others to take into 
account the value of the skill they possess and how that pertains to others. 
The Guild publishes a brochure designed to peak interest in our craft, and 
it is available for download off of the PTG web site.  Historically, the 
lucrative nature of this occupation has always been one of its most enticing 
characteristics (my former dean indicated that the lucrative nature of the 
market for our skill is THE reason he intends to pursue our craft after he 
retires).  That brochure (now at least 4 years old?) indicates that 
established technicians can average between $35K and $75K (I am quite 
curious where those figures were derived), and that that income can be 
further supplemented with sales of accessories or retail piano sales, etc.

It seems somehow that we should be able to suggest to those among us 
pursuing university employment that a reasonable method of negotiating 
salary should be to take the number of pianos one can reasonably service in 
the private sector in an 8 hour day, multiply that by an average fee in the 
local market, and by how many one can reasonably schedule in the same number 
of workdays or hours that one would be required to be present at the 
university job per year (and not discount what one would charge for the 
unusual hours often required of FTEs if he or she were self-employed), 
account for the value of the benefits that the employer will contribute, as 
well as the amount the employee will be required to contribute and you 
should be able to come to a reasonable figure.  (I figure 20 piano 
equivalents a week at 44 weeks a year to account for leave and holidays, 
then subtract benefits)  It does not matter whether we are actually 
performing 880 tuning equivalents a year.  What matters is that we have that 
capability and that that is the value of the time we are yielding by 
committing that same amount of time to the employer. It also seems that we 
should be able to look at the current offerings and see just how far short 
of that figure these salaries have been falling.

Folks, the value of benefits is not forty to fifty thousand dollars a year 
and a complete willingness to have someone else dictate your life schedule. 
There should also be a value we place when the odd hours of university work 
prevent us from pursuing other interests and make it difficult for us to 
commit to other things we could otherwise commit to enjoying.  For example: 
if they require you to frequently come in to do one tuning on a Sunday 
morning, that could be preventing you from committing to being a Sunday 
School teacher or church choir director or even choir member or other 
musician -- there is a value there, and the reality is, when you do the 
math, you may see that you are doing that tuning for free, AND it keeps you 
from committing to something else that may be very important to you.

As we contemplate the necessity for a CAUT endorsement, it seems to me in 
the best interest of the PTG and the CAUT committee that there be an 
economic reward for an individual to pursue such an endeavor.  It will not 
be an easy pursuit and it will not be something that will be able to be 
accomplished in a short period of time.  The truth is that colleges already 
expect such a level of knowledge and skill from the technicians it hires and 
we have seen very clearly the value colleges that have been recently posting 
vacancies assign to what is supposedly the cream of our crop.  (Although 
there is currently no mechanism in place for establishing what we consider 
to be "cream of our crop", that is what the college search committees are 
looking for and these are the salaries they apparently believe should be 
sufficient for compensating the "ideal candidate".)

> Perhaps I misread the above... but it sounded to me like the author was 
> quite willing to accept bending big time over in order to have the 
> privilege to smile through the entire proverbial shaft.

No.  The author who wrote that is not an employee.  He is a very well 
respected and well established self-employed technician, which explains his 
perspective on the matter.  As a self-employed business, he is absolutely 
correct.  But it seems to me that his answer in this case reflects exactly 
what the laws were designed to prohibit -- that businesses or college 
entities are actually engaging in what would seem to me to be an illegal act 
of collusion, price-fixing, whatever you call it, by communicating with one 
another to set salaries for employees.  Isn't that exactly the argument he 
is claiming is illegal, just on the other side of the employer-employee 
relationship?

Ed's point about CEOs is quite easy to rebut.  Don't for one second think 
that the CEO at Ford doesn't know exactly what the compensation package for 
the CEO at GM is, and don't think it isn't brought up when it is time to 
negotiate his compensation.  That is exactly what I am suggesting that the 
PTG should be able to assist with.  We need to be able to have some sort of 
database for those among us to research when negotiating salaries.  I 
realize that FTE CAUTs represent a pretty small percentage of PTG 
membership.  But in many ways, they may also hold some of the most visible 
and prestigious positions in our field.

There is no reason why we can't provide a database where if someone is 
looking into a job, they can take tools with them to the negotiating table, 
and advice on how to use those tools to negotiate for higher salaries.

Tanner