Jeff and All, You've touched on some things here which I am convinced should be included in our "CAUT Academy" as part of the basic curriculum aimed towards a CAUT endorsement. For those who haven't heard yet, we are planning our first CAUT Academy seminar to be held at the home office in the Spring (probably late March). It seems quite obvious that we should include courses aimed towards employment enhancement topics such as how to figure out what you ought to be worth in salary as an employee and how to successfully apply for jobs and negotiate starting salaries and benefits. There are certainly similar classes taught at business seminars and I could even see hiring a job professional to teach that segment. How many people out there would be interested in attending such a seminar? It would be very instructive to learn just how many technicians out there are contemplating applying for a CAUT job, either for the first time or hoping to move up to a position of greater challenge that could truly be helped by attending a CAUT Academy seminar. If anyone out there is in this position, please contact me privately. We'd really like to hear from you. My perception is that a lot of schools are having trouble finding qualified technicians to apply for positions that don't have attractive salaries. Some positions have gone unfilled for quite a while. Such a scenario should put upward pressure on salaries but as you point out Jeff, as long as somebody eventually takes the low paying jobs (for whatever reason) the institutions have no incentive or need to raise the salaries. Our hope with establishing the CAUT credential is that institutions will recognize the value of hiring a technician who has demonstrated a desire to gain the large pool of knowledge needed to perform CAUT jobs effectively and will pay them accordingly. By including curriculum aimed at improving job negotiating skills, hopefully we can give a CAUT endorsee some more leverage to be able to put some upward pressure on salaries. Institutions should be bidding against each other to get the most qualified and highly trained technicians. As you say Jeff, this will likely be a long, slow process but I am optimistic that we can make a difference. Eric Eric Wolfley, RPT Director of Piano Services College-Conservatory of Music University of Cincinnati -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tanner Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 6:00 PM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: [CAUT] Position Announcement, SIU, Carbondale, IL 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
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC