[CAUT] Reasonable job descriptions

[David Ilvedson]

What I don't understand is why they hire you back with the better pay?    

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Tanner" <tannertuner at bellsouth.net>
To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
Received: 9/10/2008 6:05:48 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Reasonable job descriptions


>[CAUT] Reasonable job descriptionsJim Busby wrote:

>  Jon,

>   

>  With no true "credentials" that are universally recognized by administrators, and 
>when there are ten mediocre techs  eager to accept CAUT positions at lower 
>salaries, how are we supposed to "stand up" to upgrade the field? I'm not trying to 
>be a jerk, and I'm not offended by your rather blunt statements below, because 
>you're absolutely correct; we "deserve what we are metered out". But if we all did 
>what Jeff did, would that force the issue with the institutions? Not necessarily! 
>Precisely because of what you wrote below; "The attitude of the administration.Dime 
>a Dozen" 

>   

>I certainly don't want anyone to think I've ever implied we should all resign.  It 
>certainly made a point here at USC, in that as long as I happily did my job and 
>worked hard to impress the boss, no progress was ever going to be made.  They 
>didn't think I was serious until I quit.  And after I left, they reclassified the position 
>to a higher salary, the new guy got the raise I'd been asking for for 9 1/2 years, 
>more help, more money and a shorter responsibility list.  They had Steinway come in 
>and evaluate the situation and found out they needed 2.5 techs. (Steinway carried 
>more clout with the evaluation than did the PTG, because the PTG guidelines 
>unfortunately have the ability to appear self-serving.)  They also paid a bunch of 
>money for Steinway to come in this summer with a team of techs from across the 
>country and replace something like 10 or 12 sets hammers that didn't need it, but 
>that's another discussion.

>I think the reason it worked here, though, and I really can't stand to blow my own 
>horn, but the faculty did notice the quality of my work.  We had guest artists from 
>across the country raving about our pianos.  And once the faculty saw the 
>difference, the "dime a dozen" attitude changed.  But they either couldn't or 
>wouldn't make the changes for me.  One problem was that the existing HR system is 
>not set up to allow classified employees to get real raises like employees in the 
>private sector.  The only way to make big changes is to eliminate the position and 
>recreate it.  The other problem is that the music faculty don't make much either.  
>Although, that really has nothing to do with the market for a piano technician, they 
>think their degrees are worth more than our craftsmanship.  (I found the book 
>review in this month's journal to hit some points right on the head.)

>But what I learned from the process is that there are really two ways to improving 
>salary, and neither one of them involves someone else noticing how great your work 
>is and generously offering to increase your salary.  That approach didn't work at all.  
>You can request a reclassification, which may and may not be successful.  Or you 
>have to have some leverage.  This is how faculty get salary adjustments.  The boss 
>needs to believe you are about to take a job somewhere else, or about to otherwise 
>leave.  And at the same time, he needs to be well aware of your value as an 
>employee and what it would be worth to not have to go through a search and hire 
>someone else, who may or may not perform as well as you do.  That's sort of the 
>way I approached it. In my case, they sort of called my bluff (by continuing to 
>refuse to acknowledge the job was too big and the salary was too small) and I had 
>to have somewhere to go.  That's why I started the retail store 2 years before I 
>resigned.  I wasn't bluffing, and they got the message and made some pretty 
>sweeping changes.

>I picked a really crappy time to go into retail, but I think we're going to make it.

>Now, what is the solution? The options seem to be the following;
>  1.       Maintain the "status quo"

>  2.       Boycott, quit en masse, or otherwise show solidarity and force the issue

>  3.       Gradually upgrade each situation individually, one at a time

>  4.       Establish a CAUT credential as Eric, Fred and the CAUT committee is  trying 
>to do.

>  5.       (A combination of the above #3 and #4)

>   

>  My choice is #5; to push for a credential while trying to upgrade my own situation. 
>I have been offered twice the money in the private sector, but that would mean I'd 
>have to abandon the only place where I may be able to have some influence on the 
>situation. It would be comparable to someone angrily quitting the union instead of 
>staying in and trying to change it from within.

>   

>#2 wouldn't work.  And if anyone has ever gotten the impression that was what I 
>meant by "banding together", then, I apologize.  That's not at all what I meant.  
>There's no way to get that kind of commitment without the reinforcement of a union. 
> (and a convenient "aside" here is that no union member can work as a state 
>employee in SC, and we're probably not the only state with that rule)

>I think there is a modified #3 that the PTG can help with, and that is to gather 
>information from around the country that could be made available for members.  
>Information would include not only current salary ranges of as many institutions in 
>the country as we can gather, but the differences in benefits packages as well 
>(identify states/schools which have higher and lower employee contributions, which 
>type of retirement plans, or tuition perks, for example).  The fastest way to gather 
>the information would be to have all FTE techs respond to a standardized 
>questionaire (that's a heck of a lot faster than a couple of us getting online and 
>digging through HR web sites).  Other highly pertinent information would be average 
>gross earnings of private sector techs, some formula for calculating a potential 
>earnings like I've suggested, and other tools that would benefit the employee.  The 
>employer has all the tools it needs to rebutt any request.  The employee is the one 
>who needs the information.

>I appreciate the idea of the CAUT credential, but I'm concerned that after all the 
>work goes into it, it won't be worth the paper its printed on +++except to us+++ 
>because of the potential for it to be considered a self-serving credential (really, a 
>sad irony, because many of the attitudes in our group show more concern for the 
>welfare of the institution than the technician).  Somehow, it needs to attain some 
>element of non-bias.  There are only a handful of us, and I can envision real 
>difficulty in staffing the process.  It will be a massive project that could realistically 
>take 5 to 10 years for a technician to complete if he/she can't afford to go to every 
>national and regional convention every year.  When that's all done, there needs to 
>be an accompanying financial reward for the effort, or technicians will probably be 
>reluctant to pursue it.  Currently, I am unaware of any kind of credential that 
>doesn't come from an accredited institution or government agency that is recognized 
>by any Human Resources department, and the PTG is neither.  And until that 
>infrastructure is in place to recognize and reward the achievement, I'm skeptical it 
>will be any help at all.  

>In other words, with or without a credential, the technician will still be faced with #3.

>Now, the pursuit of the credential may result in improving the skill levels of some 
>technicians.  There is no criticism from me of that effort whatsoever.  But, if higher 
>competency levels are what we're after, rather than placing that burden on the 
>small CAUT group, why don't we get the entire PTG behind an effort to create more 
>classifications -- Registered Concert Technician, Registered Rebuilder, or whatever, 
>and have the CAUT credential be able to be a part of a modular type of credential 
>system?  Then the CAUT credential could really just focus on the few things that 
>does make the job different.  Otherwise, the CAUT group is going to find itself 
>burned out.

>But it shouldn't take such a credential for a piano technician with solid basic skills to 
>be better compensated than a starting truck driver with a GED. (I know for a fact 
>that log truck drivers in South Georgia can make as much money as some of our 
>CAUT colleagues are paid, and they spend the majority of their day sitting in line 
>waiting to be loaded or unloaded)  We really should be able to produce evidence 
>that the market for our skill -- even at basic levels -- is higher than what universities 
>are paying.  Right now, what Human Resources departments are using to establish 
>salaries, is what other Human Resources departments are paying for the same job.  
>There is just a void of available information.  And I'm not picking on you Jim, you 
>know that.  I respect you very highly.  Please allow me to use your example to make 
>a point.  But your "posting privately" response is characteristic of why it is so hard to 
>cultivate that information. We've seen similar reluctance from other prominent 
>members of our organization.  We're a private group.  For some reason, we don't 
>like anyone else to know how well -- or poorly -- we're doing.  I think we're going to 
>have to be more willing to share some things if we're going to be able to help each 
>other out.

>This is more or less what I mean by "banding together" -- sharing information to help 
>others improve their situations.  Sharing successes like the one here at USC and 
>Dennis Johnson's.  When someone hears of successes at other institutions it might 
>just help them build the confidence to start the process at their place of 
>employment.


>Now, I really respect Jeff and don't mean to say ill of him quitting, because he 
>needed to quit for many reasons.

>The biggest of which was that while you say you are paying down your debt, mine 
>was going up, even with the extra $20K moonlighting.  
>  When Andrew Carnegie was asked "How much is the perfect wage? What should 
>be the standard salary for anyone?" He responded, "I know the answer. Here is the 
>salary that everyone should have; A little bit more."

>   

>Well, I don't think in terms of "perfect wage". But I think we can do a better job of 
>gathering and providing evidence that the "market range" for our skills is much 
>different than what colleges are paying.  And with all due respect, it seems to me 
>that that type of project would a more valuable benefit to our membership than 
>devoting our resources to the monstrous task of reorganizing the CAUT archives, or 
>some of the other seemingly trivial projects I've read about in the past few weeks.

>Jeff Tanner