So down the rabbit hole it stays...at least this this particular discussion today, while you and I tackle the week's work challenges and, for my part, the chapter meeting tonight as my chapter's delegate. Thank you for staying with me for a good round....and I recommend that everyone on the CAUT list read the bylaws committee's and board's text on the CAUT Endorsement proposal in their (hopefully already arrived) Journal supplement. It should provide the basis for solid discussion on the PTG-L list and....even here....at least for this time before council.....as Dennis Johnson has so eloquently written. Regards, Bill Shull In a message dated 5/10/2010 6:12:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, csolliday at rcn.com writes: If the Board desired, and it doesn't, to kill a CAUT endorsement, it would only have to let you keep speaking in this manner to accomplish it. I will not argue with this jumbala of twisted logic and obfuscation of the facts. Or perhaps we were at different meetings together. I suggest that Bill and anyone else just reread my prior post. I will be happy to answer any reasonable advancement of the issues, but sorry, this one is just too far down the rabbit hole for a point by point response. Chris Solliday ----- Original Message ----- From: _Bdshull at aol.com_ (mailto:Bdshull at aol.com) To: _caut at ptg.org_ (mailto:caut at ptg.org) Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Preaching to the choir;was University of Idaho Piano Tech Vacancy Chris, I'll answer interspersed: In a message dated 5/9/2010 9:11:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, _csolliday at rcn.com_ (mailto:csolliday at rcn.com) writes: I have to agree with Bill that we could be doing more to promote RPTs to institutions. The CAUT Committee's focus on a CAUT Endorsement, with the 2008-9 board's strong encouragement and official support, was a first step in what still could be an effective marketing approach. Of course CAUTCOM could present a plan and ask for a budget at anytime. Who's at fault for not doing this adequately to date is another chicken and egg debate. Better yet, let's bring a competent marketing consultant on board and develop a comprehensive marketing strategy that we actually implement. The board has resisted this, and has also eliminated the CAUT Committee budget, with a new budget-as-needed approach. Competing with other committees and projects for the same money pot has its advantages and disadvantages, but the focus for the CAUT Committee has been on the CAUT Endorsement - in other words, developing a strong, marketable RPT for universities and colleges. And the board needs to go outside of itself and any marketing committee to bring in expert marketing consultation, as you and I have both advocated for years. In the meantime, it is in the interest of the PTG and any future marketing strategy to have a sound product. (A key theme of the early 1990s marketing strategy, the best period of marketing in PTG history.) I do suggest that Bill and cautcom seriously consider the issues that have led to the "withdrawal of support (a sloppy mischaracterization in that the Board is supportive of a CAUT endorsement, it is CAUTCOM that has made its proposal remote in its flexibility and lack of responsiveness), This is your personal opinion, even as you've voted in support of the CAUT Endorsement. The proposal came out of extensive board participation and received official board support last year, along with bylaws committee support through an amendment at council. Enormous board and bylaws time went into this, and Council asked to see it again this year. Any proposal is a compromise, and clearly there are elements which you don't like, but which you voted for and sometimes enthusiastically argued for in open board meetings. I'd love to see your votes reflected by your advocacy for this proposal. the bylaws committee's active opposition (oddly enough the same committee that worked long and hard to help after cautcom's proposal's late arrival last year and help with editing this year's, a frustrating experience) Yes, the bylaws committee co-chair has acknowledged that new bylaws committee members didn't understand the proposal and opposed it, but all too late for any extensive dialogue with the CAUT Committee; it also began to be clear that the new PTG leadership was not going to actively support the proposal, and indeed, it DID oppose it formally (but without any such sstatement to the CAUT Committee of its changed position before the bylaws deadline); the CAUT Committee is in the difficult position of honoring Council's request to present a proposal which addresses the concerns of Council, while having had the active support of the board disappear as the result of a change of leadership and committee membership. and a general lack of interest among CAUTs (you don't say mean to say that even your own group is not supportive of this particular proposal?)." "Your own group" is yours too, and yes, CAUT techs are as busy as anyone in the trade, and not always interested in the "politics" of the PTG. Perhaps add to that a negative reaction from most RPTs in being asked to support a proposal that gives ubertechnician status to RPT plus-ers that acquire the added credential. So it's better to add a credential that does not require RPT knowledge and skills, instead of continuing to promote the RPT? Non-RPTs who are qualified will have no trouble passing the RPT tests. Why dilute the RPT message? I still don't get it. YES, we should expect the CAUT to have broader knowledge and skills than the RPT, who has a great set of skills for field tuning and repair. As I understand it, the current bylaws committee agrees with the position you've just stated, and from what I glean from correspondence and their published comments, this is the compelling reason that bylaws opposes the proposal. This has absolutely nothing to do with bylaws and everything to do with politics, specifically the need to maintain the old order and keep a level playing field in the PTG. This risks returning to the defective principle of the old PTG in which objective skills is trumped by the good-ol' boy system.....When you have a specialization such as CAUT which is enhanced by a specialized knowledge and skills, there's every reason to develop an endorsement (certification) which tests for this. By NOT doing this, we dilute the RPT and promote non-objective standards in the specialized CAUT market. I've written a lengthy piece for the PTG-L list advocating for using the RPT brand for all comprehensive piano service areas - even rebuilding. The argument for this is to maintain the common shared professional community, while retaining a single marketable logo and profession - the RPT. It acknowledges that until now the PTG is an organization for field service technicians, with all others - whether RPT CAUTs or Associate Member rebuilders, etc., - are outsider. This is our community, and it's best we can reflect on this, acknowledge it, and discuss whether we want to keep it that way, or find a new path that keeps the best of the past, while embracing the diversity of modern piano service trades. Did I leave anyone out? The rest of the world? So everyone is against CAUTCOM and there is nothing wrong with the CAUT proposal in its current form? What's wrong with this picture Bill? Physician heal thyself. I was encouraged by CAUT delegate participation in council last year. It was a quality contribution. It's been very quiet until now here on the CAUT list on the subject. The CAUT Committee hasn't had a good handle on how to respond to the board/bylaws committee withdrawal of support. I think we're all incredibly busy - life's priorities rear their ugly head (celebrating Mother's Day, for example), and I also think it's possible that university techs get their fair share of politics already, on the job.....it's hard work, and not always tasteful....And the PTG-L list would benefit from more CAUTs willing to join it and discuss this issue, too. And I do appreciate the vote of both you and our IPP Dale Probst; the midyear board minutes show that this year's board voted against the CAUT Endorsement with those two exceptions. The board and bylaws votes are an odd response to Council's request to have another serious look at it this year. This, combined with a board RFA at midyear to end all membership proposals - and some support in bylaws committee for that idea - is evidence that PTG leadership is pulling in all sorts of directions. And then a positive effort to improve effective institutional piano maintenance through debate and hard work may beign to make more sense to all concerned. Now is as good as later. Council has a chance to weigh in on a proposal that you voted for two years in a row, and it liked enough to look at again this year (after voting AGAINST a motion to table, which would have effectively killed it). And my RVP, Larry Messerly, who is also the CAUT Committee liaison this year, has asked the CAUT Committee to move forward with a serious presentation at council supporting the CAUT Endorsement. Is this because the board wants to kill it completely in council, or because if council votes in favor of the proposal, the board would be happy to work to support and implement it? Both? The final arbiter is council, and this is an example of where I the board might be looking to council for direction. A proposal is usually DOA if it doesn't receive board and bylaws support, and one could understand the CAUT Committee withdrawing it based on this year's developments. But this hasn't happened because the CAUT Committee at this time wishes to honor council's request to consider it again this year - and also possibly because the board still wants to keep it on the agenda. At this point council will have the final word, and this CAUT list discussion can help move the debate forward, along with the PTG-L list discussion. Best Regards, Bill Bill Shull, RPT, M.Mus. CAUT Committee Member La Sierra University _bdshull at aol.com_ (mailto:bdshull at aol.com) Chris Solliday, PTG sec/treas RPT, CAUT ----- Original Message ----- From: _Bdshull at aol.com_ (mailto:Bdshull at aol.com) To: _caut at ptg.org_ (mailto:caut at ptg.org) Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 8:47 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Preaching to the choir;was University of Idaho Piano Tech Vacancy There was and is no PTG outreach to universities. The extent of the PTG effort to educate is to publish a Guidelines document, both hard copy and online. The ways this document reaches the school administrator is either through a PTG member or on the initiative of the university administrator/faculty member. One mailer has been sent promoting the RPT to the university, back in 2005 or so. There is no PTG budget (and absolutely no CAUT Committee budget) for any outreach to universities. Never has been (with the exception of CAUT programs at the Institute, such as the Chicago event 8 years ago. A great event, but drop in the bucket.....) And the CAUT Endorsement proposal, which would "certify" RPTs for university work, and which would be the first real step towards showing that the PTG was serious about reaching out to schools and colleges, is likely to tank in council this year due to the new board's withdrawal of support, the bylaws committee's active opposition, and a general lack of interest among CAUTs. In the meantime, schools continue to disregard any certification at all in the hiring of technicians; "RPT-equivalent" is defined very broadly to mean "CPT" - which is just about any graduate of any course. I completely disagree with Wim assertion that the PTG has reached out to schools and colleges; this has not happened except for the aforementioned single flyer several years ago. This is the kind of misinformation that PTG members rely on to believe all is well. A sound marketing strategy would include the certification of RPTs for specialized CAUT work, the promotion of RPTs to universities and colleges on a regular basis, the promotion of RPT continuing education to all universities and colleges (support for school funding), and the publication and dissemination of a list of unviersities who use RPTs. And far more, the PTG hasn't has a qualified marketing consultant since 1993, we really know better ourselves..... And if the CAUT Proposal stands any chance at all of passing, CAUT members will need to pressure the current board and bylaws committee to reverse their reversal and support the proposal which last year's board worked with the CAUT Committee to present to council. And it would be helpful for CAUT list members to join the PTG-L list and argue the merits of the proposal there, where delegates are more likely to get involved in the discussion. It's amazing to me that we in the PTG are SO individualist and anti-union that we can't see the merits of Jeff's arguments. It doesn't require a union organization to develop a sound CAUT Endorsement, consistently promote the RPT to schools and colleges, publish a list of schools which show professionalism in their hiring of RPTs (including compliance with a minimum staffing and pay standard). At present all we have is a list-serve. It's a great list-serve, but until CAUT PTG members are willing to spare an extra dues dedicated to meeting specific CAUT education, marketing and advertising needs, I guess we should stick to telling Jeff to go back where he came from. Regards, Bill Bill Shull, RPT, M.Mus. CAUT Committee Member La Sierra University In a message dated 5/8/2010 2:27:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, davidlovepianos at comcast.net writes: And what should the PTG do? Strong arm universities into raising the pay scale? It's simple supply and demand. There are always enough techs interested in the university positions (for various reasons) that the universities, being generally budget conscious, can find someone to fill the slot. The PTG has no control over the hiring practices of various institutions and it's not their role nor is it within their power under any conceivable circumstances that I can think of. People who ask what the PTG will do for them and don't join because it's not working to guarantee them a certain wage miss the point, in my view. How can the PTG possibly deliver on financial reward for certification? They don't set pay policy nor can they. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tanner Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 12:14 PM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: [CAUT] Preaching to the choir; was University of Idaho Piano Tech Vacancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Milesi, RPT" <paul at pmpiano.com> > I agree with Ron here. Advancing or promoting the craft is not promoting, > working for, or ensuring particular wages or benefits for our membership. > That is the province of a union, which PTG definitely is not. If we are increasing the skillsets of technicians without promoting that the financial value of those skills is worth more, we leave our members as lambs sent to slaughter when it comes time to negotiate with an employer. As an organization, we have to acknowledge that these skills are used primarily for the purpose of earning a living. If we are advancing skills without also advocating for advancing the financial value of them, then we do a disservice to our membership. The only service we are then providing is to the employers (customers) of our members. If PTG is to be in the business of certifying members, shouldn't there be a financial reward as comes along with similar certifications in other skilled trades? I don't mean setting up a pay scale. I mean things like publishing occasional results of earnings surveys and other data and resources that would be supportive of members who are out trying to negotiate for a paycheck that doesn't qualify them for Medicaid. If they don't hear from us, all they have to go on is the Occupational Outlook Handbook, which doesn't make us look very well compensated. Self-employed technicians find out what the market for their skills is. It isn't difficult to do, and you don't have to ask any member what they charge in order to find out. If you're high, you'll figure it out. If you're low, you'll figure that out too. Customers call around, and they'll tell you exactly what the range is without you asking. But with employees, the situation is very different. About two per state is the average in the southeast. That kind of information is really very difficult to find out unless you're one of few who has kind of kept up with the subject over the years. I agree David, this is the market at work. But its really more like the slave market and our own people are selling us into it. Wouldn't you think our professional organization that we pay dues to would advocate FOR us rather than more on the behalf of our employers? I mean, here is this job posted with an advertised salary that qualifies for Medicaid and the only position our organization can take is, "if you advance your skills, one day you, too can move up to a good CAUT job like this." Yes, PTG provides very good opportunities for educational advancement of its membership. But it has no monopoly on training, and we still have a long way to go to establish the credibility of the RPT certification. Is that all it exists for? If it is not part of PTG's existence to advocate for the financial well-being on behalf of the membership it certifies, then, where is my incentive to be a member? Overwhelmingly, the number one reason I've heard for rejection of PTG membership by technicians is this: "What is the PTG going to do for me? Everything I hear is the value I bring to PTG. I can pay the non-member price if I want to go to a convention once in a while and get the same educational benefit. But what does being a member do for me?" Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100510/28e7c040/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC