Hi Bill, Thank you for your patient replies. I will also try to respond interspersed. I might change the order of your responses. My email program won't let me intersperse into the comments to reflect quotations as you did, so I'll have to cut and paste and do the best I can to indicate where I'm quoting your responses. Bear with me, but I think I make some decent points here. Bill wrote: The CAUT Endorsement wasn't an approach to salary improvement. That it should have a benefit down the line may be the case, especially if technicians show a willingness to walk away from those low-paying jobs. The marketplace drives the pay.....the private market may have far greater potential, but for some techs it offers greater risk. Jeff responds: But see, that is where the problem lies in the first place. Money. You're exactly right. The marketplace drives the pay... That's exactly the point! The higher skilled technicians are out there. But they're making six figure incomes! And with all due respect to Eric and the position at CCM, I just don't see how any technician who's got game can get excited about the opportunity to work his tail off for what is going to amount to about a hundred bucks and some change a day in take home pay, when his cost of living is going to be nearly twice that. UNLESS, he's got some health condition that won't allow him to purchase health insurance on his own at a reasonable cost, so, here, let's punish him some more and run up his debts just trying to pay the light bill every month. And that goes back to the idea of technicians taking CAUT jobs not because of their skills, but because of extortion. Look, last Friday, I started work around 10:30 am. I had three Wurlitzers on the schedule for the day. A US-made studio that is regularly serviced, a Samick made grand that is regularly serviced, and a 40 year old spinet that needed a half-step plus pitch raise, a good cleaning and some light repair. I was sort of dreading it, but it wound up being a pretty light and easy day - especially compared to CAUT work. I was done by 4:30 and took my 3 checks totalling $463.00 and got them deposited before the bank closed. All my customers were extremely happy that their bills were as low as they were!!!!!!!!! Especially the owner of the spinet, which she'd gotten for free from a friend because it had been so neglected, and it surprised me and turned out to be a very nice little piano for her - an adult beginner. Of course, that's not a typical day. Normally, we're looking at closer to 5 tunings for that kind of money. But that happens pretty frequently, too. $1800-$2000 a week can be done with an easier schedule than any 40 hour week of CAUT work ever was. And that's with not having increased my rates in 3 years. Add in profit from sales of stuff during the year, and it can be pretty easy to gross six-figures. Am I doing that well now? No, not in this economy, but it's partially because we've gotten only about 15% of the business another technician was supposedly selling us. But we're doing much better than we were before, without the time restrictions required by the school. There is a great deal of ignorance among music faculty and administrators who seem to be under the impression that all of us hobbiests should be capable of higher level skills and should be falling at their feet to thank them for a whopping $40K a year salary to get to get to pursue our dream hobby all year long. Then, we hear complaints that there are so few technicians applying for these positions, and that among the applicants are not individuals with the skills they are looking for. Hello? Did you see the salary range offered in the job description? Do you think well-skilled techs wouldn't be interested in settling down at a nice university job? Of course they would! But when they see the pitiful salary ranges being advertised, it isn't even worth their time to write a cover letter for, much less learn how to write a resume. So, the cycle of ignorance continues. This is where the CAUT endorsement takes a backward approach. That all-Wurlitzer day I described? Anybody could have done that days work after just reading Reblitz and the SAT III owner's manual, with some practice of course. The most challenging part of the day was that one of the leg studs of the spinet had mangled threads and wouldn't screw back in. I didn't even learn how to file the threads so they would work from Reblitz. I somehow figured out how to do that myself - right there on the spot, without the help of the PTG or Reblitz. Imagine that! So, let's invest thousands of dollars to test our skills to a level that will pay us about half as much. Seriously? No. Of course not! Fix the money problem first by educating the market. Basic skills are worth more than twice what high level concert, rebuilding and inventory management skills are worth. When the money problem is fixed, you'll have every school and technician clamoring for instruction for higher skills. But until there exists a market for those skills, there is no need for a credential. Bill writes: But the point of the CAUT-E is raising the bar for college and university service by defining what that service is and providing a certification for those who have shown a commitment to it, and have gained some basic specialized knowledge. Jeff responds: CAUT-E is not raising any bar for university piano service. I'm sorry, but I don't see it. If piano tech search committees felt they needed the help of the PTG, they'd have asked for it a long time ago. (yes, I do remember the ONE search committee that did) But they are under the impression they know how to evaluate the resumes and skills of a piano technician right by themselves, thank you very much and that anything recommended by the PTG is self-serving. The skilled techs are out there. They're just not interested in living in a pop-up camper at the nearby RV park in order to be able to afford to live on the money they could make at a university job. Or, they're not interested in weaving another 20-30 hours a week of moonlighting in between the 40 hours at the university to make up the difference. If we want to raise the bar, we first have to do some massive marketing to put a bug in the ear of faculties getting them to first think about whether they are getting what they need in their piano maintenance program, and does their tech have the chops for what they really need? Several years ago I talked to too many department heads about their situations, and to the letter, each was under the uninformed impression that their one tech per 120 pianos was doing just fine. Problem is, administrators change often and they don't see the accelerated deterioration of the inventory that comes about from understaffing and underbudgeting the maintenance. Then, one day you wake up and it looks like the piano technician hasn't been doing his job. And, even if they do realize the shortfall, we live in such a disposable world today, that they simply choose to accept it as normal. When they wear out, just buy some more. They can also easily just write it off and say, "that's the next guy's problem." So, you've GOT to hit the faculty, who aren't as likely to get off the carousel every time it stops. Next problem? They work for peanuts, too. But where you get them is to educate them on exactly what I pointed out earlier. Piano techs can make $463 in a little more than a half a day to work on Wurlitzer spinets. What are you offering that is so special that they'll want to invest in a higher skill set and work for you? Eric, what did all those new Steinways cost at CCM? And what will it cost to replace them prematurely? And what would it have cost to hire enough technicians at truly comparable salaries to make them last longer? Bill writes: The issue of adequate pay and standards of university piano service need to be addressed, but they won't be addressed successfully by killing the CAUT-E proposal. Jeff responds: Sure it will. The CAUT-E that is on the table is not the right approach. For the technicians who acquire what is being proposed, the immediate result will be the devaluation of the skills endorsed. Address the money problem and you'll create the need for an endorsement. Without addressing the money problem first, I really could care less what kind of competence level universities get for cheap. I hope they get tooners who have no idea what a capstan wrench looks like if you want to know the truth. But I take serious offense to someone trying to buy the more advanced skills I have spent years developing for cheap. Historical Instruments Bill writes (I've cut out my statements you were responding to): Except for the fact that many institutions DO have these instruments. And what you describe is the case in most schools - the work still won't get done - and the training won't make the CAUT-E a high level early piano specialist. Having just a basic knowledge in this field to bring to the table gives the CAUT tech a more complete background even in the frequent circumstance you've describe. I'll continue on this subject with you:... No such association (harpsichord technicians guild) exists here in the US, as far as I know, although there are lists to participate in. Jeff responds: Yes, I know. There isn't a huge demand for it. This, unlike professional piano service, actually is more like a hobby. Novelty niche at best. Bill continues: Since harpsichords are, theoretically at least, "user-service" instruments there's nothing that should keep us from possessing at least the basic skills and knowledge and passing it along..... Jeff responds: Um, rocket science it ain't. Bill again: Many schools simply ignore their harpsichord until a student wants to use it in a recital (often once a year or less at my contract school), and their piano majors are not expected to learn to tune the harpsichord. If the CAUT tech has the basic knowledge he can begin to change this. Without this, he/she is part of the problem.... Jeff's reply: ...or, they have 7 or 8 harpsichords, a couple fortepianos, a celeste, a 19th century antique and 125 modern pianos that average 60 years old. Not having skills for them is not the problem. Creating the expectation that they SHOULD is the problem. Your example is no different from a church that buys a harpsichord so they don't have to use the Clavinova when they do the Messiah every 5 years. This really is a very weak argument for inclusion in every CAUT's toolbelt to earn a PTG endorsement. Any RPT should be able to tune the thing. If it needs repair or special maintenance beyond tuning, call in a harpsichord specialist. Maybe the piano tech is the same guy. But pay him a higher rate when he's working on harpsichords than for when he's working on pianos because it is a special advanced skill he has that no one else does. Bill continues: Many CAUTs train students to perform various duties, and some also teach harpsichord and historic piano maintenance. Jeff's response: Yes, that's where I learned it. Nice tool in my box for if and when I need it, but that ain't the point. Bill again: The piano technician should be in a position to confidently suggest to the administration that this is needed.... Jeff's reply: BIG mistake. The "why" is below. Bill's last statement: Jeff, I realize your opposition to including historical instruments in the CAUT Endorsement isn't yours alone. I know that Chris shares this concern. And you make some strong arguments. But I think something needs to be there. ok, Jeff's got to quickly interject: Bill, with all due respect, that is because the historical side of the business is of particular interest to you and is where you have concentrated your market niche. Naturally, it will be important to you. It is a big part of the business you do. But across the country, it ain't so much that way. All that needs to be there is covered below. Bill concludes - really, this time: Whether or not there should be equal weight given 25% - that will probably have to be hashed out. Jeff responds: Bill, all these are perfect examples of why I have suggested that each technician should pursue customized training tailored for his/her own CAUT situation (exactly along the lines of what Ed Sutton is describing) rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach. I am not debating that what you present here isn't reality. What I'm trying to say is that we absolutely must draw a line in the sand with regard to workload, and what is reasonable to expect from one technician. We've got to say, "Yes, your piano technician needs to have a certain set of piano service skills, but there is no superman who can be expected to handle more than X amount of workload. If you want to include historical instrument maintenance in your job description, then yes, we offer training opportunities for that craft that he/she can benefit from. But we cannot and will not endorse or encourage a workload level that is beyond what can reasonably be handled by one technician." But by creating this uber technician status, we're sending a mixed message with regards to what to expect from one individual. That results in increasing the problem that needs to be fixed. Look, harpsichords aren't even covered in the workload formula in the guidelines. If harpsichords are being used, they can pull the same workload as a performance piano. I remember during my student days at UGA, I spent a LOT of time on harpsichords. If we say, yeah, one tech can handle 86 pianos at your situation, and then say, oh, yeah, and he should be able to work in your 7 harpsichords and 2 fortepianos, the celeste, and if he wants to pursue some training in organ maintenance, then, well, we don't teach that but yes, sure, he can probably handle your 3 organs as well. Couple of squares in the lobby? A Mathushek and a Chickering? Those sound nice! He'll enjoy those, no problem. Oh, the 1856 Erard needs a new soundboard and rebuilt to a good enough condition to be able to use it in concert at any faculty member's whim? Sure! Our PTG CAUT Guidelines don't really apply to our CAUT endorsed super technicians. Pile the workload on him. He can handle it. And of course, he'll do all this while keeping all those performance, instruction and practice pianos of various ages in peak condition. And he'll do all that while everyone else is gone so as not to interrupt any of your important schedules and, by the way, do you mind if he moonlights 25 hours a week so he can afford to make his house payments? It's a really mixed-message. And it involves more than just historical instruments. I just used historical instruments to illustrate my point. The whole proposal is too big. Until we accept the reality that a CAUT endorsement isn't going to increase the salaries of CAUTs, and until you increase the salaries of CAUTs, very few highly skilled technicians are going to be interested in pursuing CAUT work anyway, a CAUT endorsement is not going to make any sense to very many people. That last statement didn't come out like I wanted it to, but maybe it makes sense. Ladies, forgive me for the mostly male-oriented language. I don't mean it that way. You ladies are guys, too ;-) Best regards, Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100515/7a9a7c1d/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC