Hey Bill, Really good stuff there. I've got to get out myself this morning, so I'll try to give a brief reply. Contrary to what most might perceive, I've never been against the idea of a CAUT endorsement. I just don't believe it will do anything to ever improve the compensation problem. But this proposal on the table is much, much too big. CAUT com has tried to make up the difference in the CAUT endorsement that we don't have with a rebuilder's and concert tech certificate. But I do not believe a CAUT endorsement alone is going to effect any kind of change or raise any bar. You made one statement in your previous email that nails it down. Low salaries have to be addressed, and it takes technicians having the guts to walk away from low paying jobs to raise the bar for each situation. Until the compensation problem is changed, no certification PTG can offer will have the effect of drawing interest from enough high skilled technicians to make a difference. I am not convinced that the everyday CAUT needs to be the be-all-know-all. I'm more of the opinion that, yes, good solid tuning, voicing and regulation skills are necessary, but until workloads are addressed, all rebuilding should be farmed out to shops that specialize in rebuilding. Of course, there are going to be many who disagree with me, but you're not being honest with yourself if you think you can get it all done. The guy who replaced me here is basically just doing rebuilding and taking care of the concert, piano faculty and piano majors pianos. The job description was changed after I left to only cover a certain number of pianos that are specifically identified. They're having to farm out all the tuning and maintenance of everything else (and it is NOT going to a PTG member). I think that's a backwards approach because the first funding that's going to get cut is the maintenance of everything else that's being contracted out. If you're still understaffed, you're much better off not having funding for a rebuild in tough budget years. So, I am of the opinion that a caut endorsement should only cover somewhat advanced maintenance skills, procurement, inventory management, and the special political environment of music academia. The RPT exam is weighted heavily towards vertical rebuilding and repair, with only one section that deals directly with grand specific maintenance. Years ago, when we put high end verticals in universities, it made sense to spend time with vertical refurbishing skills. But with the cheap pianos of today having decent tone and touch, we can replace them cheaper than spending much maintenance resources other than tuning on them. So, bridge in bulk maintenance of heavily used grands, and require concert prep block certification, available separately through PTG. Rebuilding and historical instrument certifications should also be separate, and only be endorsed for CAUT responsibilities if and when workload is adequately staffed. Have each certificate holder sign an oath statement of commitment of effort towards continuing education. The MAIN reason I am so opposed to this idea of the super technician is the simple reality that we all have different natural talents. Guys, we can't all be experts at everything. There is really a lot of truth to the idea that people who try to be experts at everything tend to be good at nothing. At UGA, Hines Ward was a quarterback, a running back, a wide receiver, and he returned kicks. But in the pros, he's had to focus on just one role, and it has made him one of the best receivers in all of pro football. If he'd tried to focus on the others, he wouldn't be a professional football player today. I believe our Guidelines should be revised to reflect a base of 40 pianos per technician. That is Steinway's base, and we've heard enough comments from respected technicians whose negative experience has backed that up. Any level of workload above 40 per full time tech should be described in a manner as to reflect the level of neglect that the institution can find acceptable, rather than the way we currently word it which enables the pursuit of mediocrity. Every music department's focus is on performance. For us to identify one as less deserving of adequate piano maintenance than another is for us to suggest that a student can't get a good education there. You suggest certification and marketing, but if we've created a guidelines and workload recommendation, then we've got to stand behind that as well. We speak out of two sides of our mouths if on one hand we say this is our recommendation, and then create this expectation of some mythical supertechnician who can supercede our recommendations. I LOVE the idea of a CAUT brochure. Less expensive, simple, short and to the point. I haven't suggested it, but that is exactly what has been running around in the back of my mind during this whole discussion. For more information, visit the caut web site. certification over education Well, I certainly agree. But since we can't recognize other training porgrams then we are implying that we are the only viable source of educating the technicians and then certifying them based on our educational offerings. We MUST be able to certify other training paths without requiring the candidate to take our test. Otherwise we are implying that we actually do NOT recognize the validity of other training programs - that only our educational path can be validated. And in that reality we lose all credibility and any respect. universal availability of good work Yes, this is true. Probably the biggest reason I'm where I am now. I "couldn't" get enough work to do it full time where I was before. Well, maybe I didn't really want to? I really had faith that a CAUT job would have provided sufficient compensation in time. Like my dad who worked his way up and retired having worked with the same company 37 years, I learned that's what you're supposed to do. It's been very disappointing. But what this training path has done for me is validate my skills and I've been forced to learn how to build a business. That's something I didn't really try before. Nobody's phone is ringing right now. But now that the old techs have died where I'm from, that area is WIDE open for a piano tuner with skills. What you said about younger techs with families. This is the segment I've always tried to stand up for. There are a few, but what I've seen is that younger techs with families are a very small minority of CAUTs (and I really don't see how they make ends meet without massive hours of moonlighting). What I've seen more of is older techs who are financially established enough to be able to afford to live on a lower income (and they still moonlight). They've mostly paid for their homes, either single for life, divorced, or if married, empty nesters and are now getting close to retirement mode, can't afford health insurance because of their age, and a supplementary retirement check in few years doesn't look like such a bad idea. Not all, but most. Certainly describes the guy who took my old job, and most of the techs I've chatted with across the country over the last 10 years or so. I am going to suggest that you overestimate the number of full time institutional techs. Your estimate was 200ish. I'd be surprised if the actual number is much more than half that. There are maybe a baker's dozen full timers in all the southeast? FL - 5 or less, GA -2, SC-1, NC-3, TN-3?, MS-0, AL-0, LA-1, ARK-1?, VA-1? Such a few is the biggest reason I'm skeptical that a credential from PTG is going to ever make a difference in earnings. If we were talking about 500 positions, it might have some effect. The CAUT endorsement is a good idea. But we don't need to circumvent the PTG with the CAUT endorsement alone. A block endorsement program is a much better idea because CAUT won't be responsible for the entire program. Wrote more than I meant to, so I gotta get outta here. Best, Jeff From: Bdshull at aol.com <Bdshull at aol.com> Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT Endorsement Requirements Misperception - was Preachingto the ... To: tannertuner at bellsouth.net Date: Sunday, May 16, 2010, 9:47 PM Hi Jeff, It's been a really busy weekend....a writing deadline, weekend recita tunings, manning the store....I sure appreciate your staying with this, I'll do my best. We have many points of agreement, as well as disagreement; I hope you don't mind if I keep my comments to the top. Fundamentally, 1. Certification over Education: The PTG's role as a school (that is, as a provider of comprehensive, organized curriculum, classes and completion certificate) has always been secondary to its role in certification. Certification fits with a trade association, but a school usually doesn't. CE, yes. MAYBE an advanced curriculum, but that remains to be seen. The energy and resources invested in certification is ongoing, and we've identified it in our mission as primary. I support educational and curriculum efforts, but the PTG doesn't have the resources to provide comprehensive education. It CAN build solid curriculum resources which could have flexible use. It should support and encourage the schools, and I'm encouraged by the Chicago initiative. Some way, some how, we must raise the bar in professional service and get the schools to recognize their responsibility to proper service levels and compensation - but as a trade association this is best done by creating and marketing the appropriate certifications. 2. Economics and markets: Every profession has its economic options and choices. Institutional service, whether education or government, usually doesn't command the compensation that free-lance or private work does, but employment is usually thought of as more stable, with less risk. So I think we'll always see larger numbers of younger techs (often with young families) working for universities, where income is stable and health plans reliable. 2 - But there's more....I disagree with you about the universal, easy availability of good work. It is there in some markets, less in others. For some, even the lower-paying college jobs are a god-send. And there are different approaches, resulting in different successes, in the private sector. In my region, if I sat back and only answered the phone, I would probably make half or less of what I make. Because I pre-schedule appointments, my appointment book is much busier. If I worked harder at my client database and didn't deal with colleges or rebuilding, exclusively tuning - I could make my best money. But it wouldn't be nearly as interesting. What is the value of "interesting?" Well, that's part of the problem....we sometimes love our work too much, and give away too much. But right now it's the wild west with schools and colleges, and we're getting ready to back off on the best chance we have for a marketable certification. The PTG's best contribution to more than "interesting" is certification and marketing. So we'll usually not see a school compensate what you and I can make tuning Wurlitzers all day, but I do think the lack of specific CAUT certification - and the accompanying lack of supporting curriculum and marketing - is a major cause of the deplorable situation today, and the first step towards a solution. 3. Contract school work: Here is where most of the school work is, and here is where there is a lot of volatility and possibility for change. 1600 to 1800 piano service jobs or "contracts" exist in the U.S., a few hundred are employee and the remaining - maybe about 1200 - are contract. The contract situations vary greatly and it is likely that schools are at least as abusive of techs and pianos as in the employment situation. Here it is important for the PTG and the technician to work together to educate. And here we vote with our feet. If the program is hopeless, and clearly not going to go anywhere, it is essential that the resignation comes with a clear and public reason for it. And I know there will be some backlash (the best place to learn politics is in education), but it sure beats the alternative. Oh.....the tech in the contract situation is often in more control of compensation. I told my current school that I would no longer work for the deeply discounted prices of the past, that they could pay competitive rates and I would stay on. They have a problem in underfunding their maintenance program by 80% and the major maintenance program by nearly 100% and they can raise the money for new D's and B's in lieu of rebuilding existing ones? I will be happy to continue at respectable rates. So less work gets done than before, but I'm properly compensated. That's what we've had the last 3 years; they also agree in principle to my long range proposal...we'll see where that goes, but in the meantime I'm not working for peanuts.) It would be much easier if these folks knew what they must do because of PTG certification and marketing. 4. The "All-Steinway School" - this is a great thing in the eyes of many; we saw Eric's Cincinnati Conservatory make a huge purchase recently, and he's been quite happy. But there is a terrific downside, especially for smaller schools. The steady marketing from Steinway has persuaded small as well as large schools that they cannot be competitive unless their resources are spent on the purchase of new Steinways. This might have been easier before 2008, but since the crash there is little money, and there are Steinway piano "leases" or "loans" to pay off. There is some lipservice to service standards in the sell, but in my experience, that it all it is. Here's the ONE opportunity to educate on the importance of service and raise endowment funds when it can be seen in the sexiest light, and it doesn't happen. The school raises the money for pianos and a few dollars for an endowment fund, a very small percentage of what is needed, and the damage from the Steinway marketing campaign on donors' attitudes to pianos in education is very difficult to undo (the mantra of Genuine Steinway Parts, Steinway Restoration Center, and maybe the worst of all: that somehow a school is BETTER if it has only ONE brand of piano than if it offers its performance students several contrasting examples of performance instruments). Why this works is that there is no standard for rebuilding which could be relied on for CAUTs: When the PTG has both a CAUT Endorsement and a Rebuilding Certification, along with a long-range marketing plan that begins to affect the expectations of a college administrator (no matter how long or short his/her tenure is), it's members will be able to compete directly in the college marketplace. 5. CAUT Documents: 1. Guidelines: It's true that the 2004 CAUT Guidelines may be in need of revision. It needs to be written with an eye to marketing, it must be accessible and readable. It's hard to believe that it's most recent revision was begun nearly 10 years ago. I joined the CAUT Committee 10 years ago over two concerns: the need for contract school techs to be represented in CAUT, and the need to revise the 1990 Guidelines. Well, Jeff, you've put a finger on it. There is a need for a document - possibly the CAUT Guidelines - to provide simple, understandable direction to schools of all types. The easiest formulas to remember are the most helpful. There's the standard, long-used average recommendation, one full time technician for every 60 pianos. (Performance schools 40, liberal arts 100...) Another one easy to remember is one Chris Solliday pulled out of the guidelines and promoted in the contract CAUT class we co-taught (I asked him, "Where'd you get that?" He said, "The CAUT Guidelines! Didn't you see it? You helped write it" "Is it in the new one too?" "I thought so, I got it from the Guidelines." "Did you verify the numbers?" "No, it was in the CAUT Guidelines, isn't that good enough?" "Well, yes, hundreds of CAUT techs vetted both editions, there was ongoing discussion, extensive review, they'd disagree with something if it didn't sound right...." OK, so I think we should review it with a more thorough study. But the fundamental soundness and simplicity of the idea makes it possibly the single most important item to promote next to the RPT and a CAUT Endorsement: SO what is IT? Chris called it a 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 formula. Based on the replacement value of the inventory, 5-10% should be allocated each year, roughly divided between regular maintenance, major maintenance/rebuilding and replacement. Here is the actual text, it's a little different but pretty close: "An adequate piano maintenance budget will generally be between five and ten percent of the replacement cost of the piano inventory. This includes staff, parts and supplies, and the purchase of new pianos." So my contract school pianos have an inventory replacement value of $1.3 million. They just bought two Ds and a B, so they spent between $200k and $250k on replacement. The LEAST it should be spending on tuning, repair, voicing, and regulation - regular maintenance - is $22,000 (1/3 of 5%). At $6,000 a year the budget is embarrassing, but double what it was 3 years ago. And at $6,000 it is slightly more than 1/4 of the minimum recommendation based on the above formula. So....if we posted on the PTG CAUT website (and kept an ad in a few journals referring to it) what schools are doing with their piano maintenance budget, it would be harder for them to put a pretty face on it. And let me tell you, schools as good at dressing a pig as anyone. An entire brochure - easily understood, articulate, uncluttered - must be written in which these simple ideas are front and center. So.... 2. CAUT Promotional Brochure: A document which clearly spells out what schools should expect to be spending, if the school actually chooses to take responsibility for its piano care. I expect that such a document would have the endorsement of all piano manufacturers interested in institutional sales. In the meantime a CAUT Endorsement makes so much sense. It should directly impact "value" in the minds of the educational administrator. And we should not let them forget it. But if we don't work on BOTH certification - a standard for CAUT skills - as well as the value of those skills - we're not serious about it. I wrote a couple pieces for the PTG-L list which hold that the PTG is a tuner's organization, not a CAUT organization or a rebuilders organization; these folks are peripheral to the PTG. If we wish to raise the bar in the trade, we must recognize, certify, and franchise CAUTs and eventually rebuilders too, opening up the organization to all piano technicians. Until then, the trade has invested 100 years in tuning and repair, and zero years in anything else. The money is in field service (whether low end OR high end, it's field service) and everything else compensates less unless you can name your price....until we begin to do things which will affect the market position of CAUT and rebuilding. I say that there's more than enough substance to the current CAUT Endorsement for a committed PTG board, CAUT Committee, bylaws committee and any CAUT testing body to build on and implement. Certify and market.... Bill In a message dated 5/15/2010 11:51:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tannertuner at bellsouth.net writes: 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/20100517/55552ec0/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC