<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space;-khtml-line-break: after-white-space'> <div class=Section1> <o:p> </o:p> “It is free market economics.  But salaries are what they are because CAUTs are too willing to lowball their worth.  It has nothing to do with qualifications or certifications or the lack thereof, and it has nothing to do with how good a concert technician we are.”<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Jeff,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> This is part of the point of trying to establish a CAUT credential…it’s how we value ourselves as well. Perhaps people will be less likely to accept low salaries if they have made the effort to upgrade their skill level and know what a value they can be to an institution. A CAUT credential should be a bargaining chip when negotiating beginning salaries.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If you are so down on the current situation, why do you want to accept it as the status quo? All your arguments against a CAUT credential seem to go this way. You can’t look at the present conditions and say what we are attempting won’t work. It’s kind of like saying, “I can’t go to school…I don’t know how to read.” We are trying to change the way institutions value piano technicians.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Guilty as charged.  I made the mistake of taking a lower salary during the first year until my skills had been evaluated with promises of salary improvement if everyone liked my work.  Nine years later, we are finally starting to get the the salary to where it should have started.  That's my fault.  I honestly didn't know any better at the time.  But that salary improvement is not coming about because in the meantime I became an RPT.  It isn't coming about because everyone likes my work.  That was established in year one.  It is coming about because I am threatening to leave because the university job is keeping me from being able to properly provide for my family.  The amount of moonlighting I'm having to do to compensate is compromising the quality of my work at the school, and I have made no secret of that.  So far, that is all that has worked.  Flashing my RPT certificate didn't do a darned thing.  Getting rave reviews from visiting artists and comments along the lines of "I'd fly him to <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:State w:st="on">Oklahoma</st1:State></st1:place> to work on my pianos," or "your pianos are better than at Eastman" had nothing to do with it.  They don't want to lose me because of the quality of work I've shown.  But I've had to be a real pain in the behind around here to get raises.  But at the same time there will be a brick wall in the process.  At some point, the dean is going to say, "no, I can get another technician for less than that."  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Jeff, perhaps they haven’t told you to take a walk precisely because you have upgraded your skills and made them realize how valuable those skills are to their program. What you have described above is precisely what we all must do to improve salary levels. You’re contradicting yourself when you say that your getting “rave reviews” from visiting artists had nothing to do with your raise, and yet “They don’t want to lose me because of the quality of work I’ve shown.” <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> State systems don’t recognize merit, they go mainly on job descriptions and are supposed to align job responsibilities with salary levels. If your job description says you are a mechanic that works on pianos, they will equate your position and salary to the state car-pool mechanic. If your job description says you direct and manage budgets and inventories, advise and consult with faculty, supervise student help, prepare instruments for visiting artists, etc, etc, they’ll be comparing you to supervisory or managerial positions. In the past you’ve said that you are the only piano technician in the state system…you’ve got to convince them to look at other state institutions for comparisons. That’s what they did here for me. In the end, they had to create a new position in which to put me because I didn’t fit anywhere else.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> But I've had to be a real pain in the behind around here to get raises.  But at the same time there will be a brick wall in the process.  At some point, the dean is going to say, "no, I can get another technician for less than that."  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> In a state system nobody is going to give you anything unless you push for it. It’s completely up to you. You have to keep pushing until you find that brick wall…if you’ve a proven track record and good comparisons for salary equity adjustments, you will have some leverage to move the brick wall as well.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Eric<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Eric Wolfley, RPT  Director of Piano Services  Cincinnati College-Conservatory of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Music</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Cincinnati</st1:City></st1:place> <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tanner Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:11 PM To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">College and University Technicians</st1:PersonName> Subject: Re: [CAUT] CAUT credential vs. academic program?<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> <div> <div> On Nov 13, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Jon Page wrote:<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p></o:p> <blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> Bottom line for Universities is that they will pay<o:p></o:p> </blockquote> <blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite cite=""> more only if they feel they are getting enough return.<o:p></o:p> </blockquote> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> I see that I missed a perfectly good opportunity<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> to stay out of this discussion but where some positions<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> don't even require RPT status what good are merit badges?<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Raise the bar on RPT for your desired recognition. In this<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> association, RPT should be reclassified to Apprentice status<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> and after the 'tests' a Journeyman, with Craftsman as the<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> next step to Master Craftsman. (bring back Allied Tradesman).<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> If the term RPT had real teeth to it there wouldn't be a need to<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> even have this discussion.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> It doesn't matter how many clinics or seminars you attend,<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> if there is no budget for salary increase those certificates are<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> simply wallpaper.  If the organizations thought your services<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> were worth more, they'd offer more. But then if no one would<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> accept the positions, a larger salary would be put on the table.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Supply and demand economics.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Any job opportunity has some sort of coping skills attached.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Time management and schmoozing are not marketable items<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> for a labor-oriented trade.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Speaking of time management...<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> I better pound some bridge pins in...<o:p></o:p> </div> <X-SIGSEP><pre style='margin-left:.5in'>-- <o:p></o:p></pre></X-SIGSEP> <div> Regards, Jon Page<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Unfortunately, Jon is absolutely correct.  We are paid what we are paid already because that is what human resources departments are finding the market to be.  That market value comes with the assumption that we are already supposed to be equipped with the large palate of skills we are trying to identify with an endorsement.<o:p></o:p> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> As long as qualified piano technicians are willing to accept the current pay levels, that is all we will be worth.  And what is happening out there is that there are very qualified individuals who are accepting lower salaries because they are in unique positions of being able to live on lower incomes.  If we were to equate what is happening out there, it would be like one RPT charging half or less for tuning prices than everybody else, just because he or she doesn't require as much money to live on.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> It is free market economics.  But salaries are what they are because CAUTs are too willing to lowball their worth.  It has nothing to do with qualifications or certifications or the lack thereof, and it has nothing to do with how good a concert technician we are.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Guilty as charged.  I made the mistake of taking a lower salary during the first year until my skills had been evaluated with promises of salary improvement if everyone liked my work.  Nine years later, we are finally starting to get the the salary to where it should have started.  That's my fault.  I honestly didn't know any better at the time.  But that salary improvement is not coming about because in the meantime I became an RPT.  It isn't coming about because everyone likes my work.  That was established in year one.  It is coming about because I am threatening to leave because the university job is keeping me from being able to properly provide for my family.  The amount of moonlighting I'm having to do to compensate is compromising the quality of my work at the school, and I have made no secret of that.  So far, that is all that has worked.  Flashing my RPT certificate didn't do a darned thing.  Getting rave reviews from visiting artists and comments along the lines of "I'd fly him to <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Oklahoma</st1:place></st1:State> to work on my pianos," or "your pianos are better than at Eastman" had nothing to do with it.  They don't want to lose me because of the quality of work I've shown.  But I've had to be a real pain in the behind around here to get raises.  But at the same time there will be a brick wall in the process.  At some point, the dean is going to say, "no, I can get another technician for less than that."  <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Because he's probably right.  Somebody else will be willing to come in here and sign up to work for half of what they're worth.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> Jeff<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </div> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> Jeff Tanner, RPT<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">South Carolina</st1:PlaceName></st1:place><o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>