<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>On Sep 6, 2008, at 11:04 AM, Ralph Onesti wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; "><div><div> </div><div>I was hoping you could help Vincent write a reasonable job description for the new tech as you are in the trenches and who knows where they are.</div></div></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; "> </span><div>I think this would be a great exercise for this group, with the results being added to the Guidelines for Institutional Maintenance. Or better yet, the results could lead to a CAUT brochure, "Hiring the Piano Technician-A Resource for Colleges, Universities, and other Educational Institutions." <div><br></div><div>I don't think that there is a one-size-fits-all description. For example, the description for a part-time contract position would be different than for a full-time position in a large, land-grant type university which would be different than for a full-time position in a conservatory situation. The many descriptions would let the institution decide which description was appropriate. Salary ranges should be included as well as descriptions of the type of person that would apply (see below). <div><br></div><div>Having this kind of information available would accomplish several things. First, although the various descriptions may not be all that different, expectations should be different, including the pay scale and type of applicant that the institution could realistically expect. Secondly, it would leave it up to the institution to determine where it falls in the various types and pay scales. Expectations would match the self-image of the institution. Thirdly it would inform institutions what the pay range should be. I don't think many people outside our group know what full-time technicians working in the private sector can make. Doing the math for those involved in hiring would be helpful. Finally, a beginning technician would be less demanding in salary and benefits, than an experienced RPT who has been around the block and wants to get paid appropriately. Institutions need to know that all technicians are not created equal.</div><div><br></div><div>Just to get some discussion going, here are some off-the-top-of-my-head ideas about types of technicians that could be matched to various descriptions.</div><div><br><div><div><div><div>Type of technician</div><div>I. Technician, Level I: $12,500 to $25,000, working part time, less than one year experience, tunes fewer than 5 pianos per week</div><div>II. Technician, Level II: $35,000 to $50,000, working full time, three to five years experience, tunes 15 to 25 pianos per week</div><div>III. Technician, Level III: $40,000 to $70,000, full time private or university, 5 to 10 years experience, tunes 5 to 15 pianos per week, has regulated and voiced 10 to 20 pianos over several years, regularly schedules full or partial action regulation</div><div>IV. Technician, Level IV: $50,000 to $200,000, full time private or university/conservatory, 10 to 15 years experience, tunes 5 to 10 pianos per week, has regulated and voiced pianos in concert venues, is familiar with restringing, new parts installation, action geometry, hammer selection, key weight, piano touch, and dealing with the concert artist concerns.</div><div><br></div><div>I would add that I think it's time for CAUT to develop an alternative to the Guidelines document. It has been helpful, especially to technicians. But it is, IMHO, too long for most administrators to deal with, and, also IMHO, the document's underlying message is too self-serving. A brochure is a better alternative.</div><div><br></div><div>Richard West, retired but still working</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>