<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:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"> <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Paul,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Not really! I thought you’d be in six digits over there. ; - 0<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> It’s about middle of the road, it seems. Thus the thread. But as I said, I love working here for many other reasons.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> JB<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Paul T Williams Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:46 AM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: [CAUT] Reasonable job descriptions<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Don't feel so bad, Jim It's still higher than mine :>) pw <o:p></o:p> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellpadding=0 width="100%" style='width:100.0%'> <tr> <td width="40%" valign=top style='width:40.0%;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> Jim Busby <jim_busby@byu.edu> Sent by: caut-bounces@ptg.org <o:p></o:p> 09/11/2008 12:40 PM <o:p></o:p> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellpadding=0> <tr> <td valign=top style='background:white;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> Please respond to College and University Technicians <caut@ptg.org><o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td width="59%" valign=top style='width:59.0%;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellpadding=0 width="100%" style='width:100.0%'> <tr> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> To<o:p></o:p> </td> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> College and University Technicians <caut@ptg.org> <o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> cc<o:p></o:p> </td> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'></td> </tr> <tr> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> Subject<o:p></o:p> </td> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'> Re: [CAUT] Reasonable job descriptions<o:p></o:p> </td> </tr> </table> <o:p> </o:p> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellpadding=0> <tr> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'></td> <td valign=top style='padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt'></td> </tr> </table> </td> </tr> </table> Hi Jeff,   Good thoughts below. I did gather that some think that we should band together (somewhat unionize) to get our point across. I can see now that your point was totally at a personal, individual level. And a good point it is.   You’re right, I didn’t really want the whole world to be able to Google my salary (my inadvertent “private” post) but I guess the real reason IS that I am a bit embarrassed that it isn’t higher.   BTW, what is an FTE tech (below)?   Regards, Jim   From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tanner Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:06 PM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: [CAUT] Reasonable job descriptions   Jim Busby wrote:   Jon,   With no true “credentials” that are universally recognized by administrators, and when there are ten mediocre techs  eager to accept CAUT positions at lower salaries, how are we supposed to “stand up” to upgrade the field? I’m not trying to be a jerk, and I’m not offended by your rather blunt statements below, because you’re absolutely correct; we “deserve what we are metered out”. But if we all did what Jeff did, would that force the issue with the institutions? Not necessarily! Precisely because of what you wrote below; “The attitude of the administration…Dime a Dozen”   I certainly don't want anyone to think I've ever implied we should all resign.  It certainly made a point here at USC, in that as long as I happily did my job and worked hard to impress the boss, no progress was ever going to be made.  They didn't think I was serious until I quit.  And after I left, they reclassified the position to a higher salary, the new guy got the raise I'd been asking for for 9 1/2 years, more help, more money and a shorter responsibility list.  They had Steinway come in and evaluate the situation and found out they needed 2.5 techs. (Steinway carried more clout with the evaluation than did the PTG, because the PTG guidelines unfortunately have the ability to appear self-serving.)  They also paid a bunch of money for Steinway to come in this summer with a team of techs from across the country and replace something like 10 or 12 sets hammers that didn't need it, but that's another discussion.   I think the reason it worked here, though, and I really can't stand to blow my own horn, but the faculty did notice the quality of my work.  We had guest artists from across the country raving about our pianos.  And once the faculty saw the difference, the "dime a dozen" attitude changed.  But they either couldn't or wouldn't make the changes for me.  One problem was that the existing HR system is not set up to allow classified employees to get real raises like employees in the private sector.  The only way to make big changes is to eliminate the position and recreate it.  The other problem is that the music faculty don't make much either.  Although, that really has nothing to do with the market for a piano technician, they think their degrees are worth more than our craftsmanship.  (I found the book review in this month's journal to hit some points right on the head.)   But what I learned from the process is that there are really two ways to improving salary, and neither one of them involves someone else noticing how great your work is and generously offering to increase your salary.  That approach didn't work at all.  You can request a reclassification, which may and may not be successful.  Or you have to have some leverage.  This is how faculty get salary adjustments.  The boss needs to believe you are about to take a job somewhere else, or about to otherwise leave.  And at the same time, he needs to be well aware of your value as an employee and what it would be worth to not have to go through a search and hire someone else, who may or may not perform as well as you do.  That's sort of the way I approached it. In my case, they sort of called my bluff (by continuing to refuse to acknowledge the job was too big and the salary was too small) and I had to have somewhere to go.  That's why I started the retail store 2 years before I resigned.  I wasn't bluffing, and they got the message and made some pretty sweeping changes.   I picked a really crappy time to go into retail, but I think we're going to make it.   Now, what is the solution? The options seem to be the following; 1.       Maintain the “status quo” 2.       Boycott, quit en masse, or otherwise show solidarity and force the issue 3.       Gradually upgrade each situation individually, one at a time 4.       Establish a CAUT credential as Eric, Fred and the CAUT committee is  trying to do. 5.       (A combination of the above #3 and #4)   My choice is #5; to push for a credential while trying to upgrade my own situation. I have been offered twice the money in the private sector, but that would mean I’d have to abandon the only place where I may be able to have some influence on the situation. It would be comparable to someone angrily quitting the union instead of staying in and trying to change it from within.   #2 wouldn't work.  And if anyone has ever gotten the impression that was what I meant by "banding together", then, I apologize.  That's not at all what I meant.  There's no way to get that kind of commitment without the reinforcement of a union.  (and a convenient "aside" here is that no union member can work as a state employee in SC, and we're probably not the only state with that rule)   I think there is a modified #3 that the PTG can help with, and that is to gather information from around the country that could be made available for members.  Information would include not only current salary ranges of as many institutions in the country as we can gather, but the differences in benefits packages as well (identify states/schools which have higher and lower employee contributions, which type of retirement plans, or tuition perks, for example).  The fastest way to gather the information would be to have all FTE techs respond to a standardized questionaire (that's a heck of a lot faster than a couple of us getting online and digging through HR web sites).  Other highly pertinent information would be average gross earnings of private sector techs, some formula for calculating a potential earnings like I've suggested, and other tools that would benefit the employee.  The employer has all the tools it needs to rebutt any request.  The employee is the one who needs the information.   I appreciate the idea of the CAUT credential, but I'm concerned that after all the work goes into it, it won't be worth the paper its printed on +++except to us+++ because of the potential for it to be considered a self-serving credential (really, a sad irony, because many of the attitudes in our group show more concern for the welfare of the institution than the technician).  Somehow, it needs to attain some element of non-bias.  There are only a handful of us, and I can envision real difficulty in staffing the process.  It will be a massive project that could realistically take 5 to 10 years for a technician to complete if he/she can't afford to go to every national and regional convention every year.  When that's all done, there needs to be an accompanying financial reward for the effort, or technicians will probably be reluctant to pursue it.  Currently, I am unaware of any kind of credential that doesn't come from an accredited institution or government agency that is recognized by any Human Resources department, and the PTG is neither.  And until that infrastructure is in place to recognize and reward the achievement, I'm skeptical it will be any help at all.     In other words, with or without a credential, the technician will still be faced with #3.   Now, the pursuit of the credential may result in improving the skill levels of some technicians.  There is no criticism from me of that effort whatsoever.  But, if higher competency levels are what we're after, rather than placing that burden on the small CAUT group, why don't we get the entire PTG behind an effort to create more classifications -- Registered Concert Technician, Registered Rebuilder, or whatever, and have the CAUT credential be able to be a part of a modular type of credential system?  Then the CAUT credential could really just focus on the few things that does make the job different.  Otherwise, the CAUT group is going to find itself burned out.   But it shouldn't take such a credential for a piano technician with solid basic skills to be better compensated than a starting truck driver with a GED. (I know for a fact that log truck drivers in South Georgia can make as much money as some of our CAUT colleagues are paid, and they spend the majority of their day sitting in line waiting to be loaded or unloaded)  We really should be able to produce evidence that the market for our skill -- even at basic levels -- is higher than what universities are paying.  Right now, what Human Resources departments are using to establish salaries, is what other Human Resources departments are paying for the same job.  There is just a void of available information.  And I'm not picking on you Jim, you know that.  I respect you very highly.  Please allow me to use your example to make a point.  But your "posting privately" response is characteristic of why it is so hard to cultivate that information. We've seen similar reluctance from other prominent members of our organization.  We're a private group.  For some reason, we don't like anyone else to know how well -- or poorly -- we're doing.  I think we're going to have to be more willing to share some things if we're going to be able to help each other out.   This is more or less what I mean by "banding together" -- sharing information to help others improve their situations.  Sharing successes like the one here at USC and Dennis Johnson's.  When someone hears of successes at other institutions it might just help them build the confidence to start the process at their place of employment.     Now, I really respect Jeff and don’t mean to say ill of him quitting, because he needed to quit for many reasons.   The biggest of which was that while you say you are paying down your debt, mine was going up, even with the extra $20K moonlighting.   When Andrew Carnegie was asked “How much is the perfect wage? What should be the standard salary for anyone?” He responded, “I know the answer. Here is the salary that everyone should have; A little bit more.”   Well, I don't think in terms of "perfect wage". But I think we can do a better job of gathering and providing evidence that the "market range" for our skills is much different than what colleges are paying.  And with all due respect, it seems to me that that type of project would a more valuable benefit to our membership than devoting our resources to the monstrous task of reorganizing the CAUT archives, or some of the other seemingly trivial projects I've read about in the past few weeks.   Jeff Tanner <o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>