<html> Bob, Jeff, Dave, & List, I started writing this over a week ago  but became distracted by life, and the list by A440.  I had earlier responded privately  to Bob's message  because the hour was late, I was tired, and I found myself  surprisingly angry, not at him certainly, but at the seeming endlessness of this particular condition.   I've included my response at the end as I can't find anything too terrible in it other than redundancy. This issue has persisted for years and resisted the considerable efforts of many intelligent, articulate individuals,  alone and together.   I suspect that the problem resides somewhere in that same region to which single socks escape from the laundry, and where the Guild, as an organization continues laboring to define itself and its role.   (I'm not really sure about the socks.)   CAUT  may share some of this region's real estate. As valuable as I believe CAUT has been to its members,  I suspect that its impact on their individual constituents, the institutions, has been modest..   The attempt to detect the Grand Unifying Theory of  Institutional Piano Maintenance  (GUTIPM ?)  is flawed.  What comparison can there be between an institution that might have $100 million in endowment and one which is tuition dependant for its survival?  Does this make the poorer institution's efforts meaningless?  Can they possibly support the same level of service to their community and beneficence to their employees?   Does it help to know if Juilliard  (for example) achieves our "ideal"?  And, horrors, what if, with all its resources, it falls short?  What is the implication for our lowly existences?    If the most you can afford is a Steinway M, does it help you choose the one you want by sitting down at a D?  I appreciated Jeff Tanner's posting, even as I felt that in a number of instances, it illustrated what I feel to be the problem.  At 01:06 PM 10/23/2000 -0400, you wrote: >Hi Bob and list, >We have a similar situation here at South Carolina.  We've just hired a new >dean, courtesy of Don up at Ithaca.  (Thanks Don, he really is a nice guy!) I haven't talked to Don lately (hi don) but I couldn't help wondering, if this guy is so nice, why was Don   unable to get the help he  needed for so long?    (Space for Don's reply:__________) >But I'm wondering, since we're all underbudgeted, understaffed, and >underpaid, just how effective this method of "keeping down with the >Jones's" really is???  Seems like if you compare overworked and underpaid >with overworked and underpaid, that's what we'll continue to be. (The dean >even remarked that we're probably in line with others as it is.) I agree. >Anyone have better ideas for how to improve situations other than comparing >with how all the other underbudgeted programs do it?  More like: > who's got a "model" situation we could compare with?  As I said before, I don't believe that, in most cases, a 'model situation' is a good model. >is there an established relationship between quality of students recruited and >piano maintenance budget? This is the sort of thing for which people get Nobel prizes in economics. >  Should there be a relationship of salary to those operating in the local self-employed >market, etc... Only if the subject of your next sentence is unavailable. >The CAUT Guidelines Workload Formula says I need 3.4 technicians here. >Administration sort of laughs that off and acts like, with our budget, >we're just lucky to have one underpaid fool on staff to care for $3 million >worth of instruments.  Frankly, 3.4 techs couldn't keep up with these >climate swings. There's your market economy at work. >If anyone is willing to send me similar information to what Bob requests, I >could likewise present it to our new dean for consideration.  Though >departmental budget and staffing in relation to size of inventory are also >a priority, I'm particularly interested in salary information (official >"range" as well as actual paid, including years of service).  If you don't >feel it's any of my business, I completely understand.  You can submit it >directly to my dean.  >Thanks, >Jeff That last line is the one that got me.  Jeff, it's true.  With all the discussion and formulas, we aren't willing to share openly what each of us earns.  It's part of the social contract, I guess. (Watching the last days of baseball this season, I thought it might be illuminating to have, on the back of each player, in addition to his name and number, his salary as well).   And yet, you would have us share that information with your dean.  Why should I be more willing to share this information with him than with you.  They seem to be able to gather the pertinent information they need to make decisions.  What stops us?  The truth is (he said arrogantly) that there is as much that is dissimilar about our individual situations as they are alike.  There is no formula.  If someone can be found, willing to do the job,  then that is what that job is worth.   If it takes two competent technicians to do the job that can be done by one Monster Technician (they ARE out there, and we may not all be equal),  is it appropriate that all be paid equally?  I think you have to look within the particular institution for similarly graded positions.  It may not be easy.  There is something generally  distinctive about the hours we keep, which can make comparison difficult.   I assume both Bob's and Jeff's schools are state funded, which can have a significant impact on a rational budgeting process, however, after looking at the websites of both institutions, I'd say that if places like these cannot recognize the needs and  find the resources to support them, and, in the process, themselves become the models of which Jeff spoke, it ought not to be possible anywhere. <a href="http:///">http://www.music.umich.edu/departments/piano/</a> <a href="http://www.music.sc.edu/"= eudora="autourl">http://www.music.sc.edu/</a> Text of post to Bob Grijalva on 10/20 Bob, I am responding directly to you rather that to the list because I suspect that some of what I say, or the way I might say it, might be misconstrued. I do feel strongly about this issue, it seems. If you think it appropriate, I have no problem with your placing all or part of it back into circulation on the list to see what the response is. I find the situation you describe mind boggling. Either there is much that is not getting done, or you are both working many more hours than you are being paid for. While comparative information would certainly be useful for YOU, I think that, for these purposes, it is totally irrelevant. If it is on that basis that administrators make a decision, then the status quo will continue to reassert itself. With all that ha= s been discussed over the last 10 years, at least, with regard to work load, what is it that makes this problem so intractable? Somewhere, somehow, you need to be able to ask some of those other questions, such as: What are the budgets for these departments, for salaries, tools and equipment, supplies, rebuilding (if not done in-house), piano replacement, professional development? How many hours a week do you or your employees work? Weekends? Evenings? How much vacation? How = long have you worked there? Express the ratio of job frustration to job satisfaction. If answer is weighted towards frustration, why do you continue? >From the administrator's point of view, some other questions might come to mind: If you and Ron have been doing "THE JOB" for ___ ye= ars (fill in), what has changed to make you feel you need more help now? = Is there a definable issue, such as increased enrollment, better level of applicant, or student moral which would be favorably impacted by increasing your work force? If it is only to placate the disgruntled tuner, maybe its time for a new tuner. You know that if you could show that competitive institutions were attracting the cream of the crop due, directly or indirectly (moral) to the condition of the pianos, or that piano condition was a prominent part of the 'buzz' about the place, you would likely have no trouble getting what you need. If you could have what you feel you need, what would that be, I'm curious? And on what basis did you choose your comparative schools? = Just some thoughts, but I wish you luck, none the less. David Skolnik Emeritus, Manhattan School of Music skolnik@attglobal.net 212 222-2394 </html>