Faults First

[ajt]

I think that I have pressed some wrong butrtons some how.

 

No, you've not pressed wrong buttons - I for one am not wound up about this ; I'm rather enjoying the discussion

[Brian Childs]

Not wishing to be argumentative either, but I don't see the problem as being one of terminology, only of attitude.

 

1) If you think it's reasonable to pay workshop rates for a man to drive a car, then feel free. I don't. Assuming a distance of 40 miles @ 20p a mile operating cost, and 1 hour's salary at £8 an hour or so, that represents a cost to the firm of £16. Is £40+ a reasonable charge to make for that non-productive time?

 

I am sure you know more about tuners hourly rates than I do but if your figure of £8.00 an hour is meant seriously for what I assume to be skilled craft work then I am astounded any builder/tuner has any craftsmen left in his employ or is still carrying on this type of work on a self employed basis charging that much per hour for the "labour cost" element. Such individuals must me extremely loyal, devoid of domestic responsibilities and quite unaware of what can be got working as a chippy on a building site. An hourly rate of £8.00 equates to an annual salary of £16,640 for a 40 hour week assuming for paid holidays at the same rate. Given that the minimum wage in this country is £5.35 per hour a differential of only £2.65 from a supermarket shelf stacker does not look plausible to me. I know a number of plumbers, kitchen fitters etc ie those with analogous skills. Admittedly they are self employed but their annual gross earnings exceed £50,000 in every case and the self employed have far greater opportunities to avoid tax on their earnings than do mere paye wage earners. I would have expected the "real"hourly rate to be around the £20 mark and that makes your calculations appear in rather a different light. I say "real" hourly rate because the construction industry and its associated trades have long been extremely innovative in keeping money from flowing through the books on its way to the pocket so that it escapes the attention of the taxman.

2) Equipment - a can of oil for the blower and a selection of hand tools are most likely going to belong to (or at least be unique to) the individual, rather than the firm. It's extremely unlikely that any firm wishing to be taken seriously is going to be held up in its work because the company reed knife is on another job.

 

 

A craftsman with his own toolbox the contents of which are his personal possessions? This is the journeyman carpenter of my grandfather's youth, ie 100 years ago. If this really is an accurate picture of Mr Organ Tuner 2007 then it is no wonder that many think the trade is stuck in a time warp.

[Frank Fowler]

An interesting point on `Tuning Contracts' is oiling the blower. If in said contract you specifically undertake to oil the blower you can then become responsible for its well being. Should a little village church contract for 2 tuning visits a year and decide to forgo say the Autumn tuning visit and the blower siezes up at Christmas through lack of oil, the Organ Builder could be sued for the motor repairs for not carrying out two oilings per year as per contract as in the Autumn the church only cancelled the tuning visit without specific mention of the blower. You therefore need ".....and oil the blower on each tuning visit". We found in the end it was safer to leave the church authorities to arrange the blower oiling themselves.

 

FF

[Frank Fowler]

No, you've not pressed wrong buttons - I for one am not wound up about this ; I'm rather enjoying the discussion

 

Adrian, nothing is simple in organ building, tuning or dealing with churches - you can see why I am glad I am retired!

 

FF

[David Coram]

For some reason best known to the Internet I'm unable to press reply on Brian's message.

 

Hourly rate - given as an example. You could up it to £10 or £15 if you want, but it still doesn't equate to the £40 + VAT the firm is going to earn in the same time for non-productive work if it charges full workshop rates for travel, and misses the point completely. I know of an apprentice earning significantly less than the figure I used first, who will (I suspect) be sent out tuning before very long. For that matter, I also know of many firms charging very considerably more than £40 an hour.

 

Tools - there are no formal organbuilding qualifications in this country. There are plenty of clubs you can join if you pay them the right amount of money. For qualifications you must go to Germany, and I know of only two in the UK who have. There are many industries where you are expected to obtain your own tools as an apprentice - glazing is certainly another, and in my previous life (which, I should say, only ended two years ago) I and all the other firms I knew well in the area required just that. Again, this misses the point that was being made - which is that for routine tuning and maintenance, you need a can of oil, a reed knife and perhaps some screwdrivers to get in (to the organ, that is - not the church...) Possibly some cones, but not very often. No company worth dealing with is going to struggle through lack of such very basic equipment, so "tying up plant and equiment" is not a valid objection.

 

Carrying on a tradition of apprenticeship does not equate to being stuck in the dark ages; government has moved to encourage apprenticeships in recent years, and since no alternative currently exists and blackboard learning cannot fully match the requirements, what better way to do it is there?

[contrabordun]

Depreciation I do not include because the value of the asset and its depreciation are assessed as part of the value of the

business.

No, you're wrong there - you should include the depreciation in calculating the running costs of the vehicle for this type of exercise. This is why the IR allow you 40p/mile (at least for the first 10,000 miles) and, as you point out, the marginal running costs are only a fraction of that.

[David Coram]

No, you're wrong there - you should include the depreciation in calculating the running costs of the vehicle for this type of exercise. This is why the IR allow you 40p/mile (at least for the first 10,000 miles) and, as you point out, the marginal running costs are only a fraction of that.

 

I stand corrected! Perhaps it's because I've never had a car that cost more than £500... This will give you some idea of the level on which my accountant and I interact!

[ajt]

Adrian, nothing is simple in organ building, tuning or dealing with churches - you can see why I am glad I am retired!

 

FF

 

I don't see how organ building is any different from any other trade, except that you're usually dealing with the most parsimonious clients you could think of, who usually create their own problems!

[Brian Childs]

For some reason best known to the Internet I'm unable to press reply on Brian's message.

 

Hourly rate - given as an example. You could up it to £10 or £15 if you want, but it still doesn't equate to the £40 + VAT the firm is going to earn in the same time for non-productive work if it charges full workshop rates for travel, and misses the point completely. I know of an apprentice earning significantly less than the figure I used first, who will (I suspect) be sent out tuning before very long. For that matter, I also know of many firms charging very considerably more than £40 an hour.

 

 

 

Tools - there are no formal organbuilding qualifications in this country. There are plenty of clubs you can join if you pay them the right amount of money. For qualifications you must go to Germany, and I know of only two in the UK who have. There are many industries where you are expected to obtain your own tools as an apprentice - glazing is certainly another, and in my previous life (which, I should say, only ended two years ago) I and all the other firms I knew well in the area required just that. Again, this misses the point that was being made - which is that for routine tuning and maintenance, you need a can of oil, a reed knife and perhaps some screwdrivers to get in (to the organ, that is - not the church...) Possibly some cones, but not very often. No company worth dealing with is going to struggle through lack of such very basic equipment, so "tying up plant and equiment" is not a valid objection.

 

Carrying on a tradition of apprenticeship does not equate to being stuck in the dark ages; government has moved to encourage apprenticeships in recent years, and since no alternative currently exists and blackboard learning cannot fully match the requirements, what better way to do it is there?

 

 

It is perfectly possible I am missing your point David : an alternative explanation is that I am just not looking at the scene from the same viewpoint as you are. My understanding of your basic point is that it amounts to a rip-off to be charged workshop rates / skilled work rates for travelling time. My point is that this is not the correct viewpoint from which to look at the situation since viewing the situation from this standpoint is virtually guaranteed to produce the conclusion that fleecing is in progress.

 

I am suggesting that even if the charge is expressed in terms of hourly rates, this is not the best way to view the situation ( a proposition you are perfectly entitled to refuse to accept). A guy whom I know very well occasionally does the odd conference presentation . His fee would be £250 plus his travelling and accommodation expenses as well. For this sum he would deliver a paper - 35/45 minutes, field any questions and be available to chat at the coffee break. £250 for a morning's work looks expensive; but if the payment is viewed not as for a morning's work but a lifetime's knowledge and experience, (plus several hours preparing the paper), then, seen from that angle, the charge appears less exhorbitant. Could not the same be true of the services of an experienced tuner ? The "plant and equipment" = asset tied up could be the skilled workman : it is not necessary for it to be hard plant.

 

From posts on other threads I think it ought to be clear that I am all in favour of apprenticeships where people receive training in an actual job as opposed to signing up for "university" courses which they then do not attend because they are too busy stacking shelves in supermarkets or serving behind a bar. Also 1907 (100 years ago) is not the period of history conventionally labelled the "dark ages" . Edwardian is the usual label I think.

[ajt]

 

It is perfectly possible I am missing your point David : an alternative explanation is that I am just not looking at the scene from the same viewpoint as you are. My understanding of your basic point is that it amounts to a rip-off to be charged workshop rates / skilled work rates for travelling time. My point is that this is not the correct viewpoint from which to look at the situation since viewing the situation from this standpoint is virtually guaranteed to produce the conclusion that fleecing is in progress.

 

That's partly my viewpoint, but really paying the costs isn't my major beef - the cost will get passed onto the client somehow - it's the "contract us for a day's work, but we'll only be there between 11 and 3, and we have to have lunch and a cuppa, then we'll say we didn't have time to sort xx out" attitude that really gets my goat.

 

[various edits] And that twaddle about paying for a lifetime's expertise... That is the same in any service you engage. A carpenter, a plumber, etc. I don't pay them by the hour from the moment they leave the house. Hell, even my services are the result of a large investment in training and experience. I don't charge my hourly rate for the hours 9-11 and then not turn up to 11, and leave at 3. If I did, I'd be charging £2000 for 4 hours work.

[David Coram]

It is perfectly possible I am missing your point David : an alternative explanation is that I am just not looking at the scene from the same viewpoint as you are. My understanding of your basic point is that it amounts to a rip-off to be charged workshop rates / skilled work rates for travelling time. My point is that this is not the correct viewpoint from which to look at the situation since viewing the situation from this standpoint is virtually guaranteed to produce the conclusion that fleecing is in progress.

 

I am suggesting that even if the charge is expressed in terms of hourly rates, this is not the best way to view the situation ( a proposition you are perfectly entitled to refuse to accept). A guy whom I know very well occasionally does the odd conference presentation . His fee would be £250 plus his travelling and accommodation expenses as well. For this sum he would deliver a paper - 35/45 minutes, field any questions and be available to chat at the coffee break. £250 for a morning's work looks expensive; but if the payment is viewed not as for a morning's work but a lifetime's knowledge and experience, (plus several hours preparing the paper), then, seen from that angle, the charge appears less exhorbitant. Could not the same be true of the services of an experienced tuner ? The "plant and equipment" = asset tied up could be the skilled workman : it is not necessary for it to be hard plant.

 

From posts on other threads I think it ought to be clear that I am all in favour of apprenticeships where people receive training in an actual job as opposed to signing up for "university" courses which they then do not attend because they are too busy stacking shelves in supermarkets or serving behind a bar. Also 1907 (100 years ago) is not the period of history conventionally labelled the "dark ages" . Edwardian is the usual label I think.

 

The other day you appeared to be defending the notion that it is perfectly proper to charge the same amount for travelling as for time spent doing the work; at least, that's what I understood from your response to Adrian. Above you have used the words "travelling expenses" which conjure up (in my mind, at least) something quite different from that. So now I'm not entirely sure what your position is.

 

Even if I accept your notion of a daily charge rather than an hourly one, this argument (row?) began with the suggestion that a day really ought to begin at a respectable hour, rather than being comprised of three hours in the middle of it somewhere, with just enough time after lunch to write an essay in the tuning book explaining why there wasn't enough time to do the work. That, self-evidently, is in nobody's interest.

 

This is not a one-off affair like a conference, with a set script and a pre-arranged timetable - what there is to do is a completely unknown quantity until you arrive at site and switch on the wind. I would hazard a guess that the majority of tuning books in the land are largely filled with phrases like 'I have done all I could in the time available'. On that basis, working (and charging) by the hour dependent on what you find needs doing when you get there is the most basic form of accountability, and I would suggest forms the basis of the most equitable way of operating for churches, tuners and the companies employing them. Apart from anything else, it seems to make it the organ builder's best interest to take the time to do the job properly.

 

I won't go into the expertise subject because it's too fraught with side avenues but I can think of few professions where the same couldn't be said, from council groundsman to company director.

[john carter]

The other day you appeared to be defending the notion that it is perfectly proper to charge the same amount for travelling as for time spent doing the work; at least, that's what I understood from your response to Adrian. Above you have used the words "travelling expenses" which conjure up (in my mind, at least) something quite different from that. So now I'm not entirely sure what your position is.

 

Even if I accept your notion of a daily charge rather than an hourly one, this argument (row?) began with the suggestion that a day really ought to begin at a respectable hour, rather than being comprised of three hours in the middle of it somewhere, with just enough time after lunch to write an essay in the tuning book explaining why there wasn't enough time to do the work. That, self-evidently, is in nobody's interest.

 

This is not a one-off affair like a conference, with a set script and a pre-arranged timetable - what there is to do is a completely unknown quantity until you arrive at site and switch on the wind. I would hazard a guess that the majority of tuning books in the land are largely filled with phrases like 'I have done all I could in the time available'. On that basis, working (and charging) by the hour dependent on what you find needs doing when you get there is the most basic form of accountability, and I would suggest forms the basis the most equitable way of operating for churches, tuners and the companies employing them. Apart from anything else, it seems to make it the organ builder's best interest to take the time to do the job properly.

 

I won't go into the expertise subject because it's too fraught with side avenues but I can think of few professions where the same couldn't be said, from council groundsman to company director.

I think I see an important point here. Why is a tuner/technician turning up to a completely unknown quantity? If I book my car in for a service, I give the garage some indication whether it might need a new tyre or a new engine. How else can they schedule an appropriate number of men and time to deal with the job? Surely in requesting a tuning visit, it is only reasonable to give the contractor some idea of the work required. Beyond that, I am in favour of an agreed hourly rate for the time spent on the instrument plus parts. All other overheads should be rolled in to that hourly rate.

 

JC

[David Coram]

I think I see an important point here. Why is a tuner/technician turning up to a completely unknown quantity? If I book my car in for a service, I give the garage some indication whether it might need a new tyre or a new engine. How else can they schedule an appropriate number of men and time to deal with the job? Surely in requesting a tuning visit, it is only reasonable to give the contractor some idea of the work required. Beyond that, I am in favour of an agreed hourly rate for the time spent on the instrument plus parts. All other overheads should be rolled in to that hourly rate.

 

JC

 

An extremely eminent establishment was having a recording made on its very eminent organ quite recently. The fairly eminent artiste making the recording relayed the urgent message that "the organ sounds a bit funny". Two of us thundered down on a Sunday having arranged emergency service cover to find absolutely nothing wrong save for this person not having come across unequal temperaments before. What hope is there?

 

Equally I have frequently turned up to jobs where there's nothing in the book and I'll find huge amounts that need doing. In one case, the entire pedal department was out of order. On that particular occasion the only observation in the book was that nothing was working in the bottom octave of the top keyboard. I'll give you two guesses. Actually, one should suffice.

 

Ditto the example I mentioned earlier with the accidentally-revoiced Open Diapason - that organ sounded a weeny bit off colour, too, and yet involved the full gamut of voicing tools, several hours on site and one pipe (should probably have been more) coming away to be re-made.

 

And yet things which sound like the end of the world can be a virtually instantaneous matter of removing a wasp from a shallot or putting a spring back on a concussion.

 

There's only so many people you can fit inside an organ (now there's an interesting competition), so with one at the console and one inside, number is not really a problem. As far as time goes, I don't think there's anything predictable about that until you actually get inside - unless you are absolutely certain you have someone who knows what they're doing playing the thing each week, in which case they'll probably have done the easy stuff and whipped through the reeds and you probably don't need to go at all.

 

Then, if you want to go even further, there's the point about requesting a tuning. Requesting? Many times the person just turns up every three months, gets the key from the lady at the post office, does goodness knows what then sends the bill in. Requesting doesn't come into it.

 

We are back to the point made by Nigel the other day - that the interest in and understanding of the mechanics of an organ are woefully lacking in most places. That's just a fact of life.

[Henry Willis]

Coincidentally, this morning came through the post a notice of increases in 'service charges' made by the company which we use for the maintenance of our shop equipment: table saws, pillar drills, planers/thicknessers, spindle moulders etc....

 

Labour charge: £45.00 per hour

Travel charge: £26.00 per hour

Mileage charge: 52p per mile

Overnight stay: £90.00 per night

 

Their 'Travel charge' is higher, considerably, than our charged-out labour rate, per hour. Their workshops are smaller than our premises and they employ fewer staff and therefore, one presumes, that their cost-overhead should be lower than ours, yet it seems that their charges are acceptable. They are STILL cheaper than plumbers or contracting electricians!

 

Much of what David says is certainly reasonable but takes little account of the fact that a cost-overhead (as opposed to prime cost) has to be added to every hour spent in work-related time by EACH employee of the firm - otherwise the calculation of the minimum overhead to be added across the board is made a nonsense.

 

What is not in doubt is that there is much which does get left untended, by many concerns: we recently took over the maintenance of a large three-manual job, south of London, which had been left in a partially playable state by those supposedly maintaining it. Yes, it does need overhauling but our first visit, two days on site for two men, knocked ALL of the faults off and they now have the whole instrument playable again for the time required to raise the funds for the work. Not difficult to see what was going on there really.

 

David Wyld

[Colin Richell]

Coincidentally, this morning came through the post a notice of increases in 'service charges' made by the company which we use for the maintenance of our shop equipment: table saws, pillar drills, planers/thicknessers, spindle moulders etc....

 

Labour charge: £45.00 per hour

Travel charge: £26.00 per hour

Mileage charge: 52p per mile

Overnight stay: £90.00 per night

 

Their 'Travel charge' is higher, considerably, than our charged-out labour rate, per hour. Their workshops are smaller than our premises and they employ fewer staff and therefore, one presumes, that their cost-overhead should be lower than ours, yet it seems that their charges are acceptable. They are STILL cheaper than plumbers or contracting electricians!

 

Much of what David says is certainly reasonable but takes little account of the fact that a cost-overhead (as opposed to prime cost) has to be added to every hour spent in work-related time by EACH employee of the firm - otherwise the calculation of the minimum overhead to be added across the board is made a nonsense.

 

What is not in doubt is that there is much which does get left untended, by many concerns: we recently took over the maintenance of a large three-manual job, south of London, which had been left in a partially playable state by those supposedly maintaining it. Yes, it does need overhauling but our first visit, two days on site for two men, knocked ALL of the faults off and they now have the whole instrument playable again for the time required to raise the funds for the work. Not difficult to see what was going on there really.

 

David Wyld

 

 

Many years ago, I would often check the venue to make sure that the tuners were there and doing their job.

What checks are made by the organ builders that extended tea and lunch breaks are not being taken, and that the client is getting value for money.?

Is it possible that a tuning job, which would normally take a day could be extended to two days to benefit the Company ?

Colin Richell.

[ajt]

Many years ago, I would often check the venue to make sure that the tuners were there and doing their job.

What checks are made by the organ builders that extended tea and lunch breaks are not being taken, and that the client is getting value for money.?

Is it possible that a tuning job, which would normally take a day could be extended to two days to benefit the Company ?

Colin Richell.

 

I think you can have "rogues" in any trade - I would never accuse any of the organ builders I know of questionable practices like that ; you have to have some trust and assume that the people you're doing with have integrity. Indeed, most of the people I've dealt with in the organ world have integrity in abundance.

 

This may seem to contradict what I've been saying on this thread, but I don't believe it does - the practice of charging for hours "not worked" (i.e. paying from the moment the tuner leaves his house) is not down out of malice or an intent to rip people off, it's done because the business practices of much of the organ building/tuning world are stuck in another age.