Is the GCSAA failing its members? Cancel The title field is required!

1. Taylor J Benjamin

   
   3/7/2014 9:03 AM

   During a recent stretch of unemployment I have been increasingly displeased and disheartened by several of the job postings found on this member driven website.
   Just recently I've seen multiple postings for Super positions that are paying as low as $17/hr? Several jobs also in the sub- $40k/yr range, or the not-so-new trend to name assistants as the course superintendent and to rename the current superintendent (the one who actually makes all the important decisions) as the Director of Operations or what have you.....
   I understand the 'free market' and 'supply and demand' and how they're intended to work. I can also tell you that I'm not a fan of where unions have taken todays workplace. However, in reference to unions- their initial intentions were spot on. Workers were being taken advantage of and unions leveled the playing field.
   
   The question that I have is: why as gcsaa members do we not do a better job of controlling our own destinies??
   
   Why do we allow this site to post a "super" job that pays $17/hr.?
   Why do we allow this site to post super jobs that have little to no benefits?
   
   In the spirit of unions- can we develop some minimum standards for listings on our own site?
   I don't care if "that's just the way it is, or that's just whats out there these days", why do we let tight #$% owners and courses use our site to find help?
   
   How about this- if you are going to list a job on this site and tap into this market of professional turf managers then you are going to have to meet some minimum standards:
   
   Examples:
   to list a job on this site you must:
   1) superintendent jobs pay a minimum of $60k annually (and guarantee year round employment)
   2)the course/owner wishing to list any position on this site must have already paid for the supers trip to nationals, local membership, national membership
   3)Owners and courses must list a comprehensive benefits package
   
   4)Feel free to make additional comments............
   
   
   These are just some ideas but the point is, lets establish some sort of standards (or a filter at the very least) for who gets to use this site. If this was a fruit stand why do we continue to place the good fruit with the bad fruit?
   
   If these places want to list low paying, no benefit, underappreciated positions- that's fine, but list them on MONSTER.COM, not my member site. We have to stop allowing folks to rape our profession!!

   
   
   
   
2. Keith Lamb

   

   3 posts
   
   3/7/2014 10:03 AM

   I think it would be difficult to set a minimum. across the board salary requirement. With that said, maybe it could be tied into ranges that are in the Compensation and Benefits Report. Based on several factors (location, type of course, education, etc..) there could be a minimum requirement to meet in order to advertise on GCSSA. I agree that unhindered, those who are listing will be all over the place on compensation. I can remember seeing a job listing a few years ago for a 72 hole facility with a laundry list of requirements (PGA tournament experience, multi-course experience, etc...) with a starting pay of $60-75K. I don't think they ever filled the position and just split responsibility between the existing Assistants. We should have some level of control over some of the vultures who list those kinds of jobs.

   
   
   
   
3. James Smith

   

   113 posts
   
   3/7/2014 11:03 AM

   I applaud your intentions to help bring the sites job up to industry standards but no intention from the GCSAA will make these clubs move from their stance once they have adopted it. Maybe a letter of national standards could be given to the clubs wanting to advertise the position could be sent out but lets be honest in todays times it is hard to pay for top qualified people. By telling them they can post on our board all the GCSAA would be doing is keeping an oportunity from some of its members. As a dues paying member I personally would want to know of all positions in my current area that may be open before I had to seek a position out of state or in an area I may have to move to. At least I could make the choice of taking less money in order not to move my family.
   
   Sorry but I have no problem with listing positions with lower budget courses. If you do not want the position just pass over the posting maybe someone else might.

   
   
   
   
4. Trevor Monreal

   

   5 posts
   
   3/7/2014 12:03 PM

   [size=150">"Is the GCSAA failing its members?"[/size">
   
   Are you sure you don't want to retract that???
   You must be forgetting about the magazine we get once a month.
   Plus, we are no longer perceived as "Carl Spackler" types that dig holes and chase gophers.
   We are now perceived as "Carl Spackler" types that dig holes and chase gophers while trying to look professional (wearing a jacket, carrying an ipad, etc.)
   However, now that I have adjusted my custom William Fioravanti blazer...I think you make a good point.

   
   
   
   
5. Steven Huffstutler

   

   11 posts
   
   3/7/2014 1:03 PM

   The GCSAA provides education that is useful in the profession and it provides several types of outlets for comraderie in addition to a glossy magazine.
   It takes your dues money and money donated by vendors and gives it to researchers to provide education that is useful in the profession. Closed loop.
   The GCSAA does not care if you remain employed or if you get another job if you become unemployed. The association doesn't care if you make a couple hundred grand a year or 25k, it cares that you pay your dues so that the above stated closed loop can continue endlessly.
   Do not expect the GCSAA to ever act as a union to protect you or assist you in any way because most of your peers don't like unions and figure that if you need help, you must have done something to deserve your predicament.
   The GCSAA gives out an award to a professonal golfer every year, which is nice.
   I like belonging to the GCSAA and I think it's been helpful, but I've never made a nickel because of my affiliation with the association and I reckon that though I would miss it, I could get along just about the same without it.
   
   Regards,
   
   Steve

   
   
   
   
6. Shawn Golz

   

   0 posts
   
   3/7/2014 1:03 PM

   The harsh reality is everyone has to do more with less. I don't think anybody whether it's a board of directors, owner,etc... wants to be told what they have to pay their employees. It's our choice to apply or not for a job. No different from my seasonals complaining about low pay, they knew what the pay was before they accepted the job. It's unfortunate that the industry has gone the way it has. The lower budget clubs make up a vast majority of our industry. The "good" jobs are far and few between.
   
   Get involved on a local level and learn what the GCSAA is doing for you.

   
   
   
   
7. Andy Jorgensen

   

   1 posts
   
   3/7/2014 5:03 PM

   Do I think they are failing their members? Heck no. Reason being is that GCSAA does so much behind the scenes work to make YOUR profession what it is today. The work that Chava McKeel and staff has done with legislation and promotion of our industry to ALL governments across this country is outstanding and truly admirable. Mark Johnson and staff has done an excellent job at promoting the environmental benefits of the golf industry as a whole. The field reps have brought the national association down to a local level and has assisted chapters (along with Leann Cooper) on a multiple of levels including warding off negative local government legislation, chapter outreach programs, guidance and support. The work Penny Mitchell has done to increase the level of professionalism through the Certification program has increased our identity and expertise for those that wish to pursue it. CEO Rhett Evans is very passionate about our business, strengthens ties with allied associations and is definitely leading the ship in the right direction. Golf has a multi-trillion dollar impact in just the United States alone. Do you get more than just a glossy magazine? You bet ya.
   
   As for controlling what is posted on the job board, GCSAA has a commitment to assist their members with finding employment. That is one benefit you get through your membership regardless of salary or benefits. Controlling what and how it is posted will eventually lead these jobs to be posted in other forms, and would negatively impact the members of the association that may be looking for that type of work. Not all Superintendents are dress-up, see your reflection in your shoes, educated folks. Maybe a $17/hour job would be a step up for the little guy that has learned and earned his way into the profession. Maybe that $17/hour job includes other benefits not posted. Maybe that $17/hr job is a great opportunity for an Assistant Superintendent making far less that wants to have his first job at running the show. There are a lot of low budget facilities in this country. Even those jobs need to be advertised. Where do you look for employment? Here, of course. Can GCSAA dictate what a course owner pays for? No. The course owner decides that. The same way he/she decides whether or not you get to pick-up a new greensmower this season.

   
   
   
   
8. Wahlin Scott B

   
   3/8/2014 6:03 AM

   [Post removed at the request of original poster]

   
   
   
   
9. Anthony Nysse

   

   1 posts
   
   3/8/2014 10:03 AM

   I think that "FAILING" is a strong word, but maybe not as complete as we need it to be, or hope the Association can be.
   I think that GCSAA and it's members will always have to fight the image of "Carl Spackler," or "Grass Farmer." And lets be honest, if it's not USGA or PGA, some members are unaware of the letters, GCSAA. I think that the long terms goals of the GCSAA are good, but our industry is very short term, "what have you done for me lately."
   I think that its disappointing in the way the clubs look for candidates now. Many clubs ask for 1.) Previous income history or 2.) Compensation package during a job interview. In many cases, this tells me that the lowest bidder wins. Not a good direction and it's sad that some clubs view Superintendents in such a light. Maybe it's the over saturation of the market-clubs know that they will be able to find someone for whatever they are offering.
   I also do not like that the association has never come forward and made a stance on member conduct. SO many times, a job has been or isn't posted and resume and calls come flooding in. I think that looks bad for the association and gives many Superintendent's a "vulture" like reputation.
   I also think that the value of being certified has come and gone, at least for the near future. Being certified doesn't mean you can grow better grass and I don't feel as though the cost is worth it in the short term.
   I also find it interesting how the GCSAA has had so much turnover the last few years. Individuals that are very well respected in our industry are no longer employed by the Mother Ship.
   If I had to pay for my membership, I'm not sure I would at this point. Enough money is given to the Universities from the Chemical companies. Lets use that money for the long term success of the GCSAA-proper marketing, support and value of the membership.

   
   
   
   
10. David Brandenburg

    

    3 posts
    
    3/8/2014 11:03 AM

    GCSAA is not failing its members.
    
    We discussed salary minimums at length at the chapter level 15 years ago and the two main facts still remain:
    1. Clubs are going to pay what clubs are going to pay. The chapter or GCSAA can suggest that is low but little can be done. There are some less than desirable jobs out there.
    2. You may not want that job but there are association members who need and want that job at $17 a hour or with few benefits.
    
    GCSAA does what it can with what it has in resources (mainly money) to promote its members to the public and golf industry leaders. The benefit of membership goes far job posting with education, research and government advocacy.
    
    If any super is looked at Cark Spackler at your club... that's mainly the superintendents fault with some fault going to the players and no fault on GCSAA.

    
    
    
    
11. Andy Jorgensen

    

    1 posts
    
    3/8/2014 2:03 PM

    David Brandenburg, CGCS said:
    If any super is looked at Cark Spackler at your club... that's mainly the superintendents fault with some fault going to the players and no fault on GCSAA.

    
    
    
    That is exactly right. The members see you as a Superintendent. If you dress and act like Carl, they'll assume the same for the rest of us as well.

    
    
    
    
12. Keith Pegg

    

    0 posts
    
    3/8/2014 3:03 PM

    J Benjamin Taylor said: During a recent stretch of unemployment I have been increasingly displeased and disheartened by several of the job postings found on this member driven website.
    Just recently I've seen multiple postings for Super positions that are paying as low as $17/hr? Several jobs also in the sub- $40k/yr range, or the not-so-new trend to name assistants as the course superintendent and to rename the current superintendent (the one who actually makes all the important decisions) as the Director of Operations or what have you.....
    I understand the 'free market' and 'supply and demand' and how they're intended to work. I can also tell you that I'm not a fan of where unions have taken todays workplace. However, in reference to unions- their initial intentions were spot on. Workers were being taken advantage of and unions leveled the playing field.
    
    The question that I have is: why as gcsaa members do we not do a better job of controlling our own destinies??
    
    Why do we allow this site to post a "super" job that pays $17/hr.?
    Why do we allow this site to post super jobs that have little to no benefits?
    
    In the spirit of unions- can we develop some minimum standards for listings on our own site?
    I don't care if "that's just the way it is, or that's just whats out there these days", why do we let tight #$% owners and courses use our site to find help?
    
    How about this- if you are going to list a job on this site and tap into this market of professional turf managers then you are going to have to meet some minimum standards:
    
    Examples:
    to list a job on this site you must:
    1) superintendent jobs pay a minimum of $60k annually (and guarantee year round employment)
    2)the course/owner wishing to list any position on this site must have already paid for the supers trip to nationals, local membership, national membership
    3)Owners and courses must list a comprehensive benefits package
    
    4)Feel free to make additional comments............
    
    
    These are just some ideas but the point is, lets establish some sort of standards (or a filter at the very least) for who gets to use this site. If this was a fruit stand why do we continue to place the good fruit with the bad fruit?
    
    If these places want to list low paying, no benefit, underappreciated positions- that's fine, but list them on MONSTER.COM, not my member site. We have to stop allowing folks to rape our profession!!

    
    
    Mr. Taylor,
    I agree
    Keith Pegg

    
    
    
    
13. Steven Huffstutler

    

    11 posts
    
    3/8/2014 3:03 PM

    Anthony Nysse said: I think that "FAILING" is a strong word, but maybe not as complete as we need it to be, or hope the Association can be.
    I think that GCSAA and it's members will always have to fight the image of "Carl Spackler," or "Grass Farmer." And lets be honest, if it's not USGA or PGA, some members are unaware of the letters, GCSAA. I think that the long terms goals of the GCSAA are good, but our industry is very short term, "what have you done for me lately."
    I think that its disappointing in the way the clubs look for candidates now. Many clubs ask for 1.) Previous income history or 2.) Compensation package during a job interview. In many cases, this tells me that the lowest bidder wins. Not a good direction and it's sad that some clubs view Superintendents in such a light. Maybe it's the over saturation of the market-clubs know that they will be able to find someone for whatever they are offering.
    I also do not like that the association has never come forward and made a stance on member conduct. SO many times, a job has been or isn't posted and resume and calls come flooding in. I think that looks bad for the association and gives many Superintendent's a "vulture" like reputation.
    I also think that the value of being certified has come and gone, at least for the near future. Being certified doesn't mean you can grow better grass and I don't feel as though the cost is worth it in the short term.
    I also find it interesting how the GCSAA has had so much turnover the last few years. Individuals that are very well respected in our industry are no longer employed by the Mother Ship.
    If I had to pay for my membership, I'm not sure I would at this point. Enough money is given to the Universities from the Chemical companies. Lets use that money for the long term success of the GCSAA-proper marketing, support and value of the membership.

    
    
    
    Damn, Tony. We agree.
    
    Steve

    
    
    
    
14. Anthony Nysse

    

    1 posts
    
    3/8/2014 5:03 PM

    Steven Huffstutler, CGCS said:

    Anthony Nysse said: I think that "FAILING" is a strong word, but maybe not as complete as we need it to be, or hope the Association can be.
    I think that GCSAA and it's members will always have to fight the image of "Carl Spackler," or "Grass Farmer." And lets be honest, if it's not USGA or PGA, some members are unaware of the letters, GCSAA. I think that the long terms goals of the GCSAA are good, but our industry is very short term, "what have you done for me lately."
    I think that its disappointing in the way the clubs look for candidates now. Many clubs ask for 1.) Previous income history or 2.) Compensation package during a job interview. In many cases, this tells me that the lowest bidder wins. Not a good direction and it's sad that some clubs view Superintendents in such a light. Maybe it's the over saturation of the market-clubs know that they will be able to find someone for whatever they are offering.
    I also do not like that the association has never come forward and made a stance on member conduct. SO many times, a job has been or isn't posted and resume and calls come flooding in. I think that looks bad for the association and gives many Superintendent's a "vulture" like reputation.
    I also think that the value of being certified has come and gone, at least for the near future. Being certified doesn't mean you can grow better grass and I don't feel as though the cost is worth it in the short term.
    I also find it interesting how the GCSAA has had so much turnover the last few years. Individuals that are very well respected in our industry are no longer employed by the Mother Ship.
    If I had to pay for my membership, I'm not sure I would at this point. Enough money is given to the Universities from the Chemical companies. Lets use that money for the long term success of the GCSAA-proper marketing, support and value of the membership.

    
    
    
    Damn, Tony. We agree.
    
    Steve

    
    
    I read your original post and thought the same thing. I was hesitant at first to reply bc I didn't want to break our streak! First time for everything!

    
    
    
    
15. Stephen Ravenkamp

    

    1 posts
    
    3/9/2014 9:03 AM

    One thing missing in this thread is the question "What are you doing to help GCSAA promote the profession?" Just paying your dues and then expecting GCSAA to solve all the problems is not going to cut it. What have you done to promote the image of the superintentdent? To educate employers, the public, and legistation? To mentor potential superintendents? Some of you are very involved, and I applaud you for that. But there are still many who thing that all they need to do is pay their dues and GCSAA will fix everything the way they want it. Yes, many of the things that have been brought up - pay scales, professional standards, recruiting new members, etc. - need fixing. But unless you are willing to get involved I, for one, don't feel you have any standing to complain.
    Steve Ravenkamp, CGCS
    Apache Stronghold Golf Resort
    San Carlos AZ

    
    
    
    
16. Steven Huffstutler

    

    11 posts
    
    3/9/2014 2:03 PM

    So, do I have to run for office in order to vote?
    
    Regards,
    
    Steve

    
    
    
    
17. David Brandenburg

    

    3 posts
    
    3/9/2014 6:03 PM

    Stephen Ravenkamp, CGCS said: One thing missing in this thread is the question "What are you doing to help GCSAA promote the profession?" Just paying your dues and then expecting GCSAA to solve all the problems is not going to cut it. What have you done to promote the image of the superintentdent? To educate employers, the public, and legistation? To mentor potential superintendents? Some of you are very involved, and I applaud you for that. But there are still many who thing that all they need to do is pay their dues and GCSAA will fix everything the way they want it. Yes, many of the things that have been brought up - pay scales, professional standards, recruiting new members, etc. - need fixing. But unless you are willing to get involved I, for one, don't feel you have any standing to complain.
    Steve Ravenkamp, CGCS
    Apache Stronghold Golf Resort
    San Carlos AZ

    
    
    I agree with your comments and opinion. Membership is a two way relationship.

    
    
    
    
18. Robert Crockett

    

    4 posts
    
    3/10/2014 9:03 AM

    Stephen Ravenkamp, CGCS said: One thing missing in this thread is the question "What are you doing to help GCSAA promote the profession?" Just paying your dues and then expecting GCSAA to solve all the problems is not going to cut it. What have you done to promote the image of the superintentdent? To educate employers, the public, and legistation? To mentor potential superintendents? Some of you are very involved, and I applaud you for that. But there are still many who thing that all they need to do is pay their dues and GCSAA will fix everything the way they want it. Yes, many of the things that have been brought up - pay scales, professional standards, recruiting new members, etc. - need fixing. But unless you are willing to get involved I, for one, don't feel you have any standing to complain.
    Steve Ravenkamp, CGCS
    Apache Stronghold Golf Resort
    San Carlos AZ

    
    Yes....That would be like paying our taxes to the Government and expecting them to take care of everything.

    
    
    
    
19. Gary Carls

    

    20 posts
    
    3/10/2014 10:03 AM

    Like others, I believe you get back what you put into it. If you want to know more about what's going on get involved via committees, your local chapter or the superintendent resource panel (I think that's what they call it). Get to know some of the GCSAA staff or participate on the forums. While I don't pretend to agree with everything GCSAA does I usually know what's behind the decision or know who to ask as to why they might have done something I'm not sure about. We all have to promote ourselves and demonstrate our value to our facilities. Some folks have more success at that than others. GCSAA members cover a wide spectrum of facilities so while some jobs that get posted may seem to not pay all that well, they may be the job another GCSAA member is looking for as a way to get his foot in the door to move on to bigger and better things. I have seen a general trend in our area that seems to show salaries dropping but I believe that is more in response to the economy than to anything GCSAA can control. These are still tough times at many facilities.

    
    Gary K. Carls, CGCS, President - Oakland Turfgrass Education Initiative
    
    
20. Hardy Andrew

    
    3/10/2014 12:03 PM

    Sometimes we are our own worst enemies. Interesting that both Turfnet and this forum have similar chat threads going right now. There are enough disenfranchised turf people, but, is anyone listening?

    
    
    
    
21. James Smith

    

    113 posts
    
    3/11/2014 6:03 AM

    Keith Lamb said: I think it would be difficult to set a minimum. across the board salary requirement. With that said, maybe it could be tied into ranges that are in the Compensation and Benefits Report. Based on several factors (location, type of course, education, etc..) there could be a minimum requirement to meet in order to advertise on GCSSA. I agree that unhindered, those who are listing will be all over the place on compensation. I can remember seeing a job listing a few years ago for a 72 hole facility with a laundry list of requirements (PGA tournament experience, multi-course experience, etc...) with a starting pay of $60-75K. I don't think they ever filled the position and just split responsibility between the existing Assistants. We should have some level of control over some of the vultures who list those kinds of jobs.

    
    
    Since I come from a small private club of blue collar workers and do not make anything near your starting pay I guess I am considered low class by your standards and do not deserve to have listings in my area that will never reach your $60-75K price range, the GCSAA should not offer me the benefit of being able to have a place to check for job listings? But wait, I pay my dues and have been for over 20 years, why should I not be offered the same rights in my membership then yourself? In my mind your post seems a little uppity to me (how dare you offer such a low paying trash job as a position for only $40k a year)!
    
    I get that you would like to see all of the positions increase in salary but to say you do not want any under a certain amount is complete and utter Bull!
    
    If you do not like seeing a $30-$59K jobs posted just look past it or say $59K a year hmmph who could live off that and move on!
    
    Equality is the key and a low paying position can be just as important to a club as a high paying position is to theirs.

    
    
    
    
22. Keith Lamb

    

    3 posts
    
    3/11/2014 7:03 AM

    James Smith said:

    Keith Lamb said: I think it would be difficult to set a minimum. across the board salary requirement. With that said, maybe it could be tied into ranges that are in the Compensation and Benefits Report. Based on several factors (location, type of course, education, etc..) there could be a minimum requirement to meet in order to advertise on GCSSA. I agree that unhindered, those who are listing will be all over the place on compensation. I can remember seeing a job listing a few years ago for a 72 hole facility with a laundry list of requirements (PGA tournament experience, multi-course experience, etc...) with a starting pay of $60-75K. I don't think they ever filled the position and just split responsibility between the existing Assistants. We should have some level of control over some of the vultures who list those kinds of jobs.

    
    
    Since I come from a small private club of blue collar workers and do not make anything near your starting pay I guess I am considered low class by your standards and do not deserve to have listings in my area that will never reach your $60-75K price range, the GCSAA should not offer me the benefit of being able to have a place to check for job listings? But wait, I pay my dues and have been for over 20 years, why should I not be offered the same rights in my membership then yourself? In my mind your post seems a little uppity to me (how dare you offer such a low paying trash job as a position for only $40k a year)!
    
    I get that you would like to see all of the positions increase in salary but to say you do not want any under a certain amount is complete and utter Bull!
    
    If you do not like seeing a $30-$59K jobs posted just look past it or say $59K a year hmmph who could live off that and move on!
    
    Equality is the key and a low paying position can be just as important to a club as a high paying position is to theirs.

    
    
    I was just using a local situation that I was familiar with to illustrate an extreme issue of disparity of pay to qualifications. Each area of the country is different. I agree that if you don't want the job, don't apply. I think one of the points to be taken is we still have a ways to go to educate owners and such of the value of hiring a good Superintendent. I think another point is some guys are discouraged in this economy that see courses looking at short term financial gains in hiring the cheapest guy. I watched a course nearby do that for several years and they went through several young Superintendents while continuing to struggle to have the course maintained in the manner they expected. They finally hired a seasoned Superintendent which cost them a bit more, but they are happy and the course is in the best shape ever. This is all just my personal observations based on my experience in my little corner of the world.
    
    I wholeheartedly agree that you get out of the GCSAA what you put into it. I don't think certification is going to get you more money. It's more of a personal achievement. Most guys I know that have CGCS behind their name achieved it after they got to the course they're at.
    
    Maybe requiring certain salary and benefits to post jobs is not the cure, but maybe making available to those posting jobs to educate them on industry averages would help. A more prominent link to compensation resources when posting a job? http://www.gcsaa.org/jobs/Compensation-Resources/SuperSalary.aspx They could request for free from the GCSAA a salary and benefits report specific to their situation? I know when I need to hire key positions I reference other courses and the Compensation and Benefits Report. I need to be in the right range in order to get quality applicants. It all just shows that we have to continue to educate and promote our professionalism hand in hand with the GCSAA.

    
    
    
    
23. James Smith

    

    113 posts
    
    3/11/2014 9:03 AM

    Keith Lamb said:

    James Smith said:

    Keith Lamb said: I think it would be difficult to set a minimum. across the board salary requirement. With that said, maybe it could be tied into ranges that are in the Compensation and Benefits Report. Based on several factors (location, type of course, education, etc..) there could be a minimum requirement to meet in order to advertise on GCSSA. I agree that unhindered, those who are listing will be all over the place on compensation. I can remember seeing a job listing a few years ago for a 72 hole facility with a laundry list of requirements (PGA tournament experience, multi-course experience, etc...) with a starting pay of $60-75K. I don't think they ever filled the position and just split responsibility between the existing Assistants. We should have some level of control over some of the vultures who list those kinds of jobs.

    
    
    Since I come from a small private club of blue collar workers and do not make anything near your starting pay I guess I am considered low class by your standards and do not deserve to have listings in my area that will never reach your $60-75K price range, the GCSAA should not offer me the benefit of being able to have a place to check for job listings? But wait, I pay my dues and have been for over 20 years, why should I not be offered the same rights in my membership then yourself? In my mind your post seems a little uppity to me (how dare you offer such a low paying trash job as a position for only $40k a year)!
    
    I get that you would like to see all of the positions increase in salary but to say you do not want any under a certain amount is complete and utter Bull!
    
    If you do not like seeing a $30-$59K jobs posted just look past it or say $59K a year hmmph who could live off that and move on!
    
    Equality is the key and a low paying position can be just as important to a club as a high paying position is to theirs.

    
    
    I was just using a local situation that I was familiar with to illustrate an extreme issue of disparity of pay to qualifications. Each area of the country is different. I agree that if you don't want the job, don't apply. I think one of the points to be taken is we still have a ways to go to educate owners and such of the value of hiring a good Superintendent. I think another point is some guys are discouraged in this economy that see courses looking at short term financial gains in hiring the cheapest guy. I watched a course nearby do that for several years and they went through several young Superintendents while continuing to struggle to have the course maintained in the manner they expected. They finally hired a seasoned Superintendent which cost them a bit more, but they are happy and the course is in the best shape ever. This is all just my personal observations based on my experience in my little corner of the world.
    
    I wholeheartedly agree that you get out of the GCSAA what you put into it. I don't think certification is going to get you more money. It's more of a personal achievement. Most guys I know that have CGCS behind their name achieved it after they got to the course they're at.
    
    Maybe requiring certain salary and benefits to post jobs is not the cure, but maybe making available to those posting jobs to educate them on industry averages would help. A more prominent link to compensation resources when posting a job? http://www.gcsaa.org/jobs/Compensation-Resources/SuperSalary.aspx They could request for free from the GCSAA a salary and benefits report specific to their situation? I know when I need to hire key positions I reference other courses and the Compensation and Benefits Report. I need to be in the right range in order to get quality applicants. It all just shows that we have to continue to educate and promote our professionalism hand in hand with the GCSAA.

    
    
    I think you hit the nail on the head. Why wouldn't we (the GCSAA) offer this information free to golf courses. I know it cost to obtain all of the information but only good can come from giving golf courses this information for free. The benefit from it would be felt directly by the Superintendents looking into these positions. Heck I would pay an extra $5 per year on my membership if it was offered free of charge to every club when they are looking to hire. I think a letter could be sent to every club from our GCSAA President (possibly yearly) informing them of the pamplet that could be available to them free of charge. It would be easy to add a sales pitch towards the direct benefit to a club in hiring seasoned Superintendents. There are a lot of clubs that actually save money by paying more for the Superintendent who knows his business. I know mine saves a lot of money by the multi-talented nature of its Superintendent. If they hired a young Superintendent they may save $10,000 on salary per year but they would spend a lot more in other things that I have stepped up to accomplish (I know I saved them well over $50,000 last year in rebuilding our clubhouse after Hurricane Isaac).

    
    
    
    
24. Richard Lavine

    

    3 posts
    
    3/11/2014 11:03 AM

    If the question at hand is "Is the GCSAA failing its members?", then I suppose one must ask the question, what are the expectations that we, as members have of the association?
    Is it the mission of our association to provide job security and minimum pay standards? Is it the mission of our association to provide its members with universal health coverage? Both of these topics are recurring themes on this forum. If one is expecting our association to provide for these items, then yes, the association would be judged as failing.
    However, if one is expecting education, regulatory advocacy, a community for discussion, professional development and career assistance, then GCSAA would certainly get a superior grade for these endeavors.
    Can GCSAA ever hope to be all things to all people; absolutely not. We cannot judge our associations' effectiveness solely on the needs of a few vocal members; we must judge it on meeting the needs of the majority. GCSAA is run by an elected BOD of our peers, and they are guided through volunteer committee members. As others have stated, serve on a committee to get a taste of how GCSAA functions.

    
    
    
    
25. Sandy Clark

    

    0 posts
    
    3/11/2014 11:03 AM

    Like very association, you get out of it what you put into it. If you choose not to participate but instead sit on the sidelines, then you will probably see very little personal benefit. Get involved, be on a committee, volunteer, run for the board and you will change your mind. Many dedicated individuals have worked with GCSAA for years simply to help their chapter or the industry in general. I doubt many would feel they didn't get more back than they put in. If you take advantage of the educational opportunities alone, the GCSAA proves worth your membership. Much of what goes on is a little behind the scenes but we all benefit from the work.

    
    
    
    
26. Wahlin Scott B

    
    3/11/2014 12:03 PM

    The GCSAA has done well by me. The CGCS has gotten me jobs I would have not been able to get otherwise. It may have been considered but that certification made it a slam dunk. One of those jobs lasted 12 years and provided a nice pension.
    
    I was never involved with the national, but was involved with the state organizations. The people I met were great and it helped get interviews and offers. This is coming from a guy who lives in a county where it is hard to fall down without falling on a golf course.

    
    
    
    
27. Patrick Finlen

    

    4 posts
    
    3/14/2014 9:03 AM

    Andrew asked if anyone had been listening, I felt compelled to jump in and let you know that, yes, your board of directors and staff at headquarters in Lawrence are listening, and also to provide some color to a few of the issues that have been raised here.
    
    First, one of the core questions that has come up throughout this thread is whether GCSAA reviews and screens job postings prior to pushing them live, and the answer to that is yes, they are reviewed. When certain aspects of that job don't appear to be in line with industry and regional norms, we reach out to those courses to discuss. But as many of you have noted, there is a balancing act that takes place in this process. What might be a step down for one superintendent might be the opportunity of a lifetime for another of for an assistant. We believe it's our responsibility to inform members about any reasonable job opportunity that is available to them.
    
    Another question raised was whether GCSAA shares the results of our compensation and benefits survey with courses seeking superintendents, and the answer is again yes. The results of that survey are available free of charge to any superintendent who participates in the survey itself and available for purchase by others — and many courses simply purchase the entire survey when they begin the hiring process. In many cases, though, courses will contact GCSAA to inquire about specific data related to their facility type, region, etc., to guide the creation of a job description, and in those instances, we provide that data to them at no charge. As many have noted, it is in all of our best interests to share this information with perspective employers, so we want to do everything we can to get that information in their hands in as reasonable a manner as possible.
    
    Finally, let me echo the comments of many concerning the value of GCSAA membership. I have received far more from my association with GCSAA throughout my career than I deserve. Education, career assistance, camaraderie … you name it. I would not be where I am today without this association, so I can't encourage you strongly enough to get active, get involved and be a part of the process.
    
    Pat Finlen, CGCS
    GCSAA Past President

    
    
    
    
28. Ronald Kirkman

    

    42 posts
    
    3/14/2014 12:03 PM

    Well said Mr. Finlen.
    
    Capt. Kirk
    Retired Alien
    Needham Golf Club
    Needham, MA

    
    
    
    
29. Hardy Andrew

    
    3/14/2014 6:03 PM

    Patrick Finlen, CGCS said: Andrew asked if anyone had been listening, I felt compelled to jump in and let you know that, yes, your board of directors and staff at headquarters in Lawrence are listening, and also to provide some color to a few of the issues that have been raised here.
    
    First, one of the core questions that has come up throughout this thread is whether GCSAA reviews and screens job postings prior to pushing them live, and the answer to that is yes, they are reviewed. When certain aspects of that job don't appear to be in line with industry and regional norms, we reach out to those courses to discuss. But as many of you have noted, there is a balancing act that takes place in this process. What might be a step down for one superintendent might be the opportunity of a lifetime for another of for an assistant. We believe it's our responsibility to inform members about any reasonable job opportunity that is available to them.
    
    Another question raised was whether GCSAA shares the results of our compensation and benefits survey with courses seeking superintendents, and the answer is again yes. The results of that survey are available free of charge to any superintendent who participates in the survey itself and available for purchase by others — and many courses simply purchase the entire survey when they begin the hiring process. In many cases, though, courses will contact GCSAA to inquire about specific data related to their facility type, region, etc., to guide the creation of a job description, and in those instances, we provide that data to them at no charge. As many have noted, it is in all of our best interests to share this information with perspective employers, so we want to do everything we can to get that information in their hands in as reasonable a manner as possible.
    
    Finally, let me echo the comments of many concerning the value of GCSAA membership. I have received far more from my association with GCSAA throughout my career than I deserve. Education, career assistance, camaraderie … you name it. I would not be where I am today without this association, so I can't encourage you strongly enough to get active, get involved and be a part of the process.
    
    Pat Finlen, CGCS
    GCSAA Past President

    
    
    I appreciate the feedback Pat. I think that as an industry we are missing the point that the economics of golf have changed. Owners are less likely to care about wage surveys. I know this because mine (a 35yr GCSAA member) has told me times have changed and the surveys are archaic. The simple answer of being insulted by a job posting, is to ignore it. Fact is you may have to take less money to get that next job. That's not an associations fault, it's a high on the hog industry "correcting itself".
    
    I have been a supporter of the GCSAA and my affiliated chapter the OntarioGSA for close to 10yrs now. I guess because I have a comparable in Canada, and my national association pales in comparison to this association. I made a choice and chose the GCSAA.What you take out of your membership is up to you. There are a lot of associations out there looking for members, and if you don't like this one there are others to choose from.
    
    That's my 2 cents.

    
    
    
    
30. Jon Maddern

    

    0 posts
    
    3/15/2014 8:03 AM

    It has been a while so I can't say for sure but this was an issue when I was on board and committees discussed this. It was felt that people out of work would rather know about an opportunity than not. Having a job is better than not and there is a saying that finding a job when you have one is far easier than when you don't have one. I know it is difficult when you are out of work finding a job it took me 10 months.
    
    What was done was when a job came in with a low salary; staff would let the owner/club, manager, whomever know that they were below the standard for that area and they may not get what they are looking for as far as number of applicants or quality. And staff would tell them what the salary range is for that area. Not sure if that is still happening. Also this leads to the importance of filling out the salary survey when it comes out. Staff uses this information. Same can be said for other surveys GCSAA sends out. The information is used by staff, committees, boards, etc.