X-Message-Number: 1816
From:
Subject: CRYONICS Cuts at Alcor
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 01:27:50 PST
Thomas Donaldson has collected in one message two very
important issues/complaints which I have seen pop a few times
over the past few months, so I will try to address them both
briefly.
From Thomas:
>Much as it would hurt, I would favor a combination of lowering
the paychecks
>of some or all of the workers at Alcor South combined with an
increase in
>yearly dues.
>This may mean that some people now working
>at Alcor South will no longer feel able to do so. I would
suggest that Alcor
>look more towards volunteers to help replace them;
Salary cuts:
As Alcor Vice President and Editor of Cryonics magazine, my
take home salary is $10,800 per year, and I am one of the three
best paid employees here. Since I am paid "so well" (relatively
speaking), I would obviously be one of the better choices for a
cut in pay. But I am telling you now that to cut my pay even 5
percent would almost assuredly force me to seek employment
elsewhere within 6 months. What's more, if my pay doesn't go UP
within the next 12 months, I will probably be unable to meet the
interest on my expanding personal debt. I have been a full-time
Alcor employee for two years and seven months now, during which
period I have taken home roughly $26,000 TOTAL. Naturally, I am
completely unprepared for any financial emergency, even one in
the $500 to $1000 range. And of course, being an Alcor employee
provides only one "fringe" benefit: no Emergency Response Dues.
There is no medical coverage, no dental, no retirement, not fat
Christmas bonus. . . no nothin'. (Though thanks to some
thoughtful and generous members, several of us received roughly
$400 as a Christmas donation/bonus last year.)
Now I'm not complaining, mind you, and I don't mean to sound
"ultimatim-ish." I will continue to work for Alcor at my current
salary--or lower--until/unless my personal situation prohibits
it. But this is far from ideal for anyone involved (including
the members). It does not promote high morale or
productivity--though I believe I do okay for myself in both of
these regards--when rather than thinking of your personal
finances in terms of "Disposable Income," you think in terms of
"Ignorable Debt." This being a particularly disastrous month for
me (on account of an exploded starter engine on my '75 Buick), my
current Ignorable Debt figure is very, very low.
I am speaking as an Alcor Director, Officer, employee, and
member when I say that cutting employee salaries is NOT the
answer. I'm no longer objective about how the members "see" the
employees here, or Alcor employment in general. But in case it's
not apparent, this is a VERY high stress job, even when three or
four members AREN'T dying simultaneously in various parts of the
country. Combine that "professional stress" with the huge
personal stress of disastrous finances (cars that oscillate
perpetually between about-to-break-down and broken-down, etc.),
and you have, as they say, a recipe for disaster--and maybe a
nervous breakdown or two.
If we're still determined to cut salaries in some way, the
only realistic route is to fire one employee. But how realistic,
in fact, is this? (Though Keith Henson addressed this briefly, I
think it needs more detail.)
MIKE PERRY: Mike receives $6,600 (pre-tax) annually to act as
full-time live-in Patient Caretaker, phone answerer, facility
historian, gofer, slave, and all around
receiver-of-unwarranted-abuse. In terms of value per dollar, no
one in the cryonics community has ever made a better deal than
Alcor did when it signed Mike Perry on.
JOE HOVEY: Joe receives $9,600 (pre-tax) annually to act as
Alcor's Accountant and MIS (Manager of Information Systems)
Director. I (like Keith) will also cite Michael Riskin (a C.P.A
Alcor member who acts as Alcor's "Internal Auditor") in saying
that replacing Joe would cost AT LEAST three times what we pay
him. And, he cares. How can you beat that?
DEREK RYAN: Derek receives $12,000 (pre-tax) annually to act as
Membership Administrator. This entails assisting the roughly 130
people now in the sign-up process with their insurance and
paperwork arrangements, and dealing with all letters and requests
for information about Alcor/cryonics that do not require special
(e.g., financial or technical) knowledge. Any spare time (yuk
yuk) he spends assessing the membership files of existing
Suspension Members, in preparation for the desperately needed
update project that was delayed for too, too long when I was
doing his job. You can fire Derek if you like, but only if
you've found someone who will do it at least half as well and for
less money. To this end, we are unfortunately constrained by the
anticipated proton decay and subsequent heat death of the
universe.
TANYA JONES: Tanya receives $13,200 (pre-tax) annually to act as
Suspension Services Manager and Director of Coordinator Services.
That is, she attempts to replace Mike Darwin in dealing with the
awesomely intimidating task of preparing for every nuance of
Transports and Suspensions. Also, she coordinates with the local
groups for readiness, supplies, et cetera. Given that a) she had
no prior training that contributed to making this job easier for
her, and b) she did not WANT the job, but instead simply began
doing it as a full-time volunteer when no one else was willing or
able, and c) she could readily find a much higher salary outside
of Alcor, we are intensely fortunate to have her skills and
effort at such a price. We simply could not be adequately
prepared for suspensions without SOMEBODY doing what she is
doing, full time. As with Derek, you can fire her, but you MUST
replace her, at lower cost and with at least similar
output/productivity. Good luck.
RALPH WHELAN: Ralph receives $14,400 (pre-tax) annually to act
as Vice President of Alcor and Editor of Cryonics magazine.
Anything I say here runs the risk of being perceived as (or in
fact) self-serving. So I will say only that losing (loosing?)
Ralph simply means finding someone else who will put out Cryonics
magazine, take on (or assist in) many of the management tasks and
decisions required in running a business, and deal with the
myriad special projects (updates of member documents, creation of
new contracts, preparation and updates of the handbook, creation
of Remote Standby contracts and policies, tours of the facility
and other public relations, et cetera) that have to fall to
SOMEBODY.
HUGH HIXON: Hugh receives $15,750 (pre-tax) annually to act as
Facility Engineer. In short, if it's broke, he fixes it, if it's
not broke, he makes sure it stays that way. He is essential to
several aspects of our day-to-day operations, and irreplacable in
suspensions. If you fired him today, we might not even notice
for a week or two. We might not notice for a month. We might
not notice until our phones, computers, dewars, cars, medical
equipment, and toilets get up and walk out the door in disgust.
In terms of how firing Hugh Hixon would serve as a cost-saving
measure, I would expect things to go a lot better for a lot
longer if we simply refused to pay our rent, phone, and
utilities.
STEVE BRIDGE: Steve receives $22,500 (pre-tax) annually to act
as Alcor's President. He frequently works 12+ hour days, 7 days
a week, doing every manner of imaginable (and unimaginable) task,
90 percent of which are essential to the continued function of
Alcor. I see no point in explaining further why we can't lower
his pay, and can't fire him.
Ralph, Tanya, and Derek cohabit, which is how they can meet
their living expenses, and of course Hugh, Joe, and Mike Perry
live in the facility, which is how THEY meet their living
expenses.
Volunteers:
The above serves to illustrate, I believe, why we cannot
lower salaries, and in fact should raise them as soon as AT ALL
possible. But could we fire someone, re-apportion the workload
among the remaining employees, and utilize more volunteer labor
to make up the difference? With all of these gung-ho members,
can't we utilize their skills and efforts better, and
replace/diminish the staff?
The answer is yes. . . and no. Yes, we can definitely
utilize volunteer labor better than we do, and I'm working on a
project with Charles Platt (one of most productive and useful
volunteers ever) right now to formulate an "Involvement Package"
of sorts that would go to all members, present and future,
offering them more information and opportunities to help us.
This, along with a better management and tracking system on a
per-task basis, should enable us to "Maximize our Potential" for
volunteer help.
But could we really significantly diminish the staff
workload in this way? I believe the answer is no, and I am even
willing to argue that in many cases, additional volunteer work
means MORE work for the staff, not less. This is because the
types of tasks that can be done well by volunteers are almost
invariably the things that bring MORE attention and MORE
members--and subsequently more of an administrative load--to the
staff. Charles, again, is a wonderful case in point. Charles
does about as much above-and-beyond type stuff as any
organization could ever DREAM of having a member do. The
positive impact that his efforts have had on the public
perception of Alcor and cryonics is immeasurable. And I have
never been busier. Charles has made WEEKS of work for me
alone, never mind the other staffers. (Even SUSPENSIONS have
resulted from his efforts. You want more work and more stress. .
. ?) And of course we could never possibly thank him enough--and
I mean that without sarcasm.
What Charles is NOT willing to do is help clean the facility
here, or put out Cryonics magazine, or negotiate with our
lawyers, or sweet-talk the U.S.D.A., or improve our suspension
protocol, or any of the other myriad tasks that involve a long,
steep learning curve, a lot of supervision, and a lot of
experience. There are some things that you simply cannot farm
out, for reasons of economy and practicality as well as the
"Nuisance Factor." (Simply, it is an impossible nuisance to let
the small, noise-level tasks pile up until a volunteer can come
in and do them, despite that dealing with them in an ongoing
manner is a nuisance for the staff as well.)
To illustrate further, consider how this day has gone for
me. I arrived at 9:00 a.m. and scanned through my email, then
began this message, not really moving from my desk in that
interval. That was five hours ago. If you asked me what I've
done today, I would say that I've worked on this important
message (which obviously a volunteer could not do), answered
phone calls, and made some minor management decisions involving
other staffers. Certainly no more than one of the five hours has
gone toward this writing, but how can I describe the other four
hours? No one specific task was accomplished; I simply dealt
with the various and SUNDRY questions and dilemmas of various
members, strangers, and staffers. How do you train a bright,
energetic, once-a-month volunteer in Nebraska to do that?
Furthermore, there are almost no volunteers near the main
Alcor facility. This sometimes comes as a shock to people who
frequently hear of the 100+ members in the L.A. area. But in
fact Alcor is a 1 to 2 hour drive from these 100 members, and
very few of them care to make long trips to the facility on a
regular basis to do the (unfortunately) mindless tasks that are
in need of doing (like Scott Herman). This phenomenon is what I
sometimes refer to as the Myth of the Volunteers, though I mean
nothing derogatory by that at all. Yes, there are a FEW Alcor
members who've resolved to make their time and skills available
to Alcor on a regular basis. Most of these few members are
hundreds of miles away, doing things that (as with Charles) make
MORE work for us, in the best way possible of course. The
regular (and not-so-regular) day-to-day tasks that the employees
perform cannot, for the most part, be delegated to volunteers
practically.
Thomas brings up a specific example, so I will address it
directly. Since this is really just one example, I'll try to
keep it short.
>I remember vividly, for
>instance, how Arel used to deal with Suspension Paperwork and
that it has now
>been brought all inhouse. No one every explained to me, as a
member, just why
>that needed to be done.
(Actually, I described in a long-ago issue of Cryonics why
the decision to move from various local coordinators to a
centralized Membership Administrator was made. But it does bear
repeating.)
Very soon after I replaced Arthur McCombs as Membership
Administrator (then called "Sign-Up Coordinator"), I came to the
conclusion that the existing system of referring applicants to a
"local" (often not-so-local) coordinator for the preapration and
execution of sign-up documents was inefficient. The reasons for
this are MANY, but the bottom line is that a) members were not
getting signed up very fast, which meant that it was longer
before they were paying dues, b) attention to detail and
consistency in the VERY important member documents was
inconsistent, often necessitating time-consuming reparations, c)
the coordinator system was actually moderately costly, by some
estimates (namely, mine, Carlos', and Joe Hovey's) EXCEEDING the
cost of a one-person Membership Administration Office because of
long-distance expenses resulting from decentralization of
resources (i.e., the opposite of Division of Labor), d)
applicants were taking a LONG TIME to sign up, often because they
were simply procrastinators, but often because the local
coordinators had lives of their own, and couldn't move things
along as well as a production-line-type centralized effort, e)
many members were signed up without ever really understanding
their paperwork, and in some cases without even understanding
cryonics particularly well, and f) the infamous Pile of Documents
was so streamlined and improved upon, the preparation task (which
once took hours for the coordinators) can now be performed
on-screen in about 15 minutes.
None of this is the fault of the local coordinators, who
were in almost all cases cooperative, industrious, and willing to
learn. It was simply an inefficient, costly system that has been
replaced by a $12,000/year employee (now Derek) who is fast,
efficient, competent, thoroughly acquainted with ALL aspects of
the documents and membership in general, and, most important,
HERE.
This message is now (of course) much longer than what I
intended, but I hope that it has served its purpose. The number
of Alcor employees is no bigger now than it was 3 years ago,
contrary to assertions I've read here over the past couple of
weeks, and the total payroll expenditure has gone DOWN, not up,
in the last three years. This despite that our membership has
more than doubled in the same interval. Whoever says that as
we've gotten more members we've just hired more staff over the
past few years is just plain wrong. The economies of scale are
real, and more importantly the WORKLOAD is real. Anyone who
thinks we could operate well with less employees than we have
presently, despite having the same amount of employees as we had
with half the membership base and a quarter of the media
attention, must be able to convince the Board--or at least the
president--that the various points outlined above are not
representative of reality.
Comments/criticisms/response welcome.
Relentlessly,
Ralph Whelan
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1816