New hire

TimBr · May 2, 2016

ROYCE said:
Great advice:

I start with a good ad that does just that. States what my expectations are. In this industry your going to get everyone who has run a chainsaw applying to your ads. I know you understand this Mark because you have been doing this longer than I have been alive.

My next step is a phone interview where I am screening them. Asking them questions. I typically get a few guys who just want to talk about how there is not a tree they can't climb, they have been doing this for 24 years Bla Bla Bla. I trend to steer away from them and look for the more humble guys who already know there good and want to show me instead of telling me over the phone. Education is huge for me. I like to hire people who have shown they are actively involved in the advancement of their skills and education.

Then I schedule a trial day. Two days at least, 1 day for them to see how we do things and another day for us to put them in the hot seat. I schedule the work based on their sill set. If I'm bring a 25-30 hr guy, he is not going to have to show me he can work the toughest of trees.

Yes, everyone will talk their skills up. I have worked with guys who were super-stars at their previous companies but then worked with us and they were not nearly as skilled as out middle level guys. The reason is some employees forget that the salesmen might be saying no to all those nasty jobs. Well what happens when you go work for the company that does not say no, and takes the job other will not. It forces you into a position that maybe your not too used to.

Screen, screen, screen. Do trial days, it can tell you a lot about a person when they are in the heat of a large removal, or mature tree prune. Might take a really good guy some time to get used to the way you work.

Hey, Royce! Great post. One question about one part of your post.

You said: " If I'm bring a 25-30 hr guy, he is not going to have to show me he can work the toughest of trees." What did you mean by this? That the guy is only going to be working for you between 25 and 30 hours each week, or that the climber only has 25 to 30 hours of actual climbing time in the saddle?

I'd be guessing it's the first and not the second, but I just wanted to be sure.

Thanks in advance for any answers you choose to give.

Tim

ROYCE · May 2, 2016

TimBr said:
Hey, Royce! Great post. One question about one part of your post.

You said: " If I'm bring a 25-30 hr guy, he is not going to have to show me he can work the toughest of trees." What did you mean by this? That the guy is only going to be working for you between 25 and 30 hours each week, or that the climber only has 25 to 30 hours of actual climbing time in the saddle?

I'd be guessing it's the first and not the second, but I just wanted to be sure.

Thanks in advance for any answers you choose to give.

Tim

I am saying that If I pay a guy 25-30 and hour for a full time position. Which is typically 45 hours a week for us. Then he needs to be able to perform and tackle the harder trees.

TimBr · May 3, 2016

@ROYCE, So, you meant to say that the $25 - $30/hour guy IS going to have to show you that he can handle the toughest trees, and that $25-$30/ hour is top scale for your company, by implication, correct? Don't answer if I'm getting too personal, please.

Thanks.

Tim

ROYCE · May 3, 2016

TimBr said:
@ROYCE, So, you meant to say that the $25 - $30/hour guy IS going to have to show you that he can handle the toughest trees, and that $25-$30/ hour is top scale for your company, by implication, correct? Don't answer if I'm getting too personal, please.

Thanks.

Tim

Correct! For 50 an hour you can have my job and I will go learn how to fly helicopters. Still on the bucket list

LimbLoppa · May 3, 2016

Well then, forget about the crane from the other post and get the helicopter! Chuck-chuck-chuck-chuck.(helicopter sounds )

frashdog · May 5, 2016

ROYCE said:
Correct! For 50 an hour you can have my job and I will go learn how to fly helicopters. Still on the bucket list

I envy few jobs...helicopter pilots are one. One of my clients has one, $1,800/hr need a 4hr min last I asked to get it up my way, he flies folks from their planes to their lawns out of Boston. I always swear at them when they fly over me low! Trying to get my son excited about them so he can fly dad around when we can afford one. Had one fly by me last year on a water front, lower then me up in the tree. As soon as I heard it I looked and bam, probably going over 100mph at below tree line maybe 50-100' off shore. Sick!

TimBr · May 5, 2016

I'm no expert, but I think that might be a serious FAA violation, which might be able to cost a pilot his license. I thought that there was a 500 foot minimum required to be maintained. If you got footage and a tail number, you might have some real ammo.

CanadianStan · May 5, 2016

I believe helicopters are more or less exempt from minimum height restrictions

TimBr · May 5, 2016

I know someone who is a former chopper pilot, and they are the one that informed me about the 500 foot minimum. It is an interesting question, though, and it would be cool to find out that the FAA rules are available to be viewed by the general public. It is another research project.

Ok, I'm still not sure if the guy was entirely legal or not, but the link below has a series of questions posed to the FAA. The answers to question #13, parts a,b,c and d, indicate that over congested areas the minimum is 1,000 feet for a helicopter, over sparse areas 500 feet, and over water I think there is no minimum, but the chopper must maintain a minimum separation of 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure. So, it sounds like it was ok for him to be low over the water, as long as he was more than 500 feet away from the climber.

So generally speaking, over populated, congested areas, it seems to me like 1,000 feet is the answer, and 500 if they want to argue about the definition of the word "congested". As I read things.

http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_development/omp/FAQ/General_Concerns/

Edit: Another link, which adds a bit of detail.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119

It sounds like chopper pilots could argue about the existence of any minimum altitude requirement, (because of part D), but the problem to my way of thinking is that that is a judgement call. Staying above 500 feet reduces the chances of any issues. Wild and crazy pilots might wish to push the limits, and see if anyone pushes back.