Touchy Question

highclimber30

highclimber30

Location
south carolina
So this question might be considered in bad taste or it may have been discussed already, don't know. I know that pay and things like that are going to be a little different in different areas...but, 1)what do you guys think is a fair standard of pay for a good steady climber, 2)what is a fair standard of pay for a top level climber?
 
I think for a standard climber around here 17 to 20 per/hr. And I've paid up to 30 per/hr for a top level or what thought was a top level. But I'm new at this, so don't quote me and I also run a very small company.
 
here in the south if you can beat 12-13 for a good climber and 14-15 for a top climber then you can beat most companys. sad but true, but you know a good climber is worth more.if you can afford to pay more plz do cause we are worth it!
 
[ QUOTE ]
here in the south if you can beat 12-13 for a good climber and 14-15 for a top climber then you can beat most companys. sad but true, but you know a good climber is worth more.if you can afford to pay more plz do cause we are worth it!

[/ QUOTE ]

nick?
 
[ QUOTE ]
here in the south if you can beat 12-13 for a good climber and 14-15 for a top climber then you can beat most companys. sad but true, but you know a good climber is worth more.if you can afford to pay more plz do cause we are worth it!

[/ QUOTE ]

That's sad... although I'm paying Jared about that while he's training. He's just lucky

In a perfect world I'd pay $200 a day for typical climbing and roping, more for urgent stuff or extra long days. When I work contract on dodgy removals I want $300 a day minimum.

Tree work needs to pay more, the risk is high, the level of fitness is necessarily above average, the work is hard and the expensive gear doesn't last very long... and then there's WC insurance, scratchy hands, sawdust in ears, jock itch in the summer, blablabla. Most middle managers who don't do much of anything but type and go to meetings get paid better than tree people.
 
[ QUOTE ]
So this question might be considered in bad taste or it may have been discussed already, don't know. I know that pay and things like that are going to be a little different in different areas...but, 1)what do you guys think is a fair standard of pay for a good steady climber, 2)what is a fair standard of pay for a top level climber?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to both questions is what can you afford, and what do you need to pay them to not jump ship. If you stick to market rates, then a good climber will shop himself around. When an experienced climber gets very good, then they will consider going solo, you then have to ask if you can afford keeping them on board.
 
Here in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, the current going rate for a top contract climber is $50/hr... $400/day. A top climber employed at a knowledgeable, upstanding company makes ~$25, give or take a few dollars. Maybe they get benefits, maybe they don't.

In my opinion, the rates in this area (contract climber or otherwise) need to be raised. $60/hr... $480/day is justifiable here considering what a good contract climber brings to the job. Having said that, work here is so slow and so cutthroat lately, this is not an appropriate time for us contract climbers to raise our rates. In speaking with my arborist friends, some think a sliding scale should be adopted, i.e. crab apple pruning = less. Pruning large trees = more. Crane assisted removal = a bit more. Hazardous/dead tree removal = much much more.

Well, where do you draw the line? Should the rate (for contract climbers) be based also on the competency of the crew that hires you? Most of the companies that hire me need constant supervision and coaching. Should I charge more to these companies, or less to the people that actually make my job easier?

If you look at other trades (plumbing, electrical, framing, mechanics, raw materials, etc.) everyone is charging more and more to make up for increased costs. Why can't we?

... end of rant.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Here in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, the current going rate for a top contract climber is $50/hr... $400/day. A top climber employed at a knowledgeable, upstanding company makes ~$25, give or take a few dollars. Maybe they get benefits, maybe they don't.

In my opinion, the rates in this area (contract climber or otherwise) need to be raised. $60/hr... $480/day is justifiable here considering what a good contract climber brings to the job. Having said that, work here is so slow and so cutthroat lately, this is not an appropriate time for us contract climbers to raise our rates. In speaking with my arborist friends, some think a sliding scale should be adopted, i.e. crab apple pruning = less. Pruning large trees = more. Crane assisted removal = a bit more. Hazardous/dead tree removal = much much more.

Well, where do you draw the line? Should the rate (for contract climbers) be based also on the competency of the crew that hires you? Most of the companies that hire me need constant supervision and coaching. Should I charge more to these companies, or less to the people that actually make my job easier?

If you look at other trades (plumbing, electrical, framing, mechanics, raw materials, etc.) everyone is charging more and more to make up for increased costs. Why can't we?

... end of rant.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think that everything that you said makes sense. If I were a contract climber, I would probably bid the climbing to the company that wants work done. If they have a competent, well-trained crew then your whole day will be easier, both mentally and physically, and safer.

If you incur more risk for dangerous work, you will undoubtedly experience more mental stress. Being able to perform under pressure and personal risk is a valuable skill. As a more highly skilled climber, if you move swiftly and carefully, your risk is reduced in a hazard tree removal (IMO, all else being equal). This is where good skills/ mental strength make you much more valuable.

Market value of fruit tree pruning, while being a skilled art, is less, as more people are able to produce the same result, and personal risk is much less than in tall tree work. Consider an aerial rescue from a fruit tree-very simple.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Here in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, the current going rate for a top contract climber is $50/hr... $400/day. A top climber employed at a knowledgeable, upstanding company makes ~$25, give or take a few dollars. Maybe they get benefits, maybe they don't.

In my opinion, the rates in this area (contract climber or otherwise) need to be raised. $60/hr... $480/day is justifiable here considering what a good contract climber brings to the job. Having said that, work here is so slow and so cutthroat lately, this is not an appropriate time for us contract climbers to raise our rates. In speaking with my arborist friends, some think a sliding scale should be adopted, i.e. crab apple pruning = less. Pruning large trees = more. Crane assisted removal = a bit more. Hazardous/dead tree removal = much much more.

Well, where do you draw the line? Should the rate (for contract climbers) be based also on the competency of the crew that hires you? Most of the companies that hire me need constant supervision and coaching. Should I charge more to these companies, or less to the people that actually make my job easier?

If you look at other trades (plumbing, electrical, framing, mechanics, raw materials, etc.) everyone is charging more and more to make up for increased costs. Why can't we?

... end of rant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how any tree company can afford to add that much to their daily operating costs. Even if we are talking about a sub with their own insurance, etc, $50/hr seems high. $2000 a week (given that the work is available) is more than I would expect to make if I only had to supply my skills, climbing gear and insurance.

Having said all that, in a perfect world, $50/hr or more for a top climber is what I would like to see, but just not what I think is reasonable based on competition and today's economy in general.

-Tom
 
[ QUOTE ]
here in the south if you can beat 12-13 for a good climber and 14-15 for a top climber then you can beat most companys. sad but true, but you know a good climber is worth more.if you can afford to pay more plz do cause we are worth it!

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, that is about the same here in Central Indiana. And I am getting tired of it. But if looked around and a little travel you can get 16-18 an hour and get taken care of.

When contract climbing, there has been allot of times I would get $100 for putting a tree on the ground, even if only 2-4 hours. $200 or more for a big tree.

I do pay close attention about how allot of you talk here, and is really upping they way that I think of running a company. Which, I do plan on taking over in the near future.

Besides climbing, we do pay a min of $10/hour, for a guy to drag brush for a day. I have had people offer to do it for 7-8, and told them that I could not do that to them.
 
I was basically asking because my employer is always saying "well, its not industry standard to pay climbers that much". I just wanted to see what other companies are paying their guys. I do pretty well but I have put seven years into the company working my way up from around 10 bucks an hour. Some of our sales guys seem to rake in the dough. A lot of times our crew leaders seem to do half of the salesman's job, running interference, going above board with client service and all that. Not to mention climbing everything, baby sitting some of the ground men and dragging half the brush. If nothing else I think that a climbing crew leader ought to make a few percent comission on the sales guys dime, especially if he/she is doing a lot of the pr too. Production guys shouldn't be penalized in pay because they prefer to be in a saddle as opposed to a button down shirt. I guess the perfect scenario doesn't really exist. I've seen the southern chapter champ. leave our company partly because of money reasons. Things like that shouldn't happen in my opinion. I just think some companies would rather have guys who say yessir and no-sir and are happy with 12 dollars an hour. Even if they ding every fence and gutter in the neighborhood.
 
The person that I was talking about, paying good for contract climbing, got a bucket truck. And just last night, was talking to me about needing someone to run his show. Good climber and operator. I told him that I might have someone that might be worth looking into. But I told him if so, it would cost him. And when it came to climbing trimming/pruning that he would have to charge more. Still doesn't understand that you don't put gaffs into live tree's unless there is no other way.

And I tell you what. I do take a look at job finder. And if I wasn't commited with my company, and if I didn't have strings attached, that I would love to travel and get the opertunity that some offer!

So Jamin, maybe there just are not many climbers in CO?
 
[ QUOTE ]
1)what do you guys think is a fair standard of pay for a good steady climber, 2)what is a fair standard of pay for a top level climber?

[/ QUOTE ]
"Fair" and "top level" seems to be in the eyes of the beholder. I don’t think there are many climbers out there who would consider themselves unfair or bottom level. The level of experience a climber has does not always describe their knowledge or capabilities. Pruning, Removal, Cabling, Crane Work, Rigging... What value can you put on safety, efficiency, knowledge, skill... especially when it can be shared within a company?

[ QUOTE ]
asking because my employer is always saying "well, its not industry standard to pay climbers that much".

[/ QUOTE ]
On that note "Industry Standard" is just a perception. The fact of the matter is that the Tree Care Industry is very much lacking in many "standards" Anyone with a chainsaw can call themselves a tree worker, arborist, tree surgeon… Become “licensed, insured, certified… You can even become a member with absolutely NO credentials for a small fee.

I would say $19-$20/hr.

How much do you make? How much does he? Who cares if you’re both happy!
 
I would say that there are a lot of people out there that are good climbers but not top climbers. Same as in most professions. Only a few can be at the top.

I'm thinking of a CC that provides ALL their own climbing and rigging gear, insurance, has broad experience in, and about, all types of trees. Prunes, removes (crane, too), cables/ preserves, can ID issues such as diseases/ insects/ abiotic factors.

They should be able to move fast and efficiently enough to keep a strong ground crew moving, without burying them.
I wonder if people that hire contract climbers don't have a strong enough ground crew to optimize the abilities of a really good CC, so therefore they aren't able to get the full value out of the CC.

EDIT.
Few CC would be in the $50/ hour range.

I suppose this part of this depends on the arsenal of equipment brought to the job, the technicality of the job, and the skills and judgment to make the job happen efficiently. Big rigging specialists that are bringing expensive ropes, lowering devices, blocks, slings, etc as part of their rigging gear are surely going to bring in more per hour (and hopefully bottom line) than your more typical level of climber in day to day tree work. Same with disease/ insect skills, etc.





The difficult thing with the nationwide discussion of US wages is the enormous variety of conditions. "I've done treework for 'x' years" means things all across the spectrum. There is no effective way to measure apples to apples amongst people.
 
Industry standard is a localized figure. Based on the cost of living in that area and what a tree co can charge for it's work. CC's can earn $50/hr since that pays not just for the time on the job but all their administrative overhead along with insurance etc... You are hiring a business on an as needed basis and only paying them the hours on the job. Like your own business you charge your clients for the overhead.

As for salespeople "raking in the big bucks", don't forget they have to knock on a lot of doors and put out a lot of estimates to land the work that you do. Ask them how well theyr'e doing when the economy goes south.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Industry standard is a localized figure. Based on the cost of living in that area and what a tree co can charge for it's work. CC's can earn $50/hr since that pays not just for the time on the job but all their administrative overhead along with insurance etc... You are hiring a business on an as needed basis and only paying them the hours on the job. Like your own business you charge your clients for the overhead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont forget about uncle sam. He takes 25% of that money (12.50) So now your CC is actually only taking 38.50 to pay his expences per hour. But the contracting co dont care if thats not enough.
The way I see it: If the contracting company does not have the skills to complete the job at hand, they are at the mercy of the contract climber and what s/he wants to charge. If a company came to me to do their work, its gotta be worth what I can get for my own work. If not they are gonna have to find a way to get it done themselves. I have too much of my own work to be making others lots of money. IMO $50/hr is too cheap for a good CC.
 
Exactly, this is market forces. Subs need to see themselves as a business and thus in a business to business transaction. They are therefore not at the mercy of the CC but of market conditions. What do the get for their work from the market directly? Then they need to discern whether or not the sub contract is competitive. At the end of the day, the amount one gets is determined by them through a negotiated process of equals.

Just remember, if you can't get up from the bargaining table then you've got no power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom