Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping

[George Pazin]

Impressive writing, Dave - please don't stay away so long next time you choose to take a sabbatical.

The sad thing is that all I can really offer is "Welcome to the real world." As Dan King said, this happens everywhere, not just golf courses. It never ceases to amaze me what people with serious cash pay their nannies.

Anyway, the only reassurance I can offer is that somehow in the cosmic balance the attitude displayed by Bob Davis eventually receives its just reward. Go ahead, hire by lowest common denominator, & wait to see what happens when you make just one unlucky decision. As Dave said, job security...

[Dave_Wilber]

The point of Supply and Demand is not lost on me. Indeed it is a very real thing.

Many in our business who so firmly advocated education, scholorships, and other ways and means to see an increase in "membership" have come to understand that they may not have done themselves a favor. No question that there are more candidates seeking each and every job then before.

Notice I didn't say qualified candidates. All those who truely believe we are now in a "buyers market" for greenkeeping talent certainly have their feet planted in the quicksand while they say stuff like Mr. Davis has above.

The economics of this go way beyond salaries. Sure, you can pay less and probably get some decent looing lines on the resume, but can that person handle the job? Will he or she be able to stay more than 3.3 years and will the course play better and be better off year after year? I'm seeing organizations patting each other on the back for hiring superintendents at a "fair market price". Then 10 years later when they are paying 2x or more that price in deferred maintenance costs, they suddenly wonder what the heck happened. Of course it is usually different people dealing with those issues as Board and management turn over.

Let me tell you, clubs thinking they are saving money with their choice of superintendent or saving money by getting rid of one who they suddenly deem to be "making too much money" do find themselves in a world of hurt down the road. They may not own up to the mistake or even recognize that it happened at all.

So I'm not just talking about money in the super's bank account, but also talking about what the true cost of bad greenkeeping and bad choices of greenkeepers really means to The Game.

[B Mogg]

Hi Dave,

Doing any work out east (like way way out east in Asia)?

If you think you have it bad over there in the USA, at least your supers are qualified. Out here we are lucky to place a qualified person on a job.

Your thread brings to mind the problems we had years ago at one of our courses here. 36 holes, fully sandcapped etc. etc. all the bells and whistles (centralised irrigation), I think in the vicinity of 30-40million US$ would have been spent (excluding various gratuities to the approving bodies ).

Do you think we could convince the owner to hire a qualified super - so what pay him 200K a year, we are talking 36 holes and a big investment here? Oh no, the owner in his wisdom managed to snare an assistant at a local club for the princely sum of about 30K a year, an assistant who had never had 36 holes under his control, oh and no experience in the grasses at the new course.

Result, the course was basically "lost" in one year and if someone picked it up now they would be looking at rebuilding the whole thing.

Owners need to put supers role into perspective. They are in charge of a multimillion $$ investment that lives or dies on the decisions they make. They should be re-imbursed appropriately.

[jim__janosik]

A  twenty+ year  vet as a  Super  I  have  always noted  a
glaring  difference between  the  attitudes  towards  employess  exibited  by the  best companies to work for  as
surveyed  by  Fortune  Magazine  and  the  golf  business.
Golf as a business is  not  that sophisticated  as  evidenced by the  tolerance of  high turnover  of  key employees.  Would
you  invest  your 401K  in  a  companyt that would turn over
its  key  execs  every  3.3 years on a whim?

Why  does microsoft hire  the smartest  people they can find,
literally,  you have to prove you have the smarts to wrk for them  yet  the  gate keepers in golf  are threatened  by those
same qualities.

John  Ruskin  summed it up well  in  the 1800's  

"It is unwise to pay too much,  but its worse to pay too little.
When you pay too much  you loose a little money--thats all.

When you pay too little  you sometimes  loose  everything,
because  the thing you bought(hired) was incapable of doing
the thing you bought it(hired) it to do.

The  common law  of business  balance  prohibits  paying  a
little and getting alot....it can't be done.  

If  you deal with the lowest bidder  it is well  to  add  something for the risk you run.  And if you do that  you will
have enough  to  pay for  soemthing  better."

Has anything  changed in 200 years...Homey  don't  think
so!!!!!!!!!!

Dave W.  I  think  the above sums  up  part of your  passion.
Don't ever loose  it.!!!!!!!!

The  operations that  hire  the  less qualifiied  are only  mentaly  masturbating  that  they  are  ahead.