Were you ever happy making $200?

[salbrecher]

I was.

This comment could be posted in response to any number of threads but instead of sidetracking them (or posting this 100 times in response to every low price comment) I started a new thread. I have planted for 7 seasons and can vividly remember being happy making $200 dollars per day. It took a few years before that number went up to $250 and then $300 and even $400 for a bit. But the point is there were a few years where I was thrilled with $200. I was young and had no expenses and $200 was a lot of money. In response to the hundreds of threads that talk about shitty prices, is it so hard to believe that there are people willing to work for less than $300? Sure my standards changed and I now would not plant for less that $xxx, but others will, and happily (like I did).

I don't drink the "2nd or 3rd year planters (which I was when I was happy making $200) lack the experience (in most cases) to plant good trees and that the future forest will suffer because the average planter doesn't have 10 years experience" kool-aid. It's entirely possible for planters making $175 or $200 to plant good trees that will grow good healthy stands. Survival rates are still up around 95%, despite declining prices.

People are willing to work for less money than other people and, with proper supervision, the trees will live and grow; that is why prices are lower than some people would like and contracts get underbid. Low prices are not some conspiracy conceived by Foresters, government, licensees, or contractors.

[Tnalp]

Good for you!

The point is not what you make, it is if you make and amount that you consider, at a minimum fair (and hopefully great and satisfying) versus the actual energy expended while planting while also taking into account your investment in time and money to be doing that particular job.

I have known some people who were content with 150 a day. This worker had a colostomy bag on and was physically limited. ( no shit... (sorry!) )
I have known many more (including myself) who are content with 400 $ a day.

Everyone is different.

"good" or "great" money is a subjective concept when it applies to personal expectations.

If however you translate the piece rate wage into an hourly structure and compare to somewhat similar industries you will, or should, see that for similar lengths of shifts 200 per day is very average.

But if you are happy...

Good for you.




( as an aside, your post sounds like it emanated from the owner of a large company who is trying his hand at amateurish "white propaganda"... part of me is skeptical)

[Tnalp]

A bit of edit on my post.

I see that you were happy making that amount when you were a rookie. That makes more sense to me.

Nonetheless 200 is maybe 16 to 18 bucks an hour. deduct all the expenses and your looking at maybe 12 to 14 $ hour these days! I personally would like to see average wages go up and even create a higher threshold of rookie wage expectation.

20 years ago rookie averages were about 200 with the large PG outfit I worked for. They should be more than that in 2012 in my mind.

Anyway. I respect the positive feel of your post.

Cheers.

[mcD]

[quote="Tnalp( as an aside, your post sounds like it emanated from the owner of a large company who is trying his hand at amateurish "white propaganda"... part of me is skeptical)[/quote]

I can say for sure, that this does not apply to salbrecher. and although you don't have to like it he is essentially correct. planters and company owners are just as responsible for low wages as large corporations and government.

[Pandion]

I thought $200 was pretty good for a few weeks in my rookie year, but once I had received a little more training and worked with some faster more experienced planters, I soon realized I should be making considerably more. Prices seemed to be better up north then than they are now mind you.

I don't drink the "2nd or 3rd year planters (which I was when I was happy making $200) lack the experience (in most cases) to plant good trees and that the future forest will suffer because the average planter doesn't have 10 years experience" kool-aid. It's entirely possible for planters making $175 or $200 to plant good trees that will grow good healthy stands. Survival rates are still up around 95%, despite declining prices.

I recall a lot of replanting going on when I worked up north (not myself of course), because 2nd and 3rd year planters were not able to meet quality standards the first time. I don't think there are too many things worse for shallow, j-rooted, air-pocketed, open holed little seedlings than being yanked out of the ground and slammed back in with contempt because someone is forced into replanting. I doubt very much the 95% survival rate you have given. Based on the surveys I have done it tends to be in the mid eighties although there are more factors contributing to survival than planting quality as we all know.

You are correct, there are many planters who are thrilled to be making between $200 and $300 a day. I think some of that has to do with ignorance though, and having never worked in a better situation, where an employer believes you should make more than that. If I were to walk into a Coast Range camp this Spring and say gee that sucks that you are only getting 13 cents for your screefs and making $250, the guys at Leader are getting 19 cents and they have guys averaging over $500 a day, how do you think that would go over? Although I suppose if they spent as much time at the cache as you did during your career they might be fine with it and think those suckers at Leader are working too hard.

[mwainwright]

i worked with stefan (salbrecher) years ago. he didnt really spend any time at the cache. he used to actually run from his cache into his piece. this is why i remember him.

[Screefhead]

I agree with the OP in that low prices don't necessarily mean bad quality. It just seems like pure arrogance that a few posters here assume that just because they'll plant shit trees if the price is low, that every planter will do the same. I doubt there is any significant difference in planting quality or tree survival rate on a block done by Folklore or by Leader.

[b-dawg]

I doubt there is any significant difference in planting quality or tree survival rate on a block done by Folklore or by Leader.

hu-hu-huHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA



thanks. I haven't laughed like that in a while.

[salbrecher]

I would change the quote to "I doubt there is any significant difference in planting quality or tree survival rate on a block done by Folklore or by Leader, given proper supervision".

If a company or licensee checker is out every day with planters ensuring quality specs are met it is my opinion that there would be no significant difference for large areas of the province. There are certainly situations were that may not be true and experienced planters could do a better job. I would say that fertilizing, slashy or rocky ground, coning, or multiple species (other than standard interior pine spruce mixes) may be such cases.

B-dawg, it's amazing that there are any stands growing back at all, given the Summits, Coast Ranges, and Brinkmans out there planting, eh!

From my experience, it's just as likely the experienced highballers are slutting in trees as the inexperienced rookies.

[Scooter]

Given that trees grow from seeds falling on the ground and the forests seem to survive, I'm surprised that planting quality is as strict as it is. In some locations, I feel that foresters would be better served by planting more trees at lower prices while enforcing lower quality standards.

Oh wait, that already happens.

[Pandion]

I agree with the OP in that low prices don't necessarily mean bad quality. It just seems like pure arrogance that a few posters here assume that just because they'll plant shit trees if the price is low, that every planter will do the same. I doubt there is any significant difference in planting quality or tree survival rate on a block done by Folklore or by Leader.

If they are being held to the same standards, then quality will obviously be similar however I would argue that survival would likely be better on Leader's blocks. The thing with Leader is that they have planters who have been planting the same contract for a decade, and therefore know the specs better than the Summer student who is checking their trees. This means they will plant the trees properly the first time in the proper microsites, meaning virutally no replanting. Unless Folklore is different from other large companies who rely on an inexperienced workforce, there will be a fair amount of replanting and therefore poorer survival. The discrepancy would likely be smaller in prepped ground where there is less skill required to plant a good tree but I bet would be noticeable in As is or Raw ground where skills like screefing and microsite selection play a larger role in seedling survival. I do a far better job now than I did in my second or third year of using the best microsites and I had never even screefed until my fourth season, and I doubt that it is just me.

In my experience it's usually pretty obvious when you check a piece planted by a solid vet compared to a second or third year planter. I don't plant shitty trees when the price is shitty, I find other work and I encourage others to do the same. Why do the same job for 2/3 the wage you could get elsewhere? Look if you're happy with 2 bills enjoy, but just be aware that there are other employers who think you deserve to make more.

[Casper]

I am planting in Scotland now. It is absolutely different than Canada, of course, as 95% of the ground is prepped and it's all bare roots. But the foresters doesn't give a damn about quality, outside of missed mounds and planting in the snow (and even that you can get away if you know how to talk to them). And they are doing this since the beginning of reforestation, as we plant on harvested plantations most of the time. So it seems like the trees are growing really good even if the specs are lower (and it's an understatement). As I said, it's different, but I wonder sometimes if the planting itself is the ''make or break'' for a forester. 10 years after, do we see the difference between a block planted by, say Coast range and one planted by Zanzibar, given all things are equal ?

edit : pandion pretty much answered before I submitted.

[Scooter]

Unless Folklore is different from other large companies who rely on an inexperienced workforce

Just to clarify, company-wide, over the past decade, Folklore has usually been between 75% and 80% experienced planters.

But I would agree that quality standards are probably higher at Leader. However, I would also say that this is partially due to the contracts, not due to the company. Leader works on contracts where quality standards are generally high. Some of Folklore's contracts have pretty slack quality standards, in my opinion. Why plant to a higher standard if you don't need to, and don't get paid extra for the better quality?

[Casper]

Why plant to a higher standard if you don't need to, and don't get paid extra for the better quality?

You don't. I think a good planter will walk the line between maximum speed and acceptable trees perfectly, no more no less.

[salbrecher]

Given that trees grow from seeds falling on the ground and the forests seem to survive, I'm surprised that planting quality is as strict as it is. In some locations, I feel that foresters would be better served by planting more trees at lower prices while enforcing lower quality standards.

Oh wait, that already happens.

Seeds fall on the ground at about 100000 - 200000 seeds/ha in the interior and grown stands are anywhere from 200 stems/ha - several thousand stems/ha, a survival rate of about .005%.

Seedlings are expensive to grow and plant. Why plant a tree with the expectation that it will die? It's cheaper to enforce quality standards than to overplant density and expect a lot of mortality. One checker costs about $300/day at the most and overplanting a 100ha, 1000 stem/ha block to 1500 stems/ha costs $50000 extra (estimated cost to licensee of $1/seedling (more for Fd less for Pl) includes buying the seed, paying a nursery to grow it and the cost to the contractor to plant it). Great use of money Scooter! Sounds like a lazy forester solution to me.

[Scooter]

Seeds fall on the ground at about 100000 - 200000 seeds/ha in the interior and grown stands are anywhere from 200 stems/ha - several thousand stems/ha, a survival rate of about .005%.

You have a good point.

Planting CAN cost quite a bit less though, depending on the project. In the Maritimes, I can buy seedlings for about 13 cents apiece, including shipping. Some companies here will bid on projects at under 15 cents (that's to the company, not planter price). Mind you, this would be an extreme example at the low end.

But I have worked on projects in western Canada where the foresters consciously plant at 2000 stems/Ha, which is more than required for regen purposes, just because they want some extra insurance and don't want to fill plant in the future.

[salbrecher]

One scenario where overplanting may be justified is when a high amount of mortality is expected due to brush and herbaceous competition. As it is semi random which trees will succumb, overplanting may buffer against this. It may however be cheaper to herbicide, brush or site-prep as these will likely have to be done regardless on these sites.

[Gingerplanter]

I was happy making $200/ day until I made $300/day.

[Tnalp]

Yeah. Contractors and workers can definitely contribute to "lower" prices. Some of this can be done unwittingly by planters and intentionally by contractors. I don't like it but I don't loose sleep over it either!

I am surprised that there has, to my knowledge, not been a company who has tried to have foreign workers come and plant on a temporary seasonal basis. I am talking about a "large scale" business model approach!

We all know about government sanctioned foreign worker programs for agriculture harvesting purposes.

I recently spent some time in a AB 600 man workers camp. ( Oil and Gas) And many of the entry level "juggys" ( basic labourers) were Sudanese. One of them (jughounds) posted his pay stub on the common area billboard with the words :"slavery wages" written on it! He was making 12.50$ /Hour.

Both those examples are from industries that have serious worker shortages! Agriculture producers probably can't pay much more than they do. Oil and gas easily could but seem to employ the minimum tolerable wage output approach. Greed!!

Tree planting, on the surface, seems like it would be ideally positioned for similar workers. Why have we not seen more of them?

Also what would the position itself be worth if it was to be paid by the hour? Would it be like agriculture harvesting jobs (not the piece rate ones) and pay around 10 $/hour? What minimum amount would be required for the "10 000" workers to plant every year?

I compared production Spacing costs to hourly paid Spacing cost's a few years ago when the Government Stimulus money showed up in my neck of the woods. Traditional averages for production was between .3 to .5 Ha per Worker per day.The JOP workers were averaging 0.13 Ha per day at 20$/hour. ( my friend managed the program for a while ) The cost to taxpayers in this case, tripled!! Many EI Claims though!

Anyway I have no doubt that the present system is clearly more cost effective for the licensee versus any other option.

10 000 hourly/daily paid workers at what the industry would expect!! My oh My the megaclusterofdogfuckers there would be!! I would probably be one of them! Ha

[mcD]

I doubt there is any significant difference in planting quality or tree survival rate on a block done by Folklore or by Leader.

hu-hu-huHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA



thanks. I haven't laughed like that in a while.

actually this statment is a lot closser to the truth than you might think

[clay]

i believe planting quality in general is being dragged down along with the prices.
i also believe that it feels really good to do a really good job on something and be rewarded really well for it.
i've never appreciated feeling like i gotta find the magic line where i can get away with mediocre trees and thus scrape out a few more $/day.
i'd WAY rather do it right and be paid right.
the better i'm paid, the better my trees and the harder i work. simple equation really.

[Casper]

i believe planting quality in general is being dragged down along with the prices.
i also believe that it feels really good to do a really good job on something and be rewarded really well for it.
i've never appreciated feeling like i gotta find the magic line where i can get away with mediocre trees and thus scrape out a few more $/day.
i'd WAY rather do it right and be paid right.
the better i'm paid, the better my trees and the harder i work. simple equation really.

Everybody would like to do a perfect job and be paid to do one. But even yourself said that the better the price, the better the trees. Maybe you don't appreciate it, but you create you own line anyway.

[Pandion]

From my experience, it's just as likely the experienced highballers are slutting in trees as the inexperienced rookies.

This can't happen at a really good small company with 2 or 3 trucks because there is just not enough other trees being planted to make up for the slut pounding, but you're right I've seen it myself where highballers have different quality standards than their colleagues although this is usually at larger companies in my experience.

Quote:
Unless Folklore is different from other large companies who rely on an inexperienced workforce


Just to clarify, company-wide, over the past decade, Folklore has usually been between 75% and 80% experienced planters.

But I would agree that quality standards are probably higher at Leader. However, I would also say that this is partially due to the contracts, not due to the company. Leader works on contracts where quality standards are generally high. Some of Folklore's contracts have pretty slack quality standards, in my opinion. Why plant to a higher standard if you don't need to, and don't get paid extra for the better quality?

That's definitely decent from an experience standpoint Scooter, but I think the amount of experience someone has is the important thing. If half of your experienced planters have only one year of experience and another 30% have 2 years of experience it doesn't add up to a whole lot. I don't think I became a well rounded planter until after 4 seasons, simply because I had only worked on low priced contracts with minimal quality standards in northern BC and Alberta. Green side up right, or is it brown side down. Anyway these contracts are perfect for inexperienced planters.

My biggest problem with these companies is when they start bidding on contracts in areas where specs are more stringent and ground is more challenging, but they bid as though it's just another northern slamfest. This takes away work from good companies who pay their planters well, and instead rips off inexperienced planters who don't know any better.

[b-dawg]

B-dawg, it's amazing that there are any stands growing back at all, given the Summits, Coast Ranges, and Brinkmans out there planting, eh!

The fact that these type of companies plant the bulk of the volume of our Future Forests every year ensures that we are investing the lowest possible amount for such things as biodiversity, air quality, timber, and the myriad other essentials (too long to list here) that we've always relied on our Forests to provide.

You'll never convince me that low-ball Shit-Shows with far less average experience in the workforce will even come close to providing the type of stand that a company who by their commitment to higher wages, safe operations, and a much more experienced workforce, can provide. The companies where I work, I'm pretty-much right in the average with double-digit years of experience. You'd be insane to think that companies staffed with workers who predominantly have 3-years-or-less experience could provide a similar product.
You never stop improving as a planter, if you're interested in being good at it, so experience means a lot.

Trees planted consistently in the most optimum microsites the first time (just ONE example) will get a stand up to Free To Grow much quicker, and with much less attention in the years following the initial plant. This saves a Liscensee a lot of money in the long-run, and also shortens the span of time for which they have to tend the stand; while at the same time yielding a better plantation/future forest---in my opinion.

You can brush-off the fact that the current system is designed to bring every company down to a lowest-common-denominator, and shrug your shoulders at the Dink-Marts, Slummets, and Coast DeRanged type of companies (too long to list here)......... Cast your lot in your corner, it's your choice.
Me, I'll ceaselessly continue to shoot-for-the-stars and advocate for higher wages for a job done in a high quality, professional way; and to call for investing in our Future Forests with the mindset that we COULD be doing A WHOLE LOT MORE. Until people realize that we can't live without our Forests, Silviculture will continue to be viewed as a Cost of the Business of Cutting, rather than an investment in a liveable, more vibrant future.

Is it really a big thorn-in-the-ass to keep calling-out such unintelligent short-sightedness? I mean, investing as little as possible into something so intricately tied to the interconnectedness of us ALL (i.e. tied to our very survival, or at the least to our quality of life in the future), for the Personal Profits of a very small few ----there's no future in that. Play that mindset out over a time-continuum, and we're all done.

[fluffer]

I heard somewhere that from the time a block is cut to the time the tree is planted and cut that it costs something like 3-4$ to get a tree in the ground.

Is that anywhere near true? I mean it includes all the overhead costs for the bureaucracy, plus the fees, the professional costs, the land prep (what does a mound cost to dig? A buck?),the tree cost, the planting contractor cost and whatever else.

The idea that all those costs to get a tree in the ground could be thrown out the window by cheaping out and saving 2 cents a tree at the most crucial point (the planting) seems very silly.

[Scooter]

Most quotes that I've heard range from $1 to $2 per tree total, including all overhead. But then again, that's in the northern Interior and Alberta, where it is a bit more of a low-price and high-volume approach.

[Tnalp]

Some of the higher prices I have witnessed were well over 5 bucks a tree.. even over 10 $ for some heli planted yellow cedar w/ protector on Haida Gwaii.

[salbrecher]

I heard somewhere that from the time a block is cut to the time the tree is planted and cut that it costs something like 3-4$ to get a tree in the ground.

Is that anywhere near true? I mean it includes all the overhead costs for the bureaucracy, plus the fees, the professional costs, the land prep (what does a mound cost to dig? A buck?),the tree cost, the planting contractor cost and whatever else.

The idea that all those costs to get a tree in the ground could be thrown out the window by cheaping out and saving 2 cents a tree at the most crucial point (the planting) seems very silly.

Silviculture costs are typically calculated in dollars per meter cubed ($/m3) as that is the amount of money that has to be taken off the revenue from harvested wood to be invested for future silviculture costs. A cubic meter of wood is roughly a small telephone pole. The numbers below were copy pasted from the Coast Appraisal Manual and show costs per cubic meter that the ministry uses for appraisal purposes. The costs below include all the associated silviculture costs from pre-planting to free growing. The $3-$4/tree you mentioned is probably closer to the cost of getting a tree to free growing, not just "in the ground". As mentioned a tree costs anywhere from $.5-$2 to get planted and on top of that you may have needed site prep at roughly $500-1500/ha (so roughly $1 per tree extra), 1-2 herbicide or brushing treatments as well as the pretty minimal costs of surveying/recceing the block several times from harvest to free growing.

Where the cutting authority area is located in:
The basic silviculture cost expressed in $/m3
is:
Queen Charlotte Island Forest District 4.31
Chilliwack Forest District 5.50
Squamish Forest District 8.79
Sunshine Coast Forest District 4.17
South Island Forest District 4.07
Campbell River Forest District 2.52
North Island - Central Coast Forest District 2.50
North Coast Forest District 5.39

[TheHamsterizer]

I doubt there is any significant difference in planting quality or tree survival rate on a block done by Folklore or by Leader.

hu-hu-huHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA



thanks. I haven't laughed like that in a while.

actually this statment is a lot closser to the truth than you might think

Apples and oranges. PG/Alberta and the Okanagan are completely different regions.

[Pandion]

The problem is that sometimes the northern companies head South, and think that apples and oranges are the same, when really it's bananas.

[bush]

couldn't find 'when is a vet, a vet?'

1000000 trees planted or more.
6 years plus.
if average season is 50 days, then at 1500 trees/ day will equal 75000trees/season.
that rate will give you a million trees in just over 13 years. so there are a lot of 6 year planters with just 300 days planting. what is even funnier is the amount of 2 or 3 year planters with less than 150 days of treeplanting. compare this to ten year pro planters that over a 1000 days planting because of 100+ day seasons and closer to 2000tree/day averages. there should be a big difference.

[Casper]

Yeah, I totally agree that the number of days is way more pertinent than the number of seasons.

[Scooter]

Bush, you bring up good points. However, I should point out, the numbers there can be kind of conservative. I've had Interior planters who hit their million tree mark in as little as six years, just planting May/June/July. And the rookies up north are often hitting 2k/day within five to six weeks. Even a mediocre vet who plants up north or in Alberta should hit a million within seven years, not 13. For a good vet, in a 75 day interior season in fast ground, a quarter million in a season is not out of the question. Of course, the last three or four years, with shorter seasons, have thrown things out of whack. I think the shortening of the interior seasons has really hurt the industry, perhaps even more than a 10% decline in prices.

The good thing is that with both of those rebounding in the same year (this summer) we should see a much more positive mindset after this season has ended.

[bush]

conservative. yes. i know there are people knocking around three million. just the general idea.



7 years x 75 days = 525 days of planting.

[joshwords]

I'm happy if I make over 100$ a day. Yes 100$ a day isn't much and it is way below my average daily earnings but I take into account if I was sick or something. Planting with the flu, etc and making 100$ is still more than what I would make if I stayed at camp. I have taken a sick day before but only if I felt like it was needed for me. ie, 'sleeping' in the bathroom the night before.
I take into account that if I make more money than what I would be making if I was working a minimum wage job back home, then I'm happy.
I enjoy my days on the block more than my days working in a store.

[Scooter]

I take into account that if I make more money than what I would be making if I was working a minimum wage job back home, then I'm happy.
I enjoy my days on the block more than my days working in a store.

Not exactly the sort of comment that a lot of vets here will want to hear. But it's good to see the honesty, and this offers an interesting insight into the mindset of some planters. Thanks for being candid.

[TheHamsterizer]

I take into account that if I make more money than what I would be making if I was working a minimum wage job back home, then I'm happy.
I enjoy my days on the block more than my days working in a store.

Not exactly the sort of comment that a lot of vets here will want to hear. But it's good to see the honesty, and this offers an interesting insight into the mindset of some planters. Thanks for being candid.

I'm pretty sure joshwords is not a real person. It's just a fake account created by brinkman or something.

[jdtesluk]

I doubt that Joshwords is providing the kind of perspective that any contractor is happy to hear. The engine of this industy is completely driven by workers that strive for more. I echo Scooter in that the honesty is refreshing. Note, he hasn't said that he's happy to bust his back for $100, only that he's happy to make that in a day as long as it only happens now and then. However, no company can survive with a large contingent of planters "just happy" to make their $100.

THis is exactly the kind of calculation that the industry needs to be concerned about at this moment- if a worker is happy to receive a minimal wage (of $10.25 per hour) just because they prefer to be outside, they may not be motivated to work harder to surpass their guaranteed minimum.

Forgive me if this sounds harsh on Josh, as no offense is intended, and I certainly don't mean to imply he lacks anything as a worker or a person. However, I think his post gives a very important viewpoint, and explictly demonstrates the negative impact that declining tree prices have on the motivations of the workforce and the threat that low prices pose to the engines that drive the industry.
If the potential for greater wages are not apparent (either due to mismanagement of the day or inadeqaute prices), the incentive for the worker will decrease.

-I edited this a bit because I think my use of Josh as an example was a bit off target.

[Pandion]

Forgive me Josh if this sounds harsh on you, as no offense is intended, and I certainly don't mean to imply you lack anything as a worker or a person. However, I think your post gives a very important viewpoint, and explictly demonstrates the negative impact that declining tree prices have on the motivations of the workforce and the threat that low prices pose to the engines that drive the industry.

I don't understand how most planters are motivated to work at all with some of the prices you see advertised in the jobs section, but I guess if you don't know any better you might think you are doing pretty well to be screefing for 13 cents and planting prep for 10 cents. Here is a news flash folks. Decent companies pay 13 cents or better for prep and 17 cents or more for screefing. That is a huge difference in potential earnings. So if you decide to work for one of the lowballing companies I encourage you to take long cache breaks, plant 10 cent trees and take multiple days off with pretendonitis. You will be doing the industry a huge favour.

[salbrecher]

I doubt that Joshwords is providing the kind of voice that any contractor is happy to hear. WHat kind of employer is going to be happy to have relatively unmotivated planters that are merely satisfied to receive minimal wage? The engine of this industy is completely driven by workers that strive for more. I echo Scooter in that the honesty is refreshing. However, Josh isn't exactly writing himself a great resume here. Note, he hasn't said that he's happy to bust his back for $100, only that he's happy to make that in a day. No company can survive with a large contingent of planters "just happy" to make their $100.

THis is exactly the kind of worker that the industry needs to fear at this moment- the kind that is happy to receive a minimal wage (of $10.25 per hour) just because they prefer to be outside.

Forgive me Josh if this sounds harsh on you, as no offense is intended, and I certainly don't mean to imply you lack anything as a worker or a person. However, I think your post gives a very important viewpoint, and explictly demonstrates the negative impact that declining tree prices have on the motivations of the workforce and the threat that low prices pose to the engines that drive the industry.

Did you even read Joshwords original post? It clearly says "Yes 100$ a day isn't much and it is way below my average daily earnings" He is clearly making over $100/day and not the scurge of society you make him out to be. I think what Josh is trying to say is a $100/day is his bottom line and anything above is just economic rents.

[salbrecher]

Forgive me Josh if this sounds harsh on you, as no offense is intended, and I certainly don't mean to imply you lack anything as a worker or a person. However, I think your post gives a very important viewpoint, and explictly demonstrates the negative impact that declining tree prices have on the motivations of the workforce and the threat that low prices pose to the engines that drive the industry.

I don't understand how most planters are motivated to work at all with some of the prices you see advertised in the jobs section, but I guess if you don't know any better you might think you are doing pretty well to be screefing for 13 cents and planting prep for 10 cents. Here is a news flash folks. Decent companies pay 13 cents or better for prep and 17 cents or more for screefing. That is a huge difference in potential earnings. So if you decide to work for one of the lowballing companies I encourage you to take long cache breaks, plant 10 cent trees and take multiple days off with pretendonitis. You will be doing the industry a huge favour.

Please re-read the first post... "People are willing to work for less money than other people and, with proper supervision, the trees will live and grow; that is why prices are lower than some people would like and contracts get underbid. Low prices are not some conspiracy conceived by Foresters, government, licensees, or contractors."

[TheHamsterizer]

Forgive me Josh if this sounds harsh on you, as no offense is intended, and I certainly don't mean to imply you lack anything as a worker or a person. However, I think your post gives a very important viewpoint, and explictly demonstrates the negative impact that declining tree prices have on the motivations of the workforce and the threat that low prices pose to the engines that drive the industry.

I don't understand how most planters are motivated to work at all with some of the prices you see advertised in the jobs section, but I guess if you don't know any better you might think you are doing pretty well to be screefing for 13 cents and planting prep for 10 cents. Here is a news flash folks. Decent companies pay 13 cents or better for prep and 17 cents or more for screefing. That is a huge difference in potential earnings. So if you decide to work for one of the lowballing companies I encourage you to take long cache breaks, plant 10 cent trees and take multiple days off with pretendonitis. You will be doing the industry a huge favour.

Please re-read the first post... "People are willing to work for less money than other people and, with proper supervision, the trees will live and grow; that is why prices are lower than some people would like and contracts get underbid. Low prices are not some conspiracy conceived by Foresters, government, licensees, or contractors."

Quit trolling already! Nobody agrees with your ridiculous assumption. Why are you defending low wages? Are you stupid?

[Gingerplanter]

I was.

This comment could be posted in response to any number of threads but instead of sidetracking them (or posting this 100 times in response to every low price comment) I started a new thread. I have planted for 7 seasons and can vividly remember being happy making $200 dollars per day. It took a few years before that number went up to $250 and then $300 and even $400 for a bit. But the point is there were a few years where I was thrilled with $200. I was young and had no expenses and $200 was a lot of money. In response to the hundreds of threads that talk about shitty prices, is it so hard to believe that there are people willing to work for less than $300? Sure my standards changed and I now would not plant for less that $xxx, but others will, and happily (like I did).

I don't drink the "2nd or 3rd year planters (which I was when I was happy making $200) lack the experience (in most cases) to plant good trees and that the future forest will suffer because the average planter doesn't have 10 years experience" kool-aid. It's entirely possible for planters making $175 or $200 to plant good trees that will grow good healthy stands. Survival rates are still up around 95%, despite declining prices.

People are willing to work for less money than other people and, with proper supervision, the trees will live and grow; that is why prices are lower than some people would like and contracts get underbid. Low prices are not some conspiracy conceived by Foresters, government, licensees, or contractors.

I think this might be the furthest thing from the truth. Low prices are not a conspiracy they are real and fuelled by greed. A lot of the reason that there is increased survival rate is because of tree-breeding programs improving genetics and nursery programs creating better quality seedlings. So if we can plant a site once instead of multiple times it obviously makes sense to lower tree price.(insert sarcastic tone). I don't think people are willing to make this money they just don't realize how green the grass is outside of the large factory planting companies. Planting is the single most important process in the re-establish of a stand and it needs to be recognized and compensated fairly bottom line. $100-$200 a day is not fair wages and should not be tolerated. It is possible to plant block using slaves, does it mean we should do it?

[jdtesluk]

I doubt that Joshwords is providing the kind of voice that any contractor is happy to hear. WHat kind of employer is going to be happy to have relatively unmotivated planters that are merely satisfied to receive minimal wage? The engine of this industy is completely driven by workers that strive for more. I echo Scooter in that the honesty is refreshing. However, Josh isn't exactly writing himself a great resume here. Note, he hasn't said that he's happy to bust his back for $100, only that he's happy to make that in a day. No company can survive with a large contingent of planters "just happy" to make their $100.

THis is exactly the kind of worker that the industry needs to fear at this moment- the kind that is happy to receive a minimal wage (of $10.25 per hour) just because they prefer to be outside.

Forgive me Josh if this sounds harsh on you, as no offense is intended, and I certainly don't mean to imply you lack anything as a worker or a person. However, I think your post gives a very important viewpoint, and explictly demonstrates the negative impact that declining tree prices have on the motivations of the workforce and the threat that low prices pose to the engines that drive the industry.

Did you even read Joshwords original post? It clearly says "Yes 100$ a day isn't much and it is way below my average daily earnings" He is clearly making over $100/day and not the scurge of society you make him out to be. I think what Josh is trying to say is a $100/day is his bottom line and anything above is just economic rents.

I read it perfectly well the first time. However, I think my intent is not clear here. I did make it clear that the post was not meant as a criticism of Josh, and certainly not to paint him as a scourge. I indicate that the "industry" should be concerned about such an approach, however I certainly do not see it as problematic for workers.

What I really want to emphasize is that if there are workers that are "okay" with just making $100 (even if that's not their norm), then companies face some challenges because at $10.25 min wage you are guaranteed to get that just for picking your nose. Anytime the workers' drive to earn more lessens, the productive power of the industry (and the profits for the companies) becomes jeopardized. This has been part of my warning to the industry-- if you don't pay workers better, and provide earning opportunities that motivate them to push for higher production (and earnings), your bottom line will suffer. I see Josh's post as a good indicator that there is an economic calculation made regarding the space between what you are guaranteed (say, 125-140$ based on min wage) and what you can make if you work hard. If workers are content to have hundred dollar days (even if just now and then), then their motivation to bridge that space may be waning.

Really, for piece-rate workers' interests, it would actually be a positive development for there to be an increase in less-production obsessive workers. In order for companies to make profits and make the system work, I would predict that they would have to increase piece-rates in order to increase the gap between what is guaranteed and what is possible- the bigger the gap, the more the motivation to cross it.

I think we're on the same page, and want to see the same things happen Sal, and I may be using poor old Josh unkindly here. I fact I think pretty much everyone here wants to see the same thing (better results for the workers). We happen to share varying ideas about the way that the economic psychology of the field of work functions, and this leads to much interesting debate. However, I do truly think most people here (including the few contractors that participate) would like to see the same thing.

[Tnalp]

Yah hamster let's hear some vitriol!! I've never been overly fond of stirring the shit for unproductive reasons but I get what your saying!!

[Pandion]

Please re-read the first post... "People are willing to work for less money than other people and, with proper supervision, the trees will live and grow; that is why prices are lower than some people would like and contracts get underbid. Low prices are not some conspiracy conceived by Foresters, government, licensees, or contractors."

Who said anything about a conspiracy? Less money for the planter means more money for their company, or the government. That is why prices are lower than ALMOST EVERY planter would like. People become less willing to work for less money than others when they realize what others are being paid. You tend to feel taken advantage of when you work on a block beside another company's block that is even creamier, and they're being paid 25-50% more than you are. I'm just letting people know what they could be making if they worked elsewhere. Wouldn't you like to know if you were getting paid significantly less than others for the same job, or would you rather remain ignorant? I suppose ignorance is bliss for some folks but it shouldn't be.

Trees will grow and survive if you don't plant at all so why bother? Oh yeah it's so you reach free to grow ASAP. Have you ever noticed how two trees planted in the same year a couple of metres apart grow at different rates depending on how skillfully they were planted? If not I suggest you go take a look at some plantations and you will soon realize that just because a tree is deemed good by a checker does not mean it will survive let alone thrive. Microsite selection and planting technique are actually quite important when it comes to growth rates for planted trees. I've surveyed tons of blocks, and less experienced planters from lowballing companies do not have the skill to maximize the use of the best available micosites. This is why it should be in more foresters and contractors interests to pay more for planting, thereby attracting and retaining a more skilled workforce which can provide a plantation with better survival and growth rates. Some foresters recognize this and save their companies money in the long run, while others just look at the budget from a year to year basis and actually cost their companies money over time by cheaping out on planting. This results in costly fill plants, and fines because of blocks being NSR for longer than they should have been. I think it's pretty obvious what kind of forester you will be Stefan, but I must say it sure is nice to work for foresters who are not so myopic.

[salbrecher]

I think this might be the furthest thing from the truth. Low prices are not a conspiracy they are real and fuelled by greed. $100-$200 a day is not fair wages and should not be tolerated.

This is a miss-quote of half a sentence I wrote. If you had quoted it correctly it makes sense given the amount of postings on this board that solely blame licensees, foresters, and government.

A lot of the reason that there is increased survival rate is because of tree-breeding programs improving genetics and nursery programs creating better quality seedlings.

You are correct but these programs have been going on for longer than the decline in prices which is why I said "despite declining prices". If prices are declining and survival remains high, what does should that tell you about the effect of price on survival? Interestingly, there are studies that show that both very high and very low prices lead to declines in survival. I guess the key is finding the balance.

I don't think people are willing to make this money they just don't realize how green the grass is outside of the large factory planting companies.

But people are willing to make that money, that is why large factory companies still exist. I`m not in any way implying that they are good, just that people are willing to work for that price.

Planting is the single most important process in the re-establish of a stand and it needs to be recognized and compensated fairly bottom line.

Environmental factors have been shown to have the biggest impact on seedling survival (See Planting Morphologically Improved Pine Seedlings To Increase Survival and Growth, 2000). These include, soil moisture, temperature, amount of rainfall after planting, drought, soil depth, nutrients, competition, pests, deer browse etc. Planting is extremely important however and poor planting will only exacerbate any detrimental site environment factors on tough sites. That is why I already stated above "There are certainly situations were that may not be true and experienced planters could do a better job. I would say that fertilizing, slashy or rocky ground, coning, or multiple species (other than standard interior pine spruce mixes) may be such cases". But for large areas of the province, the difference between a 3rd year planter and 6th year planter may not make a difference.

It is possible to plant block using slaves, does it mean we should do it?

It is not possible to plant a block using slaves, that would be illegal.

[salbrecher]

People become less willing to work for less money than others when they realize what others are being paid. You tend to feel taken advantage of when you work on a block beside another company's block that is even creamier, and they're being paid 25-50% more than you are. I'm just letting people know what they could be making if they worked elsewhere. Wouldn't you like to know if you were getting paid significantly less than others for the same job, or would you rather remain ignorant? I suppose ignorance is bliss for some folks but it shouldn't be.

I always thought that the market determines the price, not what an arbitrary company next to you makes. It`s an interesting point that because someone makes more than you that everyone else should make that same wage. Not sure what that would mean for society in general if that was implemented...

Who said anything about a conspiracy? Less money for the planter means more money for their company, or the government. That is why prices are lower than ALMOST EVERY planter would like.

I agree, but if planters were not willing to work for that price then companies would have to pay more to meet their legal obligations. Companies do not have a choice in that!

Trees will grow and survive if you don't plant at all so why bother?

In many areas companies do use natural regen to meet free growing. In areas that are not suitable they do not.

Have you ever noticed how two trees planted in the same year a couple of metres apart grow at different rates depending on how skillfully they were planted? If not I suggest you go take a look at some plantations and you will soon realize that just because a tree is deemed good by a checker does not mean it will survive let alone thrive. Microsite selection and planting technique are actually quite important when it comes to growth rates for planted trees. I've surveyed tons of blocks, and less experienced planters from lowballing companies do not have the skill to maximize the use of the best available micosites. This is why it should be in more foresters and contractors interests to pay more for planting, thereby attracting and retaining a more skilled workforce which can provide a plantation with better survival and growth rates. Some foresters recognize this and save their companies money in the long run, while others just look at the budget from a year to year basis and actually cost their companies money over time by cheaping out on planting. This results in costly fill plants, and fines because of blocks being NSR for longer than they should have been. I think it's pretty obvious what kind of forester you will be Stefan, but I must say it sure is nice to work for foresters who are not so myopic.

I agree that planting can be very important and checkers can be as variable as planters. I never said a rookie and a 10 year vet are the same, only that the difference between a 2nd or 3rd year planter and 10th year vet may not always have the dramatic difference you mention above. The site environment in combination with planting will ultimately determine the difference in growth and vigor. I have certainly surveyed my fair share of blocks and can say that it is rarely as clear cut as you make it out to be. I have just as often been surprised by the lack of difference in growth between "good" and "bad" planting. Of course it is highly dependent on the area one is planting in. The coast can often be more forgiving than dry, hot interior sites.

[salbrecher]

Quit trolling already! Nobody agrees with your ridiculous assumption. Why are you defending low wages? Are you stupid?

I have not once defended low wages. I only pointed out why they are lower than many people would like as some people seem truly baffled as to why people would plant trees for less than Pandion, Tnalp, or the Hamster tell them they should.

Yes, I am stupid.

[Scooter]

I don't think people are willing to make this money they just don't realize how green the grass is outside of the large factory planting companies.

Just to really get a hot topic warmed up even more, I should point out that like it or not, the "large factory" companies are necessary for the industry to work. They provide food for the smaller companies. It's a mutually symbiotic relationship, like the Mountain Pine Beetle and the fungi - Grosmannia clavigera (or Ophiostoma montium at higher temperatures).

I should also point out that a few planters at these large factory planting companies do actually make good money. However, that would be a better discussion left for private messaging than publicized here where the world can read about planters earnings. The problem is not that planters CAN'T make good money, it's that the MAJORITY of them don't.

But then again, as pointed out earlier, there is a difference between a tenth year vet and a third year vet.