pay and conditions

[troll]

The lowest paid job a graduate in the UK can enter. A colleague of mine illustrated this nicely. A friend of his earns more than he does by grating cheese in a factory.What does this tell us about how the state values it`s heritage?
Keep an eye in your local papers and list here jobs advertised that pay more. For example, my local jobs page recently advertised a toilet cleaners job for 3 grand a year more than I earn. Hideous examples of conditions here please too.Ta

[the invisible man]

What good will that do? Aren't wages for any job subject to the laws of supply and demand?

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[troll]

Simply to illustrate the failure of a certain organisation in their pledge to raise the value of our profession in the eyes of the public.As an aside-prospective undergrads should be able to compare and contrast before taking the plunge.The APPAG reccommendations may just be seen in a little more of an urgent light if comparisons are made public.

[Cautionary Tale]

The thought occurs to me, as I'm struggling with the issue of fair pay, why can't those companies who are at or exceed the IFA minimum wage levels make an issue of that. This would at least begin to flag up those companies who didn't and maybe, just maybe in the smallest possible way, shame them into doing something about it. Either that, or all those prospective diggers trying to get jobs would know who the good employers were. What do we think? "Fair Wage Seal"?

[the invisible man]

The problem with fair wage seals or IFA/BAJR minimum wages is that all they do is enshrine the existing market rates that they're based on, and in so doing legitimise them. Employers pay low wages because they can, not because they're nasty people but because that's what they do. By the same token employees will work for the highest wages they can command, broadly speaking.

If the market rate went above the recommended levels, that is if people could be hired for lower wages, you can bet your bottom dollar that employers would ignore the pay scales. If they can't get staff for love nor money, the wages will go well above the scales. You can't buck the system I'm afraid.

Now, if you all pushed off to retrain as cheesegraters, then cheesegrater's wages would drop and archaeologist's wages would rise.....

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[Cautionary Tale]

As someone once said, bless-ed are the cheese graters.
Yes, I agree Inv Man. I just don't like it}:). Yes: economics dictates wages, and yes: there are lots of new diggers every year wanting to work which arguably depresses the wage level, but the 'bar' is set way too low at the moment. We are our own worst enemy if this is the system we allow to exist :(

There has been some discussion of union involvement (whether via existing Prospect links or perhaps even if a committed group of diggers get themselves organised?) and I see this as the best way forward.

[destroyer]

Well I agree that the BAJR levels are too low, although I fully appreciate that Mr Hosty's hands are largely tied by the prevailing economic trends in the profession.

The BAJR pay grades are based upon local government payscales, which initially appears fine. However on the jobs page this states that it is for a 37hr week and does not include holiday entitlement, which in my experience local government authorities do pay, and certainly does not include the hefty payments which go into the final salary pension schemes that all us local gov employees have (if we want). Then theres all those other little things such as human resource depts insisting on longer term contracts and not allowing the laying off of staff because its xmas. And lets not forget the cheap booze at the social club. These extra benefits, on top of the low wage packet, is what keeps most local gov employees in their jobs, particularly the pension - just watch the fun and games that'll ensue when the gov tries to end the final salary based scheme.

A unit advertising on BAJR must be laughing as they meet these payscales, and then get their new employees working 40hr weeks with no holiday or pensions, probably saving themselves £100-200 a month per person compared to the local gov units, who they can then happily undercut.

If BAJR is going to use local gov scales as a basis for the grades, then advertisers should at least be be paying holidays and into pensions. Or the grades could go up a grand or 3....

A simple online database showing units pay grades for, for example, diggers, supervisors and PO's would be nice(i know that theres loads of you specialists out there but its probably a bit harder to compare u all). However I suppose even if we all told BAJR the data he couldnt put it online for fear of a single digit being wrong and getting sued.

[troll]

All extremely important views. It occurs to me that the nations heritage is still undervalued and by default, heritage professionals too. I remember a certain Institute pledging to undertake a bit of a mission to raise the public perception of heritage and-its value.This simply has`nt happened. Could a carefully scripted campaign help to raise our value in the public eye? One of our American colleagues made a good point on here recently...developers stateside have grasped the concept that heritage is a positive attribute in a business and PR context. Is`nt it about time that developers are helped to see us as a positive attribute? I can`t believe that we do what we do on a daily basis without communicating with the public.When projects are finished, our reports are hidden away in unheard of SMRs.Just what is it that we are afraid of? I also don`t believe for a moment that in terms of wages, anyone`s hands are tied. When a developer needs plumbers/sparkies etc, they pay the going rate. A professional wage for a professional job. What is it about our industry that allows for the conditions we see? How do we raise our value in the eyes of developers and, the tax-paying public?:DOn another note, by maintaining artificially low wages, highly qualified,multi skilled and experienced workers leave the profession with frightening regularity.This means that the profession is led by increasingly rarer valuable and able managers and, staffed in the field by a conveyor belt of inexperienced bright eyed newbies (no offence meant). In simple terms, by driving costs down, we are also driving standards down with them.......

[Cautionary Tale]

Taken from the RAO application form:

"Please confirm that all staff are paid at or above IFA recommended minimum salaries appropriate to their duties. Failure to confirm this will be published in the Register and Yearbook."

So there you go. If you're working for an RAO, you have some ammunition. If you're the IFA, you can do something about pay.

[monitor lizard]

To follow on from Invisible Man's comments, I've thought for a while now that the problem with wages isn't too many diggers, or an undervaluing of heritage, or a low market value, or any such thing but the constant competitiveness between digging units that drives - and keeps - the prices down. I really think that in terms of pay we are our own worst enemies.

Developers will pay a lot more if that's the going rate. I have heard storys to the effect that we are devalued in the developers' eyes simply because of the stupidly low amounts we charge. When they are paying more per person day for unskilled labouring crew it's no wonder they have this impression.

This is not to say I support the idea of regionalisation to keep units out and prices standardised, but as soon as you get one unit undercutting another, we're just doing ourselves a disservice.


Just a thought

ML

[mercenary]

Absolutely right ML. We are our own worst enemies, but that's Capitalism.

Perhaps a ray of light is glimpsed in our corner of the Kingdom. Recently we have become the only unit in the vicinity that has held onto a decent pool of experienced staff, (better than average pay and enlightened boss). As a result we are punching above our weight because we actually have the staff to do jobs, and the consultants know it.

I wonder if this is because even the new graduate pool is drying up. Maybe we are finally starting to see market forces at work, with not enough people joining the profession and too many leaving.

Anyone else noticed this effect?

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by Barnesy

Taken from the RAO application form:

"Please confirm that all staff are paid at or above IFA recommended minimum salaries appropriate to their duties. Failure to confirm this will be published in the Register and Yearbook."


This is a bit disappointing - you'd have hoped that failure to conform to recommended pay scales would act as an automatic exclusion from the Register.

I agree with ML, - but how to influence this and get wages moving in the right direction is another matter. I'm thinking that it's time that independant analysis of wages is required. The university and public sector appears to be adopting the Hay method of job appraisal (see http://www.strath.ac.uk/payandreward/hay-eval.html for a quick outline of the scheme - the Hay website is at http://www.haygroup.co.uk ), and the results are influencing pay scales. Some of the groundwork necessary for such a review is already in place with documents like Profiling the Profession. Perhaps we should be suggesting to the relevant bodies - IFA, SCAUM, ALGAO, Prospect etc - that such an evaluation of the profession takes place across the board?

[BAJR Host]

very intere
sting....

Another day another WSI…

[monitor lizard]

Don't forget APPAG too - improving pay and conditions was the third in their list of urgent recommendations.

http://www.sal.org.uk/appag/report/report.htm

With all these official reports and opinions kicking about, and nothing changing, you have to wonder about the will rather than the way sometimes.

And whatever happened to APPAG? I may write to my MP and ask (as he's the new minister for culture, I would hope he would know!)

ML

[troll]

Agree wholeheartedly. Might be a good idea if we all wrote to our MPs on the gamete of issues we currently juggle.For me, pay and conditions is but one brick in the badly built wall. I still maintain that placing archaeology in a competative tendering environment is plainly counter-productive, drives standards down and,reflects a government attempt to wash it`s hands of all responsibility to the nations heritage. Selling our national identity to the lowest bidder really does induce bile.To stick to the thread, pay and conditions are indeed one of the items on the APPAG list and if we are to make any progress at all, I would argue that we need to lobby in a more high profile way. At least one high profile campaigner with the ability to plant our agendas firmly in the public eye would be a good start. Get writing to your MPs troops!:DJust a thought, is`nt Tony Robinson involved in politics? High profile, family freindly and alledgedly, the most famous British archaeologist?

[Cautionary Tale]

Last I read he was no longer on their NEC, but i shall ferret around for some other info.

(I really have worked in the field)

[the invisible man]

Well yes, ML, I think that we are basically saying the same thing. The system has been (artificially) set up on a competitive basis, following the dogma of the time, the lowest bid wins the job, so all costs are minimised. Wages are thus of necessity the lowest possible. The system is designed to keep prices down. The fact that people WILL and DO work for the wages offered demonstrates that the wages are the correct market price, in the philosophy governing construction and archaeology. Same with the hire of a JCB, you will ring round for cheapest kit with driver.

If a developer (or more correctly his Main Contractor) wants a sparkie or a plumber, he still pays the lowest rate possible. It's just a lot more because they're hard (often impossible) to get hold of.

I'm not saying it's a good system, far from it, but that's the way it is. For now....... maybe we should just supply Troll with arms.....

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[troll]

Trust me-Troll don`t need no steeenkin` arms...:D:D:D

[troll]

Ringing around and getting the cheapest quote....
fine for some jobs-not in my opinion what we should be doing when dealing with a finite resource owned by the public!Not only that-the cheapest can be cheap either because they are a big and reputable company or-they are just simply all-round cheap and compromise on even the bare minimum.As archaeologists-how do we tell the difference?:DAs a bridge to another thread on the IFA-they undervalued our work in the first place!;)