BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: IfA campaign to require archaeological work to be undertaken by ROs
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
The following quote comes from the latest IfA Statement.

Quote:Council also affirmed its prioritisation of any initiatives that will lead to the preference of accredited professional archaeologists and the rectification of market failure that such preference could bring. Such rectification should result in, and will be expected by IfA to result in, significantly increased benefits and rewards for the employees of Registered Organisations. IfA will continue vigorously to promote the Registered Organisations, and,now having a clearer view of the legal issues, can begin a major campaign to encourage local planning authorities and national heritage bodies to exercise their powers to require archaeological work to be undertaken by Registered Organisations. We hope to have the support of ALGAO UK in this campaign.

Council also acknowledged that some members have perceived that IfA is being driven by the Registered Organisations? agenda. This perception should be corrected by the decision taken at the Council meeting to accelerate moves to secure the opportunity for individual IfA members to achieve Chartered status.

This has been flagged as a serious issue to all those who are not ROs would this force people to join? Would this be a bad thing? Do we need a barrier to work? If so is this the way?
i would prefer the ifa to have made real demonstrable stands against poor practice, before it tries to convince us its acreditation is accurate - it is hard to see how this is doing anything other than accrediting the present sitution and maintianing the status quo.
I am no longer fully convinced the IFA can penertrate the inner workinigs of larger companies or know what really goes on - but i do need to find out more about Chartered Status for individuals...
I wouldn't have any problem with it at all as I suspect it would help the general situation.

However, I do have two queries (I should be putting these to the IfA directly but they don't have a online forum yet and I can't afford the time or money to attend any of their meetings):

How would it work for a sole trader who is a member of the IfA anyway? They are already effectively an RAO.

Will they change the RAO membership fee bands because at present an organisation that has a turnover of slightly over ?1.5 million pays the same as one that has a turnover of ?10 million, which seems a tad unfair given the quite distinct graduations in fees lower down the scale. In fact, the lower down the scale the more proportionally you pay as far as I can tell - about 0.2% of your turnover at the very bottom, and more like 0.1% at the very top!

Surely if the big boys are pushing for this to happen they should be paying for all the advantages they will get. These bands might have been worked out to take into account the reductions available based on numbers of individual members of staff (i.e. it is easier for a small company to get a reduction for having 50% of it staff in the IfA) but I'm not sure.
Like all these discussions, it would be useful for an official comment.
I support the desire for a chartered professional body for archaeologists. Although whether that would be the IFA on its own, or as part of a wider body for historic environment professionals, as was proposed a few years ago, can perhaps be debated. I don't believe that the IFA get enough credit for what they do for the profession and I believe that chartered status will give them considerably more punch.

I also think that having a chartered body, will raise the self-confidence of the profession.

brian_aldridge

The only solution as I see it is for all archaeologists to engage with the IFA. Since that is the principal voice for professional archaeologists - and sorry David despite your best efforts you are not yet there as a consultative body - to be engaged with Governement and public- and private-sector archaeologists. Other groups like the CBA are also well-established.

As a profession we really need to fight with a single voice - never mind the minor differences (a bit like Ken Clarke (Europhile) and David Cameron (Eurosceptic) existing in the same cabinet) we need to overcome those at this critical time.
I agree with BrianAldridge that, as a profession we need to support the IFA. At the end the day our professional body is as strong as archaeologists make it.
support for the IFA should be deserved, not just given because it seems the least-bad option...

it will be as strong as its membership make it IF it is willing to clearly oppose vested interests that negativley impact the long-term future of the archaeological resource and its derived research....

BAJR was never intended as a governmental consultative body...was it?
More a place for archaeologists and interested parties to engage with each other...

shame on us all Clarke and Cameron get the chance to share a cabinet...if they do they will have comprimised thier alleged 'principles' for the sake of personal and political gain...is that what is wanted for the IFA?

sallyl

It would be helpful if more organisations could become ROs as this would benefit members of IFA working as volunteers. As far as I can see they dont have much comeback if unfairly treated at the moment and this would encourage 'best practice' on such non-statutory issues.

saxondog

Great idea! something has to be done:p. Some units I have worked for dig like nighthawks.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5