BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: under the radar
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
If regarded as a qualification then there we have it....members of the IFA at corporate level can be sued as they come recommended by an institute and-the corporate level of membership seen as a "qualification".:face-huh:

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Well shall we add universities to your litigation list they issue qualifications and following your logic should be accountable for bad practice?
Absolutely-what makes the glorious IFA immune from litigation?An organisation that validates itself and then recommends members it cannot and will not police is just begging for court action.Big Grin

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
to quote someone from somewhere else on the Forum

"I`m sorry-I really cant be bothered."

yawn
Quote:quote:Originally posted by voice of reason

to quote someone from somewhere else on the Forum

"I`m sorry-I really cant be bothered."

yawn

Then stop posting [:p]

I have to advertise, recruit and interview new staff. All steering from my personnel dept is NOT to state that IFA membership is required but desirable. There are probably subtle legal reasons for this.

Bothered, if only ever so slightly, Knees. Big Grin
thanks for getting back on topic - it's the perpetual dragging of almost every subject into 'the IFA are useless', 'no they're not', 'yes they are' game that really gets me down.

can you perhaps ask your personnel department why they give this advice? genuinely intersted in this issue and what legal basis there is for saying it
I haven't confirmed this with Personnel but I think it relates to The Sex Discrimination Act, the Race Relations Act and the Race Relations Amendment Act. It could be construed as an example of indirect discrimination. That is, if the requirements can be shown to be unnecessary to do the job, it counts as discrimination.

Also, we no longer ask for higher education qualifications for field staff as essential but list as desirable. The reasoning for this is similar. Also, you stray into the dodgy area of age-related discrimination. There are older people who manged career progression without degrees.

The advert says 'membership of the IFA is essential' - as far as I understand it, that means any grade of corporate membership, not restricted to MIFA. If they wanted MIFA only, they should have used a capital M - and tried hard not to put it at the beginning of a sentence, to avoid ambiguity!

Although, as regular readers may have noticed, I am a strong supporter of the IFA, I also agree with Mr Hosty that adverts saying IFA membership is 'desirable' (or something similar) are preferable to those saying 'essential'. I am not sure about any legal issues, but what you want from the advert is to get the best candidates to apply, and you might exclude good applicants by excluding those that have not chosen to join IFA.

As far as Troll's point about suing the IFA is concerned, I don't think that would stand up, and I wouldn't see the point. If you want to sue someone for professional incompetence, you sue their employer (or the individual, if self-employed) and get paid out of their Professional Indemnity Insurance. You have much less chance of winning, and if you do win less chance of getting paid, if you sue someone not directly connected with the incompetent work - even if you can find an indirect link, such as IFA accreditation.

I would be very interested to know if there has ever been a case of a professional institution being sued by the client of one of their members, for accrediting an incompetent professional. Similarly, any case of a university being sued for granting a degree to an incompetent. Troll - have you got any such examples?

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished
I have never been entirely sure of the legal standing of a job advert requiring IFA membership as an essential. I do know however that if any discrimination is implied in such an ad, it is not covered by race discrimination legislation, sex discrimination, sexual orientation, age or disability legislation (unless you could show that a requirement of membership of the IFA, was in itself discriminatory for any of the reasons above).

However, as a former archaeological trade union branch secretary, I would be most upset if my employer stated that IFA membership was essential, not for the potential employees, but on behalf of existing staff. If IFA membersip is an essential does that mean that everyone already working for the company also has to become a member? Was that stated in their original contract? Is this a new condition imposed on staff? Were the trade unions consulted? What benefits would my members get from the new condition? etc etc

(Apologies for writing this message in bits. I am at present stuck on a 'limited usage' computer, albeit in the departure lounge of Changi airport...)


I do wonder though whether someone might consider that asking for membership of the IFA as a job essential runs contrary to ARTICLE 14 of the Human Rights Convention, which states

PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.


Perhaps the IFA is what the Eurocrats meant by 'other status' [8D]
I feel that the IFA would have every "reasonable" right to ask for corporate membership or other grade thereof if-and only if, the job advertised was specifically as a staff member of their organisation.Outside of that and I feel that any court would see the requirement as unreasonable.My point relating to the IFA and litigation is largely borne of a frustration where I can find no-one who is willing to take responsibility. The IFA are largely unnaccountable.To anyone-let alone the general public.It is my contention that if the IFA are to validate individuals and accredit organisations-they should indeed be accountable.In a commercial environment, a client (in 1mans view) with a valid grievence should only take action against the contracter he enlisted the services of.My view is that if the client enlisted the services of an organisation (RAO/MIFA-led) because they were recommended by the IFA- surely, the IFA are accountable as they supplied the stamp of approval and failed in their claims of policing and the maintaining of standards etc. Someone needs to be accountable in the current free-for all environment.:face-huh:Of course ideally- in an environment where to practise,everyone must sign up to standards and those standards are rigourously defended/monitored/policed or even...taken seriously, we may just begin to at least- be seen to be the beginnings of an embryonic "profession".

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Pages: 1 2 3