BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: 2013 BAJR Grades
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
If Digger's explanation is correct (I don't doubt it, but I'm too lazy to verify the removal of utilities from the inflation "basket") then the 2.2 or 2.9 figures are artificially low through the age-old trick of ignoring evidence, so perhaps a rise of 5% might be more realistic to maintain the true status quo? Of course the profit margins for owners/shareholders would be slightly diminished...
Of course any higher rate only works if prospective employees will not work for those that pay less. And as we know... from bitter experience. the reality is " I have to take the job... any job is better than none etc"

If people could hold the line.. then this would be over by Christmas. however..... there is no collective negotiation, there is no collective union that will act on behalf ( sorry PROSPECT.. but you really don't do anything ) and there will always be someone to take the low paid job.

So what to do?
name and shame

let's have a web site where we can anonomously publish our own (personal) pay, terms and conditions? bajr can validate with 100% confindentiality!
P Prentice Wrote:name and shame let's have a web site where we can anonomously publish our own (personal) pay, terms and conditions? bajr can validate with 100% confindentiality!

I think the problem might be (as David and Dino have alluded to in previous posts), that one person could be perfectly happy with a rate of pay and terms and conditions, that would seriously piss off someone else!! Pay is not the only yardstick by which people measure happiness and contentment. A campaign of naming and shaming based solely on rate of pay, would I think be counter-productive.....
Varying pay points within scales would also confuse things considerably? An old lag at a poor-paying unit might look 'better-paid' than a newby at a well-paying outfit? You'd need an awful lot of detail (which might affect the 'anonymity' thing)! POs and SPOs here certainly seem to get paid a variety of salaries for that reason, and there's a sliding scale of leave-entitlement depending on time served
kevin wooldridge Wrote:I think the problem might be (as David and Dino have alluded to in previous posts), that one person could be perfectly happy with a rate of pay and terms and conditions, that would seriously piss off someone else!! Pay is not the only yardstick by which people measure happiness and contentment. A campaign of naming and shaming based solely on rate of pay, would I think be counter-productive.....
well if you want a comments box or tick boxes for levels of job satisfaction then all to the good but given that most people would like to have a career and the prospect of such a career including reasonable terms and conditions and the ability to support a family etc i think pay is a pretty essential place to start. archaeology need not be the preserve of management apologists, batchelor nerds and the socially challanged
Ok so we're talking about what minimum wages should be, meanwhile certain firms are exploiting the trainee grade to make savings by not employing more experienced site staff and even laying off more experienced staff in favour of keeping on new graduates with no experience basically because this is cheaper (who are training these trainees no one knows?). With actions like this being taken by some units and managers the whole process of establishing wages and grades is undermined - well for the lower end of site work. Certainly something should be in place that says that only a small proportion of excavating site staff can be paid as trainees as this situation is being exploited.
kevin wooldridge Wrote:that one person could be perfectly happy with a rate of pay and terms and conditions, that would seriously piss off someone else!! .

Is ANYONE really happy with their pay and terms and conditions ????.I have yet to meet such a person....................
On the matter of naming and shaming - I'm certainly sure some people and firms within the profession do need naming and shaming but as has already been pointed out above there are any number of problems doing this. What I would suggest in place of this is a independent rating system for units. Firms could be rated on a number of criteria such has working conditions, wages and training opportunities and these ratings would be created by the input of actual site workers. It would certainly help people in making the decision of going to work for certain firms and it may also stimulate certain units to improve their treatment of casual site staff. We could have a BAJR star rating rather than Michelin stars.
I think the reality is somewhere between these two points. Some people will swallow their pride and work for whatever is on offer without comment or complaint, whereas others will take a firmer stand on such issues, although I agree that probably no one likes the wages.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10