BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: Is it me? the rise of teh "trainee"
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 11 12
Next gripe is the rise of the "trainee grade". some really are. I have spent time talking over such positions with a company recently. Others are just because rates have sunk below minima... no worries, we will just call em trainees, mutter something about on the job training, and pay less ... whooo hoo. --- so now you need at least 6 months commercial experience to even get paid the bare minimum for a commercial archaeologist. - tell me... if I have 5 months. does that mean I suddenly go up to the full 17094 rate after a month..? or does that not count?

Other companies seem to be able to afford the enormous £14 a week to bring them up to the bare minimum ----

I may have to bring in a new rule on BAJR... nothing... NOTHING less than 17094 ( unless we have talked about it first, and it is something like a pay grade that needs the bottom level put in for HR Department not to kick up a stink) the words BAJR Approved means, "I knows what goes on, and we have a handshake agreement... that the minima is really (wink) what it should be."

Anyways. before people say... ah... but where do I get experience. it is not rocket science FFS... 6 months is perhaps over long to learn how to write your name and the colour of soil on a context card... or take a digital photograph of a pit..... being good at it... takes time. but really. these are not shaved apes... these are your graduates (in the main) who have shown they can hold a thought and perhaps have a modicum of ability in holding a shovel the right way up... and if not. then it will take less than 6 months to work that one out!

aaaarg! I despair!
Phew! We're in the clear for once, don't have any of those, before anyone starts the usual sniping in this direction Big Grin
I know the idea of 'trainees' is fundamentally a good idea, and one that BAJR is right to embrace, BUT...

I whole heartedly agree with your cynicism. When it comes to boots on the ground, are 'trainees' treated any different to other site assistants/excavators? In my experience, no, and I'll wager they are charged out at an identical rate when it comes to billing the client. There is no formal process of shadowing and assisting someone more experienced for a set period, and any buddy system basically equates to what a supervisor should be doing anyway.

Though it may be mocked by some, at least CPD logs show that training is a continual process and that even those who've been around the block are sometimes suprised by what we learn. Most importantly this process exposes as a fallacy that you can be a trainee for six months and then emerge into the archaeological world. Fair enough that companies may want to put experienced staff on a slightly higher grade, but all staff should be above 17094. I'm afraid the trainee idea is allowing too many to cut corners in recruiting new graduates despite its well-meaning stance, and is another example of detrimental working conditions in commercial archaeology.

Just my tuppence, and I think I will shortly be seeing several 'trainees' :-(
BAJR, time to take a tougher stand.
Should get tougher by demanding a definition of article 3 of the Valetta convention.
If they can shovel and push a barrow for 8 hours then why not pay them the full whack, that's all most of the 'experienced' staff do most of the time anyway - in fact they probably put in a fuller day since they aren't spending half of it reminiscing about previous sites they've worked on :face-stir:
well if you will give them loopholes ............ seems to me that the 17094 should be a trainee rate and that way we migt keep a few for the long haul instead of loosing them to the care sector and asda (or is that the sane thing?)
P Prentice Wrote:well if you will give them loopholes ............ seems to me that the 17094 should be a trainee rate and that way we migt keep a few for the long haul instead of loosing them to the care sector and asda (or is that the sane thing?)

That would only work if all the other rates rose too. To introduce a sense of perspective, the SPO running the job I'm on at the moment is on about the same money as I was getting two years ago for changing the odd lock, cutting a bit of grass, rodding a drain once in a while, and with virtually no responsibility. The guy running that job, with a similar level of responsibility as an SPO was on double that wage, with company car thrown in.
I see several sides to this argument. Being Satan's own advocate......

'We are all equal, except some are more equal than others'

1) Why should one digger who can do everything themself with little supervision, who can dig like crazy all day, can interpret complex remains only get paid the same as someone who can't dig for long without having a rest, can't find their edges, can't photograph, can't draw a section or plan and frankly can only be used on site for unimportant features to limit the damage they do?

2) Trainees need to be trained until they are no longer a trainee. Why are these individuals on commercial sites unless this is so?

3) When there is a lack of experienced and competent staff you have to employ who you can get or the job wont get done in time and on budget.
or if you pay more you will get better diggers and you wont have to keep scraping the barrel
Indeed. and this is the big issue just now.

There are no staff left. so like the end of the Reich, the young, the old and infirm are pushed out to the trenches

Training needs to be embedded in teh process of career advancement... the Career Passport.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12