BAJR Site Hut  »   IfA Council Statement on Archaeological Salaries

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/archaeologicalsalaries.pdf

I will leave people to read it.

It is quite far-reaching and will be open to (indeed it welcomes) debate.

In a nutshell, the Council decided to not allow ROs to reduce salaries, but will work on a system of Pay Bands rather than minima ( I would say a bit like the overlapping bands of BAJR) and finally that in 2010-2011 there will be no increase in pay rates.

That simplifies a complex document - so do please take the time to read it before commenting.

Hmm, could it be, finally, the IfA has decided to bare it's teeth on a matter of principle? If so I might even consider joining. What I found particularly interesting was the statement made under the heading Behaviour in a democratic institute;

"Council has tried to steer a principled yet pragmatic course through one of the most potentially divisive and damaging debates within the Institute for 20 years. Emotions have run high and threats have been made"

I'd love to know what the nature of these threats are, who made them and more importantly who was responsible for bringing the issues to debate within the framework of the IfA. Bet it wasn't the IfA themselves.

I have to agree with all of Kevin's points. There appears to have been a concerted and organised campaign by 'responsible postholders ' (ie heads of RO's) to push through a change. Is the nature of the threats that the RO's threatened to leave the RO scheme? Or did someone get offered out the room for some 'education'?

I have to completely agree with Kevin that this should have been put to IFA membership, I couldn't make the AGM, as I was digging a hole, but such a radical change (more details please??) should not be railroaded through without recourse to the membership. I'd have said that there should have been a fully prepared draft of the new scheme, and knowing the IFA that would have taken about 20 years!

Whilst we're declaring interests, I'm a member of the IFA and Diggers' Forum, and recently stood for IFA council on a 'fair pay now' ticket. I wish I'd got voted in now.....

I can now say, that this has been weighing heavy upon me, the enormity of this meeting was not lost.
As per your suggestions - You as members have that right to know.

I am worried about the decision of a pay freeze, and the affect it will have. My own suggestion (which I held back until this statement was made) is to wait until April 2010 and then access the situation before making any statement about pay and conditions - (of course tenders muct be made, and this will have implications to this) BUT To condemn a whole year based on today's conditions is not something to be made. As IfA members I urge you to voice your opinions. VAT increases in January, the cost of living will increase, and wages are already being driven down - how low would you go.

Kevins post perhaps summarises the feelings that I am sure many hold - What happened and why....

BAJR is but one small voice, but it does allow free speech and comment for all. Use it as you wish.

Go for it.

Not too sure I would regard the concessions the IFA have offered ROs, seemingly made in the face of threats to its RO scheme, as a principled stand. Quite the opposite, this is further evidence of RO interests coming ahead of those of the wider membership. The statement stands as a sad milestone in the erosion of membership interest and the democratic process. Kevin touches on the key points, but I fear the situation is worse still:

o IfA endorses a pay freeze, which is likely to expand the already disgraceful wage differential identified in the IFA benchmarking study;

o Increasing the differential and reducing the timescale for correction almost certainly undermines the prospect of achieving a progressive 13% increases in salary minima by 2013. The weakness of the IFA position on this issue is evident in it’s acceptance of RO commitments that are aspirational and not binding. No doubt when the time comes the familiar business case will be cited, ie fear of competition on price will be used to justify a refusal to move on this issue, as has previously occurred during every stage of the economic cycle, whether benign or otherwise. Bear in mind the IFA benchmarking study reflect the situation on the back of more than a decade of sustained growth. Throughout this period the issue of low pay has been debated. This evidence suggests pay differentials are eroded even during period of economic growth, yet the IFA still retains its faith in pay correction rising phoenix-like on any future economic improvement. The IFA needs to ask itself why this has failed to deliver in the past. The obvious answer is that most archaeological employers, many ROs included, are committed to the central business proposition of squeezing cost to gain market advantage, with no regard to the underlying market economics and only limited investment in quality, as defined in a commercial sense;

o IFA prioritises the imposition of barriers to entry (apparently ahead of action on pay differential), which will discriminate against members whose employers are not ROs, but also props up RO’s operating low cost business models that are evidently neither robust or sustainable and now seemingly dependent of restrictive market barriers. The effectiveness of such barriers is likely to be limited; however it presents the prospect of ‘institutionalising’ underlying business weaknesses, consigning members to long-term pay pressure.

The most depressing aspect of the IFA statement is the perception that holding costs, effectively a pay cut, will improve the situation for RO employers. It clearly will not. The current problem is that there is not enough work out there to support the current supply-side. Dropping cost might give an individual organisations a short term advantage, but it will not generate any additional demand, it simply fuels further cost pressure. Work will simply move around according to who offers the lowest price, RO or not. In that sense the IFA action has exacerbated the pay crisis.

Where now for the members who had looked to the IFA for leadership. It might be worth taking a leaf out of the book of the ROs who have been so effective in advancing their interests at the expense of the wider membership. The IFA is far more financially dependent on its members than it is on the RO scheme, perhaps it should be reminded of this. In terms of change, much depends on employers, and whilst recessions are not welcome, they do perhaps offer an opportunity to adjust business models. There are a wide range in operation, even within the historic environment sector, many offering a responsible and mature basis for business development that could prove far more sustainable.

I posted my original mail on this subject on the IfA Facebook group site and received the following reply from Kathryn...

Kathryn Whittington replied

‘Thanks for your feedback. I am currently collating all responses to pass on to Council. As with all matters relating to IfA work, members can make their views known either to individual members of Council or to Council as a whole via the office.

As is the case in all democratic membership organisations, Council are elected representatives of the membership, and have responsibility for making decisions about the direction and work of the Institute’.

Hi Ken – great post – and Kevin’s too regarding the erosion of membership interests in the face of commercial pressure. There are a few things I’m unclear with and I’m hoping you can expand.

You write that “The current problem is that there is not enough work out there to support the current supply-side” – but is this not also a problem with how our work is defined in the eyes of our clients? The majority of clients are focussed on time and cost and have no interest in the quality of the final product so long as it meets their statutory obligations. This is exacerbated because:

ken whittaker wrote:
…most archaeological employers, many ROs included, are committed to the central business proposition of squeezing cost to gain market advantage, with no regard to the underlying market economics and only limited investment in quality, as defined in a commercial sense…


My question is really concerned with your second bullet point - the IFA’s aspirations to become the gateway to market.

ken whittaker wrote:
The effectiveness of such barriers is likely to be limited; however it presents the prospect of ‘institutionalising’ underlying business weaknesses, consigning members to long-term pay pressure.

I have always been led to believe that a barrier to entry is a step towards solving both the quality issue and the pay issue, and am interested to hear why you don’t think this will be the case. If the IFA impose a barrier to entry on the market place, and limit this to a chartered/ROA membership, they can also enforce equitable pay scales for their membership. And by monitoring the quality of archaeological work, businesses ‘squeezing cost to gain market advantage’ will surely have to lift their game. Rather than the IFA address these problems, you suggest that the market can generate its own creative solutions:

ken whittaker wrote:
In terms of change, much depends on employers, and whilst recessions are not welcome, they do perhaps offer an opportunity to adjust business models. There are a wide range in operation, even within the historic environment sector, many offering a responsible and mature basis for business development that could prove far more sustainable.

Are you saying that this is an opportunity for change, and the IFA is standing in the way of this by shoring up a fatally flawed system? What possible model could provide ‘responsible and mature basis for business development’ when faced with the basic reality that we have a client who doesn’t care what he’s buying as long as its cheap and entry level staff who don’t care how little they earn as long as it covers their cost?

[quote=Kevin Wooldridge][/quote]
Well said Kevin, I'd like to add my signature to that letter. In fact an open letter from IfA members (and non members) might be a good idea?

By the way, the democratically elected council that is spoken of, guess how many votes there were for this years candidates?

109!

I would strongly urge all members of the IfA to write to council as a collective and individually to make their voice heard and call for an EGM. This undemocratic, premeditated attempt at a coup, backed up by 'threats', presumably to pull out of the RO scheme, is not acceptable within any organisation. As Kevin has said, the place to propose and debate any changes of this magnitude is the AGM, given that this was deliberately ignored, an EGM is the appropriate place.
Council and membership agreed on the benchmarking scheme, and signed up to implementing a 13% increase in minima for the next three years, the events of last week were a premeditated attack on fair pay for archaeologists.

Whose Ifa is it? Use your voice.

Thanks David. And Chiz. I agree that all IfA members have to make their feelings known to IfA council about this matter. They deserve our support for sticking to their guns so far, despite the fact that many must be under great personal pressure. Kathryn has agreed to collate responses made on the IFA Facebook group and I hope she will also take account of views raised in this forum/fora.

BrianAldridge wrote: It is hardly the fault of IFA's Council that 109 people voted at the last AGM....Even here in Borsetshire we got our voting forms and paperwork! ...If people don't vote when it is made this easy for them, what else can you expect the IfA to do?

I wasn't saying that it was the council's fault, though I know of several members who didn't get their voting papers in time due to the postal strike. I got mine the day before the deadline so couldn't vote. I'd agree with you that if people don't vote/act then they bring events on themselves.

BrianAldridge wrote: They've already said on their Facebook forum that they are gathering responses from members to be sent to Council - who here has actually contacted them, rather than just whinging on here?

Well I have for a start. And will be writing to them again. As will be/have many colleagues.

in the past it was The Institute FOR Archaeologists - the IFA, presuming it wants to represent the best interests UK of archaeology and archaeologists, should activley seek the views of major stakeholders (ie archaeologists whether members OR non-members) - BAJR is an (imho excellent) attempt to allow free disscusion for the interested community at large

- while critiscism of organisations, such as the IFA, might occur in this forum, those organisation are not under threat from BAJR, unless those organisations are connected with significant upset for the community...

yes an internet forum not such as this is excellent but paul why whats your problem the ifa are nothing get over it they also smell bad realy musty what we want is a single super RAO with one great big dicktaker (like eh merged obviously with algayo)then the ifa will be happy no more members so happy