+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: welfare facilities (/showthread.php?tid=112)
welfare facilities - Paul Belford - 12th May 2006
Quote:quote:I can further state that the contractor's foreman had cause to eject a trespasser from the site on one occasion who climbed over the wall from the adjacent property and, when challenged, claimed: "Its OK, I'm an archaeologist".
I think that says it all really. Probably not the approach of a professional archaeologist with concern for H&S and welfare issues (who would report to the site office, sign in, undertake an induction if necessary, and raise any concerns with appropriate persons).
welfare facilities - BAJR Host - 12th May 2006
Whoever that person was of course..
Another day another WSI?
welfare facilities - Paul Belford - 12th May 2006
Quite.
welfare facilities - mercenary - 12th May 2006
Quote:quote:I can further state that the contractor's foreman had cause to eject a trespasser from the site on one occasion who climbed over the wall from the adjacent property and, when challenged, claimed: "Its OK, I'm an archaeologist".
Is the implication here that the archaeologist in question is the one complaining about site facilities? If so what evidence do we have of this? If not, what does it add to the discussion, other than showing what most of us already know, that some archaeologists are idiots.
The documents produced only prove that a certain amount of arse covering has gone on. Did the Chief Environmental Health Officer or the Cemeteries Officer visit the site or were they paper shuffling only? This whole case looks exactly like past of employers of mine, who conform to the law but nothing more when complaints are made. Time and again it has been made clear that the law is inadequate with regard to H&S in archaeology.
welfare facilities - BAJR Host - 12th May 2006
In this particular case... I investigated it completely... and found that the allegations (which included Lead coffins being dragged out by 2 people
) were not borne out by the facts. No arse covering was needed after the event, as all the proper procedures had been carried out (to more than minimum standards) before I was even involved. Some companies do need a prod, but this was not the case hereâ¦
Anyway, without wasting any more type on a case that does not need any looking at⦠can we return to discussing the thread again..
Basic welfare rightsâ¦.
Access to a toiletâ¦would a nearby public loo count?
Access to washing facilities (is this on every site, survey etc??)
Access to cabinsâ¦. Would this also be true for a watching brief? Or would it be like the driver of the JCB who sits happy in the cab? Would you expect a full kitted out portacabin for a one day Watching Brief?
What do you think are the basics? - and when is it reasonable that they kick in..
Also who would you contact normally to complain⦠what is the route for highlighting issues, the preferred route, the alternative route?
Another day another WSI?
welfare facilities - mercenary - 12th May 2006
Ok.
IMHO
1-Yes, if it is open or an arrangement has previously been made for its use
2-yes, but in extreme cases may be hand-wipes and/or bottled water.
3-No, but a company car should be the minimum alternative for shortish length projects.
Some attempt to provide basic facilities should always be made, and staff appraised of why in extreme cases certain facilities can't be provided and an alternative arranged-in advance. Cost should never be the reason
I don't tend to complain anymore because it becomes self defeating if done every time. I save up for really bad cases.
welfare facilities - BAJR Host - 12th May 2006
Another day another WSI?
welfare facilities - Donald MacBrain - 12th May 2006
Beamo, apparently mattockhead is already getting out of archaeology in favour of the glitz and glamour of accountancy. I merely agree with him that if he finds sharing a toilet with women so unpalatable then perhaps he is making an appropriate career move. Iâm sure we should sympathise, afterall it is really annoying how those women always leave the seat down and tidy up after themselves!
Train Chaser
welfare facilities - drpeterwardle - 13th May 2006
I note no response to my question âCould you point me to the statute which says
"that all exhumations must be completed shielded from public gaze!".â If this statute exists and I donât know about it I must find out about it quick.
I have to say I take âoffenceâ when it is suggested that building contractors and archaeologists should not share the same bog. On building sites these days women are present in many roles from client downwards. There are in fact many good reasons why contractors and archaeologists should share the same facilities. Chatting to the âladsâ pays dividends in their quiet co-operation.
I actually enjoy the craich or banter in the mess facilities â it reminds me of my first job when I left school in the black country as a labourer on a building site making up the compo. Why are archaeologists better than demolition contractors and thus deserve better facilities?
Dr Peter Wardle BSc MA PhD
Head Consultant.
The Archaeological Consultancy
(David hope this is within the AUP)
welfare facilities - Paul Barford - 13th May 2006
Of course the other side of the coin is whether they want to share the loos with us. The same goes for the suggestion above about archaeologists with (depending on site conditions and weather) their sometimes over-muddied attire etc. using public toilets on a regular basis because no other facilities were supplied, is that fair on the other users?
Paul Barford