+- 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: Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries (/showthread.php?tid=4719)
Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries - P Prentice - 26th January 2013
it really is appalling that vested interests earning £40-£100,000, with bonus's and pensions can stitch up the grass roots quite so easily.
it really will be appalling if the rest of us let them
Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries - ecmgardner - 27th January 2013
Braving the potential furore... setting pay minima could certainly be viewed as anti-competitive and price fixing by the monopolies and mergers commission. In most industries pay setting keeps pay low - erm now I know in archaeology that's not the case!
So, playing devils advocate and I'm not a lawyer (but my brother is..) - if setting pay minima is legally viewed as anti-competitive can IfA apply them by using BAJR style guides applied to the submission of job ads to the JIS? What other mechanisms could they use to fulfil the commitment to raising pay levels as indicated by profiling the profession?
Isn't this a much wider and long-standing problem of how archaeology is funded? The money to pay us all has to come from somewhere, and I don't see any archaeologists at any levels driving supercars and taking regular Caribbean holidays so I reckon it's safe to say no-one is earning truly big bucks in archaeology. The biggest problem as I see it is that we are paid by developers who don't want to pay for us. They go for the cheapest options, and we undercut ourselves into the situation we're in now because we need the work to stay afloat. Even if we could go on strike for better pay and conditions I'd put money that when I got back on site the archaeology would be destroyed. Would the developer really have to pay a penalty for this? Maybe a fine? Would they really care? Probably cost the same as the archaeology, and there'd be no post-ex to pay for?!
So I contend the problem is much deeper than simply pay minima it's where the pay comes from, and the legislation that governs it. I'd see individual jail sentances for developers who breach their archaeological planning conditions, then you can use strike because there's an actual penalty that the developer would fear if they destroy the archaeology and you hurt them in their balance sheet by striking. Bingo you've got their attention and thus we take over the world! Mwahh haaa haaa... Erm have I gone off topic a bit?
Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries - BAJR - 27th January 2013
Quote:So I contend the problem is much deeper than simply pay minima it's where the pay comes from, and the legislation that governs it. I
i am afraid that is the true. the pay/conditions fight takes away from the real fight. the relevance and status of archaeology to government, development and public.
Squabble and fight to the bottom... like two sparrows locked in mortal combat - that is where we are just now.
If we could have rates that were at least reasonable, then i for one would no longer have grades... and teh ifa would not need minima. the grown up industry would pay decent wages, provide sensible conditions on a par with others. perhaps the 20k digger is a while off but a fieldworker should be able to earn 17.5k+ as a starter... and have a progressive rate. best staff go to the best pay... The red herring of pay could be placed in a drawer and the real work tackled.
But no... now even minima are under threat even paying people rates that we all agree are shite... is under the threat of legal challenge! Have i accidently found myself in a Dickens novel? Will archaeologists soon have to work for food, provided by the company out of a big bowl in the site hut?
Pay fair, and this is all over
Free Market does not mean cheap Labour
Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries - Martin Locock - 27th January 2013
I think the motives of the units are a little more rational than this discussion has implied. The RO scheme was not intended to be back-door method of enforcing improved pay and conditions across the profession -it was supposed to raise the standards of archaeological work (broadly defined) through the implementation of the Code of Conduct's principles throughout organisations , whether the staff were individual members of not, making the organisation accountable for any breaches.
The argument the employers are making is that in the current market conditions, where a substantial amount of archaeological work is undertaken by contractors who are not ROs (and are therefore not bound by pay minima), an increase in pay minima will have the effect of shifting work from ROs to non ROs, to the detriment of the profession and standards in general.
It seems reasonable to at least consider the possible unintended consequences of minima on the profession they are supposed to be helping.
Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries - P Prentice - 27th January 2013
it would be a rationale if the ifa policed standards but they very clearly dont. for the most part it is down to local authorities to police standards as far as they are able. the only real difference between ro and non-ro is that by and large non-ro are smaller, and have less overheads to find. though i concede working practices are mostly better in ro's.
Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries - Martin Locock - 27th January 2013
There's a difference between curators monitoring standards on a project-by-project basis, using the planning system to require conformity, and the IfA role: it requires ROs to put into place policies that should ensure routine performance to standard.
Quote:They must have a MIfA-grade Responsible Post-holder. Registered Organisations are strictly bound to the IfA Code of conduct and other by-laws, they must work in accordance with defined policies and procedures, and comply with current best practice. They will fully document their work, findings and advice, carry adequate professional insurance, and be committed to providing their staff with a fair employment package
Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries - BAJR - 27th January 2013
Thanks Martin for that interjection:
Quote:where a substantial amount of archaeological work is undertaken by contractors who are not ROs
This would of course need to be shown to be true and I would expect if this was entered as an argument then the figures would have been checked. From my own quick check in the last month with people in ROs... it is other ROs that seem to be doing the undercutting/under bidding. Indeed there are ROs paying significantly more and non Ros as well. I am aware of some RO's paying substantially less. just one has recently come to my attention - where the "self employed" rate is £65 ( no.. not them) plus expenses.
So, before we scare people... the argument is sound IF the figures can be shown to be true. until then, it is like UKIP/Daily Mail telling me that my job is under threat because of all the immigration. --
Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries - archaeologyexile - 27th January 2013
the unpalatable truth is there are too many of us and that very few skills are needed to stand in front of machine and see nothing. The supply of cheap unskilled labour (recent graduates) allows units to keep going. People are happy to do it for a few years because it's fun, then they realise theŷ can't get a mortgage and quick, but by then the next batch of students are willing to have a go. in order to keep going the units cut corners. It's a race to the bottom.
We need to loose some units, lesson competition and then raise rates and standards. We cannot create a cartel but the IFA can agree minimum rates and the industry should follow them. The current problem is presumably because the big units now feel that there are too many non-ROs and that they're loosing out by meeting the salary minima. But who is working for these non-ROS......it's us!
It pains me to say it but without the IFA there will be nothing holding back the gates. The IFA is right we must move towards chartered status and then prevent crxxx units undercutting everyone else!
Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries - Kel - 27th January 2013
archaeologyexile Wrote:The supply of cheap unskilled labour (recent graduates) allows units to keep going.Really? How many recent graduates have the required minimum professional site experience to land a job these days? As someone who's been in the uni system since 2008, I can assure you that I know very few fresh graduates who've been able to find employment in archaeology.
I think the days when you can blame new graduates for the current situation, ended a couple of years ago. As far as I can see, it's skilled and experienced archaeologists who are now being forced into accepting dirt-poor pay, just to keep themselves afloat in the long wait for good times to return. Blaming students is just another way of burying heads in the sand.
Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries - monty - 27th January 2013
Not difficult to work out which units are behind this......... they are charging 250 a day plus VAT per digger....and paying less than 65 of that to the digger....... I can see this getting through easily..IfA don't give a shit about the real world of diggers.....and never have done xx(