+- 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: IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress (/showthread.php?tid=5033)
IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress - BAJR - 24th June 2013
Too true... there is the strange i,pression that we are all still gentlemen/ladies of liesure who pop out and have a look for wizard wheeze. OR worse... - there to get in teh way and hold up vital work while costing the client a pile of cash.
Thing number one to sort out.
Thing number 2 putting cost above archaeology
thing number 3 incompetent archaeologists.
Thing number 4.. feeling superior
thing number 5 ... thinkiing people who get dirty are somehow at teh bottom of teh ladder.
thing number 6 promoting archaeology in the different groups. ie contract, academic, public. they should NOT be seen as the same. otherwise public archaeology makes it seem that we can all do it. and it should be free. contract archaeology makes it look as if it is stern faced stressed timescales with a feck it out attitude. and academics are airy dreamers who take 20 years to work out that evidence of ursus ursus in teh later meolithic i that defectation within a woodland enviroment is a serious possibility..
in short. I like the idea. I like the potential BUT it is like setting to sea in a huge luxury cruiseliner and forgetting that the hull is holed in several places. a) the compelling argument is laclustre and the current system is ( unless you are somhow in denial ) so flawed and mistrusted that it needs a root and branch change. has done for yeas. Don't get me started on Fieldworker apathy though... as the whole is a bit crap. Anywa... keep it light
and goodd discussion
IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress - RedEarth - 24th June 2013
Dinosaur Wrote:Doing lectures is cos I said yes, not cos anyone told me to, certainly wouldn't do it for free as a work activity - but as a personal enterprise, am having to use a day's leave to deliver it at the far side of the country, that'll be £30 in petrol too, no lecture fee... - hate doing the bl**dy things, but not much point digging stuff up it you're then going to keep it secret - oh, sorry, forgot, apparently we just do archaeology as a 9-5 job for the money, not cos we're interested in it, must remember that....
I am confused now, I assume it is a work project you are talking about? If not then knock yourself out.
I could never be accused of doing archaeology 9-5 for the money etc (what a joke that is anyway) having spent endless amounts of my spare time doing stuff basically for free when I could be doing something else. That isn't the point - I would never expect anyone else to work like that or be forced to work like that if they didn't want to. That includes doing free overtime, giving talks at weekends/evenings with no corresponding pay or time off. You give across the impression that you think this is normal and how everyone should act. Or am I wrong?
IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress - RedEarth - 24th June 2013
BAJR Wrote:Too true... there is the strange i,pression that we are all still gentlemen/ladies of liesure who pop out and have a look for wizard wheeze. OR worse... - there to get in teh way and hold up vital work while costing the client a pile of cash.
Thing number one to sort out.
Thing number 2 putting cost above archaeology
thing number 3 incompetent archaeologists.
Thing number 4.. feeling superior
thing number 5 ... thinkiing people who get dirty are somehow at teh bottom of teh ladder.
thing number 6 promoting archaeology in the different groups. ie contract, academic, public. they should NOT be seen as the same. otherwise public archaeology makes it seem that we can all do it. and it should be free. contract archaeology makes it look as if it is stern faced stressed timescales with a feck it out attitude. and academics are airy dreamers who take 20 years to work out that evidence of ursus ursus in teh later meolithic i that defectation within a woodland enviroment is a serious possibility..
in short. I like the idea. I like the potential BUT it is like setting to sea in a huge luxury cruiseliner and forgetting that the hull is holed in several places. a) the compelling argument is laclustre and the current system is ( unless you are somhow in denial ) so flawed and mistrusted that it needs a root and branch change. has done for yeas. Don't get me started on Fieldworker apathy though... as the whole is a bit crap. Anywa... keep it light
I my opinion what is probably required is an organisation like the IfA but for commercial archaeologists only. The IfA as it stands cannot really hope to represent all of the various strands of archaeologists at once. The comment from the electrician chap was quite interesting - why not an institute for academics, one for commercial archaeologists, perhaps a student organisation for those just starting out and yet to find their way. What about an Association representing, oh I don't know, Archaeological Surveyors and Illustrators (it could be called AASI) rather than just a single blanket group trying and failing to represent everyone. I think they want a charter so they can use the lovely vellum certificate to paper over the cracks, because in its present form the IfA is not really fit for purpose (although I remain a member because there isn't a lot of alternative).
IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress - Dinosaur - 24th June 2013
RedEarth Wrote:I am confused now, I assume it is a work project you are talking about? If not then knock yourself out.
One of those old 'fossil' work projects (15 years old) that for whatever reason hang about (this one just never got published), can still be prodded as a 'hobby' though, long past any whiff of a budget, sometimes with spectacular results (hence the lecture bit). If it's out-of-budget and way beyond any agreed spec it's no longer work, more dissatisfaction with the system
IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress - kevin wooldridge - 24th June 2013
RedEarth Wrote:I my opinion what is probably required is an organisation like the IfA but for commercial archaeologists only. The IfA as it stands cannot really hope to represent all of the various strands of archaeologists at once.
But I am a commercial archaeologist for part of my time, I work for a university and am currently pursuing a post grad qualification (so I guess that makes me an academic and a student), I also research and illustrate and do GIS things as well as non-commercial backlog post-ex projects. I think belonging to one organisation representing all of those lines is enough....I also think the IfA has to somehow manage access to all of the various rooms in our broad church, however difficult that is......
...My 'IfA' gripe today follows delivery of the IfA magazine through the letter box this morning. There are 2 articles in the first 7 pages that raise the question of limiting the number of practising professional archaeologists, as a 'demand-led' remedy for solving the problematic question of low pay.....that is not, as far as I am aware, an official IfA policy and never has been. It is to my mind a bad idea....
IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress - RedEarth - 24th June 2013
Dinosaur Wrote:One of those old 'fossil' work projects (15 years old) that for whatever reason hang about (this one just never got published), can still be prodded as a 'hobby' though, long past any whiff of a budget, sometimes with spectacular results (hence the lecture bit). If it's out-of-budget and way beyond any agreed spec it's no longer work, more dissatisfaction with the system
Well that does complicate things a little and I guess there's nothing that can be done in such circumstances.
IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress - RedEarth - 24th June 2013
kevin wooldridge Wrote:But I am a commercial archaeologist for part of my time, I work for a university and am currently pursuing a post grad qualification (so I guess that makes me an academic and a student), I also research and illustrate and do GIS things as well as non-commercial backlog post-ex projects. I think belonging to one organisation representing all of those lines is enough....I also think the IfA has to somehow manage access to all of the various rooms in our broad church, however difficult that is......
...My 'IfA' gripe today follows delivery of the IfA magazine through the letter box this morning. There are 2 articles in the first 7 pages that raise the question of limiting the number of practising professional archaeologists, as a 'demand-led' remedy for solving the problematic question of low pay.....that is not, as far as I am aware, an official IfA policy and never has been. It is to my mind a bad idea....
It would be interesting to know how many people were in comparable situations. Perhaps a bulk discount for joint membership? I wonder what happens with electricians or others who end up covered by multiple organisations - I'm guessing that in some cases they join them all in order to get all of the benefits. Presumably in those case they are seen as a beneficial rather than sort of evil entity.
IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress - Dinosaur - 24th June 2013
Not seen it, but I'd be guessing the limiting would be to 'Chartered' archaeologists* - i.e the management - so wouldn't have any impact at all on the un-limited lower orders? They'd just have less option as to who to be under-paid by. Says it all really. Any of those 'lower orders' (no insult intended) should vote NO to a licence for a smaller number of management to pay themselves more without any evidence that any benefits would flow down to the other employees!
! *selected presumably at the whim of the vested-interests in IFA
IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress - kevin wooldridge - 24th June 2013
One of the articles is by the chief executive of FAME (who used to be called SCAUM)....I get the impression that his view is that the limit would apply at the lower end of the food chain, so as the employing organisations could justify charging clients more for the rare resource of a 'digging' archaeologist, and that the increased charge would drip through to staff in the form of higher wages.
I think its a misguided concept... at present there are possibly less digging archaeologists working than at any time in the past 20 years. The 'rarity' of that resource hardly seems to have pushed up the wages. If anything it has depressed the wage market even further, as no doubt some employers would claim that if the current crop of employed got too stroppy, they could dial up another batch of wannabees without much difficulty.......
IfA and the Royal Charter - update on progress - Jack - 25th June 2013
kevin wooldridge Wrote:I think its a misguided concept... at present there are possibly less digging archaeologists working than at any time in the past 20 years. The 'rarity' of that resource hardly seems to have pushed up the wages. If anything it has depressed the wage market even further, as no doubt some employers would claim that if the current crop of employed got too stroppy, they could dial up another batch of wannabees without much difficulty.......
I agree.
In the grander scheme of things, we don't dictate the price that the 'clients' pay us.
The client controls this with the threat of going to someone cheaper.
A bit like supermarkets dictating the buying price of milk.
The only ways of stopping this is illegal price fixing
or
Stronger legislation, quality control including hefty fines for destroying archaeology (including not excavating/recording and publishing it properly) and accreditation of companies.