+- 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: SCAUM Policy of Pay (/showthread.php?tid=568)
SCAUM Policy of Pay - voice of reason - 6th June 2007
Peter - have another look - para 2.1 says explicitly:
the organisation must not pay any archaeological employee less than the relevant
recommended IFA minimum salary equivalent
don't think it could be much clearer? so, back to SCAUM.
Same old problem with collective bargaining by SCAUM - like being an RAO, it is not compulsory so how on earth do you impose any collective agreement. And it is also not what SCAUM was set up to do. And how many employer validation schemes do we want? - will end up like boxing with the numerous governing bodies
Collective bargaining is a surefire recipe for stasis anyway.
SCAUM Policy of Pay - drpeterwardle - 6th June 2007
Voice of Reason you are of course right - I only read the appendix on pay. I agree it is clear that the IFA rates are complusory - the name "recommended minimum" is therefore misleading and David is wrong when he says:
"Sadly the IFA don't have any payscale minima yet.. but there is this"
Peter
SCAUM Policy of Pay - BAJR Host - 6th June 2007
Sorry should have clarified that as UNISOn have yet to agree a pay deal with Local Govt, the IFA are unable to give pay guidlines for the year 2007/2008 and thus are still operating on last years figures.
SCAUM has put forward a minimum minimum and BAJR has produced a pay guideline based on a minimum 3% rise... (some leaway has had to be afforded to LG groups - though on the understanding that pay is pending and will be backdated.)
As they say.... I don't make the rules... (oh..... oooooooooops... I do! Just kidding...:face-huh
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
SCAUM Policy of Pay - 1man1desk - 6th June 2007
Posted by Voice of Reason:
Quote:quote:And how many employer validation schemes do we want?
Well, 'any' would be a starting point. The nearest thing to an employer's organisation in archaeology is SCAUM, and this policy is their first word on the matter.
The IFA is not an employer's organisation, but a professional institution that represents its individual members. It does [u]not</u> represent the RAOs, although it does impose rules on them.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
SCAUM Policy of Pay - 1man1desk - 6th June 2007
Posted by Trowelhead:
Quote:quote:14 grand! Stone me. No wonder theres so many assitant jobs on the site. Its an utter insult and disgrace for a qualified proffesional and all concerned should be absolutly ashamed of themselves. The average graduate wage is 19 grand.I agree with the core meaning behind this, which is that archaeologists in the early stages of their career should be paid more than they are. However, it is a bit too condemnatory of what is a step forward, if a small one.
For a start, the SCAUM minimum salary is based on an average of recently advertised posts. The significance of that is that, by definition, around half of those posts would be on salaries below the figure proposed, and those staff should expect an increase if their employer wants to implement what SCAUM define as 'good practice'.
Secondly, the overall graduate average salary of 19K also implies that around half of all graduates are paid less than that. Some will be paid a lot less, and some a lot more. If we all insist on getting the average, it won't be the average any more!
Posted by Dr Peter Wardle:
Quote:quote:As things stand the SCAUM statement is saying that SCAUM rejects the IFA payscales which have a minimum of £14,600But, pending the finalisation of local authority pay negotiations, the current IFA minimum is actually £13,856, while SCAUM propose £14,300.
SCAUM is not an RAO, and many of its members are not either IFA members or representatives of RAOs. There is therefore no reason why SCAUM should feel obliged to adopt IFA's rules (although I would love it if it did), and some of their individual members may feel aggrieved if it did.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
SCAUM Policy of Pay - voice of reason - 6th June 2007
Well, 'any' would be a starting point. The nearest thing to an employer's organisation in archaeology is SCAUM, and this policy is their first word on the matter.
The IFA is not an employer's organisation, but a professional institution that represents its individual members. It does [u]not</u> represent the RAOs, although it does impose rules on them.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
[/quote]
You misunderstand my point (and I do know the different roles of the bodies). I was not suggesting IFA was an employer's organisation, but the RAO scheme does at present give a 'validation' system to those employers who wish to join. SCAUM does not perform this role at present but this seems potentially to beginning to move towards a somewhat different role as an employer's organisation which it perhaps should think very carefully about before embarking on it.
SCAUM Policy of Pay - Real Job - 6th June 2007
I've not posted for a while... but its obviously all change.
Instead of one organisation (IFA), we now seem to have THREE recommending appalingly low wages for archaeologists (BAJR=14,270, SCAUM= 14,300, IFA=14,271 assuming 3%).
This seems to be presented as some sort of progress.
The minimum wage for all non-West End actors is £350 pw. We have to be project officers to beat that.
My local MP calculates that a wage of £435 per week is necessary to buy a house where I live. Thats a BAJR rate for a project manager or 1.6 times the 'universally agreed' site assistant wage.
Progress? WTF?
SCAUM Policy of Pay - 1man1desk - 6th June 2007
I think you will find that all of the organisations are saying that those are the minimum acceptable levels - which is a very different thing from recommending that people should only be paid that much. Certainly, I think both BAJR and IFA would encourage units to pay more.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
SCAUM Policy of Pay - Real Job - 6th June 2007
Ah, yes. Step forward all the generous, good-hearted employers who will voluntarily pay their staff more than the recommended minimums.
If there was more than the odd one, we would not be having this discussion and there would be no need for recommended minimums...
The point is that there are now THREE institutions saying that [u]its ok to pay archaeologists peanuts</u>. That ain't progress, its maintaining the status quo (to the detriment of music fans and archaeologists everywhere).
SCAUM Policy of Pay - BAJR Host - 6th June 2007
BAJR is not able to force units to pay more... though the BAJR aspiration rate is a 5% rise... which some have actually done.
Many pay minimum.. though are encouraged to pay more... BAJR supports moving forward... and will be meeting on June 22nd with Diggers Forum to talk of moving forward.. in a way that a) is sustainable.. and b) realistic..
I pointed out once that some grades should be up to 42% upgraded.. but then how do you do that in one go... you can't...
Join the Diggers Forum ...
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu