19th March 2006, 04:08 PM
Quote:quote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Real Job
The vast majority of UK units pay rubbish because the IFA tell them its ok to pay rubbish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is hardly likely to be the case. And BAJR also tells them it's ok to pay rubbish doesn't it? If IFA/BAJR suddenly said they should double pay rates, would they do it? Or conversely if they were told it's ok to halve them, would they?
I suggest that the answer is also in your post. The pay rates are what they are because staff can be obtained at those rates and competitors do not pay more. The question is how to tease the going rate upwards.
I think there are problems with the argument that says its the market that sets the pay rate in archaeology, and that the IFA minimums do not make any difference:
1) The vast majority of units pay at or very near to the IFA recommended minimums. The onlt regional variation is London, and yet different market conditions exist all over the country (different number of competitor units, different labour supply, proximity of university departments and hence new graduates, different desirability for new workers to move there, different overheads for businesses, different amounts of development taking place).
The only conditions in which the market could dictate pay rates so evenly across the country would be if the same competitive conditions applied evenly and labour could move smoothly and easily at the drop of a hat. Since neither of these conditions apply, it seems the IFA minimums do have an effect on wages.
2) The idea that the current rate is the minimum that archaeological labour can be bought for doesn't hold water either. In some instances, new graduates would be willing to work for much less in order to get their foot in the door and conversely in other cases units struggle to find labour. Yet neither of these market factors seem to influence wages. Thats because units have a long term idea of what wages they should be paying from which they do not want to deviate - and they largely use the IFA minimums as that yardstick.
3) Some units (not many) seem to be able to pay better rates than the IFA rates - they seem to be able to buck the trend of the market. Yet theyu are not the exceptions that prove the rule because they compete alongside units that pay less, not in some special niche of the market. The only difference with such 'rogue' units is that they are unwilling to be bound by the IFA rates.
4) The idea that it is possible to separate the IFA minimums and 'the market' is problematic. The IFA is intimately bound up with the archaeological market with 80 odd (?) RAOs bound by its rules (voluntarily) and its self appointed role as the professional voice of archaeology. It also effectively sets the minmum wages accepted by BAJR.
I agree that the aim should be to tease rates upward. However I think that the best means of doing that is for the IFA to raise its recommended minimums to 'dignity wage' levels. For all the foregoing reasons it is clear that the IFA rates have an intimate connection with the archaeology market. And just as its rates set the level at which archaeology wages tend to cluster, their existence also discourages units from paying more.
The key to getting a dignity wage by this route is that the combined influence of the IFA and Bajr would ensure that such a rate would be near universally accepted. Those few units who refused to pay the new rate and threatened to undercut the units who did pay it would struggle to find staff who would accept their low rate (voting with your feet would become an eminently practical solution when the majority of units pay better) and existing staff would have a new yardstick with which to beat their bosses (!) to get higher wages.