15th February 2008, 06:55 PM
Peter wrote:
Whilst 90% of me probably agrees with this in its broadest sense, I have to say that one of the things that really worries me is training for the future. Without ANY regulation of the free market it is very difficult to pay for training, unless all funding for training comes from government (ie. via universities and other schemes such as the EPPIC programme) which I am sure we do not agree with.
I can quite happily decide, as the director of an archaeology unit, to provide £1000-worth of training for each of my staff per year and encourage my clients to pay for this happy in the knowledge that they are getting a better service. But if the director of unit x down the road decides not to do that then he undercuts me. (And, since we are usually in the position of offering a service that no-one actually wants, price is all.) Then I go out of business and my well-trained staff get jobs somewhere else.
This is a big problem all round. The only solution that I can see is a beefed up IFA (which, incidentally, is more closely integrated with other professional bodies in the Historic Environment sector) with a fortified RAO scheme which offers greater barriers to entry to the profession.
Quote:quote:As everybody know I fundamentally disagree with the statement.
"If left unbridled, the commercial imperative will drive down cost and this will inevitably impact quality. Regulation is essential."
Free market archaeology has resulted in a massive increase in quality and efficiency and at last this is impacting on salaries. I would argue that somebody who knows about a particular type of archaeology will be quicker and thus cheaper in real terms. Thus the free market should increase quality not vice versa)
Whilst 90% of me probably agrees with this in its broadest sense, I have to say that one of the things that really worries me is training for the future. Without ANY regulation of the free market it is very difficult to pay for training, unless all funding for training comes from government (ie. via universities and other schemes such as the EPPIC programme) which I am sure we do not agree with.
I can quite happily decide, as the director of an archaeology unit, to provide £1000-worth of training for each of my staff per year and encourage my clients to pay for this happy in the knowledge that they are getting a better service. But if the director of unit x down the road decides not to do that then he undercuts me. (And, since we are usually in the position of offering a service that no-one actually wants, price is all.) Then I go out of business and my well-trained staff get jobs somewhere else.
This is a big problem all round. The only solution that I can see is a beefed up IFA (which, incidentally, is more closely integrated with other professional bodies in the Historic Environment sector) with a fortified RAO scheme which offers greater barriers to entry to the profession.