14th June 2011, 03:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 14th June 2011, 03:08 PM by kevin wooldridge.)
Kajemby Wrote:If some one is employing trainees as site assistants, then this should be investigated by BAJR, as this leads to a nonsense in terms of pay grades; i.e, what on earth is the trainee grade for if they are being employed as site assistants? As experienced site assistants can be paid up to ?17,523.82, is this a way of keeping pay down by paying trainees the minimum site assistant rate of ?15,704.64 and passing them off as fully trained staff, when the reality is very different. :0
My apologies for your apoplexy Kajemby !! I should clarify....I didn't use the term 'site assistant'. I said 'field assistant', which where I am working at present is the description given to a trainee. My friend's concern was raised by the fact that in the recent months he has been overwhelmed by applications from experienced archaeologists for trainee positions. The reason only trainee positions are being advertised is because all of the 'experienced' field staff positions are filled (mainly by staff promoted after having completed a period as a trainee). His dilemma was whether to consider filling trainee posts with experienced staff (which would in effect have been a lowering of the pay scale, exploiting the vulnerability of unemployed staff in the current recession etc etc) or to stick to the letter of the original intention which was to employ genuine trainees in these posts. He chose the latter.....
I feel my point is still valid. Trainee posts should be filled by trainees, despite the possible temptation in the current economic climate to get more experienced staff just because they are available.
(And just for further clarification the feltassistents ('trainees') where I am working, are being paid circa ?27,000 + expenses pa !! so its not really poverty wages....)
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...