24th June 2013, 08:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 24th June 2013, 08:49 PM by kevin wooldridge.)
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.......
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.......
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...