27th November 2008, 10:20 AM
I share your concern about the short and medium term future, certainly my work has dropped alarmingly, and quickly, and I don't see it getting better very quickly. I think we have to look at where we are first though, we are at the end of a long period of growth, there has been a boom in archaeology, with lots of work, the Irish jobs, loads of big infrastructure projects like T5, masses of work in London, and a dearth of excavators, let alone decent, experienced ones. To the point where we have seen many european colleagues coming over to help get the jobs done.
There have of course been quite bad local downturns over the last ten years: eleven years ago was pretty grim as business waited to see how Labour behaved, there was a glut in London prior to Millenium, then nothing, and at least two serious downturns since then, where the biggest unit had less than ten diggers. So even in the last years of growth there have been ups and downs. The difference now appears that everywhere is bad at the same time, and confidence is zero. Its not just a temporary local problem, but the next door unit has work. We have built up a larger body of archaeologists than maybe ever before, and now haven't got the work for them. Because units have almost universally failed to train or help develop their staff effectively we are stuck in the same position as at every previous downturn, we have lost so many skilled people over the last twenty years because of pay and conditions that I believe we are now in a weaker state than at previous crunch times.
We will lose more archaeologists from the profession. This has though always happened. It is explicitly acknowledged in profiling the profession. The industry relies on chewing up and spitting out. That is how it is set up at the moment. That needs changing, but do not underestimate how hard it will be. Last year anyone could become an archaeologist, 'two arms? -you got a job', we need to address this, but it may mean restricting the workforce to keep stability. What turnover of staff is acceptable? Do we accept these periodic famines as a necessary method to get rid of poor archaeologists and accept that we will lose some talent with the drifting mediocrity! Who do we want to be an archaeologist?
Harsh words.
We will be a smaller profession next year, but we must address the root causes of the problems NOW, put our house in order and sort pay and conditions to create a stable base to go forward. Not retreat into our bunkers and say, 'well it will be ok again one day, and there'll always be more students wanting work'. Time for those who represent the profession to show their mettle
There have of course been quite bad local downturns over the last ten years: eleven years ago was pretty grim as business waited to see how Labour behaved, there was a glut in London prior to Millenium, then nothing, and at least two serious downturns since then, where the biggest unit had less than ten diggers. So even in the last years of growth there have been ups and downs. The difference now appears that everywhere is bad at the same time, and confidence is zero. Its not just a temporary local problem, but the next door unit has work. We have built up a larger body of archaeologists than maybe ever before, and now haven't got the work for them. Because units have almost universally failed to train or help develop their staff effectively we are stuck in the same position as at every previous downturn, we have lost so many skilled people over the last twenty years because of pay and conditions that I believe we are now in a weaker state than at previous crunch times.
We will lose more archaeologists from the profession. This has though always happened. It is explicitly acknowledged in profiling the profession. The industry relies on chewing up and spitting out. That is how it is set up at the moment. That needs changing, but do not underestimate how hard it will be. Last year anyone could become an archaeologist, 'two arms? -you got a job', we need to address this, but it may mean restricting the workforce to keep stability. What turnover of staff is acceptable? Do we accept these periodic famines as a necessary method to get rid of poor archaeologists and accept that we will lose some talent with the drifting mediocrity! Who do we want to be an archaeologist?
Harsh words.
We will be a smaller profession next year, but we must address the root causes of the problems NOW, put our house in order and sort pay and conditions to create a stable base to go forward. Not retreat into our bunkers and say, 'well it will be ok again one day, and there'll always be more students wanting work'. Time for those who represent the profession to show their mettle