9th October 2008, 02:12 PM
[quote
if there were any advantages. As no-one has actually come up with any advantages of being a charity unit, I guess this isn't a problem.
[/quote]
People have mentioned advantages that potentially or definately do exist - reduced rent, cheap software, money potentially coming in from other sources, but without being an expert these are really all guesses. That is the problem and the point I have made several times - it is virtually impossible to know what potential imbalances there might be between the different ways in which organisations are run without doing a fairly massive amount of research. My concern would be that the varying status of organisitions might be preventing the profession progressing (how about that for a bit of alliteration!). Would it not be better for everyone to have the same status so that easier comparisons can be made? I would like to see the IFA investigate whether it does have any affect on things like pay and conditions. For example, the comments made about using voluneteers (largely aimed at charities it would appear), which are pretty damaging when considering increases in pay, accusations of directors taking large cuts from companies (ditto), not to mention the sort of undercutting and pretty much selling your granny to win work that tends to go on throughout. Do charities exploit there workers by playing the 'well we're a charity and as such don't make a profit' card in order to justify no pay rises and long hours? Do companies ensure that all profits go into the pockets of directors and that in order to make a profit the archaeology gets a limited amount of attension? Just a few themes...
if there were any advantages. As no-one has actually come up with any advantages of being a charity unit, I guess this isn't a problem.
[/quote]
People have mentioned advantages that potentially or definately do exist - reduced rent, cheap software, money potentially coming in from other sources, but without being an expert these are really all guesses. That is the problem and the point I have made several times - it is virtually impossible to know what potential imbalances there might be between the different ways in which organisations are run without doing a fairly massive amount of research. My concern would be that the varying status of organisitions might be preventing the profession progressing (how about that for a bit of alliteration!). Would it not be better for everyone to have the same status so that easier comparisons can be made? I would like to see the IFA investigate whether it does have any affect on things like pay and conditions. For example, the comments made about using voluneteers (largely aimed at charities it would appear), which are pretty damaging when considering increases in pay, accusations of directors taking large cuts from companies (ditto), not to mention the sort of undercutting and pretty much selling your granny to win work that tends to go on throughout. Do charities exploit there workers by playing the 'well we're a charity and as such don't make a profit' card in order to justify no pay rises and long hours? Do companies ensure that all profits go into the pockets of directors and that in order to make a profit the archaeology gets a limited amount of attension? Just a few themes...