13th January 2009, 11:30 AM
Have to say I was anticipating some of the responses. To my mind there are pro and cons of both schemes. These are extreme times and I think that careful consideration is needed rather than gut reactions. Yes - schemes like this and work experience in general can led to exploitation but there are also benefits.
The £2500 grant must be a good thing in that it will encourage people to take on staff sooner rather than later. But it may distort competition.
As for the internships I have felt for a long time the pay minima and other terms and conditions make it difficult to offer work experience except on the basis that the pay is zero. This I regard as a bad thing. Training a new graduate costs money which takes a long time to recover.
Clearly having a digging team made up entirely of interns would be a bad thing but what about 20%. Both schemes have the potential to distort the market place.
To suggest that we should have paid apprenticeship with garantueed work is not on the aggenda at the moment so why suggest it. If the government was offerring to pay for these I would certainly take advantage of this scheme. Similarly there is not government money for more IFA bursaries. It is unrealistic to talk in these terms.
At the moment the biggest problem is certainty - how long can you offer somebody a job for.
To go back to the notion of work experience and voluntary work being a bad thing. BAJR and past horizons both extoll the virtues of voluntary work particularly in hot exotic places. Similarly there is widesperead acceptance of the notion of community archaeology based upon volunteers or people who pay to do archaeological work. So what is the difference with internship for new graduates. This is not a scheme for unemployed archaeologists but new graduates there is a difference.
Finally there have been announcement about green job creation schemes - archaeology may well come under this. If it does are we going to reject these as well.
Peter
The £2500 grant must be a good thing in that it will encourage people to take on staff sooner rather than later. But it may distort competition.
As for the internships I have felt for a long time the pay minima and other terms and conditions make it difficult to offer work experience except on the basis that the pay is zero. This I regard as a bad thing. Training a new graduate costs money which takes a long time to recover.
Clearly having a digging team made up entirely of interns would be a bad thing but what about 20%. Both schemes have the potential to distort the market place.
To suggest that we should have paid apprenticeship with garantueed work is not on the aggenda at the moment so why suggest it. If the government was offerring to pay for these I would certainly take advantage of this scheme. Similarly there is not government money for more IFA bursaries. It is unrealistic to talk in these terms.
At the moment the biggest problem is certainty - how long can you offer somebody a job for.
To go back to the notion of work experience and voluntary work being a bad thing. BAJR and past horizons both extoll the virtues of voluntary work particularly in hot exotic places. Similarly there is widesperead acceptance of the notion of community archaeology based upon volunteers or people who pay to do archaeological work. So what is the difference with internship for new graduates. This is not a scheme for unemployed archaeologists but new graduates there is a difference.
Finally there have been announcement about green job creation schemes - archaeology may well come under this. If it does are we going to reject these as well.
Peter