3rd April 2009, 04:58 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge
I have a lot of time for the idea that local archaeology should be generally dug by local archaeologists... the removal of accomodation/subsistence allowance seems to me to give local archaeological teams a price advantage in bidding for tendered projects. That can't be such a bad thing.
Where 'outside' tenderers come in and employ local staff because the locally based staff don't need to find short term accomodation also seems to me to be a good thing.
So thats win-win for most people.....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Hi
I'm sorry chap but I think your logic's a bit flawed on this one. The local unit has an advantage if an outside unit HAS to accommodate people. Therefore, the removal of accommodation for people working away from the unit base means that one of the local unit's advantages has been removed.
As for your second point, Its more likely that people laid off from a unit that played them accommodation when they worked away, then see that unit advertising for staff BUT not providing accommodation may well see this as a way of cutting down on costs rather than being an opportunity for unemployed "local staff".
Also taking this concept to its conclusion means that companies will simply not pay staff accommodation costs anymore so will effectively require itinerant workers willing to live in relatively expensive short term accommodation or "seasonal" local archaeologists. It will also mean that local units lose their advantage and are much more likely to lose contracts to "outside" units thereby exacerbating the whole situation.
lowering of wages through withdrawing of welfare is not a "win-win" situation for archaeology or archaeologists. Its purely an attempt to lower to cost to the developer. Its a business decision and should not be considered anything else. I'm hoping that this is not a trend but a forced one off contract.
Steven