30th August 2004, 06:25 PM
Firstly I have to say that I have found the preceeding posts very interesting. I have some appreciation of 'business', but it is fascinating to see unit costs broken down. I think a number of you are right to suggest that many diggers do not fully understand these overheads. However there are a few points that are, I think, perhaps more pertinent to David's initial questions (These are my impressions from my research so I hope I am accurately representing diggers' views)
1) I don't believe that diggers genuinely feel that management are profit-skimming, but that they are fed up with bad business practice which seems to consistently under-cost jobs to win tenders - of course it is not always possible to accurately predict the final cost of a project, but if this is eating into any cash reserve/ surplus it makes it impossible to invest in improving wages for staff in the longer term and often is so bad it leads directly to redundancies. The consensus amongst diggers seems to be that the average newsagent could better run an archaeological unit than archaeologists promoted out of the field.
This leads directly into -
2) Is archaeology (and are archaeologists) really suited to a competitive, business environment? Without a strong Curatorial presence developers are encouraging units to cut as many corners as possible and too many units seem willing to do this. It is one thing to accept poor pay and conditions to do the job you love, but surely the final nail in the (diggers') coffin is not being allowed to do the job professionally and to the best of your ability!
So on to -
3) It is ESSENTIAL that there be a standardised quality of Curators. These are the people that should control (and prevent!) the worst excesses of some units, and ensure that developers respect the archaeological conditions placed upon their site. They should be independant of the business side and willing and able to stand up to offending units and developers. How many County Mounties seem to be academically sound, but with no appreciation of excavation? How many of them all too happy to settle for a quiet life making sure that no boats are rocked? In an ideal world a good Curator should of course be allowed to make sure that offending units are not permitted to work in his/ her locality, but this requires that the Curators themselves are answerable to some kind of regular review.
To answer some of David's other initial questions in brief-
-Pay or permanent work? If you are out of work for long periods then that is the main issue; if you are employed for longer periods then pay is the issue! Perhaps, as a profession, we should ensure that longer contracts are the norm before moving on to deal with pay ?
-Tax, hols, sick pay... I don't believe we can consider ourselves a 'profession' while people are employed without these basic considerations (or taken on as 'self-employed' to bypass the requirement). I believe it is far less prevalent than a few years ago thankfully, but needs to be addressed.
In conclusion. If diggers, units, developers, the IFA and Prospect etc etc are going to continue to refer to "Professional" archaeology then all concerned should be finding ways to ensure that people are employed on a *professional* basis, that units are run in a *professional* manner and that work can actually be undertaken *professionally*.
Anyway, climbing down off soap-box now... :-)
By the way David, in what way would you envisage BAJR *not* remaining independant? It is clear from discussions like this that your independance provides the only genuine leverage many diggers have left.
Paul Everill
1) I don't believe that diggers genuinely feel that management are profit-skimming, but that they are fed up with bad business practice which seems to consistently under-cost jobs to win tenders - of course it is not always possible to accurately predict the final cost of a project, but if this is eating into any cash reserve/ surplus it makes it impossible to invest in improving wages for staff in the longer term and often is so bad it leads directly to redundancies. The consensus amongst diggers seems to be that the average newsagent could better run an archaeological unit than archaeologists promoted out of the field.
This leads directly into -
2) Is archaeology (and are archaeologists) really suited to a competitive, business environment? Without a strong Curatorial presence developers are encouraging units to cut as many corners as possible and too many units seem willing to do this. It is one thing to accept poor pay and conditions to do the job you love, but surely the final nail in the (diggers') coffin is not being allowed to do the job professionally and to the best of your ability!
So on to -
3) It is ESSENTIAL that there be a standardised quality of Curators. These are the people that should control (and prevent!) the worst excesses of some units, and ensure that developers respect the archaeological conditions placed upon their site. They should be independant of the business side and willing and able to stand up to offending units and developers. How many County Mounties seem to be academically sound, but with no appreciation of excavation? How many of them all too happy to settle for a quiet life making sure that no boats are rocked? In an ideal world a good Curator should of course be allowed to make sure that offending units are not permitted to work in his/ her locality, but this requires that the Curators themselves are answerable to some kind of regular review.
To answer some of David's other initial questions in brief-
-Pay or permanent work? If you are out of work for long periods then that is the main issue; if you are employed for longer periods then pay is the issue! Perhaps, as a profession, we should ensure that longer contracts are the norm before moving on to deal with pay ?
-Tax, hols, sick pay... I don't believe we can consider ourselves a 'profession' while people are employed without these basic considerations (or taken on as 'self-employed' to bypass the requirement). I believe it is far less prevalent than a few years ago thankfully, but needs to be addressed.
In conclusion. If diggers, units, developers, the IFA and Prospect etc etc are going to continue to refer to "Professional" archaeology then all concerned should be finding ways to ensure that people are employed on a *professional* basis, that units are run in a *professional* manner and that work can actually be undertaken *professionally*.
Anyway, climbing down off soap-box now... :-)
By the way David, in what way would you envisage BAJR *not* remaining independant? It is clear from discussions like this that your independance provides the only genuine leverage many diggers have left.
Paul Everill