11th November 2009, 01:27 PM
Not too sure I would regard the concessions the IFA have offered ROs, seemingly made in the face of threats to its RO scheme, as a principled stand. Quite the opposite, this is further evidence of RO interests coming ahead of those of the wider membership. The statement stands as a sad milestone in the erosion of membership interest and the democratic process. Kevin touches on the key points, but I fear the situation is worse still:
o IfA endorses a pay freeze, which is likely to expand the already disgraceful wage differential identified in the IFA benchmarking study;
o Increasing the differential and reducing the timescale for correction almost certainly undermines the prospect of achieving a progressive 13% increases in salary minima by 2013. The weakness of the IFA position on this issue is evident in it?s acceptance of RO commitments that are aspirational and not binding. No doubt when the time comes the familiar business case will be cited, ie fear of competition on price will be used to justify a refusal to move on this issue, as has previously occurred during every stage of the economic cycle, whether benign or otherwise. Bear in mind the IFA benchmarking study reflect the situation on the back of more than a decade of sustained growth. Throughout this period the issue of low pay has been debated. This evidence suggests pay differentials are eroded even during period of economic growth, yet the IFA still retains its faith in pay correction rising phoenix-like on any future economic improvement. The IFA needs to ask itself why this has failed to deliver in the past. The obvious answer is that most archaeological employers, many ROs included, are committed to the central business proposition of squeezing cost to gain market advantage, with no regard to the underlying market economics and only limited investment in quality, as defined in a commercial sense;
o IFA prioritises the imposition of barriers to entry (apparently ahead of action on pay differential), which will discriminate against members whose employers are not ROs, but also props up RO?s operating low cost business models that are evidently neither robust or sustainable and now seemingly dependent of restrictive market barriers. The effectiveness of such barriers is likely to be limited; however it presents the prospect of ?institutionalising? underlying business weaknesses, consigning members to long-term pay pressure.
The most depressing aspect of the IFA statement is the perception that holding costs, effectively a pay cut, will improve the situation for RO employers. It clearly will not. The current problem is that there is not enough work out there to support the current supply-side. Dropping cost might give an individual organisations a short term advantage, but it will not generate any additional demand, it simply fuels further cost pressure. Work will simply move around according to who offers the lowest price, RO or not. In that sense the IFA action has exacerbated the pay crisis.
Where now for the members who had looked to the IFA for leadership. It might be worth taking a leaf out of the book of the ROs who have been so effective in advancing their interests at the expense of the wider membership. The IFA is far more financially dependent on its members than it is on the RO scheme, perhaps it should be reminded of this. In terms of change, much depends on employers, and whilst recessions are not welcome, they do perhaps offer an opportunity to adjust business models. There are a wide range in operation, even within the historic environment sector, many offering a responsible and mature basis for business development that could prove far more sustainable.
o IfA endorses a pay freeze, which is likely to expand the already disgraceful wage differential identified in the IFA benchmarking study;
o Increasing the differential and reducing the timescale for correction almost certainly undermines the prospect of achieving a progressive 13% increases in salary minima by 2013. The weakness of the IFA position on this issue is evident in it?s acceptance of RO commitments that are aspirational and not binding. No doubt when the time comes the familiar business case will be cited, ie fear of competition on price will be used to justify a refusal to move on this issue, as has previously occurred during every stage of the economic cycle, whether benign or otherwise. Bear in mind the IFA benchmarking study reflect the situation on the back of more than a decade of sustained growth. Throughout this period the issue of low pay has been debated. This evidence suggests pay differentials are eroded even during period of economic growth, yet the IFA still retains its faith in pay correction rising phoenix-like on any future economic improvement. The IFA needs to ask itself why this has failed to deliver in the past. The obvious answer is that most archaeological employers, many ROs included, are committed to the central business proposition of squeezing cost to gain market advantage, with no regard to the underlying market economics and only limited investment in quality, as defined in a commercial sense;
o IFA prioritises the imposition of barriers to entry (apparently ahead of action on pay differential), which will discriminate against members whose employers are not ROs, but also props up RO?s operating low cost business models that are evidently neither robust or sustainable and now seemingly dependent of restrictive market barriers. The effectiveness of such barriers is likely to be limited; however it presents the prospect of ?institutionalising? underlying business weaknesses, consigning members to long-term pay pressure.
The most depressing aspect of the IFA statement is the perception that holding costs, effectively a pay cut, will improve the situation for RO employers. It clearly will not. The current problem is that there is not enough work out there to support the current supply-side. Dropping cost might give an individual organisations a short term advantage, but it will not generate any additional demand, it simply fuels further cost pressure. Work will simply move around according to who offers the lowest price, RO or not. In that sense the IFA action has exacerbated the pay crisis.
Where now for the members who had looked to the IFA for leadership. It might be worth taking a leaf out of the book of the ROs who have been so effective in advancing their interests at the expense of the wider membership. The IFA is far more financially dependent on its members than it is on the RO scheme, perhaps it should be reminded of this. In terms of change, much depends on employers, and whilst recessions are not welcome, they do perhaps offer an opportunity to adjust business models. There are a wide range in operation, even within the historic environment sector, many offering a responsible and mature basis for business development that could prove far more sustainable.