30th October 2006, 09:52 PM
A small company pays its temporary staff at the BAJR rate. Good some dont. Some full time staff are allegedly not paid at the BAJR rate - but they must be paid for example for holiday and sickness by definition. So I would question how far off they are from the BAJR rate for staff which does not include holiday or sick pay. At PO level I would suggest that may equate to 2k. We are being told all of this second or third hand.
The company decide sensibly not to bid for large excavations which would mean having a large semi-permanent staff because they think they cannot compete with the overheads that conforming to BAJR and IFA guidelines mean.
A curator suggest that "What else do they skimp on to remain "competetive"? Site huts and toilets? Health and safety equipment? The quality of their archaeological recording".
Somebody else calls them dodgy.
which totally misses the point - said organisation realises they cant compete so they decide they are not going to do so I would suggest precisely because they donot want to compromise on things like H&S, facilities and quality.
The poor obviously hard pressed manager was threatened with, by various parties, that "the unit will be struck of the BAJR site" .
Really. I cant find anything that says somebody will be struck off the BAJR the web site for not paying somebody the BAJR rate. Struck off from what precisely. I can in fact find nothing that actually says that paying the BAJR rate is complusory or a requirement to advertise.
What BAJR says is
"If you have a problem with either a company that advertises (they are in breach of H&S or Pay Levels or Employment Entitlements) then please get in touch and we can try to negotiate an amicable solution."
I would suggest that the notion of differential between temporary and permanent staff is a major factor in keeping pay down.
Can we have some balance and fact here?
Peter Wardle
The company decide sensibly not to bid for large excavations which would mean having a large semi-permanent staff because they think they cannot compete with the overheads that conforming to BAJR and IFA guidelines mean.
A curator suggest that "What else do they skimp on to remain "competetive"? Site huts and toilets? Health and safety equipment? The quality of their archaeological recording".
Somebody else calls them dodgy.
which totally misses the point - said organisation realises they cant compete so they decide they are not going to do so I would suggest precisely because they donot want to compromise on things like H&S, facilities and quality.
The poor obviously hard pressed manager was threatened with, by various parties, that "the unit will be struck of the BAJR site" .
Really. I cant find anything that says somebody will be struck off the BAJR the web site for not paying somebody the BAJR rate. Struck off from what precisely. I can in fact find nothing that actually says that paying the BAJR rate is complusory or a requirement to advertise.
What BAJR says is
"If you have a problem with either a company that advertises (they are in breach of H&S or Pay Levels or Employment Entitlements) then please get in touch and we can try to negotiate an amicable solution."
I would suggest that the notion of differential between temporary and permanent staff is a major factor in keeping pay down.
Can we have some balance and fact here?
Peter Wardle