9th June 2010, 11:08 AM
I know Dino but its all very convenient. And in my experiences somewhere along the line after the management throw their weight around on the apparent breaks issue they will be the working in the rain issue. Behind it all will be the structure of the so called contract, rate or price, that has been agreed with the so called client and as you say in a lot of infrastructure the client in question will not be the owner of the archaeological asset (which is presumably the state and in some cases assets which have come about through deals in which the state had the potential of compulsory purchase).
In the pantomime of the archaeologists being seen to be working whats more to the point is that most diggers will be totally ignorant about the terms of the contract with the client. Possibly a combination of their management keeping the diggers in the dark and the so called client claiming some form of competitive confidentiality……but also there is a big element that the diggers don’t make it their business to find out from the outset….but it being public monies it is possible that the contract can be chased down and various clauses picked on
Somewhere on the bajr site there is some mewing about diggers charters in which they depict themselves as part of the down trodden workers needing the unionisation of their work place for their salvation. Basically it makes the digger a worker for an archaeologist working on the archaeologists archaeology rather than the digger is an archaeologist who produces archaeology. What I would like to see is that the digger gave consideration to their copyrights and their relationship with the owners of the archaeology. . I particularly think that it is important that the digger should be seen to have signed their copyright (as well as retaining all rights to them as well) to the owner of the archaeology before they start work. Now where did I get that idea from.
In the pantomime of the archaeologists being seen to be working whats more to the point is that most diggers will be totally ignorant about the terms of the contract with the client. Possibly a combination of their management keeping the diggers in the dark and the so called client claiming some form of competitive confidentiality……but also there is a big element that the diggers don’t make it their business to find out from the outset….but it being public monies it is possible that the contract can be chased down and various clauses picked on
Somewhere on the bajr site there is some mewing about diggers charters in which they depict themselves as part of the down trodden workers needing the unionisation of their work place for their salvation. Basically it makes the digger a worker for an archaeologist working on the archaeologists archaeology rather than the digger is an archaeologist who produces archaeology. What I would like to see is that the digger gave consideration to their copyrights and their relationship with the owners of the archaeology. . I particularly think that it is important that the digger should be seen to have signed their copyright (as well as retaining all rights to them as well) to the owner of the archaeology before they start work. Now where did I get that idea from.