25th February 2011, 02:31 PM
Thanks for the reply David, that sounds very interesting and positive - a definite and big step in the right direction and it's good that it is being achieved with collectivisation.
There are issues with unions and archaeology but I don't think they should be viewed out of context or proportion, and certainly not as any form of significant obstacle. The fact is, the designation of union funds and resources will usually be based on the numbers of people likely to be effected and the predicted achievability and relevance of the aims of any activities funded. The problem we face is that archaeologist's presence and profile within unions is fairly low and so is communication between different levels of the industry. The result of this is coupled with the fact that prospective member's expectations are often either too high or impatient or simply misplaced (and often don't take account of the real economic factors involved in this business). But these problems can be largely overcome with the right communication.
I've been away from BAJR for a while (since before 2009) and, having seen this, I regret it because I would very much liked to have contributed to the discussions surrounding something like the charter. One thing I am sick of is people of all levels being happy to sit in a site hut or office and moan or complain, but never be willing to transfer that into constructive criticism or actually try to take the argument to those who may be able to effect change.
My personal view is this. Now, more than ever, there is a need for achaeologists across the UK and across the discipline to unite behind a single, representative body(or a number of specialised bodies) who are willing to devote time to delivering the appropriate messages to the right people, be it through collective bargaining or simply opening up dialogue. There is one thing that unions do better than all other groups and that is collective representation on pay and conditions. Enough people 'under one roof' making a big enough noise and saying the same thing can change the way this industry works in that respect, although it clearly can't be an immediate wholesale shift.
My own frustration, not just at the poor treatment where it frequently occurs but at the inability to communicate across and throughout elements of companies and the industry as a whole led me to becoming a rep (well, that and the fact that I was seeing my friends and colleagues professionally battered on a regular basis), and it has proved one thing to me; if you take the right information to the right people, things get done. That applies to archaeology companies as much as it does union structures.
On a different note (and I should state here that I am not speaking on behalf of the union, but my colleagues and I have given this some consideration and put some time into it so far), Prospect will, I hope, be significantly increasing the attention it pays to archaeology over the coming few months. If we could get one (or two) representative bodies which speak on behalf of the entire industry on pay and conditions and which everyone across the industry can have faith in to act appropriately and discuss, form and set achievable aims, we can move the position forward significantly and fairly rapidly. With the appropriate levels of representation in many units we could also force economic realities upon companies who use staff and pay practises as their margins rather than reforming their own working practises first.
This isn't a single solution and it is much more complex than I have stated as I'm sure everyone who has read and laughed at this so far will be immediately aware. It also doesn't and cannot sit alone in the way we approach the broad range of challenges facing this industry. We all have to be educated and realistic about the fact that the commercial market is shrinking and businesses are facing ever increasing pressure to cut costs. Union membership won't change that but the attentions of the IfA and other organisations who can focus on what they are set-up to do best can do. We also need to look at the way we practise archaeology and the techniques, methods, delivery and outcomes we bring to bear on it in this country, the economic dynamics involved in these and whether they are achieving a satisfactory outcome and 'product' - other threads over the last few days as well as our collective experience appears to suggest not.
Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. I want to change things for the better and, despite looking hard and testing a lot of things, I'm yet to find a good reason why this can't be achieved if approached properly.
Please feel free to tear me apart now.........
There are issues with unions and archaeology but I don't think they should be viewed out of context or proportion, and certainly not as any form of significant obstacle. The fact is, the designation of union funds and resources will usually be based on the numbers of people likely to be effected and the predicted achievability and relevance of the aims of any activities funded. The problem we face is that archaeologist's presence and profile within unions is fairly low and so is communication between different levels of the industry. The result of this is coupled with the fact that prospective member's expectations are often either too high or impatient or simply misplaced (and often don't take account of the real economic factors involved in this business). But these problems can be largely overcome with the right communication.
I've been away from BAJR for a while (since before 2009) and, having seen this, I regret it because I would very much liked to have contributed to the discussions surrounding something like the charter. One thing I am sick of is people of all levels being happy to sit in a site hut or office and moan or complain, but never be willing to transfer that into constructive criticism or actually try to take the argument to those who may be able to effect change.
My personal view is this. Now, more than ever, there is a need for achaeologists across the UK and across the discipline to unite behind a single, representative body(or a number of specialised bodies) who are willing to devote time to delivering the appropriate messages to the right people, be it through collective bargaining or simply opening up dialogue. There is one thing that unions do better than all other groups and that is collective representation on pay and conditions. Enough people 'under one roof' making a big enough noise and saying the same thing can change the way this industry works in that respect, although it clearly can't be an immediate wholesale shift.
My own frustration, not just at the poor treatment where it frequently occurs but at the inability to communicate across and throughout elements of companies and the industry as a whole led me to becoming a rep (well, that and the fact that I was seeing my friends and colleagues professionally battered on a regular basis), and it has proved one thing to me; if you take the right information to the right people, things get done. That applies to archaeology companies as much as it does union structures.
On a different note (and I should state here that I am not speaking on behalf of the union, but my colleagues and I have given this some consideration and put some time into it so far), Prospect will, I hope, be significantly increasing the attention it pays to archaeology over the coming few months. If we could get one (or two) representative bodies which speak on behalf of the entire industry on pay and conditions and which everyone across the industry can have faith in to act appropriately and discuss, form and set achievable aims, we can move the position forward significantly and fairly rapidly. With the appropriate levels of representation in many units we could also force economic realities upon companies who use staff and pay practises as their margins rather than reforming their own working practises first.
This isn't a single solution and it is much more complex than I have stated as I'm sure everyone who has read and laughed at this so far will be immediately aware. It also doesn't and cannot sit alone in the way we approach the broad range of challenges facing this industry. We all have to be educated and realistic about the fact that the commercial market is shrinking and businesses are facing ever increasing pressure to cut costs. Union membership won't change that but the attentions of the IfA and other organisations who can focus on what they are set-up to do best can do. We also need to look at the way we practise archaeology and the techniques, methods, delivery and outcomes we bring to bear on it in this country, the economic dynamics involved in these and whether they are achieving a satisfactory outcome and 'product' - other threads over the last few days as well as our collective experience appears to suggest not.
Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. I want to change things for the better and, despite looking hard and testing a lot of things, I'm yet to find a good reason why this can't be achieved if approached properly.
Please feel free to tear me apart now.........