2nd March 2011, 09:43 PM
I think many people would recognise that as a fairly accurate account of how most organisations in archaeology have behaved over the past decade or two. The unions have, at times been very good at assisting members on the ground through the dedication of reps but have singularly failed to achieve any form of consensus or gain on the bigger issues for the reasons I've stated in a previous post - there are not enought paid up archaeologists to make them listen and invest.
It is up to all organisations (unions, IfA, any other organisation) to clearly state what they want to do and how they intend to achieve it. If they can't do that, whatever the reason may be, then they don't deserve our support and we would be better off investing in a different form of representation. But I think that, as it stands at present, the facilities and mechanisms are in place within unions which could assist all of us in pushing forward issues like pay, conditions and treatment of staff. I don't think its wise to write that option off while it seems to be one front still worthy of pursuit, although the basic provision of services by unions is what subs are designed to pay for and I suspect they would suggest that they are fulfilling their obligations to members by providing those services on the ground.
With all that said, any advance on our current position is only going to come with cooperation and support through a number of organisations including unions, the Diggers' Forum, the IfA and BAJR. All of these fulfill different (sometimes subtly different) roles within the industry and do different things on behalf of different groups of people. To get them working effectively they need to link up on key issues, achieve a consensus and then use their different outlets and points of leverage to push through changes, as I'm sure has already been identified.
There's only one reason unions can achieve those things and fund those campaigns in other areas: because they have a considerable level of membership across an industry and can legitimately speak on behalf of that industry's staff. It is not simply about the money involved, its also about the realistic achievability of any union campaign or agenda and that hinges on the numbers. Importantly, I don't think archaeology really needs a large amount of money spent by a union on a campaign, we work in one of the best networked industries around, perhaps by virtue of the lack of security and necessity to know people. Unions do need people who understand how this business works and the ability to identify and formulate informed, realistic and achievable aims.
It is up to all organisations (unions, IfA, any other organisation) to clearly state what they want to do and how they intend to achieve it. If they can't do that, whatever the reason may be, then they don't deserve our support and we would be better off investing in a different form of representation. But I think that, as it stands at present, the facilities and mechanisms are in place within unions which could assist all of us in pushing forward issues like pay, conditions and treatment of staff. I don't think its wise to write that option off while it seems to be one front still worthy of pursuit, although the basic provision of services by unions is what subs are designed to pay for and I suspect they would suggest that they are fulfilling their obligations to members by providing those services on the ground.
With all that said, any advance on our current position is only going to come with cooperation and support through a number of organisations including unions, the Diggers' Forum, the IfA and BAJR. All of these fulfill different (sometimes subtly different) roles within the industry and do different things on behalf of different groups of people. To get them working effectively they need to link up on key issues, achieve a consensus and then use their different outlets and points of leverage to push through changes, as I'm sure has already been identified.
troll Wrote:I continue to pay my Union subs because I have faith in my local Reps but......I am getting increasingly sick of reading yet another Union newsletter stuffed full of the work the Union is doing for other professions with not a single syllable printed about archaeology.
There's only one reason unions can achieve those things and fund those campaigns in other areas: because they have a considerable level of membership across an industry and can legitimately speak on behalf of that industry's staff. It is not simply about the money involved, its also about the realistic achievability of any union campaign or agenda and that hinges on the numbers. Importantly, I don't think archaeology really needs a large amount of money spent by a union on a campaign, we work in one of the best networked industries around, perhaps by virtue of the lack of security and necessity to know people. Unions do need people who understand how this business works and the ability to identify and formulate informed, realistic and achievable aims.