21st November 2005, 02:06 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
It seems to me that whilst your good self and your colleagues enjoy a career with appropriate remuneration and benefits taboot, the field specialists are expected to put up with 2oo a week, absolutely no benefits, accept lowest level membership of Institutes and for me the worst of all...we have to put up with the end results of your "exhaustive process". Whilst a client may be only too happy to see 800-1000 a day as good value for money when paying consultants, the archaeology on the ground is in no way treated to such pampering. Quite simply, money is made and exchanges hands in the build up to the main event but when it actually happens- all the soddin compromises land on the trenches.Very similar to the way that Iraqs debt is bought and sold and massive profits made before the job is done.Huge business is generated in archaeology-its a national shame that the archaeology itself (the entire point of the whole exercise) is then carried out on a shoestring budget.Make lots of profit-stuff the finite resource.
Right, well, where do I start.
Firstly, it happens to be consultants who are in a position to flag up archaeological work within large corporations, and manage to inform managers and the client so that it's treated appropriately. As a result of archaeologists being brought into consultancies, we have become responsible for providing field units with a lot of work, so it's a shame you have to "put up with" this when we're putting employment your way.
The "compromises" you refer to mean to me that a level of negotiation has taken place with the curator to establish a practical level of mitigation for the archaeology, at good value to the client. Although the archaeology is important, it is of moral and professional importance that good value is achieved for the client. This is what consultancy is all about. With field units capable of ripping people off just as much as in other professions, we have a duty to protect the clients interests. Ultimately, justice is done for the archaeology if the local curator sticks to his guns and demands that things are done properly. When poor compromises are made which prejudices the appropriate level of mitigation, this is as often as not the curators fault for not being tough enough with the developer and/or their consultant. I've been aware of many occasions when curators have been railroaded. I know curators who are not tough enough. Similarly, it is the responsibility of contractors to put in proper bids for work and not keep putting in ridiculously low prices for jobs. Ultimately it's the field units who put in the prices.
The aim of my company is not to do the job at the cheapest price, but to do a good quality job that manages to satisy the planning conditions whilst not charging the client massive amounts of money. i have not felt that I have had to compromise my professional ethics just because I'm a consultant (and I like to think I care about archaeology and that justice is done to the finite resource).
You have also made assumptions about my pay level and benefits which are wide of the mark. Despite the fact I get marginally more than what I was on as a field archaeologist, the range of benefits I had when working for my local authority were far superior (more annual leave, superannuation, along with better maternity and paternity leave deals)than what I get now which is statutory bare minimum private sector standard. I'm working in consultancy because I fancied a change and the prospects, long term, were much better. To this day I've never been as well off as when I was a digger being housed in paid-for or subsidised accomodation, sometimes (OA) with a level of expenses paid for by the company employing me.