4th January 2012, 07:33 PM
The problem is, Kevin, that at present most archaeologists just don't stay in theprofession for 5 years so there is no point in what you suggest. Most leave because they can't hack the weather, the poor pay, or just aren't cut out for it. I'd like to think some also leave because they are also no good at the job. There's also just not enough jobs for more experienced staff. You'd have to completely restructure the whole profession to make your suggestion work, and defeat the laws of supply and demand. Or create a way of insisting on proper acreditation and standards that meant you had to use skilled workers. At present new starters are paid low wages, you want to make them worse with no credible solution. Its Robin Hood in reverse. And you haven't even factored in tuition fees.
I don't want to get into special pleading for archaeologists, but National Minimum wage is not a sustainable wage for the profession, let alone for its most junior members. NMW would undermine any advances made in terms and conditions over the last twenty odd years (I grew up as a subsistence volunteer on ?42 a week), and would instantly compound the problems of deskilling and disengagement currently at large in the profession. Employers would instantly just hire fresh starters on NMW and then bin 90% of them as soon as they got vaguely skilled. Hang on, that sounds a bit familiar? That's what happens now, except the new starters get around ?15K*, not minimum wage. Your suggestion does nothing to alter the problem for site assistants, it just gives supervisors a pay rise. At the very least you could have argued for a Living Wage for those starting out in archaeology!
It is issues of supply and demand and the 'experience pyramid' of the profession that need to be countered. We need to get away from the current lowest common denominator system of deskilled workers who are really just underpaid labourers. We need to create a profession that values everyone, we need to stop the drop in standards in archaeologists, we need to insist that people need to do their job properly. We need parallel progression of those that don't want to take on responsibility, but are skilled and use those skills.
Yes it needs proper, structured training at a training wage (ets say ?15,800) for maybe a year, then progression to a basic pay of about ?18,000 for semi-skilled site assistants, with increments for increased skills allowing them to earn as much as supervisors, or more for very skilled professionals. There needs to be a big jump (due to the legal responsibilities) from the basic Digger to those at real supervisor level, so maybe ?22K for supervisors, and ?28K for PO, managers and SPOs move up a bit to ?35K. that's starting wages,not taking into account increments and experience. All backed up by full pay for travel and overtime.
There would need to be proper checks on people skills and a 'supportive intolerance' of poor work -from individuals as well as employers. If you weren't good enough, you'd be asked to leave. Actually, we need all that now. I wonder why it doesn't happen, maybe employers are embarrassed to demand anything above basic competance at the wages they offer?
Just my personal view you understand
Chiz
*I know, there are some who pay worse than this.
I don't want to get into special pleading for archaeologists, but National Minimum wage is not a sustainable wage for the profession, let alone for its most junior members. NMW would undermine any advances made in terms and conditions over the last twenty odd years (I grew up as a subsistence volunteer on ?42 a week), and would instantly compound the problems of deskilling and disengagement currently at large in the profession. Employers would instantly just hire fresh starters on NMW and then bin 90% of them as soon as they got vaguely skilled. Hang on, that sounds a bit familiar? That's what happens now, except the new starters get around ?15K*, not minimum wage. Your suggestion does nothing to alter the problem for site assistants, it just gives supervisors a pay rise. At the very least you could have argued for a Living Wage for those starting out in archaeology!
It is issues of supply and demand and the 'experience pyramid' of the profession that need to be countered. We need to get away from the current lowest common denominator system of deskilled workers who are really just underpaid labourers. We need to create a profession that values everyone, we need to stop the drop in standards in archaeologists, we need to insist that people need to do their job properly. We need parallel progression of those that don't want to take on responsibility, but are skilled and use those skills.
Yes it needs proper, structured training at a training wage (ets say ?15,800) for maybe a year, then progression to a basic pay of about ?18,000 for semi-skilled site assistants, with increments for increased skills allowing them to earn as much as supervisors, or more for very skilled professionals. There needs to be a big jump (due to the legal responsibilities) from the basic Digger to those at real supervisor level, so maybe ?22K for supervisors, and ?28K for PO, managers and SPOs move up a bit to ?35K. that's starting wages,not taking into account increments and experience. All backed up by full pay for travel and overtime.
There would need to be proper checks on people skills and a 'supportive intolerance' of poor work -from individuals as well as employers. If you weren't good enough, you'd be asked to leave. Actually, we need all that now. I wonder why it doesn't happen, maybe employers are embarrassed to demand anything above basic competance at the wages they offer?
Just my personal view you understand
Chiz
*I know, there are some who pay worse than this.