12th May 2012, 07:53 PM
And there are some excavators earning 25k a year...not many I grant you but a few.
I don't think there is as much flexibility as you suggest when you say that archaeologists will ditch a lower paid employer and go and work for a higher paid one......surely not. Most people are much more rational than that and would take into account the length of contract on offer, closeness to home etc etc. Not that that matters to many archaeologists who are just looking for work - any work - rather than negotiating from a position of some security and looking to improve upon it....
I think where all archaeological employment surveys suffer from distortion is taking into account the length of contract. Its fine to say that diggers earn on average 16.5k a year, but that does assume they are working full time and/or have contracts for a full 12 months.....not always the case. I know for example some UK based diggers who take maybe one or more overseas jobs each year and use that as a cash bonus to in effect subsidise their continuing work (or unemployment) in the UK for the rest of the year. Or are for the most part one-person operations - in a variety of roles - for most of the year, but happy to take on one or two 'employed' jobs as and when they arise, if they fit with their other plans. So it isn't the survey that's at fault or the data collected, its more to do with whether the types of employment suggested really do reflect the profession as a whole. Maybe what Profiling the Profession should do is to look at a typical archaeological employment history in addition to looking at the pure statistics of wages, job gradings and the number of employers and job adverts...
I don't think there is as much flexibility as you suggest when you say that archaeologists will ditch a lower paid employer and go and work for a higher paid one......surely not. Most people are much more rational than that and would take into account the length of contract on offer, closeness to home etc etc. Not that that matters to many archaeologists who are just looking for work - any work - rather than negotiating from a position of some security and looking to improve upon it....
I think where all archaeological employment surveys suffer from distortion is taking into account the length of contract. Its fine to say that diggers earn on average 16.5k a year, but that does assume they are working full time and/or have contracts for a full 12 months.....not always the case. I know for example some UK based diggers who take maybe one or more overseas jobs each year and use that as a cash bonus to in effect subsidise their continuing work (or unemployment) in the UK for the rest of the year. Or are for the most part one-person operations - in a variety of roles - for most of the year, but happy to take on one or two 'employed' jobs as and when they arise, if they fit with their other plans. So it isn't the survey that's at fault or the data collected, its more to do with whether the types of employment suggested really do reflect the profession as a whole. Maybe what Profiling the Profession should do is to look at a typical archaeological employment history in addition to looking at the pure statistics of wages, job gradings and the number of employers and job adverts...
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...