11th November 2012, 04:15 PM
sadie Wrote:Because they often do threaten exactly that, and no doubt will do again. At the core of that argument is who the IfA are representing (ROs or individual members) and whether it is right that the few can hold the many to ransom in that way.
my post is in reply to Prentice above, who was talking about Paul Belford's blog..
then maybe council should explain why the benefit of a few is allowed to outway the needs of the many?
if large ro's are threatening to withdraw why do we want them to stay? what would be the benefit to archaeology and the majority of archaeologists?
anyway how would such ro's explain their departure from the scheme on their websites and their marketing material? how could they waver from being positively in favour to negatively against on the basis of the p&c of the workforce?
do fieldworker pay levels affect the number of archaeological jobs available? no they dont.
get rid of them and hope they sink
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers