1st February 2013, 10:26 AM
Thanks very much to BAJR for getting me on and able to respond to this thread – I had a pretty frustrating day yesterday.
Speaking as a member of staff at IfA (thought I should get that out there straight away), it is always difficult to balance the disparate views of members (which includes both employers and employees), and non-members, on issues which are so important and emotive. Personally (speaking as a member), I am very glad that Council voted unanimously to continue its commitment to minimum salary recommendations – this is a big deal and should be celebrated. In the face of potential risks, Council could have backed away from the issue – or at the very least shown mixed feelings across the group (which represents a cross section of the profession). Council also agreed to increase the current minima by 3.1% and increase the recommended starting salaries. The benchmark is going up for a second year – another thing to celebrate.
The move away from compliance with minimum salary recommendations being an absolute requirement of Registered Organisation status is a more difficult pill to swallow for us all. However, the wording of the statement is important – especially the word absolute. The baby has not been thrown out with the bathwater; meeting the minima will still need to be demonstrated by ROs (and by any member who employs archaeologists). Not meeting the minima will trigger a more detailed audit both for new applications and for existing ROs. I can see from this thread that there is a lot of feeling that the RO scheme is problematic. Personally, I think it is a good scheme – it has its problems, but having been a postholder at an RO and a member of RO committee prior to working for IfA, I genuinely feel the scheme has had an impact on the standards of work undertaken and on issues such as training. But there are issues; all I can say now is that the scheme is constantly being developed, and with statements from Council such as this one, that development will be accelerated. To me, in terms of minimum salaries, the important clause is the one that all voting members sign up to as part of the Code of Conduct (which is what any complaint or disciplinary case is judged against): 5.5 A member shall give due regard to the welfare of employees, colleagues and helpers in relation to the terms and conditions of service. He or she shall give reasonable consideration to any IfA recommended pay minima and conditions of employment, and should endeavor to meet or exceed the IfA recommended minimum salaries.
I would urge people to look at the proposals for the next phase of the pay working party research (http://www.archaeologists.net/IfAsalary2013to14), and what it could mean for the profession; Stage two of the pay working party report will present a strategy, for Council’s future consideration, for facilitating an industry-wide approach to improving pay and conditions. There is a long to-do list there, but it is an important one. A few people have already highlighted the fact that improving pay and conditions should not be a responsibility shouldered by IfA alone; there are other bodies (specifically unions) and organisations (such as FAME) who need to get more involved. IfA is the professional body for archaeologists – that is the reason why I joined up, and that is the reason so many people were involved its formation. IfA is neither a trade union, nor a body which solely represents employers. In the UK we are lucky to have all three types of organisations – it is time to get together and look at these issues collectively.
Sorry for the essay, but I had saved up some thoughts from yesterday when I couldn’t get on. In short (and in my opinion), the fact that Council has raised the minima is good for us all, and the fact that IfA are committed to improving pay and conditions is also pretty positive. I personally think that the move away from the absolute condition to meet pay minima was a difficult decision, but one which probably had to be made. The fact that the working party will now be looking into how the profession can take on the issue collectively, is a really positive move – if we can get everyone who should be talking about it, actually talking about it, that can’t be bad thing. I also think the fact that so many people responded to the call sent out by Prospect and reiterated on BAJR is also positive (about 150 responses altogether) – there will be more debate and discussion on how this can develop – please get involved in it.
I am not expecting everyone to suddenly get behind IfA but I would like to think that most archaeologists are keen to see the profession develop and for conditions to improve for everyone. To achieve that has to involve everyone who works in archaeology; from diggers to managers, and including specialists, company directors, academics, students and planning archaeologists – we are a pretty diverse bunch. IfA represents about 3200 archaeologists at the moment, two thirds are corporate members, and there are 74 registered organisations. That level of representation is meaningful, and IfA is well placed to get this particular ball rolling. But to do so, there needs to be some joined up thinking and my hope is that the most recent decisions and recommendations from Council, and the work the pay working party will now go on to achieve, will get that started.
Speaking as a member of staff at IfA (thought I should get that out there straight away), it is always difficult to balance the disparate views of members (which includes both employers and employees), and non-members, on issues which are so important and emotive. Personally (speaking as a member), I am very glad that Council voted unanimously to continue its commitment to minimum salary recommendations – this is a big deal and should be celebrated. In the face of potential risks, Council could have backed away from the issue – or at the very least shown mixed feelings across the group (which represents a cross section of the profession). Council also agreed to increase the current minima by 3.1% and increase the recommended starting salaries. The benchmark is going up for a second year – another thing to celebrate.
The move away from compliance with minimum salary recommendations being an absolute requirement of Registered Organisation status is a more difficult pill to swallow for us all. However, the wording of the statement is important – especially the word absolute. The baby has not been thrown out with the bathwater; meeting the minima will still need to be demonstrated by ROs (and by any member who employs archaeologists). Not meeting the minima will trigger a more detailed audit both for new applications and for existing ROs. I can see from this thread that there is a lot of feeling that the RO scheme is problematic. Personally, I think it is a good scheme – it has its problems, but having been a postholder at an RO and a member of RO committee prior to working for IfA, I genuinely feel the scheme has had an impact on the standards of work undertaken and on issues such as training. But there are issues; all I can say now is that the scheme is constantly being developed, and with statements from Council such as this one, that development will be accelerated. To me, in terms of minimum salaries, the important clause is the one that all voting members sign up to as part of the Code of Conduct (which is what any complaint or disciplinary case is judged against): 5.5 A member shall give due regard to the welfare of employees, colleagues and helpers in relation to the terms and conditions of service. He or she shall give reasonable consideration to any IfA recommended pay minima and conditions of employment, and should endeavor to meet or exceed the IfA recommended minimum salaries.
I would urge people to look at the proposals for the next phase of the pay working party research (http://www.archaeologists.net/IfAsalary2013to14), and what it could mean for the profession; Stage two of the pay working party report will present a strategy, for Council’s future consideration, for facilitating an industry-wide approach to improving pay and conditions. There is a long to-do list there, but it is an important one. A few people have already highlighted the fact that improving pay and conditions should not be a responsibility shouldered by IfA alone; there are other bodies (specifically unions) and organisations (such as FAME) who need to get more involved. IfA is the professional body for archaeologists – that is the reason why I joined up, and that is the reason so many people were involved its formation. IfA is neither a trade union, nor a body which solely represents employers. In the UK we are lucky to have all three types of organisations – it is time to get together and look at these issues collectively.
Sorry for the essay, but I had saved up some thoughts from yesterday when I couldn’t get on. In short (and in my opinion), the fact that Council has raised the minima is good for us all, and the fact that IfA are committed to improving pay and conditions is also pretty positive. I personally think that the move away from the absolute condition to meet pay minima was a difficult decision, but one which probably had to be made. The fact that the working party will now be looking into how the profession can take on the issue collectively, is a really positive move – if we can get everyone who should be talking about it, actually talking about it, that can’t be bad thing. I also think the fact that so many people responded to the call sent out by Prospect and reiterated on BAJR is also positive (about 150 responses altogether) – there will be more debate and discussion on how this can develop – please get involved in it.
I am not expecting everyone to suddenly get behind IfA but I would like to think that most archaeologists are keen to see the profession develop and for conditions to improve for everyone. To achieve that has to involve everyone who works in archaeology; from diggers to managers, and including specialists, company directors, academics, students and planning archaeologists – we are a pretty diverse bunch. IfA represents about 3200 archaeologists at the moment, two thirds are corporate members, and there are 74 registered organisations. That level of representation is meaningful, and IfA is well placed to get this particular ball rolling. But to do so, there needs to be some joined up thinking and my hope is that the most recent decisions and recommendations from Council, and the work the pay working party will now go on to achieve, will get that started.