IFA response to credit crunch -comments

[Paul Belford]

quote:In commercial archaeology there are two types of units-those registered with the IFA and those who are not,I wonder what percentage of each will go bust?

That is a very good question. One would hope that the ROs, with their explicit commitments to training, reasonable wages, career development and archaeological ethics, will have a better chance of survival. Non-ROs with the same commitments might struggle.

[monty]

Quote by Dirty Dave Lincoln: '.those registered with IFA and those who are not,I wonder what percentage of each will go bust ?' ...... is this another bash at IFA ?..........

[chiz]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Belford

quote:In commercial archaeology there are two types of units-those registered with the IFA and those who are not,I wonder what percentage of each will go bust?

That is a very good question. One would hope that the ROs, with their explicit commitments to training, reasonable wages, career development and archaeological ethics, will have a better chance of survival. Non-ROs with the same commitments might struggle.

I agree, I HOPE that the RO's survive, from the news piece the RO's are clearly very worried about non-RO's cutting wages and undercutting them. If things continue to get very bad then people will end up taking even worse wages as they can see no other option to stay in archaeology. That's not good for anyone.
Whether that is what will happen or not, who knows, but small units that aren't ROs have more 'flexibility' to cut wages to survive than RO's tied to IFA minima. If all the units were RO's then would we have this potential problem? (Please note I am NOT calling all non-RO's cowboys, charlatans or any other names! I understand the reasons some don't affiliate).
Are we facing a future with a few big units and a lot of minnows as has been suggested by some? Small 'one man bands' (non-judgemental description) suffer from cash flow, but may be more resilient and pop-up again when things improve. Big lumbering units take a long time to do things normally, although some seem to have acted fast enough to axe swathes of employees. Who will win out? Whatever you think of the IFA, I reckon its better that employers are RO's, rather than not RO's.

[monty]

What we really need is costs for archaeological services to rise ! then we would all have a bite at the cherry. The costs for archaeology are often (though of course not always ) a miniscule amount of the budget for construction projects. Rates charged are very low when compared to other services used in construction, which always increase substantially per annum. As archaeology is now an essential in the planning process why does this continue ??.......... i can still hear the disbelief and laughter of groundworkers when told what we get paid ........... 'what you get out of bed for that much !!' etc etc............

[BAJR Host]

BAJR is also committed to ensuring our job adverts (from non-ROs) meet minimum rates... and I have tell of the IfA moving to do the same..

wages shouldcontinue to rise.

"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton

[Windbag]

If Kathryn and co are reading this discussion, I would use this opportunity to urge the IfA not to allow the benchmarking to slip, despite the obvious pressures to do so.

An analogy may be drawn between archaeology and architecture. Both are likely to suffer in the current downturn. Architects are talking about this as an opportunity to reform the profession- to work out what matters and as an opportunity to reflect.

I think the IfA should take the lead in a similar way for archaeology. Many people are going to lose their jobs, if they haven't already, but the long-term outlook for archaeology is strong- major infrastructure developments, energy, demand for housing outstripping supply, a public appetite for the subject etc.

Therefore, this is the time to set the ground-rules for the future. I think we can go back to a state where we have a large number of itinerant workers and one-man-bands expanding and contracting to suit the wills of developers happy to pay the minimum. Instead, lobbying to raise standards and expectations should, in time, lead to higher standards and expectations.

When work picks up, those that have been out of work could then benefit from the increasing pay and conditions.

[kevin wooldridge]

Regarding undercutting. If BAJR and the IFA at least guarantee that they will not run adverts from prospective employers offering less than the current minimum wage levels, this will severely limit the ability of any such employers to recruit staff.

There is always word of mouth.....

Is it possible that the IFA could lobby the APAAG group of MPs and lords to at least get the plight of our industry recognised at government level (and maybe to lobby for use of the Heritage lottery fund as a source of interim funding for IFA RAOs).

[BAJR Host]

If BAJR and the IFA at least guarantee that they will not run adverts from prospective employers offering less than the current minimum wage levels, this will severely limit the ability of any such employers to recruit staff.

Absolutely... and I think (though its not for me to say) this is about to happen.

"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton

[drpeterwardle]

Thanks to the IFA for doing something....

I think a view has to be taken on what effect the new terms and conditions and pay rates have had on the viability of archaeological businesses before any decisions are made.

At BAJR 2006 I compared archaeologists and ground workers pay and charge out rates.... The reason archaeologist are paid badly are not completely related to how much developers should charge.

One topic I think should be addressed is what happens to postX when a company client or archaeological goes bust? What obligations does a company or an individual actually have?

Peter Wardle

[monty]

Surely the refusal to run adverts with pay below recognised minima is a GOOD THING............as i said in earlier post we need to charge more............Why are archaeolgists paid badly ????!!!!!