Bar to self-employment.

[Dinosaur]

Companies have had to jump through more than a few hoops for some curators just to get anywhere near the lists, and one county even does not allow or accept any work from anyone not on their 'list'. Illegal or not, that is what is done.

Have lists ever been tested legally? A use for the BAJR slush/drinks fund? }
(ok, ok, I'm sure I wasn't on the man's xmas card list anyway....)

[Steven]

Has any county ever actually published the criteria under which it includes/excludes archaeological contractors on its list? Or would that be laying themselves open to litigation?

I know there are SMR/curatorial types posting on here, any informed comments?

Hi
Here are acouple of lists with criteria.

http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourenvironme...actors.htm

http://www.leics.gov.uk/revised_loc_jan_2010.pdf


I find it quite interesting that only one view is being put forward that lists are a "bar" to carrying out work. They can also be viewed as a way of helping to "protecting" locally based (i.e. good local knowledge) small (independent) archaeologists. It may be unfair to new companies, but is it fair, or even reasonable that say, a list in Cornwall has to have a Scottish based unit on it, when there could be very good locally based units that rely on the work to survive.
This is just a discussion point so please don't have a go at me, its not a policy of the organisation I work for!

[Dinosaur]

.... lists....can also be viewed as a way of helping to "protecting" locally based (i.e. good local knowledge) small (independent) archaeologists. It may be unfair to new companies, but is it fair, or even reasonable that say, a list in Cornwall has to have a Scottish based unit on it, when there could be very good locally based units that rely on the work to survive....

Good return to subject!

I tried to raise this back on, oh, about page 2 of this thread before the IFA-slagging kicked off, went through its tricky teenage years (again) and went of to live in its own thread elsewhere :face-approve:

Shall check out the links, although for a unit in northern England maybe not the most useful....handy examples though of transparency that should be happening everywhere :face-huh:

[BAJR]

I tis indeed good to be ON :face-topic:, could not find much in teh way of IfA bashing til page 4 Dino... :face-kiss:

The concept stands that once again we have a situation where there are many ways to find the same info. Different criteria different lists... To be on BAJR you must agree to my terms... to be on the IfA List you must be an RO to be in teh Yellow Pages, you must pay... to be on a county list... well... pick one from a selection of criteria. What most curatorial services like to see is that you are capable of what you say you can do... you will not mess up. Even as a new starter you will have reports (as Gilrean says) that you can and should show the local DC archaeologist, to show what level of responsibility you have had, and what you can do.) Call them, make an appointment and sit down with them for 20 minutes to introduce yourself. They don't know you... until you introduce yourself.

[Steven]

Good return to subject!

I tried to raise this back on, oh, about page 2 of this thread before the IFA-slagging kicked off, went through its tricky teenage years (again) and went of to live in its own thread elsewhere :face-approve:

Shall check out the links, although for a unit in northern England maybe not the most useful....handy examples though of transparency that should be happening everywhere :face-huh:

Hi
Generally I think most authorities will probably use the "companies that have worked in the area" line in order to stay away from any legal aspects.
It should be considered as well that in some authorities lists are only provided to people who ask for them, so that's normally very small scale developers or single householders. Just about every larger developer already knows which archaeologists to use. So the list can be a genuine attempt to help residents (voters) not get ripped off and get value for their money. The system isn't necessarily about helping archaeologists set up new companies it can also be about ensuring the public get the best.

[Dinosaur]

BAJR - think page 2 actually is before page 4? - wasn't meaning that IFA-baiting had stifled my comment, merely that the thread had headed a bit off-track meaning that it had gotten forgotten (although you're right, if no one had replied in two pages it probably wasn't ever going to be, luckily Steven's had better luck)

Steven - think I pretty much agree with all that. As it happens I think we've done work in Leicestershire (consultancy rather than digging), taken there by a client, but are not included on their list so that one's not exhaustive anyway!

[SW]

*post under review*

[vulpes]

IfA RO, the only list worth troubling with. http://www.archaeologists.net/ROsearch If only they had bothered to properly test/finish their website before making it live. NOT what I pay my subs for. :face-confused:

[Unitof1]

dont you mean that the tax payer pays them for you

[vulpes]

ooh busted Unit of 1!! I would point out that my last few employers (all ROs but not Local Govt) also paid my membership subs, sure I'm not alone. Who pays yours?