Crisis ? What Crisis? A Way forward?

[geodan]

I attended an IFA meeting recently and it was pointed out by someone in the know that chartered status isn't a panacea and that anyone can work as an architect, engineer or geologist.

All chartered status does, in the same way as ISO, RAO etc, is assure a client that an individual (or company) complies with the required criteria and that they have made a committment to update their skills to maintain their compliance with the criteria.

Unfortunately, chartered status would only become truly meaningful over time as clients begin to appreciate that they get better value for money from appropriately qualified individuals and companies.

I have to say I think that the next twelve months are going to be extremely painful for the profession with many job losses and a number of smaller companies going to the wall.

As a profession we have been almost totally financially and organisationally dysfunctional during the good years and I don't think that things will get any better as contractors grasp at an ever decreasing pool of work during the next six to twelve months. We should all hope to high heaven it's not longer.

Apologies for this extremely bleak assessement (and I hope that I am proved absolutely wrong) but I don't see the cavalry coming. Time to tighten our belts and hang on for all we are worth.

Happiness depends on ourselves.

[the invisible man]

Correct, but nobody can describe themselves in any way as an architect (for example) unless they are one.

This is why you see ads in local papers for house extensions and loft conversions by "architectural consultants". This is to avoid the use of the word "architect". Commercial clients for "proper" jobs will invariably go for qualified chartered status. Of course not every individual within (say) an architectural practice will be an architect: often only minority.

This could have direct parallels in archaeology: not everyone need have chartered status. I can see it would rankle however if "diggers" were not allowed to call themseleves archaeologists!

More to the point I don't see this having any effect on the present economic situation, which is a supply and demand thing.

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

"Can't cut-throat competition be suspended forthwith"
If anything I expect the undercutting could get even worse as units compete just to get what jobs they can to stop themselves sinking.
The knock-on effect of this will be that when the work situation picks up it could be a struggle to raise prices again, clients could turn round and say "but you were able to do the job a lot cheaper six months ago,why should we pay more now?"

[flashdigger]

quote:Originally posted by Dirty Dave Lincoln

"Can't cut-throat competition be suspended forthwith"
If anything I expect the undercutting could get even worse as units compete just to get what jobs they can to stop themselves sinking.
The knock-on effect of this will be that when the work situation picks up it could be a struggle to raise prices again, clients could turn round and say "but you were able to do the job a lot cheaper six months ago,why should we pay more now?"

Couldn't agree more Dave

[chiz]

regarding undercutting etc. This is exactly why the IFA and others must show their teeth and insist on the upholding of all standards. If the bosses are going to start cutting wages, then lets name and shame (see my previous thread about a database of unit pay and conditions and practices). If they cut standards and do stuff below spec, then go to the IFA.
I'm not fully convinced by the chartering argument, but I do think all archaeological units should be monitored in some way, whether its as RAO's or via planning departments.

[trowelfodder]

The problem is that this undercuttingis not merely on an intercompany basis, I've been talking to archaeologists (and recovering archaeologists)who have been saying that conditions within certain companies were getting worse and worse for diggers as the company has realised that there are so many archaeologist out the desparate for work that they will pretty much accept anything - four people sharing a room, appalling accomodation, self employment on normal wages, three day contracts, pepole volunteering in the hope that the company will look favourably on them next time (and this is diggers with years of experience not recent graduates). Now really is the time to "put our house in order" or soon we will find that any headway made in the last few years will quickly be lost.

And although I do have to admitt that although i not the IFAs greatest fan I think chartered status is the way to go if we are to be taken sriously as a proffession, but we all have to pull together and stop massively under selling our knowledge and skills

Most of us are only hanging on in there by the skin of our teeth and dont know which way to turn - we dont want to leave the proffession but have no choice - but what other jobs can we do?

[Windbag]

Good stuff, trowelfodder.
Both hosty and Kevin have raised the issue of overturning developer funding as a whole system, and having a more directly state-funded way of dealing with archaeological issues. Personally, I'd like to see a more centralised system with higher standards, but I don't see it as an option in this country.

Places like France have a state archaeological service paid for by taxation on developers, but I wouldn't expect this to work in the UK- it's the kind of funding a UK government of whatever persuasion would have no qualms about reassigning to some other needy cause, to the detriment of archaeologists and the archaeological heritage of this country. I suspect a government-funded archaeological service in the UK is never going to employ 6000 full-time staff- we aren't the health service!

Meanwhile, I reckon we get on with doing the best job we can and supporting moves to boost (or at least maintain) standards across the commercial sector. Without sounding too bleak, we need to remember a couple of things:
-companies will go to the wall and archaeologists will lose their jobs, but hopefully those that remain will be the most dedicated/capable/professional/fortunate.
-development hasn't ground to a halt.
-the demand for housing in the UK is still outstripping demand by far, and this is a long-term pattern. Hopefully the this period is a blip.

[drpeterwardle]

As usual I expect to be in a minority of one with the following statements.

Nationalisation not a hope - if it were on the cards it would be in the draft new Act.

This is not the time to suspend competition. The notion of companies not competing with each other ie forming a cartel is illegal and to my mind highly undesirable. The less efficient companies should be the ones to go first and I would suggest that these are the companies whose over heads are too high (and thus why they cant pay better).

What is needed at present is to ensure that competition is fair.

As for the notion that planning departments will stop putting archaeological conditions on planning permissions I think the reverse will happen. Conservation measures are usually increased at the time of recession.

The bringing forward of infra-structure projects will help the situation and I hope fairly quickly. Archaeological jobs are included in the cost benefit analysis for such projects.

I have been saying for a long time that I thought complusory pay and conditions increases were happening too quickly. In the current climate this gives a massive advantage to companies which do not adhere to the IFA/BAJR set rates.

Peter Wardle

[BAJR Host]

The concept about large nationalised units was talked about... and given the thumbs down... unworkable and in the end a backward step...

quote:which do not adhere to the IFA/BAJR set rates.

here are very very very few of them...

and shall we say... there will be less soon.... pay less - will be a recipe for a company to collapse soon.... and as far as I can see.. they number on the fingers of my hand.


I will report on the Meeting soon... it was VERY important.. and VERY far reaching... and both distressing and hopeful...

There is a way... but this time, we are going to have to do something we have forgotten over the past few years... to cooperate... to regulate ... to readjust .... to remember what we are doiing archaeology for...

I came away with hope... because no matter what has happened in the past this is something that the entire archaeology sector is dealing with... and if we do not support .. then we risk loss of skills of people of reputation.

I caught a few posts here... while in York (bloody mobile was playing up) and there are some real solid amazing posts here... ones that I will collate and confirm.. and give as a statement of intent - now I've been up since 5 ... so I must have a glass of red a fag and a think...

Please keep this discussion going... it is one tof the most important in 17 years

[the invisible man]

What exactly is meant on here by "undercutting"? Naturally firms invited to tender, in limited competition, for a contract submit their best price for the work: that is the general idea and precisely what happens in the rest of the construction industry and indeed in most other industries. Whether the whole concept of commercial archaeology is a good one or not is another question (and I agree that is highly unlikely to change) but I think it's important to clarify that tendering for contracts is a perfectly normal procedure and not inherently evil. "Undercutting" normally means something entirely different, that is knowingly submitting a price below that of a competitor whether or not it is feasible. Obviously one does not (one hopes) know competitors' tender figures at the time. That said, in times of recession it is not uncommon for firms with enough squirreled away to "buy" work simply to keep going and the staff in work.

Quality etc and work being not being done "to spec" is an industry problem. I would suggest that the solution lies with better procedure more akin to the construction industry upon which commercial archaeology is modelled: better specs, more detailed and comprehensive, with better administration of contracts (often incorrectly termed "supervision")by the appropriate parties. In short, contractors should know exactly what and how much is required by when, and they get paid for that, no more and no less. There is no greater incentive to producing good work than the knowledge that you won't get paid if you don't.