The same old pay issue from a different angle!

[deepdigger]

Yes, moaning about pay again but, look at it like this.
You see a job where the pay is advertised at ?13,500 p.a, thats not too bad(although it is low) you apply for the job and get it, only to find that the employer has only employed you for a short term contract and after a few months you are laid off. You may be off for a short length of time and then taken back on again this could happen throughout the year, at the end of the year how much have you earned?
Certainly no where near the ?13,500 originally advertised!
Jobs like these should be advertised as salary pro rata so people know that they are not going to earn the full amount, also as consultants get paid excessive amounts because there work is short term and highly valued (by themselves usually) why can't the diggers who are on short term contracts get paid extra to tide them over the quiet periods, as we at the coalface know, our work is needed and short term so why can't we have some parity or at least fair treatment.
Ok Rant over!
Lets discuss this!!

deep

[drpeterwardle]

"also as consultants get paid excessive amounts because there work is short term and highly valued (by themselves usually)"

Peter Wardle consultant here.

Is what I earn excessive - no not in comparison with other professionals. Short term - I attended a meeting today on a project that I started on in January 2002.

A consultant can at best manage about 20 charged out hours a week if they work a 37 hour week. Overheads are very high in comparison with a digger (those suits are expensive you know)

I think deep diggers point is a good one. What is important is how much in real terms lands in your pocket and what you have to do for it. There should be a premium paid for short term contracts beyong a probationery period.

Peter

[Pete M]

Another facet

About 10 years ago I told a senior NT manager my rates as a freelance/self-employed surveyor were ?100 per day.

Her reaction?

"That's over ?36,000 a year - even I don't earn that"

Then I explained that while there are 365 days in the year, 104 are weekends, 11 or so bank holidays, 25 might be spent on leave (ho ho), leaving around 225 days available in the year. Then running a business, doing accounts, training, submitting tenders, site visits, meetings and other none-paid but costly excercises could account for another 75 days a year, leaving 150 days available for paid work, which may or may not be fully booked.

She wasn't convinced, even when I pointed out that her pay for days she actually worked came to ?200/day as an employee, excluding pension, sick pay, paid leave, training etc.

I doubt many consultants are getting paid excessive amounts - I would say ?300-500/day is what to aim for - anything over ?800 is excessive, but good on anyone who manages to persuade someone they are worth it.

[mercenary]

quote:There should be a premium paid for short term contracts beyong a probationery period.

EH to their credit, a couple of years ago, started paying over the going rate for field staff on short projects. Presumably because it was hard to attract experienced staff for a short job without good pay. Rumour had it that they had got some criticism for their previous rate however. It would be nice to see commercial units follow this lead, especially for fixed term jobs where staff are not going to be retained. Not so long ago I would happily have done short fixed term projects and then moved on, for better pay. Much better than the interminable "we've got more work week after next, so stick around" crap.

[1man1desk]

Many years ago, I worked for a unit that shall remain nameless on a dig that over-ran, so the unit asked us all to stay on for an extra week.

At the end of the week, it turned out that their negotiations with the developer to fund the extension had failed - so no-one got paid, despite having done the work. No-one complained or sued - me because I was moving on anyway to a better-paid, more secure job elsewhere, the others because they wanted more work from the unit.

Does this sort of thing still happen?

1man1desk

[1man1desk]

On consultants - I don't know about freelancers, but employee consultants do tend to get paid more than field staff. It isn't because of the short-term nature of their work, though.

Contracts tend to be permanent. Some of the individual projects go on for years, and may keep coming back after gaps of two or three years. Personally, I've had 2 consultancy jobs, which between them have kept me going for over 12 years. Previously, I spent 9 years digging holes, which took at least 27 separate contracts - although many of them were repeats/continuations.

Consultants get paid more for 4 reasons:
1. employers tend to value permanent employees more than temporary ones;
2. a high proportion of consultants are very experienced archaeologists;
3. they often work in multi-disciplinary environments, where their pay is on the same scale as other professions;
4. finally, and most importantly, clients value their work and are prepared to pay decent rates for it. You can't pay anyone more than you can charge them out at.

I understand why site staff may resent the (sometimes) large differential between their pay and that of consultants - I have been there myself. But that is not because the consultants are paid 'excessive amounts' - it is because the site staff are underpaid.


1man1desk

[troll]

The site staff are in fact, under-valued. Despite the fact that at the end of the day, on site is where it really matters. I accept that greater levels of responsibility should demand an appropriate remuneration however, in a country where all is well so long as the paperwork is in order and the rest is irrelevent, why not simply do away with archaeology degrees and just excavate sites using the unemployed?

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by troll

in a country where all is well so long as the paperwork is in order and the rest is irrelevent, why not simply do away with archaeology degrees and just excavate sites using the unemployed?

It's been done before. That's what the MSC Scheme was.

Eggbasket

Don't have a stegosaurus, man.

[EarlySlav]

Dont remind me. Archaeologists being sacked so they could be replaced by the unemployed. Great logic. Crap wages ever since.

[troll]

so, they eventually sacked the unemployed, encouraged people to undertake degrees then, paid them less than the unemployed and called them archaeologists!