24th February 2006, 09:41 AM
Well prospect is not the only union, - but it is difficult to see how they could do much given the lack of national solidarity and support shown for their archaeology manifesto - again the lack of support could suggest that the majority of archaeologists were happy with pay and conditions. Or more cynically they were waiting for other people to do the hard work, pay the money, get deported to van diemans land etc. before reaping the benefits?
On a local level surely if everyone was in the union, and the union rep is elected from amongst the workforcs, doesn't that mandate the rep ( and have them visibly accountable to the workforce) and if you are a member of a national union you have access to resource, skills and experience to a much greater level than you could acting alone or as a newly formed group?
Some of this debate sounds horribly familiar - does anyone out there remember ACT from the 1980s? (I seem to remember it stood for archaeologists construct and transform and was meanttooperate as a 'diggers union' or am I mixing it up with another organisation?
On a local level surely if everyone was in the union, and the union rep is elected from amongst the workforcs, doesn't that mandate the rep ( and have them visibly accountable to the workforce) and if you are a member of a national union you have access to resource, skills and experience to a much greater level than you could acting alone or as a newly formed group?
Some of this debate sounds horribly familiar - does anyone out there remember ACT from the 1980s? (I seem to remember it stood for archaeologists construct and transform and was meanttooperate as a 'diggers union' or am I mixing it up with another organisation?