IFA Fees.

[Alfie]

1man my point was that in I-Fs post he did not make it clear that he believed in the aims of the IFA as an organisation, as you clearly do. This just seemed odd to me and I was trying to draw a parallel.

[Cautionary Tale]

I can see the point raised in the terms of what difference to the individual of being PIFA, AIFA or MIFA. In the circumstances outlined, if no wage increase is proposed based on membership upgrade and the individual intends on staying in the same company for the medium or long term, then there is limited reason to upgrade. However, in terms of impression within others in the profession and outside of it, it is the next step up in corporate membership. This is arguably worth paying ?10 for. It becomes increasingly worthwhile if you intend on changing jobs, or if circumstances mean that a job change is incredibly likely (short term contracts etc) as a mark of a accepted level of accreditation. The change from 'A' to 'M' is easily the best illustrated by the number of briefs which recommend that a project is managed by an MIFA, though admittedly most tag on 'or equivalent experience'. From a prospective client perspective it is more transparent and possibly more influential to point towards a register which has been provided from an external source than to provide a CV.

Of the Clan Sutton

[1man1desk]

From IF Lostmetrowel

quote:So this leads me to again ask the question of increasing my membership to AIFA and the related increase in cost does this equal a benefit or not?

My apologies if I misunderstood your previous post. However, I still don't really follow your point in the quote above. As previously stated, the only additional cost is a one-off ?10 fee; your subscription will not go up as a result of becoming and AIFA rather than a PIFA.

To give an example of how IFA membership can benefit individual in an organisation that is a fully committed RAO:

Within my organisation, IFA membership is preferred when recruiting archaeologists. That does not mean we would employ a member ahead of a more competent/qualified person, but it does mean that if two candidates were otherwise hard to separate we would be more likely to take the IFA member (or the one with the highest grade of membership). So - a direct benefit to the individual in career opportunities.

We also have an annual performance appraisal process for all employees. As part of that, each individual has certain CPD-related, time-limited targets set at the beginning of the year. There are a wide range of targets, but for archaeologists they often include ones relating to the IFA. Anyone who is a non-IFA member has a target to achieve membership; existing members are often given targets to upgrade. Achievement of the targets is taken into account in the annual pay review - so, upgrading could increase your salary. On top of that, achievement of MIFA means a one-off bonus of ?500. And the company pays all IFA subscriptions, and pays for at least one (often more) staff to attend the conference each year.

Take note that all these benefits for IFA membership are offered by a company in which archaeologists represent less than 1% of the staff.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

At the outset, I recognise that the cost of membership of the IFA is a major issue, particularly amongst fieldwork staff. Although subscription rates are low in comparison with many other professions, I also accept that those professionals are often much better paid.

However, the fact remains that without professional representation the archaeological community will never fully establish its credibility as a profession, and without such credibility we are never likely to approach parity with other professions. Such representation ? which the IFA provides ? is costly, but essential. The maintenance and enforcement of a Code of Conduct (without which talk of standards is meaningless) demands and receives significant resources as do the Institute?s other activities (including education, training, pay and conditions, lobbying and providing membership services).

The contribution which subscriptions make to these activities is vital. The IFA?s annual income from this source (including application fees) is approximately ?200,000 (based on the projected income for the year ending 31st March, 2006 by which time we will have around 2,150 members) which, for a UK wide body with permanent staff, leaves little room for manoeuvre.

In the circumstances, the real question is how to ease the financial burden on our members without undermining progress in advancing the profession.

What can we do ?

1. Change the subscription bands -
? The approach to subscription bands was confirmed following consultation with the membership in 2003, when it was agreed to retain the method of grading subscriptions upon the basis of members? income.
? The IFA?s Council has now agreed to alter the subscription bands for the 2006/7 subscription year so that full-time archaeologists earning just the PIFA minimum in 2005/6 pay at a lower rate than before. The rates for 2006/7 can be found at the end of this document.
? Advocates of further change to the subscription bands must bear in mind that those at the upper end of the archaeological pay scale are already paying significantly more than those lower down the scale.

2. Spread the financial burden throughout the year ?
? Members can pay by direct debit (at a reduced rate) in which case 10 monthly payments are made.

3. Encourage members to obtain tax relief on their subscriptions.

4. Encourage employers to pay or contribute to the membership subscription of their employees.

5. Where possible, reduce fees by generating additional income ?
? On a small scale, this has been done with the IFA Conference Membership Offer (which effectively diverts conference revenue to subsidise an individual?s membership subscription).
? More broadly, the answer ultimately is to increase membership to such a degree that fees can be reduced generally whilst maintaining (and preferably increasing) service levels. Having said that, I appreciate that it is for the IFA to get its message across and make the case for non-members to join and I am happy to continue and contribute to that debate.

In the meantime, this is the background to the discussion as to fees. Your input is welcome and I can be contacted on tim.howard@archaeologists.net or on 0118 378 6446.


IFA Subscription Rates for 2006/7

Affiliate subscription fee: ?35.00 (by cheque) ?33.00 (by D/Debit)
Student subscription fee: ?16.50 (by cheque) ?15.00 (by D/Debit)

All corporate members (MIFA, AIFA, PIFA), according to annual income:

Earnings in previous year Payment by cheque/postal order Payment by Direct Debit
*?5,000 - ?10,000 ?38.00 ?35.00
?10,001 - ?13,500 ?63.00 ?58.00
?13,501 - ?16,000 ?95.00 ?86.00
?16,001 - ?20,000 ?130.00 ?118.00
?20,001 - ?28,000 ?169.00 ?153.00
More than ?28,000 ?202.00 ?183.00

*members earning less than ?5,000 can claim a 50% rebate on their subscription fees by sending proof of earnings to the IFA office along with this remittance advice.

Tim Howard (Recruitment and Marketing Coordinator)

Another day another WSI?

[troll]

Isnt it a bit of an irony that the IFA have to make special concessions for field archaeologists?
"...without professional representation the archaeological community will never establish its credibility as a profession..."
Absolutely right.And without the representation of the IFA over the years of its existence- that is precisely where we are now.And have been for years.Finally, an open admission.We are exactly where we are directly as a result of the complete lack of professional representation.
"The maintenance and enforcement of a Code of Conduct...demands and receives significant resources...."
Since when has the word "enforcement" and the name "IFA" been synonomous? Guys-we must be living on different planets.
Yes-it is for the IFA to get its message across.Not only to prospective members but to a wider audience-the public.For an Institute with over two thousand members, they have achieved precisely nothing in all the years of their existence where they should have mattered most-the coal face.Archaeology continues to be the victim of some commercial units and individuals validated by the IFA who should be cleaning toilets.The IFA have no legal role to play, do not represent the majority, act as optional standard promoters and frankly,don`t appear to be remotely interested in the opinions of the workforce.Frankly, this "we can do nothing unless you join us" garbage is beginning to turn my stomach.Be seen to give a toss and your membership may increase.Actually DO something visible and coherent before trying to sell a dead duck to an industry who clearly see you as irrelevent.As a last word- I`m not entirely sure who I`m responding to here-Mr Hosty or Mr Howard? Is BAJR now an advertising/marketing vessel for the IFA?

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[drpeterwardle]

I would suggest that the IFA needs to do something much more radical liking making the membership fee UKP 20.

As things stand the average archaeologist pays 0.89% of their net income on IFA memebership. The biggest unit in contrast pays .16% of their turn over.

The RAO pay from .16% to .81% of their turnover to be RAO the more you turnover the bigger the discount you get from the IFA.

I would think that membership would double if the fee was UKP 20. A membership of 4000 would yield UKP 80000.

If all archaeological organisations were RAO even at .16% of turnover the income would be 160k a year and the IFA would have an increase of 20% on their budget.

With current membership both on an individual and RAO in order to produce a similar budget how about UKP30 for members equally 60000 and RAO cost of .35% of turnover giving an income of 136k.

These calculation are based upon the figures given in the previous post, assumming a spread of turnovers and a total spend on archaeology of 100 million.

If the key role of the IFA is policing standard and this is expensive why are individuals being expected to pay for the bulk of the cost. The figures for organisations have to be put in perspective. An organisation turning over UKP 1000000 ought to have a profit margin of 20% and thus a profit of 200000. Their contributions can be offset against tax.

As a general rule I think the burden on employers is too great is terms of what you have to provide sick pay, holidays, pensions, training, IFA membership and so on. However I can see a very good case for the IFA raising money this was. Indeed it would be cost effective for most organisations to pay for, in effect, the subs of all of their employees in this manner.

Peter Wardle