2nd November 2006, 01:41 PM
I see this more as a business issue than a professional standards issue. It's not entirely a 'fair employment' issue either.
Any contractor which has to compete against others to a specified set of professional standards will always be at a cost disadvantage when the competitors are larger. In order to compete effectively, they will need to rely on larger contractors either charging bloated prices or having a unique selling point (USP) of their own. In mainstream archaeology, it's hard to have a USP when the contract specification isn't one that allows a free hand to be creative. That's where the factors of customer service and value-added services come in.
If a body is struggling to meet the 'industry-standard' rates, then it actually needs help from staff (who love working for a small business and are generally more dedicated to the welfare of their firm) to brainstorm the approaches they take and come up with the goods that will persuade a client to pay the 11.4% higher cost of employing their firm.
Free adviceline for six months. A couple of extra tasks thrown in for nothing. Ready to go in under 24 hours. They're all adding value. They all give benefit to the client (who may or may not take advantage of them - a curator is not likely to need the background research material nicely presented, but a developer might find it useful in sales material etc; a developer may not need a couple of extra things thrown in for nothing - a curator with a tight budget might appreciate them).
I agree that a handful of large competing units is not a situation that's positive. People don't always like 'big' as employers, and it's easy not to innovate in a bigger setup.
In summary, I don't think the unit vaguely referred to (and I don't know who it is) should fail, but I do think the evil overlords of it need to address the viability of their marketplace. Under the present situation, they're starting a downward spiral in which they will potentially lose their better staff who drift off for salaries over and above the BAJR rate, they will subsequently fall short on the quality presently delivered which keeps them alive, and it's then only time before the work dries up entirely.
The good news is that the smaller the outfit, the easier it is to change and focus. Agreeing a roadmap to the future with staff so everyone pulls together can form the basis of the agreement - and if they're sticking to it, then surely a penalty will only harm the staff that industry-wide pay agreements are intended to help?
Any contractor which has to compete against others to a specified set of professional standards will always be at a cost disadvantage when the competitors are larger. In order to compete effectively, they will need to rely on larger contractors either charging bloated prices or having a unique selling point (USP) of their own. In mainstream archaeology, it's hard to have a USP when the contract specification isn't one that allows a free hand to be creative. That's where the factors of customer service and value-added services come in.
If a body is struggling to meet the 'industry-standard' rates, then it actually needs help from staff (who love working for a small business and are generally more dedicated to the welfare of their firm) to brainstorm the approaches they take and come up with the goods that will persuade a client to pay the 11.4% higher cost of employing their firm.
Free adviceline for six months. A couple of extra tasks thrown in for nothing. Ready to go in under 24 hours. They're all adding value. They all give benefit to the client (who may or may not take advantage of them - a curator is not likely to need the background research material nicely presented, but a developer might find it useful in sales material etc; a developer may not need a couple of extra things thrown in for nothing - a curator with a tight budget might appreciate them).
I agree that a handful of large competing units is not a situation that's positive. People don't always like 'big' as employers, and it's easy not to innovate in a bigger setup.
In summary, I don't think the unit vaguely referred to (and I don't know who it is) should fail, but I do think the evil overlords of it need to address the viability of their marketplace. Under the present situation, they're starting a downward spiral in which they will potentially lose their better staff who drift off for salaries over and above the BAJR rate, they will subsequently fall short on the quality presently delivered which keeps them alive, and it's then only time before the work dries up entirely.
The good news is that the smaller the outfit, the easier it is to change and focus. Agreeing a roadmap to the future with staff so everyone pulls together can form the basis of the agreement - and if they're sticking to it, then surely a penalty will only harm the staff that industry-wide pay agreements are intended to help?