Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
Jack Wrote:I see several sides to this argument. Being Satan's own advocate......
'We are all equal, except some are more equal than others'
1) Why should one digger who can do everything themself with little supervision, who can dig like crazy all day, can interpret complex remains only get paid the same as someone who can't dig for long without having a rest, can't find their edges, can't photograph, can't draw a section or plan and frankly can only be used on site for unimportant features to limit the damage they do?
2) Trainees need to be trained until they are no longer a trainee. Why are these individuals on commercial sites unless this is so?
3) When there is a lack of experienced and competent staff you have to employ who you can get or the job wont get done in time and on budget.
That seems to be the reality I see. And there does appear to be a shortage, at least in our area, of experienced field archaeologists. In my world it was always accepted that whilst training you'd get paid very little. It's the pay after that that needs looking at, and may lead to more people staying the course. Its those who have a couple of years and upwards under their belt, but have no desire for the headaches of running projects, that really struggle, and it is those who talk most about leaving to do other things.
I reserve the right to change my mind. It's called learning.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
P Prentice Wrote:or if you pay more you will get better diggers and you wont have to keep scraping the barrel Only if you take on people with no experience in the first place, train them and give them that experience. On a reduced rate obviously, as not only is their productivity much lower than the others, they are also slowing down those tasked with training them. University doesn't train people for fieldwork, the only place that is going to come from is out in the field.
I reserve the right to change my mind. It's called learning.
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
"University doesn't train people for fieldwork"-it would be useful if the universities were named so that archaeologists don't waste their time going to such places.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
it only takes a couple of weeks to learn how to be a digger on large excavations. it then takes a couple of years to get enough experience to be able to do a watching brief or evaluation or small excavation by which time you should have read enough to know ho to write the report. what need of training places that last for more than a few weeks? the problem today is that less scrupulous companies are shoving out ridiculously inexperienced and therfore incompetent people to undertake evaluations and watching briefs before they have learnt their trade. if those companies bid according to their staff competencies the work would probably go to those who were offering better pay because naturally they will have attracted the skilled end of the spectrum. the number 'in training' should be proportionate to those with appropriate and acredited skills - eh your bajrness?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
BAJR Wrote:Next gripe is the rise of the "trainee grade". some really are. I have spent time talking over such positions with a company recently. Others are just because rates have sunk below minima... no worries, we will just call em trainees, mutter something about on the job training, and pay less ... whooo hoo. --- so now you need at least 6 months commercial experience to even get paid the bare minimum for a commercial archaeologist. - tell me... if I have 5 months. does that mean I suddenly go up to the full 17094 rate after a month..? or does that not count?
Other companies seem to be able to afford the enormous £14 a week to bring them up to the bare minimum ----
I may have to bring in a new rule on BAJR... nothing... NOTHING less than 17094 ( unless we have talked about it first, and it is something like a pay grade that needs the bottom level put in for HR Department not to kick up a stink) the words BAJR Approved means, "I knows what goes on, and we have a handshake agreement... that the minima is really (wink) what it should be."
Anyways. before people say... ah... but where do I get experience. it is not rocket science FFS... 6 months is perhaps over long to learn how to write your name and the colour of soil on a context card... or take a digital photograph of a pit..... being good at it... takes time. but really. these are not shaved apes... these are your graduates (in the main) who have shown they can hold a thought and perhaps have a modicum of ability in holding a shovel the right way up... and if not. then it will take less than 6 months to work that one out!
aaaarg! I despair!
I don't have problems with a trainee wage perse, as I can appreciate that someone who has been doing it a few years should get paid more than someone who needs constant supervision. That said, I think there needs to be far more variation in the upper levels of the site assistant/digger/field archaeologist pay scale to take account of more experience, perhaps rather than a below minima 'trainee' scale.
IF trainees are to be hired, I would simply ask where the training plan is: i.e. - when do I become an archaeologist. Not some nebulous point where you are thought to be 'good enough', but a written statement of what needs to be learned in order to become a 'full' field archaeologist. These need to be achievable, measurable and demonstrable. I'm thinking along the lines of hosty's skills passport here - I think its a great idea for new starters. If there is a list of things to be learned, e.g. levelling, photography, strat - a trainee can see what they need to work on in order to finish training, ideally with written feedback on how to improve if they are not at the correct standard.
If such a training plan does not exist, I would say it's not a proper trainee position and shouldn't be offered.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Dirty Boy Wrote:I don't have problems with a trainee wage perse, as I can appreciate that someone who has been doing it a few years should get paid more than someone who needs constant supervision. That said, I think there needs to be far more variation in the upper levels of the site assistant/digger/field archaeologist pay scale to take account of more experience, perhaps rather than a below minima 'trainee' scale.
IF trainees are to be hired, I would simply ask where the training plan is: i.e. - when do I become an archaeologist. Not some nebulous point where you are thought to be 'good enough', but a written statement of what needs to be learned in order to become a 'full' field archaeologist. These need to be achievable, measurable and demonstrable. I'm thinking along the lines of hosty's skills passport here - I think its a great idea for new starters. If there is a list of things to be learned, e.g. levelling, photography, strat - a trainee can see what they need to work on in order to finish training, ideally with written feedback on how to improve if they are not at the correct standard.
If such a training plan does not exist, I would say it's not a proper trainee position and shouldn't be offered.
and that 
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
I personally don't believe there is a shortage of archaeologists...what there is is a shortage of archaeologists who will work for shit wages on shit contracts....the industry knows full well the answer to the shortage of staff, but they are hoping they can attract another generation of f...wits who will paper over the cracks that the industry has created for itself...rant over!!
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2013
kevin wooldridge Wrote:I personally don't believe there is a shortage of archaeologists...what there is is a shortage of archaeologists who will work for shit wages on shit contracts....the industry knows full well the answer to the shortage of staff, but they are hoping they can attract another generation of f...wits who will paper over the cracks that the industry has created for itself...rant over!!
That's exactly what I was saying! Although I'm impressed that you can know I'm a f...wit. It usually takes people a whole ten minutes in my company to realise that. 
And P Prentice - two weeks experience before allowing them to identify, excavate, record and interpret without worry? Either everyone you've met is above genius, where you operate the archaeology is clearer and more simple than the rest of us have seen, or you have very low standards! Two weeks... really... :face-crying:
I reserve the right to change my mind. It's called learning.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
Companies who offer shit wages and shit contracts always seem to get the staff though ....
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
I think that after uni that they should inherit what we have to give and be fully qualified to excavated anywhere in Europe if not the world. I particularly think that they should go no where near Prentices couple of weeks on a big excavation-elms farm..... If fact I would suggest that they go immidiatly into a watching brief for a landowning client. I don't give a monkeys if they miss the micoliths so long as they never get indoctrinated in the big public service piss take of archaeology called manpower service jobs/charity for losers and community volunteers looking to be the Guinea pig in some tailed social workers idea of occupational therapy.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
|
