Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
SCAUM Policy of Pay
#1
Please read this new document from SCAUM setting out its policy on minimum pay and conditions

http://www.bajr.org/Documents/SCAUMPayPolicy.pdf

Another step forward

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Reply
#2
I have to say the membership of SCAUM have not even been notified of this - and there has been no consultation.

Peter Wardle
Reply
#3
Can't see anything that radical or controversial in this single page document. But it does say in the first line or two that they did consult both Prospect and their membership. Do you disagree with their stated postion or just the alleged lack of consultation. Maybe they just consulted Unit Managers who they claim to represent?
Reply
#4
14 grand! Stone me. No wonder theres so many assitant jobs on the site. Its an utter insult and disgrace for a qualified proffesional and all concerned should be absolutly ashamed of themselves. The average graduate wage is 19 grand. With having to pay back tuition fees back etc you got nowt.

Close enough for a country job!
Reply
#5
Responding to comments: Peter perhaps there's a problem with our contact details for you. The policy was discussed at our AGM in December and there was a consultation exercise in January, to which a number of the members responded (all of them broadly in support of the policy). I also personally sent all members notification of the policy yesterday at 2.40 pm (again to the email address that we have for you), prior to asking BAJR and the CBA whether they would also place the new statement on their websites (at 2.49 pm). If you could confirm your contact details I will ensure that all future notifications are sent to you.


Picking up on trowelhead’s comments - no one believes that 14K is a great position, but everyone in the archaeological sector (and that includes managers) find themselves part of a far wider environment and therefore do not have total control of all aspects that might affect their organisation. This is particularly the case with regard to the market place (by definition) and related costs, of which the most significant in any archaeological organisation are staff costs. I realise that there is a well rehearsed debate about these issues (often played out with vigour on this forum!), but would ask that you consider that SCAUM is making this statement very much as an exploratory position. We absolutely recognise that the situation has to improve - and as such we thought it most significant that we take a stance on the matter. However, SCAUM can not negotiate on behalf of employers; it does not have that mandate, but in making a policy statement on pay we hope to focus attention on it. At the end of the day, we can only make progress in these areas through institutional dialogue and wider fora, not through solitary efforts.

David Jennings
SCAUM Chair

Reply
#6
Welcome to David Jennings as a BAJR member who I owe an apology to - there was a brief consultation by SCAUM.

I am against collective bargaining in archaeology but if we are to have it then the people who should be doing it are SCAUM and an organisation representing the work force. If its not in SCAUM's constitution to undertake collective bargaining then lets change SCAUMs constitution. As things stand organisations like BAJR and the IFA are dictating pay rates in archaeology and employees have in effect unilateral pay bargaining.

What I have been saying for months now is there must be precision in what is being said so what is an archaeological salary for example?

Is somebody doing documentary research, a historian, covered by this or a surveyor or a CAD technician? What about students during vacations. (What are precisely statutory holidays?)

I think the starting point for SCAUM should be do we accept/reject the IFA and/or BAJR guidelines. As things stand the SCAUM statement is saying that SCAUM rejects the IFA payscales which have a minimum of £14,600 if they are compared on a like with like basis, as the SCAUM rate does not include a pension contribution.

Peter Wardle




Reply
#7
Welcome indeed Dave... you are showing that talking and dialogue is the start... perhaps not what we expect.. and refreshing.

The precision is coming.. and Peter is quite right about BAJR dictating Pay... (though of course you don't have to advertise if you don't want to!) --- I do look forward to when this is not the case... and I truely believe it is coming... where BAJR fits into helping is up for debate.. but the good thing is that it is happening.. with SCAUM becoming a real voice for employers and the potential for PROSPECT to become the voice of employees then we do seem to becoming a grown up profession...

That leaves the IFA to get on with its duties and me to get on with promoting, informing and being the next best thing to a digital sitheut/coffee room to share opinions... from Director to Digger

Welcome

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Reply
#8
As I said there is a need for precision in these matters and for dialogue.

To be picky David Jenning said.

"The policy was discussed at our AGM".

Technically David is incorrect it was not discussed at the AGM and I don't recollect it being an aggenda item. Pay and conditions was discussed at the committee meeting afterwards according to the SCAUM website.

In many ways this does not matter. What does matter is that SCAUM is doing something about pay and conditions. What would be useful if there was a list of employers who endorse the SCAUM statement and the statement published on the SCAUM website.

Indeed David BAJR could you post on the BAJR website a set of the three pay standards we now have in archaeology as a reference guide.

Peter Wardle




Reply
#9
http://www.bajr.org/documents/payconditi...7_2008.pdf -- BAJR Guidance
http://www.bajr.org/Documents/SCAUMPayPolicy.pdf ---------- SCAUM Policy

Sadly the IFA don't have any payscale minima yet.. but there is this
Quote:quote:Advertisers are reminded of IFA recommended minimum starting salaries from 1 April 2006

PIFA responsibilities £13,856
AIFA responsibilities £16,139
MIFA responsibilities £20,898

The minimum salary recommendations are based on the local government pay scales.

and this
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic..._notes.pdf


and of course the Diggers Forum
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...20No.2.pdf

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Reply
#10
I am confused.

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ne...storyid=45

says;
"For the registration year 2006-7 onwards, Registered Archaeological Organisations must abide by the IFA’s present recommended minimum salaries."

http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?...hTerms=pay

says
"IFA Registered Organisation must comply with these recommendations, and the amendment to principle 5 of the Code of conduct, which was agreed at the October AGM, also now expects all IFA members to give reasonable consideration to any IFA recommended pay minima and conditions of employment."

The document David quotes
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic..._notes.pdf

does not clearly say that the pay minima are complusory.

So Yes or NO are the IFA "recommended minimums" just that or are they complusory.

As I keep on saying clarity and precision are needed as these thing effect peoples contrats and terms of employment and if RAOs are abiding by the IFA codes of conduct. All legal matters

Peter Wardle
(I dont want to start a debate about this when we shold be discussing the SCAUM declaration).
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  It's out! The new National Planning Policy Framework BAJR 32 20,291 1st April 2012, 05:02 PM
Last Post: Marcus Brody
  IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment BAJR 95 40,311 28th September 2011, 01:00 PM
Last Post: Jack
  Draft National Planning Policy Framework archie 29 14,989 12th August 2011, 01:10 PM
Last Post: beamo
  Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment : ITS OUT BAJR 25 14,942 26th March 2010, 04:45 PM
Last Post: Unitof1
  New Planning Policy Statement Weegie 14 7,408 23rd June 2009, 08:54 PM
Last Post: monty
  SCAUM manual achingknees 9 6,633 23rd February 2007, 06:57 PM
Last Post: voice of reason
  SCAUM drpeterwardle 4 3,693 20th February 2007, 11:22 AM
Last Post: kevin wooldridge
  SCAUM achingknees 5 4,333 9th February 2007, 10:49 AM
Last Post: achingknees
  Acceptable Use Policy drpeterwardle 1 1,402 31st May 2006, 08:13 PM
Last Post: drpeterwardle
  Scaum enquiry Troll 11 8,626 28th April 2006, 03:23 PM
Last Post: drpeterwardle

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)