+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Can Curators stricter when it comes to work? (/showthread.php?tid=1496)
Pages:
1
2
Can Curators stricter when it comes to work? - BAJR Host - 3rd April 2009
Thanks for all the comment...
To comment on Shaved excellent post.. I have this senario.. where if you already live in Rutshire and are 5 mins down the road, you won't need accomodation.. so no accomodation payment.. it is if you have to leave your house (just like the Borcetshire crew) to go to the job, and find yourself having to pay out accomodation that the Borcetshire crew are not... thus they would be seriously out of pocket.
just a thought.
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Can Curators stricter when it comes to work? - kevin wooldridge - 3rd April 2009
I have a lot of time for the idea that local archaeology should be generally dug by local archaeologists... the removal of accomodation/subsistence allowance seems to me to give local archaeological teams a price advantage in bidding for tendered projects. That can't be such a bad thing.
Where 'outside' tenderers come in and employ local staff because the locally based staff don't need to find short term accomodation also seems to me to be a good thing.
So thats win-win for most people.....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Can Curators stricter when it comes to work? - BAJR Host - 3rd April 2009
I am for that... thats a good point (well.. as good as a Disco dancer can make
)it is for people brought in... for a specific job from outside the locality.. should they get accomodation?
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Can Curators stricter when it comes to work? - diggingthedirt - 3rd April 2009
Despite some pretty savage personal set backs, there may also be other 'archaeology' wins too.
'Pay peanuts and you get monkeys' seems to be the basic premise here, but that's not how its working out in Ireland. As well as the external market we're all concentrating on to bring in work, there's also an internal one we engage with in order to resource those jobs. As supply has floored in the former it has hit the roof in the latter. Staff grades may well be fixed, but the personnel assigned to such tasks are downwardly flexible. If peanuts are the only thing going, even the monkeys get squeezed out of the action. If there was any work to actually do (!) I foresee even the most inconsequential of jobs staffed by a dream-team of fallen heroes...
Can Curators stricter when it comes to work? - Steven - 3rd April 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge
I have a lot of time for the idea that local archaeology should be generally dug by local archaeologists... the removal of accomodation/subsistence allowance seems to me to give local archaeological teams a price advantage in bidding for tendered projects. That can't be such a bad thing.
Where 'outside' tenderers come in and employ local staff because the locally based staff don't need to find short term accomodation also seems to me to be a good thing.
So thats win-win for most people.....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Hi
I'm sorry chap but I think your logic's a bit flawed on this one. The local unit has an advantage if an outside unit HAS to accommodate people. Therefore, the removal of accommodation for people working away from the unit base means that one of the local unit's advantages has been removed.
As for your second point, Its more likely that people laid off from a unit that played them accommodation when they worked away, then see that unit advertising for staff BUT not providing accommodation may well see this as a way of cutting down on costs rather than being an opportunity for unemployed "local staff".
Also taking this concept to its conclusion means that companies will simply not pay staff accommodation costs anymore so will effectively require itinerant workers willing to live in relatively expensive short term accommodation or "seasonal" local archaeologists. It will also mean that local units lose their advantage and are much more likely to lose contracts to "outside" units thereby exacerbating the whole situation.
lowering of wages through withdrawing of welfare is not a "win-win" situation for archaeology or archaeologists. Its purely an attempt to lower to cost to the developer. Its a business decision and should not be considered anything else. I'm hoping that this is not a trend but a forced one off contract.
Steven