+- 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: And in conclusion! (/showthread.php?tid=1858)
Pages:
1
2
And in conclusion! - Pete M - 10th April 2005
Visi - yeah I know, I was pulling your leg abit there
When you look at likely alternative professions that utilise some of the skills of the field archaeologist - surveying, gardening, building conservation, IT, digging ditches, to name a few, there are poorly paid jobs available, but with at least a chance of receiving a fair reward eventually. And a fair smattering of people who feel they are wasting their lives and want to do something more meaningful, like archaeology.
There are also huge internal culture difference between non-profit and profit making organisations, and it is interesting to experience and understand both rather than living in the public/grant-aided/charity/profit-averse sector forever.
As far as wages and conditions, an independent diggers union could improve things. Lots of problems and work, but probably not alot more than the work David has put into BAJR over the years. Keep it online and virtual. Maybe start with some kind of registration of interest form.
The diggers union could then establish a proper wage structure (say 20-30% increase) and keep an eye on health and safety and other dodgy practices. I know this is old ground, but wondered if anything had been done specifically for archaeological fieldworkers. If The Kids Are United and all that.
It takes a socialist kind of approach to become a proper capitalist nowadays, or is it the other way round?
I'm starting to think an improved situation in archaeology would be better than leaving now.
And in conclusion! - Oxbeast - 11th April 2005
Good points all round, but I am a bit confused by the first paragraph rant about hippies. Of all the people to blame for the state archaeology is in, scruffy workers are not at the top of my list. people who dress to impress are usually hiding some more basic inadequacy.
And in conclusion! - Pete M - 11th April 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast
people who dress to impress are usually hiding some more basic inadequacy.
But I thought that scruffs/crusties took exception to being judged by their own appearance, which makes it hypocritical to judge those in a suit. And one of the paradoxes that needs to be addressed if archaeology is to grow up.
A suit is the equivilant to a well-presented report or drawing, or even a tidy and well-organised site. Yes, a pretty report could be used to cover deficiencies, or could just be an outward (an recognised) sign of competence.
And in conclusion! - the invisible man - 11th April 2005
Absolutely correct Pete. Horses for courses. Clearly one would wonder about someone turning up to dig dressed in a suit! Conversely if you are consorting with clients and other professionals it is not a good idea to turn up in combats and rigger boots. An Armani suit is not necessary, but a reasonably smart appearance is considered courteous in the real world. True, in my previous life, if on a purely "technical" site visit I would dress casually, but if attending a meeting etc then a jackey and tie was required. See also Doc Pete's remarks about cars.
Like it or not, presentation and the manner in which you conduct yourself are part of business life - and being professional!