+- 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: Making changes (/showthread.php?tid=2727)
Making changes - oldgirl - 20th February 2010
I can see where this is a positive attempt to move stuff forward, but the IfA is not a union. My opinion is that they have taken the pay thing forward because no-one else would take it on. However, they have no remit to negotiate with FAME or anyone else. They can only enforce minima within the RO system (and that only as part of a parcel of measures) and they can only speak on behalf of their members. Neither RO membership or IfA membership is compulsory. (Come to that, nor is FAME - lots of smaller units aren't members.)
Genuinely, how do you expect them to enforce any resolution? If organisations are not part of the IfA, the IfA can't tell them to do anything. That's not a criticism of IfA, that's just how it is. IfA got Prospect and FAME (then SCAUM - I so preferred it when it was SCUM) to talk to each other quite a few years ago, and - as far as I can see- nothing has come of it. Those are the organisations that need to get their finger out. IfA is and always has been something else (a professional body), they have done the research and lobbied with govt because that is within the legal scope of the organisation. They have also applied rules to the RO system, because they can do that. They can't work as a trade union, their constitution specifically forbids it.
Making changes - BAJR Host - 20th February 2010
Ditto to what Oldgirl says...
And so, any number of initiatives will fail until
FAME / Unions / and non-FAME units (through what ever medium) start talking.
Making changes - Monkey - 21st February 2010
The IfA is the only body that has had an impact on the pay scales of the archaeology units. What is needed is a raising of all of the Pay minimums with the timetable I suggested earlier and a guidance of how this would breakdown across the various archaeological positions.
As I said earlier the Units are not unionised enough for things to change at anything other than a snails pace. Change needed to happen in 2005 when benchmarking was first discussed.
Discussions with FAME should be more about how to best implement the necessary changes by the end of 2012.
Making changes - BAJR - 21st February 2010
Monkey Wrote:The IfA is the only body that has had an impact on the pay scales of the archaeology units.
Ahem... nothing personal, but I wonder if there has not been a number of factors.
BAJR for example implememnted a grading system, which, when you look at the adverts and pay, does seem to bear a correlation, this could not have been done without the IfA, but was done anyway.
Yes to the changes in 2005... and yes to the others... the Unionisation is being worked on right now... and discussions with FAME... who does that then? the IFA... well they are not a union... neither are they an employers organisation...
YES it needs the weight of the IfA behind it.. however... saying it is bad has been the call for the last 20 + years.
Change needed to happen... but it did not...
FAME needs to talk... but with who?
IfA need to be involved... but as what?
It is easy to forget that BAJR has in a small way, stabilised pay and conditions...
http://www.scribd.com/BAJR-Pay-and-Conditions-Request-200910/d/13864207 for example
indeed, type in pay and conditions archaeology into google and the only place you will find any hard and fast requirements is BAJR
these things you ask for already exist... however I can't force units to pay more no more than the IfA can but you want guidance and breakdowns... well it already exists and is generally accepted by units for the past 4 years...
I appreciate your drive... so perhaps join with me in Nottingham Monkey... you can even get travel paid...You clearly want change.. well ... join with me and lets make it happen OR this story will be repeated throughout the next 20 years!.
Making changes - ken_whittaker - 22nd February 2010
Quote:
A more practical suggestion would be to 'target' the IFA Annual General Meeting (AGM) in September 2010 with a 'Resolution for Change' and to spend the next 7 months preparing the ground for the passing of a positive resolution.
We also need a Council specifically working to a mandate to introduce the changes. Perhaps preparations should include setting out a timetable for delivering a fixed programme of mainima increases but also organising a slate of candidates for election who are commited to passing the necessary Council resolutions. There are democratic means to ensure change, but it requires a limited degre of active participation. If individuals want change, then they are going to have to engage by joining IfA, participating in debate and, crucially, voting.
Obviously IfA salary minima can only be enforced by the IfA through the RO scheme, but similar democratic means of enforcing change can be secured through union or other forms of collective direct action on the part of employees. I would have thought that organisations who do not endorse the salary minima agreed by the professional body are very vulnerable to legitimate industrial action.
The wider workforce must take the initiative on this issue, as it must now be obvious as there is no professional leadership willing or able to deliver and the status quo suits many influential vested interests.
David has issued the call and offers an effective means of communication. The Diggers Forum/ Prospect/Unison can further assist in organising what is a simple course of democratic action that would break the inertia. Time to get on with it....
Making changes - BAJR Host - 22nd February 2010
Roll on the 27th! :face-approve:
Making changes - GnomeKing - 22nd February 2010
A plea -
lets not forget about standards of work and research - and the hope/dream that despite modest, but fair renumeration, proffesional archaeology can be a personally fullfilling and socaily useful enterprise. In the end pay will not fix fullfillment, nor gaurentee better employee/employer relations.
The whole process of excavtion needs to be more democratic - this will help prompt better relations, progress and research.
We also need to be aware equitable pay and fullfilling conditions may put tighter limits on availablity of jobs - ie if companies have relied on 'cheap labour', they may have to cut back...
Reduction or limits on expansion seems nessescary to develop better standards and more equitable working practices - also for more equal accses to reseach and personal potential.
A company may pay fairly, but is thier work any good?
Making changes - monty - 22nd February 2010
Still the pay is unacceptable for most of us.........only with the help of BAJR have we seen a small increase in recent years.surely the time must come to get this sorted out once and for all.......but how.....I don't know !
have IfA done anything to help really?
Making changes - Monkey - 22nd February 2010
I do not think increased pay will lead to a decrease in standards. In fact better pay (along with improved welfare facilities) will lead to a better motivated and professional workforce. By having a proper timetable for change, RO's will have time to adjust there tenders accordingly.
This pay increase should be coupled with improved welfare standards and a proper career structure.
This current recession has led to many units reducing welfare facilities, such as toilets, access to hot water and cabins. I remember a couple years ago a couple of years ago some units started bringing in heaters (pretty standard on the majority of building sites) for the winter months.
Making changes - geodan - 23rd February 2010
A fully unionised workforce? And what exactly does that do if the trade union is not voluntarily recognised by the great majority of companies employing less than 21 people?
And I'm not sure that the union (or unions) talking to Fame would do the job. Maybe they could agree industry wide pay minima with companies who have recognised unions, those companies that haven't recognised won't have to abide by the agreed minima.... isn't something very similar in place already?
Companies named and shamed... is all well and good if everybody out there would stop working for companies that had been named and shamed... ???.
Conditions are set... but how do you do this across the board? Same conditions for every employer regardless of turnover, overheads, etc? Who sets the minima?
Yes I support joining a union, talking to Fame, instituting better conditions, pay etc., and the probable result will be gradual improvement of terms and conditions for long term employees. Own goal?
There is one obvious course of action open to each and every individual... stop applying for and taking archaeological jobs with godawful wages and conditions. And if you're dozy enough to take the job and find that you don't like godawful wages and conditions then get up off your backside and walk out of the site hut.