+- 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: IFA RO only as approved contractors (/showthread.php?tid=4146)
IFA RO only as approved contractors - RedEarth - 18th November 2011
BAJR Wrote:And how are the super units doing? The local small archaeologists are doing well as they can react quickly, have local knowledge, relationships with the local history centre, curators, planners - know the wider archaeology in the area and are cheaper. Get rid of them, and the developer will have to use the super unit...
Exactly, a locally based unit has some advantages, but they will largely be confined to smaller sized projects. Mega units work on a different scale entirely, surely?
As for the RO system? It seriously needs some work before anyone in their right mind supports the idea of only ROs being able to do work... As BAJR points out, what benefit will it actually bring? I would also ask, who has the most to gain? (Answer: perhaps the mega units?)
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Wax - 18th November 2011
RedEarth Wrote:As for the RO system? It seriously needs some work before anyone in their right mind supports the idea of only ROs being able to do work... As BAJR points out, what benefit will it actually bring? I would also ask, who has the most to gain? (Answer: perhaps the mega units?)
I think Red Earth has hit the problem on the head. Whether it is true or not there is a perception that the IFA is a club for the management of the mega units. This move to enforce all archaeological operators to have RO status is perceived by many as way of driving off the competition from the medium units and one man bands. (Good for the Mega units and bad for everyone else including the clients).
The IFA needs to address this perception
And in answer to BAJRs last question ... NO
IFA RO only as approved contractors - P Prentice - 18th November 2011
will compulsory RO status ensure a decent wage?
its our best chance
IFA RO only as approved contractors - differentcolourmud - 18th November 2011
So how can RO-only enforcement work outside/in advance of the planning system, for instance in pre-planning works? Most sites I'm involved with now have a pre-planning eval, now usually this occurs after a curator has been consulted and issued a brief, but as far as I know this isn't actually compulsory.
Technically whats to stop a building company, who's dealt with archaeology before and has a relationship with a non-RO unit, from carrying out a standard eval so they can submit a report with the planning app, along with all their other supporting documentation, before any consultation with planners?
Now lets assume its an excellent piece of work. Do the curators turn it down purely because its by a non-RO or because they didn't know it had happened? - and try to force the company to carry out another eval thereby damaging the site further? Or do they accept it and by default then have to accept that the same company is qualified to do a subsequent excavation?
OK so this is all highly unlikely, any developer with sense will ask for advice from the planners beforehand and be told what they need to do and given a brief, and the non-RO unit would probably approach a curator for a brief anyway. But they don't have to - I'm pretty sure I've seen geo-technical, contamination, enviro reports etc which have just been commissioned as a matter of course and supplied with an application before any consultation occurs.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - Dinosaur - 18th November 2011
differentcolourmud Wrote:OK so this is all highly unlikely, any developer with sense will ask for advice from the planners beforehand and be told what they need to do and given a brief, and the non-RO unit would probably approach a curator for a brief anyway. But they don't have to - I'm pretty sure I've seen geo-technical, contamination, enviro reports etc which have just been commissioned as a matter of course and supplied with an application before any consultation occurs.
Actually I'm aware of a few pieces of work done over the years (by various archaeological contractors) which have resulted in pre-application cancellation or radical changes to developments - curators for good sound legal reasons never even hear of those. One particular piece of geophysics has caused much tongue-biting over the years, but the information is the bought and paid for property of the landowner and I don't particularly want to wind up in court being sued for disclosure....however, working for a local unit, the insider knowledge is still useful for informing work in adjacent areas (although tricky not to mention in resulting reports, I suspected all this on 'gut feeling' etc)
IFA RO only as approved contractors - BAJR - 18th November 2011
Quote: [INDENT] will compulsory RO status ensure a decent wage?
its our best chance [/INDENT]
How does that work?
:face-huh:
IFA RO only as approved contractors - P Prentice - 18th November 2011
everybody is in the ifa - ifa raise the minima - everybody gets a pay rise
simples
IFA RO only as approved contractors - trowelfodder - 18th November 2011
Hmmm something tells me that if it ever came down to this then it may not happen so easily!
IFA RO only as approved contractors - kevin wooldridge - 19th November 2011
trowelfodder Wrote:Hmmm something tells me that if it ever came down to this then it may not happen so easily!Too true TF. But why is that? When you think that most archaeologists are under some kind of stress. it would be an advantage to get on with friends, colleagues and associates....why do we have so much difficulty in getting our act together?
IFA RO only as approved contractors - BAJR - 19th November 2011
Pretty simplistic as well.
So once everyone is a member the IfA say that diggers should get ?20,000 per year and on up to Project managers on ?52k then everyone will just go... ok then.
Surreal!
Lets look at other professions who are chartered (though again don't have everyone in )
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/riba-minimum-wage-shameful-says-archaos/8613273.article
Quote:30 March, 2011
Student group Archaos has hit out at the RIBA?s plan to combat student low pay by establishing a minimum wage, claiming the institute should do more to support practising architects
While RICS actually published a Salary and benefits survey.. which has this effect..
Quote:Findings from the 2011 RICS and MacDonald & Company UK Rewards and Attitude Survey have shown many young property professionals are receiving significant salary increases and substantial bonuses, as property companies look to retain and attract the industry?s brightest young talent, says the RICS and Macdonald & Company.
Ah... away from minima and let companies try to retain staff with attractive pay and conditions.
View the 2011 UK Rewards and Attitudes Survey here
Interstingly the survey shows average salaries and benefits... and also on page 15 it shows that reasons for moving jobs relate to pay, benefits and management!
The IfA have already brought in the triumverate of additional pay and conditions. pension, sickness and work over 37.5 hours.
I had that but ended up dumping them, due to difficulty in policing. It then became the responsibility of the job applicant to check conditions.
What I would like to see is a RICS like survey... and from that... other companies will either have to up the rates... OR lose the staff to competing companies. Now that will raise pay.
Again... simples...
:face-approve: