+- 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: Unit struck of IFA list (/showthread.php?tid=1841)
Unit struck of IFA list - gumbo - 15th March 2005
I think BAJR should remove the RAO stuff from the AS information, and provide a statement (along the lines of AS has been removed from the list of RAO's because...)/ web-link to the IFA RAO page, on AS's BAJR information page (as peter wardle suggests).
I think BAJR should continue to carry AS's advertisments but provide a statement/link on any advert whilst it is no longer a RAO. This is because AS have been REMOVED from the list, its not like they have just never been on the list.
I think that if AS were further PROVED to have been carrying out certain acts of mal-practice on sites, then BAJR should remove them from this website and issue a statement about why, but as many of the posts have suggested, this has not been officially confirmed by the IFA or anyone else (or has it?).
What BAJR might do is send an e-mail/letter to every county council/ authority monitoring body stating exactly what actions it has taken now AS has been removed from the list of RAO's. This way everyone is in the know and its above board.
I think we all still need a bit more information about the specifics of the situation though...
I wont get in a huff if people disagree.
Gumbo
Unit struck of IFA list - the invisible man - 15th March 2005
I agree that there are no grounds for AS to be removed from BAJR's list. BAJR (at least thyis part of BAJR) is not a quality control organisation nor is it a professional governing body, it is merely a list for the convenience of potential users, and thus of course for the potential benefit of advertisers (listees??). BAJR has not been party to the disciplinary preoceedings and would not therefore be justified in denying its services to AS. Naturally the listing as a RAO should be amended.
It is interesting that removal of their RAO status is considered to have possible serious financial implications for the firm, and will lose them goodwill and affect their insurance premiums. General consensus here before semed to be that the IFA was irrelevant and pointless, and membership (individually or as an organisation) was of no advantage. It seemed that clients would select the cheapest and fastest unit with no regard for the quality of their work.
Now it appears that AS are likely to struggle to obtain work due to their loss of status......
Discuss...
Unit struck of IFA list - gumbo - 15th March 2005
I think that the very fact that the IFA have removed an organisation from their list of RAO's immediately makes them slightly less irrelevant and pointless (but only slightly), its just that until now no-one thought it would ever happen. This is a very big step for them which is why they have done it slyly hoping no-one would notice ( and if I were cynical, on an application technicality as opposed to a bad practice greivance). Im afraid its gonna be up to others to advertise the fact that this has happened though.
Unit struck of IFA list - troll - 15th March 2005
An organistaion like the IFA endorsing a unit or individual is much like getting a pregnancy test from a shoe salesman. Changing ones name and getting pretty letterheads does`nt add-up to improving ones standards. We all know that, like anywhere else, there are superb diggers doing their best but, working under MIFA`s who, in some cases would have difficulties in securing jobs as toilet cleaners. The IFA is the problem.....ps, God it`s terrible here in the near east, all this sunshine and charcoal cooked food... best wishes to all![8D]
Unit struck of IFA list - BAJR Host - 15th March 2005
This is what I thought...
BAJR is not a professional organisation requiring criteria to be met. my only power is to say whether a company can or cannot advertise.. teh criteria for that are easy... do you pay x pounds as a minimum, and o you treat your staff fairly. As long as everyone conforms to that... they will appear on BAJR.
I have now removed the RAO staus from the list though.
I think the IFa have taken a large step forward - and this is an attitude that may require support. I am not saying that one public (well one sentence) disclosure means we should hang out the bunting and start an orderly queue for membership... but it is a step in that direction.
David
Unit struck of IFA list - drpeterwardle - 15th March 2005
David,
I think that what you suggest is balanced.
Looking through the BAJR list of contractors few mention their RAO status.
I do think there is an irony that, on paper at least, one of the two accredited organisations for treating people well should be stripped of their registered archaeological organisation status.
Peter
Unit struck of IFA list - BAJR Host - 16th March 2005
You do me an honour !!
Me ... balanced!!
but seriously... Arcaheology is going through a rather traumatic period... and unity and clarity are required now.
I can see this happening
David
Unit struck of IFA list - vulpes - 16th March 2005
'Investors in People' don't make me laugh, 'Investors in Paper' would be more accurate...
Unit struck of IFA list - gumbo - 16th March 2005
more like 'people under investorgation'
excuse the awful pun but its late in the day and my phasing crayons are blunt...
Hope 'the digger' goes to town on this one.
Gumbo
Unit struck of IFA list - destroyer - 2nd April 2005
We all slag off the IFA so when they finally remove a unit i think BAJR needs to agree and remove their ads. The loss of RAO status may be due to to a technical misunderstanding in which case they'll come back soon enough. However I believe theres severe underlying problems with this unit, which was seeing them banned from certain areas anyway so im more than happy to see them removed. I would say more but Doctor Who's about to start and BAJR would have to censor it!
