+- 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: The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 (/showthread.php?tid=1456)
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - Plautus - 13th March 2009
It is the 2nd company advertising for site assistants on Bajr to have done this.
It is a good aim to require experience for all levels of archaeology, but requiring a years experience for a low paid, low level job on a short contract seems a bit excessive.
It also makes it an impossible profession for graduates to get into. People would have to spend a year paying for training digs, or trying to get bits of temping experience together before they could get their 1st paid job.
Personally I think that the company in question is simply exploiting the sheer no. of out of work archaeologists to attempt to cream off the most experienced.
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - drpeterwardle - 13th March 2009
Plautus said "Personally I think that the company in question is simply exploiting the sheer no. of out of work archaeologists to attempt to cream off the most experienced."
What is wrong with wanting to employ the best people? It is not exploitation it is simple good practice.
The plight of new graduates is another matter and shared by most occupations in the current client.
Peter
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - Plautus - 13th March 2009
Nothing wrong with it at all. They are exploiting the situation not the out of work archaeologists.
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - kevin wooldridge - 14th March 2009
But in a recession maybe its a good thing that it becomes more difficult for new entrants to enter the profession. The alternative (devaluing experience and skills of people already working as archaeologists) seems to be no alternative.
I'm torn here because I don't want to be the person that suggests freshly graduated archaeologists go away and do something else for 2 or 3 years, but isn't that what the recession seems to be dictating anyway?
![[Image: 3334488270_7156e71b8b_t.jpg]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3405/3334488270_7156e71b8b_t.jpg)
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - chrysalis - 14th March 2009
I've just seen an advert on BAJR that disgusts me, and points to exactly what the state of archaeology in recession-hit Britain truly is...exploitative and downright wrong. No one can tell me that Nottinghamshire is 'local' work for ******** ***********. The traditionally low pay for UK archaeologists has always been compensated (at least in part) by the paying of expenses and provision of free accomodation. This company (and its partner in the endeavour ******) are seizing on the current availability of unemployed and desperate archaeological staff to subvert this arrangement and screw people over for profit. I am incensed.
one girl went to dig, went to dig a meadow...
EDIT: sorry chrysalis, I had to edit your post to keep it in line with the AUP. If you have a specific complaint against a company contact BAJR Host off forum, give him the details and he'll look into it for you.
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - kevin wooldridge - 14th March 2009
Apologies to Chrysalis - I fully understand your response, but could I suggest you edit your response regarding the names of the units (otherwise I suspect a forum moderator will intervene)....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - chiz - 14th March 2009
I was a bit worried by that as well, but working in London for the past decade I don't know what the norm is for these longer term away jobs. I know there was wrangling at a major London unit over an away site they had, and differential expenses for their permanent staff versus staff hired locally, and indeed for permanent staff who happened to live locally...in that case I think the away staff were getting London weighting though! I know it was resolved somehow in the end and believe that part of the resolution involved discussions with a major west country unit amongst others as to what a fair scheme for stay away jobs should be.
It does get difficult though as if a site is long term, say six months, you can be penalising those already with rented accommodation who are local (and therefore don't get any expenses), against those who can move in to the area, get all their accommodation costs paid by the unit,plus expenses and therefore be better off. The way around it is increasing pay for all and saying its up to the diggers to pay their rent but maybe arranging places to stay. But then you penalise those moving around looking for work who want a semblance of settled life with a flat of their own somewhere as they pay for two homes.....
Is the Nottinghamshire situation different from accepted practice by those units in the recent past, i.e. staff hired specifically to work on a three months+ single excavation, away from head office, normally getting their stay away sub, plus some form of accommodation or expenses for this? It used to be the case years ago when I was on the circuit, but that was a long time ago. What is the norm these days, and has it changed for the worst? if it has I'd be very angry as well, if it hasn't I'd just be disgruntled. As usual.
I look forward to being told to start a new thread!
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - kevin wooldridge - 14th March 2009
I think we can continue this theme as it is obviously a response to the effects of the recession on archaeological practice. I just think that we need to avoid naming 'names' and talk more about the principles (and maybe Chrysalis will get around to a small bit of editing soon....)
Back in the days when there were local units with 'defined' areas of work the question of subsistence/accomodation hardly ever arose. I remember we had a long campaign in London to get equal London weighting allowances for all archaeological staff, as for a time the outer London sections were paid less than the City section. But London was probably the only place in the country that got such an allowance. So maybe we are heading back to a situation that actually applied pretty much across the board and it is the payment of allowances/provision of digs that is more of an abberation.
I can't comment on previous custom and practice having not worked for either of the units undertaking this project, but it seems to me that they are at least being upfront and informing potential applicants of the situation well in advance (no-one can claim to be misled here). I am guessing that applicants who have somewhere to stay in the vicinity will be more interested than those who don't. Again it demonstrates maybe the endurance required of those who want to stay in archaeology through this recession.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - chiz - 14th March 2009
Am I seeing conspiracies if I see a connection as to why the IFA maybe negotiated the 15% discount at Cotswolds (the camping shop, not the unit!).:face-stir:
I agree it is good to see the units being upfront and clear, but I was under the impression that accommodation is usually provided, plus ??10 a day expenses with no receipts required, so is not providing them a variation and therefore to be reflected in pay? Something for BAJR/Fed to investigate to see what 'normal' practice is, and try and get that applied across the country?? It obviously has a huge effect on the value of the wage and is a difficult and contentious area.
Can someone please post what the normal deal is with units for sites of this type?
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - Plautus - 14th March 2009
Bob makes a very good point in that there should be some consensus across the profession on things like accomadation and subsistance allowance. I used to work for a company that had not incresed its stay away allowance in over 10 years, which obviously had a big afect on your wages on stay away jobs. In such a low paid profession as ours these 'perks' are extremly important to the overall subsitance wage of diggers.
It seems that that wages are in effect falling, while the qualifactions needed for jobs are rising. This is obviously a result of the recession, as companies as well as individual archaeologist have to tighten belts, but it seems likely that it will in the long term drive people out of archaeology as it becomes an even less economically viable career .