+- 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 - the invisible man - 15th March 2009
Consider also the recent thread on taxable benefits including accommodation.
In addition, if you happened to live in Nottinghamshire yopu might feel aggrieved if you weren't able to apply for the job.
This sort of situation is of course common and has been for donkeys' years in the construction industry. Overall of course I think it wouild be far better for archaeology, as an industry that wants to be a profession, for the majority of the workforce to be in permanent positions.
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - Moth - 16th March 2009
Well congratulations to firms A & B on their successful landing of the contracts in this period of financial difficulty. I'm sure that the dole queues of Nottinghamshire will be chock a block with out of work archaeologists, more than enough to meet the requirements of their clients who, on such a large project, will expect the work to be carried out in a responsible and professional manner. I'm sure that everyone who will be employed by the firms will be "locals".
Yeah, and pigs fly as well. Who are we trying to kid here? I know there's a recession on but ?295 per week from which you'll have to pay for your own accomodation as well as your normal home expenses! This is a cynical exploitation of the current economic situation and I feel pity for all the desperate people out there who will feel that they have no choice but to apply for jobs on these contracts.
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - monty - 16th March 2009
Well seems that folks are going to complain whatever the jobs situation.... this project is GOOD NEWS !!! there is a massive catchment area for this project and if people have to travel an hour or so well its just part of the job ....come on lets have some positivity [8D]
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - flashdigger - 16th March 2009
Dr Peter Wardle said
'The important point is that these are the first ads for a big project for a while. Unit A has had a 50% reduction in their orders and have made people redundant. These ads perhaps are an indicator that things might be starting to improve which is what the BAJR survey indicated.'
I do not see this as an great idicator. It was a project that had been shelved till 2011 but brought fowrward by the government as a part of their inrastructure injection.
The only indicator it gives me is that if more of these big government projects turn up it is likely to be the same cadidates winning them offering the same poor terms and conditions. In that respect i think its a good sign of the things to come.
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - monty - 16th March 2009
............in response to flashdigger's post ....what are these 'poor terms and conditions' ???...these payscales obviously meet BAJR requirements, both companies hold RAO status and the pay scales are the going rate.........
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - RedEarth - 16th March 2009
I wonder how the more senior site staff (PO, Supervisor etc) are being dealt with in the case being described? Are they also being recruited locally or are they getting accommodation, since presumably they would otherwise be coming from somewhere in the vicinity of Unit X's main office, some distance away. The whole advert does smack a bit of taking advantage of the current climate (although I can't blame them)and doesn't feel quite right.
As for the comment about it being within BAJR and IfA pay rates - it is, but the question was about terms and conditions, not pay, which would cover things like accommodation. However, assistant level salary and having to find accommodation would make what you had left to spend a very small amount indeed.
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - 1man1desk - 16th March 2009
Posted by Tom Wilson:
Quote:quote:I don't suppose it's against the AUP to mention LAS, since they aren't a company any more, having gone belly up last year. Just supposing they hadn't, they might have tendered for this job an been able to offer a day rate of fifty quid (or whatever) less than Borsetshire Archaeology or any other long distance unit.Posted by Moth:
Quote:quote:I'm sure that the dole queues of Nottinghamshire will be chock a block with out of work archaeologists, more than enough to meet the requirements of their clients who, on such a large project, will expect the work to be carried out in a responsible and professional manner. I'm sure that everyone who will be employed by the firms will be "locals".It might be worth mentioning in this context that I believe that the contract was not won by the cheapest tenderer, and that quality issues were the factor leading to the acceptance of a more expensive bid.
In relation to free accommodation and subsistence payments - that has never been universal, and the standard of accommodation provided has often been shockingly poor (derelict unfurnished houses, camp sites, etc, often with rent to be paid).
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - chiz - 16th March 2009
Quote:quote:Originally posted by monty
............in response to flashdigger's post ....what are these 'poor terms and conditions' ???...these payscales obviously meet BAJR requirements, both companies hold RAO status and the pay scales are the going rate.........
I was concerned that there MAY have been a change to the accepted T&C of similar jobs offered by these units in similar situations, and that IF that were the case then those changes (ie not offering subs or accommodation where they would have been offered 6 months ago) would be a serious impact on 'real' income.
Accommodation and subs is a difficult issue as I have said before, and it can cut both ways, but it can make a significant difference to a diggers 'income' and any change to that would therefore effect the validity of the IFA/BAJR payscales.
Its almost like if you were paid ?15K a year, but had a company van to go and do your job, but then next month, having been laid off, the new recruit got paid the same but had to provide their own van.
I'm glad the infrastructure money is having such immediate effect, and i'm sure there will be enough local diggers, personally I'm all for local units and diggers being able to stay put in one place. I just want to know pay and conditions aren't taking a knock. Again if anyone can confirm what these units did as accepted practice for similar jobs over the past couple of years that would be most helpful so we can see whether or not this is a variation.
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - BAJR Host - 16th March 2009
The accomodation issue is one which is complicated.. the location of the site is what matters - indeed the site is the palce of work, whether you come from there or not, it matters if you are a person who already works for said company, and then has to travel to a place of work which is not your normal place of work (ie the location of the company) It is...as I said, complicated... but if you come in to this job and this job only, then this is your place of work, and accomodation will be taxed - so.. in a way.. be happy for the work, it is better than the dole. Accepted practice in a way is neither here nor there - Tax rules apply. - with overtime this can be a good job, and the pay is from 295
I understand the previous concern, whereby alteration of T&C which results in a loss of pay is a worry. It is a difficult issue. adn I will look into it.
?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake
The Plight of UK Archaeology 2009 - Gagumph - 16th March 2009
1 man 1 desk said
"It might be worth mentioning in this context that I believe that the contract was not won by the cheapest tenderer, and that quality issues were the factor leading to the acceptance of a more expensive bid."
a) I have heard otherwise
b) Bearing in mind that the adverts put out by company B are for also for PO'S and Supervisors (people intended to run the sites) how can the job have been awarded on quality when they dont know who they are going to get to do it?