+- 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 - vulpes - 27th October 2011
Thanks Kevin. That really is it in a nutshell. :face-approve:
IFA RO only as approved contractors - trowelfodder - 27th October 2011
Quote:The IfA's legal position would appear to suggest that the practice of acknowledging IfA membership is not a constraint on trade and I would not be surprised if making IfA membership a pre-requisite for certain job applications does not also soon follow that trend.
But it is a constraint on the ability to trade of non-members. It seems to me that the proffession is in danger of becoming a closed shop
!
IFA RO only as approved contractors - P Prentice - 27th October 2011
kevin wooldridge Wrote:....well I'm not going to doubt anyone's integrity...It seems to me however that there is a difference between accepting and implementing a standard (which I am sure that the majority of archaeological practitioners in the UK do) and standing up and being accountable for that standard. It strikes me that IfA members fall into the latter group. If any curator or sponsor wants to acknowledge that due diligence and professed statement of responsibility, I think they should be allowed to exercise that right (In exactly the same manner that those who don't wish to belong to the IfA can exercise their right not to join). The IfA's legal position would appear to suggest that the practice of acknowledging IfA membership is not a constraint on trade and I would not be surprised if making IfA membership a pre-requisite for certain job applications does not also soon follow that trend.
Personally I am tired of the argument for or against the IfA, it strikes me its much more simplistic - in or out. The revealing trend might be that in future, if you want to maximise work opportunities the place to be is in, but no-one is forcing anyone to do anything. I wonder if there is the appetite for any non-IfA member or corporate body to challenge the IfA's 's legal interpretation. If not - hello Brave New World!!
that's what i said
IFA RO only as approved contractors - P Prentice - 27th October 2011
BAJR Wrote:I am in the IfA but not an RO... are you seriously telling me, that RO status will make me better?
seems to me that belonging to the IfA at MIfA level should give you automatic RO status if you are a sole trader and/or responsible post holder
i think before chartered status is accepted there should be a level playing field on which everybody has to reapply for a specialist area of competance otherwise it will be pretty much a joke
IFA RO only as approved contractors - kevin wooldridge - 27th October 2011
Closed shop in legalistic terms refers to Trade Unions and Employer organisations of which the IfA is neither so it isn't an appropriate term.
I haven't been privy to the IfA legal advice, but I would imagine that it says something to the effect that acknowledging membership of a professional body is not tantamount to restricting competition or forming a cartel or constraining trade provided that membership of that body is open to all and that the terms and conditions of membership are fair and appropriate. As most practising archaeologists (well maybe with One or two exceptions) irrespective of whether they are IfA members acknowledge that the IfA duties and ethical oblgations are fair and appropriate, it doesn't seem to me there is a case to oppose.
If you are asking whether it will become harder for persons who don't subscribe collectively and financially to the IfA i.e non-members, to get work in archaeology, I suspect the answer is 'yes', but I would doubt that classes as a constraint to trade. It should also be borne in mind that provision of public services (of which development control is clearly a part) can actually override European competition law. So whichever way up you look at it, the IfA is probably in the clear. And as I said before unless someone has the appetite to challenge their interpretation of the law, we are probably seeing the beginning of 'IfA-creep' i.e once one planning authority takes it on others will follow....
IFA RO only as approved contractors - vulpes - 27th October 2011
Quote:that's what i said
Was it? Really? Maybe you need to take a leaf out of your own book and write your posts at a level appropriate for a bright 12 year old!
IFA RO only as approved contractors - kevin wooldridge - 27th October 2011
P Prentice Wrote:i think before chartered status is accepted there should be a level playing field on which everybody has to reapply for a specialist area of competance otherwise it will be pretty much a joke
A fair point and one a 'Chartered IfA' I hope will take on. There are of course examples of good practice they could borrow from other chartered bodies.
The Chartered Institute for IT (one of the newer Chartered institutes) for example has a 3 stage process to obtain chartered status. Stage 1: Application (this stage might be excused for existing IfA members) Stage 2: A 75-question competence test specific to their field of competence 3: An interview.
I personally would also like to see a 'length of membership' qualification enacted whereas an ordinary member of the Institute cannot become Chartered until they have fulfilled 1 year and a day as an ordinary member....
IFA RO only as approved contractors - P Prentice - 27th October 2011
vulpes Wrote:Was it? Really? Maybe you need to take a leaf out of your own book and write your posts at a level appropriate for a bright 12 year old!
i did foxy i did
IFA RO only as approved contractors - vulpes - 27th October 2011
well I'm 13 and 3/4 and I struggled, really! :face-thinks:
On a more serious note, here's a wee snippet from the IFA article in The Archaeologist, 77, Autumn 2010 p5:
Quote:
[SIZE=1][SIZE=4]we can now argue authoritatively that withplanning permission.
commitment and care about due process, local
authorities can choose to require work to be done to
IfA Standards, by Registered Organisations; and they
can make such provisions through conditions of
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Sounds quite legit and straightforward to me. I'm only surprised it's taken so long to be applied.
IFA RO only as approved contractors - BAJR - 27th October 2011
You can win.
I don't think there is any merit in kicking the IfA - after all they do what they do.
The question is.
Do curators see the RO as a kite mark rather than/instead of a company carrying out decent work in their patch.
Do curators rely on the IfA to enforce standards or do they not have the final say on compliance.
IfA discipline is for people to seek restitution against a company/individual that has broken the code of conduct. Of course a client could refuse to pay or sue a non RO i they mess up (or are percieved to mess up) and of course the curator have either passed or not passed the work in the first place?
So.. to cut a long story short. being RO does add a layer of accreditation ( steady people- lets just accept that) but is not the only measure of capability.
Recognition of the IfA - fine with that.
Can I ask if councils only allow planning applications from architects who are Chartered?
I like the unitesque humour too. but then again... I like a flowing discussion as well.