+- 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: Pay and Conditions (/showthread.php?tid=2390)
Pay and Conditions - the invisible man - 3rd December 2009
I said; Deep down I suspect that the reason archeological employers pay so badly is simply because they can. Thus, they'd be mad not to.
Davidh said: Can they really? What year are we in again? Does nobody understand employment law here?
Yes, they can. Wilst low, archaeological salaries are above the national minimum wage. It is 2009 and I have reasonable lay grasp of employment law, but I can't speak for anyone else here.
Davidh said: Competitive tendering is all of the reasoning behind bad practise in a science. Competitive tendering is all of the reasoning behind bad employment
We must agree to differ on this. Certainly the artificially created commercial system has many faults, but so do the alternatives - what are they, some form of state or local authority run regional units perhaps? A nice idea but with obvious difficulties. As for tendering being the root of all bad employment, frankly this is ludicrous. Almost every industry and profession follows some form of competetive tendering or at least essentially price based competiton.
Davidh said: Do not hold up all aspects of construction in the tendering field and then relate them to archaeology. It's an impossible equation, an oxymoron if you like. These are not people who have studied for a degree for three years.
No it's not. The commercial archaeology sytem was set up in direct imitation of the construction model: the roles and responsibilties of the various parties are the same - contractor, curator and consultant all have direct equivalents. The standard form of contract is adapted from the ICE (strangely not the JCT). Of course many people in construction have degrees, some rather more than that. Not everyone drives a digger, there are profesionals involved too.
Davidh said: They work machinery or tools like clockwork and that's that.
I have to say I find this more than a little patronising and insulting to your fellow construction workers. A big problem in construction today is the shortage of proper skilled time-served tradesmen, but I would respect everyone for what they do, regardless of its "status". A site needs the big hairy unskilled labourer (of which very few are required in this day and age) as much as the architect, the QS or the contracts manager. Neither is remotely capable of doing the other's job. I have worked with countless tradesmen who are motivated, highly skilled, enthusiastic and take great care and pride in their work, and have worked with me and made suggestions for the improvement of the job. (Yes, some of the other sort as well) I accept and agree however that an archaeological contract employs almost entirely degree (or higher) qualified staff on site, doing physical work as much as mental work. Interestingly though many on here argue that a degree is not essentail or is inappropriate, and support vocational NVQ type qualifications.
Pay and Conditions - mfeider - 3rd December 2009
It's already extremely difficult to live on a digger's wage, and just about impossible to own a home and support a family on one. We have no job security and the pay's crap. The job requires a degree, so our pay should reflect that. Someone needs to force the units to bump our pay UP, not allow them to push us further towards the poorhouse.
Just because we enjoy what we do shouldn't give our employers free reign to treat us like some Victorian orphans.
Pay and Conditions - BAJR Host - 3rd December 2009
So do you want to get organised?
Pay and Conditions - Mattymooface - 3rd December 2009
YEP
Pay and Conditions - Davidh - 4th December 2009
Boney Mike, amiable drudge, David & Drunky.
Start this, tell me where to go to have a good debate and I'll try and help.
I can't guarantee it what with the business, the community project and my family but by God if I can drum some common sense home somewhere I will endeavour to achieve that with all the good will in the world.
Don't accept the status quo, its obviously unacceptable.
Good luck, you only have Law on your side.
Pay and Conditions - Unitof1 - 4th December 2009
Let them dictate to you your pay and conditions when they don't understand what you need to do your job properly
you have spotted my edge
Pay and Conditions - Davidh - 4th December 2009
the invisible man Wrote:I said; Deep down I suspect that the reason archeological employers pay so badly is simply because they can. Thus, they'd be mad not to.
Davidh said: Can they really? What year are we in again? Does nobody understand employment law here?
Yes, they can. Wilst low, archaeological salaries are above the national minimum wage. It is 2009 and I have reasonable lay grasp of employment law, but I can't speak for anyone else here.
Ok, no worries. You are correct, I apologise. I mixed up working conditions and pay, my bad.
You have the same rights as my daughter who is studying for her A levels right now and works part time as a waitress to gain income. You probably may not be surprised that she has also been treated in an unacceptable manner by her employers. That's changed since she has been there.
What is grating me is that you are happy to accept low pay because 'that is the norm'. It doesn't have to be at all.
the invisible man Wrote:Davidh said: Competitive tendering is all of the reasoning behind bad practise in a science. Competitive tendering is all of the reasoning behind bad employment
We must agree to differ on this. Certainly the artificially created commercial system has many faults, but so do the alternatives - what are they, some form of state or local authority run regional units perhaps? A nice idea but with obvious difficulties. As for tendering being the root of all bad employment, frankly this is ludicrous. Almost every industry and profession follows some form of competetive tendering or at least essentially price based competiton.
What are the difficulties? Are difficulties not challenges that can be overcome with reasoned thought applied to the challenge in hand?
Your right by the way, all industries & professions compete with each other on price. If its the same with science then fair enough. If it it done with a science where the employer (Main contractor) can not grasp, or more importantly, respect what has to be completed within the process of thought over time then you hit a problem with that particular science.
Competitive tendering is not ridiculous when you take into account of bad employment. The first thing that is done is that processes are compromised. That can be H&S issues or conditions, take your pick it affects the worker in the most direct manner.
the invisible man Wrote:Davidh said: Do not hold up all aspects of construction in the tendering field and then relate them to archaeology. It's an impossible equation, an oxymoron if you like. These are not people who have studied for a degree for three years.
No it's not. The commercial archaeology sytem was set up in direct imitation of the construction model: the roles and responsibilties of the various parties are the same - contractor, curator and consultant all have direct equivalents. The standard form of contract is adapted from the ICE (strangely not the JCT). Of course many people in construction have degrees, some rather more than that. Not everyone drives a digger, there are profesionals involved too.
Yes they do but do they understand your specialised field? Give me the equivalents between the fields please. They don't understand what is what, trust me on this one they haven't a clue. They destroy and construct for profit, nothing more, nothing less. "If we discover archaeology then it will be covered in concrete within the hour". That was said to me a few years ago. Do you honestly think that people who have studied for degrees in architecture, construction techniques and general building are taught about the needs of archaeology?
the invisible man Wrote:Davidh said: They work machinery or tools like clockwork and that's that.
I have to say I find this more than a little patronising and insulting to your fellow construction workers. A big problem in construction today is the shortage of proper skilled time-served tradesmen, but I would respect everyone for what they do, regardless of its "status". A site needs the big hairy unskilled labourer (of which very few are required in this day and age) as much as the architect, the QS or the contracts manager. Neither is remotely capable of doing the other's job. I have worked with countless tradesmen who are motivated, highly skilled, enthusiastic and take great care and pride in their work, and have worked with me and made suggestions for the improvement of the job. (Yes, some of the other sort as well) I accept and agree however that an archaeological contract employs almost entirely degree (or higher) qualified staff on site, doing physical work as much as mental work. Interestingly though many on here argue that a degree is not essentail or is inappropriate, and support vocational NVQ type qualifications.
This is where I may have a problem posting my views. To work on a large commercial construction site you have to pass a test. Its multiple choice.
You tell me.
You see a bare electrical wire exposed in a wall.
Do you
A) Touch it to see if it is live
B) Ignore it
C) Cover it with insulating tape and report it as bare
One of the best is this (and I will only put down the first choice).
You see a large hole in a floor in a multi story building
Do you
A) Jump down it to see how deep it is...
So you go on about the higher people in the construction industry, the contract managers, QS' and architects.
I can take them for a ride at my will, when I want to, how I want to.*
Ya see, they just don't understand my profession.
*Its fun
Pay and Conditions - BAJR Host - 4th December 2009
I am so glad you are here... its time for the view from the construction side to come out. !
ps.. I picked Ignore it. after all its what archaeologists seem to be good at!
Pay and Conditions - Unitof1 - 4th December 2009
Davidh Wrote:The standard form of contract is adapted from the ICE (strangely not the JCT).
Why strangely?
Pay and Conditions - the invisible man - 4th December 2009
Ok David, I think we may have been at cross purposes on on one or two points. For example, yes pay is bad but legal, but yes working conditions often, shall we say, flirt with illegality. It would certainly be ideal if people wouild simply walk off site if matters cannot be resolved. I think we are making the same point about low pay, it is paid because it is accepted. But the alternative is for everyone to resign and take up alternative employment, and not come back until jobs are advertised at (say) 500 a wek min. I'd love to see this happen, but rather doubt that it will. Maybe David C's approach of softly softly coaxing levels is best, but the recession has rather inerefered.
Difficulties with state organized regional units include the lack of transparency for the developer: he has no way of knowing that the price or contract period are reasonable, and to be frank, they probably won't be.
Science works to budgets, funding has to come from somewhere even for pure research: granted this is not commercial as such but much scince is essentially commercial, even if carried out by universties - for example drug testing. Incidentally the Employer is not the Main Contractor: those two are the two parties to the Main Contract i.e. the client, or developer, and the builder. I do agree there is often a communication problem - very few people actually realise that archaeology is carried out commercially at all. Part of this is archaeology's fault: we have in part a captive client so to speak: the work has to be done, we need more teeth from curators, consultants and indeed contractors alike. We need to fight our corner more, I agree with you there. It is easy for an employee to say of course, but a bit harder if you're running the firm and desperate to win contracts.
I have mentioned the direct equivalents on a another thread. In short, curator = planner (and in effect also building control); consultant = architect (and QS); contractor = contractor; specialists more or less = subcontractors. Obviously developers and building contractors work for profit, they wouldn't exist otherwise. Archaeological contractors also work for profit, like any other construction related contracting industry. I am aware that heritage legislation has a minimal part(if any) im most construction professional's education, but some are more aware than others, and they pretty soon find out when a condition is applied. I was in architecture for 30 years and only once was an archaeological condition appplied to a planning consent. I know others who have thenm on most of their applications: it depends on your field. Obviously the developer is likely to want to minimise time and cost on archaeology: they want to on the entire design and construction process, they are fighting their corner (that's why design services and construction are all (generally) tendered). I think you and I are in agreement that archaeology should do so, better, too. And to be honest it works both ways, archaoelogists (and most builders) have little actual clue what an architect really does, or how or why. We are all in our niches.
I don't really follow your arguments about construction site staff. Yes I know the CSCS card is absurdly simple, I have one myself, but that is not all you need. Sure you don't need anything other than muscle to be a labourer, but other trades all require varying degrees (pardon the pun!) of training and/or qulaification and/or experience. To be honest we must have been on very different construction sites in recent decades, iny experience there are very few traditional labourers on site these days.
However, I'm not trying to suggest that everyone on site has a degree or an academic background as do most (not all) archaeologists. I (and others) are comparing archaeological wages with those in construction because commercial archaeology is part of the construction industry.
I'm not sure who you are saying you can take for a ride at will. I don't know what your position in construction was/is, but I have to say that I find this unlikely.
I have posted some thoughts several times before on archaeological contracting methodolgy so won't do so again.