BAJR Wrote:Next gripe is the rise of the "trainee grade". some really are. I have spent time talking over such positions with a company recently. Others are just because rates have sunk below minima... no worries, we will just call em trainees, mutter something about on the job training, and pay less ... whooo hoo. --- so now you need at least 6 months commercial experience to even get paid the bare minimum for a commercial archaeologist. - tell me... if I have 5 months. does that mean I suddenly go up to the full 17094 rate after a month..? or does that not count?

Other companies seem to be able to afford the enormous £14 a week to bring them up to the bare minimum ----

I may have to bring in a new rule on BAJR... nothing... NOTHING less than 17094 ( unless we have talked about it first, and it is something like a pay grade that needs the bottom level put in for HR Department not to kick up a stink) the words BAJR Approved means, "I knows what goes on, and we have a handshake agreement... that the minima is really (wink) what it should be."

Anyways. before people say... ah... but where do I get experience. it is not rocket science FFS... 6 months is perhaps over long to learn how to write your name and the colour of soil on a context card... or take a digital photograph of a pit..... being good at it... takes time. but really. these are not shaved apes... these are your graduates (in the main) who have shown they can hold a thought and perhaps have a modicum of ability in holding a shovel the right way up... and if not. then it will take less than 6 months to work that one out!

aaaarg! I despair!

P Prentice Wrote:i think the singlemost important thing keeping contracts short and wages down etc is the assumption that anyone can dig and that the profession does not require graduate entry. on one hand the industry is intent on showing the world just how easy it is to do archaeology and then it moans about being seen as some kind of esoteric calling that does not require propoer pay and conditions - we are looking ever more like jobbing labourers for anitiquarians.

Sikelgaita Wrote:Personally I would rather work with those with a 'natural affinity for digging' every time, be they graduate or non graduate.

Dinosaur Wrote:Interest, enthusiasm, disillusion, despair, anger, apathy, consultant, death

RedEarth Wrote:Thanks for clarifying, sorry if that felt like abuse, although you do kind of ask for it.

However, there is a difference between working in archaeology because you are interested in it (I too would find it hard to believe there can be anyone who works in archaeology who isn't at least fairly interested) and being obsessed to the point where you willingly forego any kind of life outside of it and consider that to be a normal and reasonable state of affairs for everyone. It is then a slippery slope - a small number put themselves in that position, so everyone is expected to follow suit, and pay and conditions suffer. I'm not saying it is the sole cause of the problems in commercial archaeology that we have today, but it certainly doesn't help, and I'm sure that attitude of 'we have to save as much archaeology as we can now because imagine the terrible consequences if we don't so everyone has to give 110% all the time' is exploited by those higher up the employment chain.

P Prentice Wrote:you'll not get any argument there. units dont really care who digs the holes but we do care where the next batch of report writers will come from. those able to make the transition are becoming a rare breed precisely because they are less likely to put up with the short contracts and low wages that would get them in the right place to be in that position. brain drain springs to mind.

Jack Wrote:Pay and conditions are set by market forces.

Sikelgaita Wrote:Without a high quality excavation team there is no high quality record with which the report writer can interrogate to produce the report. It has been my long held belief that it is not the quantity of diggers put on a site that is important but the quality of them. It has been my experience that one digger with a natural affinity for digging is worth two or three of those that do not have that innate ability. Surely one experienced digger paid, lets say £22,500 is both cheaper and more productive than two diggers with little experience and limited skills paid at £17,500. Furthermore skilled operatives can work more independently and require less supervision. Why do units not cost jobs and employ diggers on this basis is a question I ask myself constantly. All this requires a much greater recognition of the digger as a technician in their own right, not just the bottom rung in a career ladder that I think is broken and which helps perpetuates the low pay and short term contract problem. Also rather than calling them trainees what about treating them like apprentices similar to those from other trades. The experienced and technically skilled digger can provide on the job training to the apprentice.