+- 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: Bajr scales (/showthread.php?tid=297)
Bajr scales - trowelfodder - 16th October 2006
Just a quick note that the project officer job advertised by headland on the employment section has a starting wage at supervisor grade not po grade
If they are looking for a PO then should start at £18500 or there about.
Bajr scales - Mna - 16th October 2006
Likewise their supervisor post has an incorrect starting wage.
Some mistake, surely?
Bajr scales - kevin wooldridge - 21st October 2006
I am in the process of catching up on a weeks e-mail so apologies for not having come in your this thread before.....
Can't speak for Headland managers, but the Outwage database (http://www.freewebs.com/OutwageUK) confirms that Headland have, within the last few months, advertised Project Officer jobs at a higher salary than the current BAJR ad.
Outwage has not previously registered a Headland ad for Supervisors, but the salary is quite close to that which they have previously advertised for Site Assistants and even closer to the wage advertised for Site Assistants in the Republic of Ireland.
This has quite messed up my separate survey into archaeological wage rises as I don't have a box to show a wage [u]decrease</u>.
I reckon (as I am sure that Headland are nice people) that anyone ringing the Edinburgh office will be given the correct rate for the job....
Bajr scales - drpeterwardle - 21st October 2006
I am sure that these matters will be sorted once David returns to Scotland.
Peter
Bajr scales - BAJR Host - 22nd October 2006
This was the process of much talking with Headland, and it is all down to the 'job title' versus expectations for job description. I have been assured (which is why I put it up) that IF a person is doing a job which entails duties that involved G4 responsibilities they will be paid at that rate, it however opens up the opportunity for people who are not quite ready to be supervisors (or G4 - which is a better description) to prepare for that level of responsibility.
Now.. this leads to the next 'major' move by BAJR in the new year... the overlapping reposibility levels/pay levels. Along with a need to see progression and subsequesnt pay progression too. Where a person hired in 2004 on the lowest level of a Grade is not 'just' moving with the yearly rise, but is progressing UP a payscale. very difficult system for me to deal with alone... so I need IFA and PROSPECT along with SCAUM along with me on this. --- which is actually happening thanks to the Diggers Forum. The idea I will be implementing in April 2007 (with prior warnings going out in january) will be one where the top level for a G3 overlaps a G4 bottom payscale and so on .... This means a really really good Digger (for want of a better word) can end up on a salary above that of a shiney new Supervisor who may not have as much exper. as a digger with 10 years of digging.... Complicated? stay with me! Overlapping payscales allow for people who do not want to move up to the next level of responsibility to be 'rewarded for the knowledge and ability they have accrued... it also acknowledges that at the start of a new level of responsibility you may not be as capable of completely free action and so are in a training/assistant type level. As soon as you are expected to be carrying out G4 activities without any help or training then you should be paid that ammount, and could also go on UP in pay as you become 'better' at your job (at that level)
Example 1:
I am a digger with 8 years exper. and several skills that also mean I can do much that a supervisor does but don't want the extra responsibility of looking after small sites, small teams etc.... as such however in recognition of my abilities and the benefit they are to the company I should expect to be getting paid at the top end of G3 if not more.. So G3 becomes divided into G3.1 G3.2 and G3.3 (a G3.3 grade at present would start around say 15,400 up to 16,400)
A supervisor who has just started, and needs help and training to fulfill all the criteria to be a full G4 person would be starting on G4.1 which would be roughly the same as a G3.3 The difference being in that as that person becomes able to carry out all the functions that a G4 needs to be, they will move up to G4.2 ie over 16137.
As an extra note... If the G3.3 digger decides to go for it, and has all the skillsets required to be a supervisor (or should I say G4) then they could quite realistically go straight to G4.2 as to take a pay cut while going up would be illogical.
I did not say it was easy... but it is something that is happening.. Believe me, it is something that I have been working on (and with other people and organisations) for quite a bit of time. The end result will be a wage system... one that rewards ability, one that recognises progression and training, and one that will hopefully (touch wood) mean we at last have a system that is workable and used by several large professional and govt. groups. So has precedent and respectability.
I will try to make more sense of this if I can...later!
needless to say. concerning the advert... If you apply as a person who is more than capable of being a supervisor... you will get paid a g4 rate.... if you are nearly there, you will get training, support and help, but the lesser rate. (which seems fair given the plus of being trained)
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Bajr scales - 1man1desk - 24th October 2006
Looks like a pretty good approach to me. Reminiscent of the university pay-scales, where someone on the top of the Post-Doctoral Research Fellow pay-scale, on 'promotion' to Lecturer, can expect something like a 30% pay-cut.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Bajr scales - BAJR Host - 24th October 2006
Phew... glad it did make sense...[:p]
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Bajr scales - the invisible man - 24th October 2006
Alternatively BAJR could stick to setting minimum rates, and not try to set pay scales.
I'm sure there's no objection to an employer paying 25k to a G2 "fieldy" if he so desires!
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Bajr scales - the invisible man - 24th October 2006
Alternatively BAJR could stick to setting minimum rates, and not try to set pay scales.
I'm sure there's no objection to an employer paying 25k to a G2 "fieldy" if he so desires!
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.