+- 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: Unions in Archaeology (Pt 1) (/showthread.php?tid=3765)
Pages:
1
2
Unions in Archaeology (Pt 1) - GPStone - 23rd February 2011
Hello everyone,
There was a poll on here in 2009 asking if mass unionisation in archaeology would be a good thing. The result of the poll seemed fairly decisive so the first question I would like to pose is, what came of it?
Secondly, and more importantly, what would be required to convince all of you who are not in a union to join - what would you want to see a union doing to earn your support (besides the usual provision of representation and bargaining etc)? I guess that question also applies to those of you who are in a union, too. :face-topic:}
Unions in Archaeology (Pt 1) - BAJR - 25th February 2011
I ended up joining a Union, And we have spent last year discussing the Working Parrty for the Unionisation of Archaeology.
Given we were a voluntary body made up of everyone from Diggers Forum to consultants, University staff to unit staff, things move slowly, however, we have come up with a Diggers Charter that is in the final stages. And it is thanks to all those people that did get invovled that it got so far.
I still need to hear back from a couple of people, then we release it to the contractors and IfA and the Unions - then it is time to implement it.
The first part is ambitious but achievable; asking for basic rights to be signed up to.
Nobody would want to disagree with them, so the companies will hopefully sign up to the Charter - rights for equal opportunities - rights for drivers and driving time ( with the DF) - Rights for self employed staff - rights for fieldstaff.
Unionisation sits at the heart of this.
Recently a person was dismissed from a company under circumstances that were at the best unfair, they had not applied proper procedure and had in fact rewritten dismissal criteria in order to carry it out. IF this person had been in a union, the company would have been taken to task in the strongest possible way. If they they had been in a Union. !
PEople will need to see that the fear that certainly pervades the fieldstaff just now can be removed by Union membership. It also helps the contractors themselves, by giving them a certain acknowledgement that the staff are going to be working to the charter as well... it has to be two way...
So things are happening from this. It is hoped for May 1st the Charter will be ready.
Unions in Archaeology (Pt 1) - kevin wooldridge - 25th February 2011
One of the difficulties lies with the way that many archaeologists are employed - short term contracts working for numerous employers in lots of different places. I don't know of any UK trade unions that are organised in such a way as to respond to workers in thse circumstances.
Prospect has its so called catch-all 'Archaeologists' branch into which it dumps individual members who don't have a permanent or established place of work, but if my situation is anything to go by (one brief message in 5 years membership and occassional magazines telling me about the problems of fellow union members in non-related professions) they don't really have a lot of time for archaeologists.
Unions in Archaeology (Pt 1) - kevin wooldridge - 25th February 2011
Why is this thread titled 'part 1' by the way. What can we expect in subsequent episodes?
Unions in Archaeology (Pt 1) - gwyl - 25th February 2011
kevin wooldridge Wrote:One of the difficulties lies with the way that many archaeologists are employed - short term contracts working for numerous employers in lots of different places. ...
Prospect has its so called catch-all 'Archaeologists' branch into which it dumps individual members who don't have a permanent or established place of work, but if my situation is anything to go by (one brief message in 5 years membership and occassional magazines telling me about the problems of fellow union members in non-related professions) they don't really have a lot of time for archaeologists.
Even as as permanent an employee as it gets these days, as the single union member until recently at my employer my union membership has been less one of ensuring unified collective action or mutual support and more one of being able to access Prospect services and info (such as it is)...
and indeed the lines of communication are non-existent
information flow and lines of contact between members acting autonomously would be a way forward. although, to be honest, BAJR - :face-approve: - seems to ensure a more constant flow of information and communication than the more formal structures.
Unions in Archaeology (Pt 1) - kevin wooldridge - 25th February 2011
Lessons of Cairo/Benghazi etc etc..... It seems to me that if Prospect actually used t'internet to enable archaeology members to communicate and keep in touch, things would improve a great deal.....I guess we just have to wait for social networking and trade unions to catch up with each other. Might take some time though....
It seems to me that we can't be far off the day when someone, somewhere uses the internet as a conduit for some form of industrial action..... which even more perplexes me as to why trade unions seem so reluctant to use it as a tool of organisation.
Unions in Archaeology (Pt 1) - sadie - 25th February 2011
Keep your eyes out for a re-invigoration of the Archaeologists' Branch of Prospect- (not by me- I'm lucky enough to be in the healthy Museum of London Branch).
The people who will be worling on this will need help though- so once again I can only say it'll be time to step up and organise local committees, attend branch meetings etc etc...
Unions in Archaeology (Pt 1) - GPStone - 25th February 2011
Thanks for the reply David, that sounds very interesting and positive - a definite and big step in the right direction and it's good that it is being achieved with collectivisation.
There are issues with unions and archaeology but I don't think they should be viewed out of context or proportion, and certainly not as any form of significant obstacle. The fact is, the designation of union funds and resources will usually be based on the numbers of people likely to be effected and the predicted achievability and relevance of the aims of any activities funded. The problem we face is that archaeologist's presence and profile within unions is fairly low and so is communication between different levels of the industry. The result of this is coupled with the fact that prospective member's expectations are often either too high or impatient or simply misplaced (and often don't take account of the real economic factors involved in this business). But these problems can be largely overcome with the right communication.
I've been away from BAJR for a while (since before 2009) and, having seen this, I regret it because I would very much liked to have contributed to the discussions surrounding something like the charter. One thing I am sick of is people of all levels being happy to sit in a site hut or office and moan or complain, but never be willing to transfer that into constructive criticism or actually try to take the argument to those who may be able to effect change.
My personal view is this. Now, more than ever, there is a need for achaeologists across the UK and across the discipline to unite behind a single, representative body(or a number of specialised bodies) who are willing to devote time to delivering the appropriate messages to the right people, be it through collective bargaining or simply opening up dialogue. There is one thing that unions do better than all other groups and that is collective representation on pay and conditions. Enough people 'under one roof' making a big enough noise and saying the same thing can change the way this industry works in that respect, although it clearly can't be an immediate wholesale shift.
My own frustration, not just at the poor treatment where it frequently occurs but at the inability to communicate across and throughout elements of companies and the industry as a whole led me to becoming a rep (well, that and the fact that I was seeing my friends and colleagues professionally battered on a regular basis), and it has proved one thing to me; if you take the right information to the right people, things get done. That applies to archaeology companies as much as it does union structures.
On a different note (and I should state here that I am not speaking on behalf of the union, but my colleagues and I have given this some consideration and put some time into it so far), Prospect will, I hope, be significantly increasing the attention it pays to archaeology over the coming few months. If we could get one (or two) representative bodies which speak on behalf of the entire industry on pay and conditions and which everyone across the industry can have faith in to act appropriately and discuss, form and set achievable aims, we can move the position forward significantly and fairly rapidly. With the appropriate levels of representation in many units we could also force economic realities upon companies who use staff and pay practises as their margins rather than reforming their own working practises first.
This isn't a single solution and it is much more complex than I have stated as I'm sure everyone who has read and laughed at this so far will be immediately aware. It also doesn't and cannot sit alone in the way we approach the broad range of challenges facing this industry. We all have to be educated and realistic about the fact that the commercial market is shrinking and businesses are facing ever increasing pressure to cut costs. Union membership won't change that but the attentions of the IfA and other organisations who can focus on what they are set-up to do best can do. We also need to look at the way we practise archaeology and the techniques, methods, delivery and outcomes we bring to bear on it in this country, the economic dynamics involved in these and whether they are achieving a satisfactory outcome and 'product' - other threads over the last few days as well as our collective experience appears to suggest not.
Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. I want to change things for the better and, despite looking hard and testing a lot of things, I'm yet to find a good reason why this can't be achieved if approached properly.
Please feel free to tear me apart now.........
Unions in Archaeology (Pt 1) - GPStone - 25th February 2011
Sadie has kindly outlined part of what I was hinting at, as I was writing my last reply. Cheers
Unions in Archaeology (Pt 1) - kevin wooldridge - 25th February 2011
Well hopefully Prospect will start by asking members of the Archaeologists branch - me for example - what they think and whether they want to be more involved otherwise the whole exercise would appear to be futile....as I say one message in 5 years doesn't seem to be much of a foundation on which to build.... (That message by the way was a couple of years back from the new national officer telling us how she understood archaeology and archaeologists and how things were going to get a lot better - I think the letter even appeared on BAJR - since when......nowt!!)