+- 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 Minima Debate - THE RESULT (/showthread.php?tid=4731)
IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT - BAJR - 31st January 2013
From Amanda Forster:
Quote:Please find attached a summary and full report on decisions and recommendations made at yesterday's IfA Council meeting concerning IfA and salary recommendations 2013-2014.
Quote:
We will be responding to all those who took the time to forward their comments to Council as soon as we can. In the interests of getting the word out asap,I would be grateful if you could direct BAJR forum members to the information available online and post the attached information if you feel it is appropriate to do so.
The direct link to the online report is www.archaeologists.net/IfAsalary2013to14.
IfA salary recommendations: decisions of IfA Council, 30/01/2013
IfA Council established a pay working party in 2012 to advise on the detail of salary recommendation and on a strategic approach by IfA and others to the wider issue of remuneration and career progression in archaeology. This
work is being undertaken in two stages.
At its meeting on 30 January 2013 Council considered the working party’s report on the first stage, and advice from the Institute’s legal team.
It also took account of submissions by members and others over recent days following a third‐party intervention, and responses to previous consultations on the issue.
A full report, including important information is available at www.archaeologists.net/IfAsalary2013to14.
In summary, the following decisions and recommendations were made;
Council unanimously reaffirmed its commitment to minimum salary recommendations, stating that IfA must continue to play its legitimate role in improving and maintaining standards of archeological work, and in enhancing the status of archaeologists and seeking wherever possible to encourage active engagement with the issues by other bodies.
Council resolved that it should not continue to make compliance with minimum salary recommendations an absolute requirement of Registered Organisation status. Council has recognised that salary minima have not proved to be an effective mechanism for improving pay and conditions, particularly given the economic circumstances which have prevailed since 2008. This is disappointing, but Council believes that other, more effective mechanisms can be found.
Stage two of the pay working party report will present a strategy, for Council’s future consideration, for facilitating an industry‐wide approach to improving pay and conditions. Council has instructed its working party, taking advice from Prospect and FAME, to develop a policy statement that sets out IfA’s belief that the problem of low pay has the potential critically to impact on professional standards and is one which the industry must take collective ownership of and accept collective responsibility for solving.
With regards to setting salary minima and recommended started salaries, Council agreed the following.
The recommended minimum salaries for 2013‐14 are increased to
- PIfA‐level competence/responsibility: £16,327 ( BAJR Grade 2 - £16,339.10 )
- AIfA‐level competence/responsibility: £19,017 ( BAJR Grade 4 - £19,031.00 )
- MIfA‐level competence/responsibility: £24,583 ( BAJR Grade 5/6 £24,159.43 )
The recommended starting salaries for 2013‐14 are increased to
- PIfA‐level competence/responsibility: £19,853 ‐ £20,926
- AIfA‐level competence/responsibility: £29,123 – 31,561
- MIfA‐level competence/responsibility: £36,552 ‐ £40,276
The package of employment entitlements that IfA member employers are encouraged to adhere to remains unchanged and can be found at www.archaeologists.net/practices/salary.
Council additionally resolved that IfA’s Jobs Information Service will not accept paid advertisements for archaeological posts that do not comply with the recommended minima.
Opportunities for feedback and debate; IfA Council members have also agreed to attend the IfA conference (17‐19 April) (www.archaeologists.net/2013makingwaves) and invite IfA members to share their views with Council on this difficult topic there. A discussion event will be announced shortly to allow for public debate. For those unable to attend conference, we are investigating methods of making that debate accessible online for continued discussion.
Beverley Ballin Smith, Vice Chair of Council and chair of the Council meeting on 30 January 2013
[attachment=o1223]
[attachment=o1222]
IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT - BAJR - 31st January 2013
Well there we have it... a curates egg, but indeed a result ( thanks to all that helped ensure this was not a collapse of the system )
So lets take this and learn from it... find a way to move it forward and not let this slip.
I just need a clarification on a couple of points. and will seek them..
Quote:Council additionally resolved that IfA’s Jobs Information Service will not accept paid advertisements for archaeological posts that do not comply with the recommended minima.Does this include ROs that do not pay for adverts?
Quote:This is disappointing, but Council believes that other, more effective mechanisms can be found.For example? AS this does seem to be, we don't know yet, but I am sure something will turn up. Would it not have been wiser to wait until this mechanism was in place?
Until then... BAJR is very happy to see the 13/14 rates fall broadly into the IfA rates. and we will continue to hold the line as well. Accepting no posts that do not pay more than the minima.
IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT - Unitof1 - 31st January 2013
Remind me, which level of ifa membership is allowed to fill in a context sheet?
IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT - archaeologyexile - 31st January 2013
Not sure how much of a victory this is, can't be long till people start dropping rates to win those big jobs!
IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT - gumbo - 31st January 2013
From the other thread:
![[Image: quote_icon.png]](http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/images/misc/quote_icon.png){kind=icon}
Originally Posted by gumbo![[Image: viewpost-right.png]](http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png)
This is the key bit for me: 'In the light of legal advice Council resolved that it should not continue to make compliance with minimum salary recommendations an absolute requirement of Registered Organisation status. This requirement, introduced in 2007, is now removed. 'You missed out the second part of that para:
However, the Registered Organisations committee has been instructed to use non‐compliance with the recommended starting salaries as a trigger for a more detailed audit of the way an applicant or existing organisation ensures that it has appropriately competent staff at its disposal, with immediate effect. The committee has been instructed to look very closely indeed at applications from organisations that do not comply with the recommended minimum salaries: it will be up to applicants for Registration to make a persuasive case that they can recruit, retain, motivate and develop staff with the skills necessary to comply with IfA’s Code of conduct and standards.
and
Council additionally resolved that IfA’s Jobs Information Service will not accept paid
advertisements for archaeological posts that do not comply with the recommended minima.
I think, as you say chiz, it will depend a lot on the application of this. I do worry that the Ifa will find it hard to police/resource any 'detailed audits'. Also, will non-appearance on the IFA JIS be a big deterent?
But yes a big thankyou for all the hard work to date
IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT - Martin Locock - 31st January 2013
Almost all large contracts are determined on a cost/quality basis and therefore being slightly cheaper at the expense of not conforming to professional best practice for employment would probably lose more jobs than win them.
IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT - P Prentice - 31st January 2013
archaeologyexile Wrote:Not sure how much of a victory this is, can't be long till people start dropping rates to win those big jobs!it is definately not a victory. the minima is no longer compulsory for the very ro's that lobbied for the withdrawal. those ro's will no longer be paying the minima for the expendable contracts. if you are starting out in this business you have been f**ked
IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT - Nell 23 - 31st January 2013
Glad to see an improvement!
IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT - P Prentice - 31st January 2013
Martin Locock Wrote:Almost all large contracts are determined on a cost/quality basis and therefore being slightly cheaper at the expense of not conforming to professional best practice for employment would probably lose more jobs than win them.i'm not sure where you are winning your competitively tendered contracts martin but most of the large contracts i have fought for, particulalrly those won through certain consultancies, have been won by the lowest tender without regard to quality which need not have been discussed at the quoting stage. the range of quotes, particularly from those with no experience in an area, is usually far from close with overnighting costing far more than the difference betwen the old minima and the non-ro's.
IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT - redexile - 31st January 2013
So if I've understood this right, the IfA remain committed to minimum pay rates altho none of their members will actually be required to pay them, but if they don't pay them they'll give them a very stiff talking-to when they apply for ROA status, and then probably give it them anyway.
IfA policy direction can now officially be defined as 'whatever the big units tell us to do'. I almost wish I was a member, so I could cancel my membership. Laughable.