Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Had an interesting conundrum, given the recent problems with accommodation and tax etc... and have wrestled with this.. as are PROSPECT and the IfA.
The problem comes when you have staff on a fixed term contract... say 2-3 months.. and the job is project specific. now... this is where it gets tricky... if you are an employee of the company, then it is reasonable to receive accommodation and subs... plus travel. fair enough..
However, if you come in just for that project, then you will be taxed on accommodation (if given) and if not given, then you will end up seriously out of pocket in comparison to those who are permemnant employees ... BUT the legal situation with tax is just that... HOWEVER... this seems to go against the Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment ( where two people working on the same project, and carrying out the same duties end up with different remuneration packages.
Right... so here comes the next bit.... with a lower pay to hours ratio, it could be argued that it would only attract G2s and Less and desparate G3s (understandable)
But a council can insist on the developer using an "appropriate" and "qualified" person/organisation. This can include the practices used by a company and the nature of the staff. So interestingly can demand appropriate staffing and recruitment policies.
This would mean checking staffing ... we all know of some people taking on students and passing them off as grizzled veterans.. or putting out 3 diggers and claiming for supervisors.. ... It would require that the staff on a project were seen to be correspondent to that set out by the Curatorial Service...
And could also push for matching conditions...
ie... Permanent Staff and Temp staff are treated equally... and temp staff are made aware that accommodation and subs would be taxed... as it is not a benefit, while permemnant staff would not have that taxed as it is a benefit.
Still with me?? Good..... what you think?
This is not an attack on anyone.. it is a question... tahts all.. one I am also asking the Tax Office, as well.
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2007
I can't comment on the accommodation/tax problems, but on the issue of lower pay only attracting inexperienced staff:
In Ireland we're seeing not a drop in the standard of archaeologist in the jobs market, but a massive rise in the availability of skilled personnel. Licenced directors are very nearly begging to be employed as site assistants. With demand in free-fall, there has been a lowering of financial expectation on the staff side of the equation - and from the companies side, a writing down of 'asset value' with assets in this case being staff.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
As I have mentioned on other threads, my biggest concern is that clients will desperately want the cheapest price and so the worst archaeologists end up effectively setting the rates. I can't be certain if it is happening yet, but I suspect it is as jobs are getting harder and harder to win.
Curators have an almost moral obligation to ensure that what they specify in the brief is carried out to ensure that those doing what is required are able to win work. That goes for who is on site and whether they are appropriately experienced down to whether the project archive is being deposited. This is not the time for complacency!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Definitely Not.
What on earth has this got to do with Town and Country Planning.
And based upon a false premis. There is no difference in the temp and permmie terms and condition. Neither receive living expenses when working at their usual places of work.
What developers pay for staff is matter for them. ?Putting out 3 diggers and claiming for supervisors? is nothing to do with curators.
David I suggest you re-read PPG 16 and the relevant sentence actually uses the word OR not and. It also says Professionally qualified not appropriate.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
Definitely Not.
What on earth has this got to do with Town and Country Planning.
And based upon a false premis. There is no difference in the temp and permmie terms and condition. Neither receive living expenses when working at their usual places of work.
What developers pay for staff is matter for them. ?Putting out 3 diggers and claiming for supervisors? is nothing to do with curators.
David I suggest you re-read PPG 16 and the relevant sentence actually uses the word OR not and. It also says Professionally qualified not appropriate.
Peter
I'm not sure I follow large parts of David's question/argument but I do find "?Putting out 3 diggers and claiming for supervisors? is nothing to do with curators" quite questionable. Since the briefs I regularly see say something along the lines of work must be carried out by appropriately qualified and experienced contractors putting out three new graduates when it should be three POs I would definitely consider a matter for a curator to be concerned with.
Perhaps next time I'll cost for a PO and two assistants and instead send a monkey, two dogs, and a parrot and see what they say! Perhaps at half time I substitute them all for Peter Crouch and John Terry. I'm sure the curator wouldn't mind.
I would also assume that 'professionally qualified' means 'has some actual experience' rather than 'in first year of joint archaeology and media studies BA, and probably looking for a job at ITV', but that's just me.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I'm not quite sure that I follow this bit, David:
"ie... Permanent Staff and Temp staff are treated equally... and temp staff are made aware that accommodation and subs would be taxed... as it is not a benefit, while permemnant staff would not have that taxed as it is a benefit."
How can curators require that contractors provide this? Seems a bit outside their remit. And while dr wardle is completely correct when he says "Neither receive living expenses when working at their usual places of work", I do think that a curator should make it his business if they are being lied to about who is actually carrying out the work. For one thing, it is an attempt to defraud the client.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
As far as I can see David the proposed scenario is perfectly legal and therefore despite your reservations, maybe BAJR should step back from getting too involved (I am thinking also here of the BAJR bank balance vis a vis prospective advertisers).
Maybe what the BAJR Fed could do when up and running is to encourage any disgruntled staff to take up the issue through the appropriate trade union. I think union and employer negotiation is the only way to arrive at a compromise on this issue.
And be assured we have been here before....infact as recently as last year I remember. I personally don't think that this situation is entirely a direct result of the recession, but is the realisation of what was always likely to happen after the Customs and Revenue ruling on accomodation etc last year.
If archaeology has just become a tougher industry in which to work, at least it is finally a legally correct one. I agree with Peter on that point 
![[Image: 3334488270_7156e71b8b_t.jpg]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3405/3334488270_7156e71b8b_t.jpg)
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
It was all hypotheticalish, (well some of it) and an attempt to get my head round what may be a conflict between a permmie being given accomodation etc.. while a temp is not.. though they are working on the same job.
a bit of a ramble I admit.. and I am not saying anyone is doing something wrong.. but with a drop in jobs, we will be seeing people taking anything..
BAJRs bank balance has always been a bit of a second to ensuring pay and conditions rise..
However you are right.. it is not so much a concern for BAJR (unless there is any problem with the requirements to advertise - and I am glad that the JIS is also doing this too) it will be a concern for BAJR Fed. something that will get going properly this month
"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2009
seems to me that Dr Pete has some points...
What contractors charge is indeed between them and the client. That the work is being done to the required standard is the concern of the curators. If three shaved monkeys can do the jobs of 3 POs, then the curator can't justifiably do anything, and it suggests that either the monkeys are underpaid, or the POs are overqualified and either will in time leave for better things (bananas in my experience). If, however, the monkeys stuff the job up, the curator has every right to kick off. It's a business risk, and the contract manager's choice.
The tax situation could be seen as unfair, but we're missing something in the hand wringing... if I was working for Borsetshire, and send away from home to work on a road scheme in deepest Rutshire, I'd expect the Borset Trust to catch my accomadation and travel. I'd also be unhappy that the unemployed staff of the Rutshire unit who lived 5 miles from site then got paid a subsidy for their accomadation that they already had, leaving ME under-paid in comparison despite years of loyal service to the Borset Trust.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by shavedmonkey
seems to me that Dr Pete has some points...
What contractors charge is indeed between them and the client. That the work is being done to the required standard is the concern of the curators. If three shaved monkeys can do the jobs of 3 POs, then the curator can't justifiably do anything, and it suggests that either the monkeys are underpaid, or the POs are overqualified and either will in time leave for better things (bananas in my experience). If, however, the monkeys stuff the job up, the curator has every right to kick off. It's a business risk, and the contract manager's choice.
The charge out rate is indeed nothing to do with the curator (although they could perhaps subtly improve it by having stricter standards in some cases). I would have thought that had a perfectly legitimate reason to be concerned if they are either told in advance or find out on site that someone lacking the correct experience is running a site or doing something else beyond their means. Whether they can actually do it or not is almost irrelevant, everyone's got to prove themselves at some point by pushing their level of experience, but the curator could quite justifiably be very unimpressed. Equally, someone who is supposedly experienced and capable could still totally balls something up. The point is that archaeology being a finite resource and the fact that you can't put it back once you've dug it up means that they need to be assured it will be done properly before the fieldwork starts. The easy way in which curators can do this, rather than reading everyone's CVs, is to know that when a project says it is being run by a PO/supervisor it actually is. The interchangability (is that a word?)of staff is often another example of how people get exploited - doing work above their level and not getting paid accordingly.
Seeing it as a business risk seems a little short sighted, plus what kind of business would get excited about the additional profit made using a supervisor rather than a PO?!
Dragons Den pitch: instead of making no money per day using a PO we would project a profit of ?10 per day using a supervisor!!!
|
