Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Found this slightly worrying... or is it me?
On the fab Brading Villa Site (which gets a big dollop of HLF cash)
http://www.bradingromanvilla.org.uk/index.php
has opportunities for volunteering in 2009... great thinks I... however
Quote:quote:All volunteers WILL require a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) clearance (arranged by BRV at no cost to applicants).
would that mean I would be unable to work there.. if I had a criminal record? What does that have to do with volunteering on a dig? interesting... then I notice this little snippet..
Quote:quote:You should be fit and healthy for this demanding dig, but if you have any health concerns we should be aware of ? please specify.
After the recent discussion and help given about inclusive archaeology this is a bit odd too.. define 'healthy'? what is fit... are you asked to do 100 sit ups before being allowed on?
Then you have to
Quote:quote lease provide a reference for your last dig
Last Dig mind... so you should have been on more than one. Is this a way of ensuring only experienced vollys apply.
Just a thought... in these times when we are opening up, this seems to be putting up barriers. Perhaps somebody from Brading could answer.
ps.. it should be pointed out that the centre obviously takes disabled access seriously, with the Exhibition & Visitor Centre fully accessible to motorised wheelchairs. Non-motorised wheelchairs are available on request and staff are happy to bring these to the parking area. An AVX induction loop is available and ramps etc are provided. So Yes to this.
"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: Nov 2005
If they get local school kids to be involved a criminal records check might be necessary to exclude sex offenders. So the organizers are thereby fulfilling their duty of care. Doesn't mean that someone with another type of conviction is automatically excluded.
The question for one's health could be iffy in terms of the data protection act, but is probably also a requirement for insurance purposes and duty of care. You don't want somebody with a heart condition digging away in the heat to than collapse next to your spoil heap. Better to have people with specific health problems do work that is suited to their needs.
Also, First Aiders on site need to know of any pre-existing problems in case somebody gets sick on site. Sometimes people forget to take their medication, but sometimes it is more serious.
Again, duty of care, I suspect, rather than discrimination.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
None of that sounds at all unreasonable to me, for the same reasons that Rocks has given, although requiring a reference seems a bit mean. I would add that knowing someone had a serous allergy would also be a good reason for enquiring about health.
I'm not sure where you would stand on data protection grounds, but as I understand it as long as you are not storing the information for ages or making it widely available to others you should be OK.
It's political correctness gone mad! As described by Stewart Lee the other week.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
All good points...
So its down to insurance ... and h&s
the Criminal Records thing... good point... but that means everyone..? Shurely Shome Mishtake.
On my recent volly site... I was already checked, and the YAC leaders were, however, If I had said that everyone else had to go through a criminal record check.. I can imagine the response.. even from those that had no record...
Duty of Care.. can be taken too far... and I could give you a hundred easy ways to subvert it.. it is good to think about it.. but perhaps can be taken beyond the reasonable.
I agree that finding a job suitable for people is a good thing... suggesting they have to be fit and healthy before even getting to that point is putting people who don't feel fit or healthy.. and as I say.. does that mean smoking? depression? a gammy knee? a sore back? (that would put most of us out of a job)
Would any digger accept that level of intrusion? :face-stir:
"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: May 2004
"On my recent volly site... I was already checked,"
Surely if people think that the duty of care is so important, they should give you a fresh check every time, to check that nothing has appeared on your file in the meantime.
When I volunteer with a wildlife trust, you're supposed to carry medical card on you to mention any allergies, medical problems and to notify next of kin.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Why not have a check every second day... just to be sure 
its political correctness <s>gone mad</s> not understood
:face-huh:
I would love to know the criteria...
would me putting that I had an allergy mean I would not get to dig? would not having dug before mean I would not get to dig?
All not clear... and I would worry about calling to check in case that I got the ... thanks so much for your application... (cue frosty silence) why not ask... like they did in america.. are you a terrorist? that will sort it!
indeed the reference one is interesting, as if the last time you dug was with them, you need to get a reference from them to give to them... work that one out!
Surely a publicly funded (ie ... my cash as well) site should be making it clear what is required, but not putting up barriers to entry.. or should I say potential barriers...
"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: Nov 2005
Sometimes it depends on previous experience.
If I had previously been in charge of a site and had some trouble in this department, maybe I would request all this documentation to cover my back, just because I wouldn't want to go through the hassle of explaining myself afterwards again?
Some time ago I was running a dig abroad with undergraduates. It was in a country with a conservative, traditional background. The students had quite a lot of freedom on the project, and one decided this meant they could start having an affair with a local. This created massive problems for the reputation and indeed the future success of the project, because the locals took exception. A major catastrophe was avoided at the time, but in the future I had to spell out that relationships with locals are a no-no, and anyone going into that direction would be on the next flight home. Over reaction? Maybe, but unfortunately necessary and born out of experience. It isn't any of my business what people do with their private lives and relationships, but it becomes a serious problem for me when locals start chasing us with pitch-forks! (over-dramatization).
Usually criminal record checks when working with young people or children are meant to be for those who are in a position of responsibility or in charge of a group of people, because they can make an easy impression and exert some degree of control.
I can imagine that on a large scale dig involving both children and young people the older volunteers are automatically seen as being in a position of authority?
At the same time, you can you request criminal record checks for some, but not for others? On what basis do you decide? I'd say that if criminal record checks are required, than they should be required for everyone. That's only fair.
I agree that duty of care can be taken too far, but that matters jacks*** when something happens and you haven't covered for all the eventualities: insurance won't pay, you might be liable personally, or indeed it may mean a criminal offense etc. Unfortunately, that's the world we live in now...
I cringe everytime I have to prepare an H&S outline for my projects abroad - from venomous scorpions and snakes, to terrorism and regional wars. I know full well that 99% of what i write is bulls***, but it has to be done.
You're right its about the wording of being 'healthy'. I request that people tell us about their health problems beforehand, so that we know what we can ask them to do, what medications they need to take, that they have enough of that medication with them, that we can find tasks for them to do that are appropriate for their capacities and health. But, it needs to be explained in those terms. "We ask you that, because we want to make sure you won't be harmed..." etc.
Unfortunately, some people think they can do stuff that in fact over stretches them. Some people won't tell you they have this or that problem, because they want to be fully involved, don't want what they think is special treatment, want to dig etc. But when they keel over its your problem to deal with.
The case of a paid digger is different, but similar things have occurred. There are instances when people are being asked the same questions. Some people have had to go through quite probing security clearance to work on sensitive sites (military installations for example). This is well beyond a criminal records check!
The issue of having a medical problem and being fit for work is a different matter. On the one hand the employer needs to be sure that you're competent and capable of carrying out your assigned duties. On the other hand, we need to create opportunities that provide equality to those who can't engage in fieldwork in the same way due to health reasons. But again, I would hope this is not primarily an issue of disrimination, but an issue of responsible behaviour by the employer.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
Oh the joyful side of community archaeology 
Anyone who volunteers on our digs/fieldwork have to fill in so much paperwork as it is; if we asked them to have a crb check too, it'd tip them over the edge.
Some of my lot complain when i give them the health and safety talk before walkover survey. 'can't you just give us the shortened version and tell us not to be daft?' they ask.  i wish!
Having kids on site is a particularly worm-riddled problem. Firstly; schools themselves have so much paperwork to do, before we even start ours. And there need to be enough supervisors for any kids, and they have to be crb checked. Unfortunately there are so many issues that we often take the easy route out and say 'children must be accompanied by parent or guardian for the duration', because we just don't have time or staff to do more.
In terms of the fitness of volunteers; we try and include everyone, and archaeology is such a great subject for inclusivity; eg arts projects running alongside excavation, 'archaeology by touch' sessions for visually impaired etc. But there are some instances where it is just not possible to make something accessible to all, unfortunately. But with a bit of lateral thinking you can get around most obstacles. The real issue then becomes time and money.
I agree that knowing about health issues is vitally important, especially when the work may be physically demanding, or taking place in remote areas. But as long as you are sensible, and don't have unsupervised kids working with adults, and make sure there is adequate supervision on site for everyone, i don't see a crb check as being necessary. Lay down the rules at the induction, and if they break them, they have to leave site.
~~~~~
Thunder rolled. ... It rolled a six.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
All very interesting and opening up debate into this..
here is a conundrum for you..
If I was a child fiddler.. but had not be caught .. it would not show up on my Disclosure would it? therefore I could get one and so have legalised access to children..
I fully understand the protection.. but there are so many holes that it can fail.. a strong supervisorial team is all you need with personal trust. gettting crc on vollys is just plain weird.
"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: Nov 2005
Again, I think it depends on the circumstances (are there going to be vulnerable people on the project, how are they going to be supervised etc.). Maybe you don't have access (yet?) to a strong supervisory team?
I agree that its weird, but it depends on which regulations you're subject too. Sometimes you can't choose.
Sure there are holes in the process and it is extra work. But if you're required to do it...what if there was a sex offender and you hadn't requested disclosure forms, and then something happens...?
Basically, you'd be in the s*** in more way than one...
|
