Crisis ? What Crisis? A Way forward?

[BAJR Host]

VoR suggests we start thinking about what exactly we are going to do with the the current state of Archaeology.

Today I am going to the SCAUM meeting in York, and am sure one of the major topics will be the current downturn.

I am sadly aware of a slew of job losses, from Diggers to Project Managers. What do we do? A catastrophe would be the loss of skills and experience, that, after the credit crunch effect slackens, will be hard to replace. People are not able to hold on for the 12-18 months that may lie ahead… and are unlikely to return.

The Govt. are talking about bringing road building and govt projects forward.. will this help? Should we be coming together and ensuring the support is there to keep companies going. Share the work..? Come together in consortiums?

Could we see skill sharing of specialists.. where a number of companies utilise the skilled individuals?

And whither training? Pay rises? Reform of the profession?

Should it be put on hold OR (as I believe) should we (as a profession) move forward with these with greater speed? Set up a system of training and apprenticeships.. ensure pay rises as set out in the Benchmark document… alter the direction of commercial archaeology away from a fully developer funded activity to a partial public funded (and open public) service.

Should (or indeed could) EH, HS, CADW the National Trust and NTS pour valuable and decreasing budgets into archaeology .. should the Govt. indeed be acting to preserve archaeology?

Lots of questions.. some suggestions… decisive.. swift and direct action needed now. No time for working parties or reports .. this needs collective will and collective action right now.. am I wrong?


"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton

[chiz]

I share your concern about the short and medium term future, certainly my work has dropped alarmingly, and quickly, and I don't see it getting better very quickly. I think we have to look at where we are first though, we are at the end of a long period of growth, there has been a boom in archaeology, with lots of work, the Irish jobs, loads of big infrastructure projects like T5, masses of work in London, and a dearth of excavators, let alone decent, experienced ones. To the point where we have seen many european colleagues coming over to help get the jobs done.
There have of course been quite bad local downturns over the last ten years: eleven years ago was pretty grim as business waited to see how Labour behaved, there was a glut in London prior to Millenium, then nothing, and at least two serious downturns since then, where the biggest unit had less than ten diggers. So even in the last years of growth there have been ups and downs. The difference now appears that everywhere is bad at the same time, and confidence is zero. Its not just a temporary local problem, but the next door unit has work. We have built up a larger body of archaeologists than maybe ever before, and now haven't got the work for them. Because units have almost universally failed to train or help develop their staff effectively we are stuck in the same position as at every previous downturn, we have lost so many skilled people over the last twenty years because of pay and conditions that I believe we are now in a weaker state than at previous crunch times.
We will lose more archaeologists from the profession. This has though always happened. It is explicitly acknowledged in profiling the profession. The industry relies on chewing up and spitting out. That is how it is set up at the moment. That needs changing, but do not underestimate how hard it will be. Last year anyone could become an archaeologist, 'two arms? -you got a job', we need to address this, but it may mean restricting the workforce to keep stability. What turnover of staff is acceptable? Do we accept these periodic famines as a necessary method to get rid of poor archaeologists and accept that we will lose some talent with the drifting mediocrity! Who do we want to be an archaeologist?
Harsh words.

We will be a smaller profession next year, but we must address the root causes of the problems NOW, put our house in order and sort pay and conditions to create a stable base to go forward. Not retreat into our bunkers and say, 'well it will be ok again one day, and there'll always be more students wanting work'. Time for those who represent the profession to show their mettle

[chiz]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
The Govt. are talking about bringing road building and govt projects forward.. will this help? Should we be coming together and ensuring the support is there to keep companies going. Share the work..? Come together in consortiums?

I'm not sure how much work could be brought forward, I don't think the govt is thinking Hoover Dam here, and I am sure that any schemes pushed through without proper consultation with locals will be avoided for political issues, so I don't think this will be a panacea.
And I'd be worried too about the place of archaeology in such schemes. The govt would be risking a lot to bring forward schemes -and most big schemes now are PFI after all- and there are bigger lobbies than archaeology out there. I would not expect the archaeological component of any scheme to have as much time on any job as previously would be the case. 20 site staff trowelling for a month holding up 150 groundworkers? I doubt it.

[Windbag]

In answer to some of the issues raised above, I'd like to make the following points.
1) The government is concerned about the downturn in the economy, and talk has gravitated towards fast-tracking major developments. However, these have a long gestation period, and so are unlikely to help archaeologists in the short term.
2) The government is unlikely to spend more money directly supporting archaeological excavation and research.
3) Skill-sharing of specialists. If work dries up, then units will not be able to support the same number of specialists. This may lead either to reduced hours or job losses. If I were a specialist right now working for a unit with not much work on the books, I'd be considering additional freelance, self-employed work and approaching units that may require this service on a project-by-project basis.
4) I fully agree that progress should continue on reforming the profession. Archaeological units across the UK may be considering cutting staff, lowering charge-out rates and cutting out the "non-essentials". The more consensus there is in the archaeological community about what the minimum standards are (and associated issues of what qualifies somebody to be an archaeologist and indirectly how much archaeological projects will cost) then the more likely it is that good standards will be adhered to in the face of pressures to cut corners to stay competitive.

[kevin wooldridge]

Both Bob and Windbag have made reference to 'restricting' and 'reforming' the profession.

As I guess we are only talking hypothetics, how would either feel about IFA membership becoming a major criterion in this discussion?

[flashdigger]

Things could get far worse for us if the government slackens Planning Conditions firther in order to get construction companies building again!. Its hard not to feel total dispair for where the profession is heading, certainly at the commercial level.

[chiz]

Kevin, as we are only talking hypotheticals, maybe the IFA will do something worth the subs and get a real grip on this?! I am also a member of the IFA, and they have a big role -one that they carved out for themselves remember. It wasn't pushed on them. They, the CBA, SCAUM etc need to think hard about all these issues from all viewpoints and communicate with the profession.

What I was trying to highlight is that archaeology is cyclical, except this cycle is hitting bottom everywhere at the same time which creates a real problem as a workforce that is unfortunately all too used to moving after jobs, can't even do this now.
Over the last twenty years I have seen many many people get into archaeology, and leave months or years or decades later. Some were a great loss to archaeology, some should have gone years earlier as they were frankly useless. The dynamics of employment in the profession are based on the annual influx of keen young ex-students all desperate for work because their universities almost universally failed to give them the skills they would need in real life. The crux is this:
Do we want to carry on with this dynamic, or move to a different system that may enable a more stable workforce

Would I be prepared to see chartering of the IFA or similar? Possibly, on the right terms. I'd like to see a proper structured approach to training, recognition and qualifications -which I feel is possibly coming. We just need to make sure the advances aren't lost in the fight for survival

[Windbag]

I'm not so sure about restriction/reform meaning that individual membership of the IfA is required.
I think standards in commercial archaeology can be maintained or raised through a number of different channels:

IfA- RAOs and individual membership
Curators- monitoring the standard of archaeological work.

I know that curators have a lot on their plate, but ALGAO could have a strong role in ensuring that curators in different areas of the country do not come under increasing pressure to reduce archaeological conditions on planning applications due to pressure from non-archaeologists (the "if you put conditions on this application it'll cost jobs" argument).

Like it or loathe it, I'd expect the IfA over any other organisation to provide leadership on the issue of raising/maintaining standards. The more means it has to enforce standards the more likely it is that standards will be maintained. Unofficial or official government recognition of the IfA as the professional body for archaeologists, mandatory RO status and possibly individual membership would all be ways in which the IfA's authority could be beefed up.

Individual companies need to stay competitive. Government agencies cannot fill the gap. Groups of companies cannot collude. Curators are concerned with the standard of archaeological work undertaken, but have other pressures and local areas of responsibility.

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by bob

We will be a smaller profession next year, but we must address the root causes of the problems NOW, put our house in order and sort pay and conditions to create a stable base to go forward. Not retreat into our bunkers and say, 'well it will be ok again one day, and there'll always be more students wanting work'. Time for those who represent the profession to show their mettle

Perhaps in putting our house in order though, we also need to reassert the profession as a discipline in its own right? For a while now we've seen increasingly bland "Heritage language" coming out of government and being adopted by parts of our profession. However speaking personally, I never wanted to be a "Heritage Professional" and I don't really like references to generic "Heritage Assets" or "Heritage Resources". I think this kind of insipid terminology distances us from the public, devalues our skills and ignores the diversity of the historic environment. If there is to be a contraction in the profession and therefore a need to concentrate on a stable base to preserve skills and move forward, should we also be highlighting, promoting and celebrating a distinct "Archaeological" profession and agenda again?

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by WindbagIndividual companies need to stay competitive. Government agencies cannot fill the gap. Groups of companies cannot collude. Curators are concerned with the standard of archaeological work undertaken, but have other pressures and local areas of responsibility.

It seems to be that if the current downturn works out is as bad as it appears to be heading, then it will be impossible for a much smaller jobs market to sustain the present number of archaeological contractors. In that sense it is an impossibility for companies to remain competitive. They have to work together or possibly all end up going to the wall.

Can't cut-throat competition be suspended forthwith for the sake of both individuals jobs and archaeology as a profession?

Further, being basically politically unreconstructed (I have a photograph of Stalin on my mantlepiece) I would also disagree with the assumption that government agencies can't fill the gap. If the government can in effect 'nationalise' the majority of the banking industry at the stroke of a pen, I see no reason why central and local government couldn't reassert its ownership of UK archaeology.