Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
17th November 2005, 02:18 PM
Quote:quote:Lots of exciting and promising stuff-but just words
- from Troll
Actually, if you re-read the stuff, you will see that it lists quite a few solid achievements - 'this is what we have done' rather than 'this is what we aspire to'.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
17th November 2005, 06:08 PM
Quote:quote:We proposed a model whereby the minimum salary is taken to include an employer?s pension contribution, a minimum number of days of paid leave, a sick leave allowance and a defined average working week. Following the consultation, Council has agreed the following package as a minimum standard, from 1 April 2007
? 37.5 hour average working week
? Employer pension contribution of 6%, subject to any reasonable qualifying period
? 20 days annual leave excluding statutory holidays
? Minimum sick leave allowance of 1 month on full pay, subject to any reasonable qualifying period
In some cases employers may find themselves unable to meet these requirements. Whilst this is not best employment practice, the IFA will expect any shortfall in benefits to be compensated for in pay. The following table illustrates examples of the salary enhancements which would be required if the employment package fell below the minimum recommended allowances. Betterment of these terms would not, however, permit a reduction in basic salary.
Table 1.
2006/7 minimum salaryrecommendations = ?13,855 (PIFA), ?16,137 (AIFA), ?20,893 (MIFA)
No employer pension contributions (+6%) = ?14,686 (PIFA), ?17,105 (AIFA), ?22,146 (MIFA)
Average 40 hours/week = ?14,978 (PIFA), ?17,445 (AIFA), ?22,587 (MIFA)
20 days annual leave including statutory holidays = ?14,281(PIFA), ?16,633 (AIFA), ?21,563 (MIFA)
No sick leave allowance (based on min. 1 month
full pay) = ?15,009 (PIFA), ?17,481 (AIFA), ?22,634 (MIFA)
Quote taken from the IFA News section on the front page of the IFA website. Note that, when put into effect, these requirements will be mandatory for RAOs.
How's that for 'action not words' Troll?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
17th November 2005, 07:14 PM
one big question. Is that for permanent staff or for all staff?
++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
18th November 2005, 12:35 AM
1man1desk.
Interesting that those scales and benefits are due for 2007. They ignore the reccommendations of APPAG. They maintain the status Quo and are nothing new.Not only that, if we look really closely, we may just find that some of these new "action-not words" are nothing more than following current statutory requirements in employment law.The pay scales across the board are pathetic, offensive,derisory and I`m sorry-you`ve just provided me with probably the best anti-IFA example possible.Further, if the IFA have no role in ppg-land, who are they to determine wage levels for the mass of us who work in that environment? Once again-we have been undervalued.My main thrust in all I say is nothing to do with pay.Although pay and conditions in the industry can still be seen as appalling-standards in the field and elsewhere is my gripe. As I said before, nothing tangible. 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
18th November 2005, 01:14 AM
The IFA proposals for pay have been presented to RAOs for discussion. It is not yet a done deal.
My problem is not with the principal but the amounts. Where is the pay minima for 2006 in all this?
My on-going survey of BAJR job adverts reveals that (despite IFA claims to the contrary) it is actually RAOs who are amongst the worst payers in UK archaeology. This scheme does nothing to improve that situation.
The reality is that if these scales are adopted some RAOs will be paying as little as ?265 per week to experienced diggers in March 2008. The current 'average' pay for an experienced digger (based on BAJR job ads April-November 2005) is ?278 per week. So the IFA proposes a scheme where its registered 'best practice' organisations can pay less in 3 years time than the current industry average. That is sheer lunacy!!.
I hope the RAOs throw out this lousy deal.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
18th November 2005, 01:26 AM
Midnight oil burning again Kevin!! Agreed wholeheartedly. I fear that the RAO`s will accept, tiz in their financial interests after all.Kevin-keep yer keen eye on them real numbers sir-we need your finger firmly on the pulse.There`s nothing worse than a profession that accepts data it is fed as marketing blurb without questioning it. Knackered.Bed.Flatulence and plotting.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
18th November 2005, 09:33 AM
Troll, if you go to the actual IFA website you will be able to read the whole document and see what it says about non-permanent staff.
The point is not whether the IFA recommendations give you/us everything we would like, but whether they achieve an improvement over the status quo. These do, because when implemented they will make it mandatory for RAOs to provide some of the benefits not currently offered to many archaeologists in or out of RAOs, or to financially compensate for not providing them.
There are already minima in place for 2005/2006. These new recommendations could not be brought in before 2007, because many employers are in legally binding arrangements that would prevent them from complying.
What do you want the IFA to do - work miracles? They are working to improve pay and conditions, but they can't do it all at once, if they tried to do so it would simply fail. This bit is principally about conditions rather than pay. Look at in an unbiased way and you will see plenty there that is an improvement on current conditions.
On the size of the minima, well, I wouldn't pay anyone that much and in my organisation (which is an RAO) we pay PIFA level people more than the AIFA minimum. However, we are not a field unit and we can charge more for our staff time.
Kevin compares these minima with the current average. Well, he might have a point, but then he is comparing a minimum acceptable level with an average, which is not really valid.
Troll, you say "if the IFA have no role in PPG land who are they to determine wage levels for the mass of us who work in that environment". I am not sure of the relevance of PPG16 here - that is about planning permission, this is about wages. In any case, the IFA are not determining wage levels - the employers do that; the IFA are simply setting a minimum acceptable level for RAOs.
How do you get away with simultaneously complaining that the IFA are not doing enough to improve pay and conditions while saying that it is nothing to do with them?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
18th November 2005, 10:05 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
I fear that the RAO`s will accept, tiz in their financial interests after all.
Interesting point. Is it in the financial interest of RAOs to accept this deal?
There are currently 12 RAOs who have advertised experienced digger posts at or above the industry average wage of ?278 per week. There are 17 RAOs offering wages below that level.
It seems to me that if I were a senior manager of an RAO paying above the current average experienced digger wage (and I know that some of you 'lurk' on this site!!) I might ask myself why the IFA should be 'legitimising' competitor units who seek to undercut the fianacial value of my units work. I might be tempted to express oppposition to these proposals because I actually want to see a high value, high wage archaeological industry where good firms prosper and the bad firms go to the wall. I might also ask myself what is RAO status worth if all it does is propogate bad practice, low wages and disenchantment amongst the workeforce.
So perhaps there is still some hope that RAOs will reject this deal.
1man1desk says it is invalid to compare the average archaeological wage with the proposed minima. I don't see that. The average wage is calculated across the industry including both RAO and non RAOs. My point is that as the standard bearers for 'best practice' the IFA should be campaigning for it's registered organisations to be in the top percentage regarding pay and conditions rather than propping up the industry. It ought to be at least a given surely that RAOs pay the 'average' archaeological wage.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
18th November 2005, 11:31 AM
What EXACTLY would you do if you were top banana in the IFA tomorrow? You could amend the pay scales to anything you want - 300, 400, 500, 1000 quid a week. What would happen?
Correct. Nothing. The pay scales are a reflection of the market, they do not set it.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
18th November 2005, 11:40 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by the invisible man
What EXACTLY would you do if you were top banana in the IFA tomorrow?
Have a large lunch on expenses?
Of course, if we were all to be members of the IFA, we could form a power bloc within the IFA, providing that we could co-ordinate our actions. We could then vote ourselves into positions of responsibility, from which lofty vantage points we might change things. Just a thought.
Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique
"All human endeavour is futile"
|
