IFA membership

[1man1desk]

Kevin,

You have some good points there. I don't exactly disagree with them, but I think I probably draw different conclusions. Looking at your points in turn:

- level of graduate entry: I would like to see the IFA campaigning for the local authorities to change this - but it is quite a big mountain to move. Might be a point to raise with the unions as well. In the meantime, the IFA have to take account of the level at which people are actually employed. The other question about this is, are we necessarily talking about graduate entry? I think on other threads you, I and Troll have all proposed (in different ways) that entry-level archaeologists need not actually be graduates, although they usually are.

- financial recognition of professional accreditation: I don't know enough about recognition of other types of membership to comment about that. However, you can't blame the IFA for the local authorities' discrimination in this way.

- flexibility within grades: good point. Perhaps we could be looking at, say, bottom of scale 2 for non-graduate entrants and higher points on the scale to recognise graduate and/or PIFA status? Again, a decision for the authorities, not the IFA.

- the Manning report: sounds very interesting, I didn't previously know about that. Could be a starting point for a campaign. Talk to the unions as well as the IFA.

- number of RAOs that are local-government based: Might be worth thinking about how many people they employ, as well as how many organisations. Quite a few of the non-local govt. organisations are very small (I know of one that has a total staff of 2). Some are quite big as well, though, so I haven't any idea of what proportion of RAO employees work for local authorities.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that the IFA should consider de-coupling the recommended minima from local authority grades and raising them. The upshot in the short term would be that all local authority units would lose their RAO status the following year. Would this be a good thing?

An alternative conclusion would be that the IFA should decide that, as a professional institution (not a union)they should stop recommending minima if they are not able to set levels they consider appropriate, and leave that aspect to the unions as well. Would that be a good thing? How effective have the unions been on this in the past?

I don't ask these questions rhetorically - I really want to know.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

More on the 'action not words' issue:

In September this year the IFA reformed its disciplinary procedures to make them more streamlined and effective. Amongst the changes was a measure that enabled the IFA itself to bring a complaint (which they previously couldn't), where a case of misconduct is brought to their attention by someone who does not feel able to bring a formal complaint themselves.

That does not sound to me like an organisation that does not want to enforce their own standards.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Real Job]

quote:Fact; There is a great flexibility within a local government pay scale. Archaeologists could be paid for example an entry grade at the top of scale 2, not the bottom.

Fact: a study carried out by the Museum of London (the Manning Report) in the early 1980's, recommended that the entry grade for archaeologists should be local government grade 3, with promotion to grade 4 after a probation period and that supervisory staff should be on at least local government grade 5

These are the current LG pay scales as of April 1st 2005:

?13,737 2
?14,106 2
?14,364 3
?14,664 3
?15,015 3
?15,372 3
?15,675 4
?16,260 4
?16,854 4
?17,469 4
?18,450 5
?19,053 5
?19,656 5

Based on these figures, the Manning Report recommendations sound a pretty reasonable start. I have never heard of it before - is it publicly accessable?

Not so sure about starting at the top of grade two - only an extra 270 quid per annum. Not commensurate with the scale of the problem.








"So does your partner have a real job?" Asked of me by an interviewer for a supervisor post at a well known unit not that many years ago...

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
- number of RAOs that are local-government based: Might be worth thinking about how many people they employ, as well as how many organisations. Quite a few of the non-local govt. organisations are very small (I know of one that has a total staff of 2). Some are quite big as well, though, so I haven't any idea of what proportion of RAO employees work for local authorities.

You probably knew that I would just happen to have those figures at my fingertips.


Total number of staff employed by RAO's: 1622

Total number of staff employed by local government RAOs: 346

Percentage of local government RAO employees: 24%


However as I have already explained that the Museum of London broke the local government 'grade 2' link back in the early 80's. I have no knowledge of whether the remaining units retain the 'grade 2' link. But, if you exclude MOLAS staff from the total, it becomes,


Total number of staff employed by local government RAOs (excluding MOLAS): 246

Percentage of local government staff (excluding MOLAS) of RAO total: 15%

It would appear that IFA policy linking recommended wage minima to Local government payscale 2 is based on a situation that only applies to 15% of RAO employed staff.

[troll]

Just to quickly throw the gaunlet down on the PIFA/AIFA/MIFA issue.1man1desk asks whats wrong with it?
1. There are those who achieve MIFA outside of a fieldwork environment and then go on to consultancy or, direct field projects.This is in itself a clear breach of IFA guidelines as competence is a real issue.
2. A field archaeologist can find themself confined to PIFA despite years of experience and multitudes of skills.9 months or 9 years-PIFA.This again smacks of a scheme to keep wages low for those in the front line and, bolsters the argument of some who view the IFA as a club for "hands-off" managers.
3. The current accreditation system does not grade field archaeology specialists.According to the current system, field archaeologists en masse are slotted together in the 6-9months bracket.Lots of us find this current state of play offensive.As a caveat, it has been said before that when a professional takes "responsibility", this is reflected in their "grading".Are we to take from this the view that field archaeologists do not accept responsibility?

[troll]

1man1desk-just another quicky....
This statistic has been posted here before but, would you care to tell the readership just how many organisations/individuals have been removed/refused membership of the IFA in all the years of their existence as an institute?
Can anyone please give me an example of how the written aims of the IFA have made a tangible impact at the coal face in commercial archaeology?

[Cautionary Tale]

quote:Originally posted by troll
Are we to take from this the view that field archaeologists do not accept responsibility?

From the current IFA point of view, if a site assistant performs the same functions as a site assistant with 9 years experience, then both are entitled to be PIFA because of the level of duties they perform. The responsibiliy level has not changed even if the level of competence has increased through experience. I'm not sure that corporate levels in the IFA could ever be the right place for this to be reflected.
On a certain level, what is wrong with someone 'outside of a fieldwork environment' going into consultancy? Consultancy is about advice to clients as to archaeological liability and mitigation for which having field experience isn't really necessary, knowledge of the areas archaeology and familiarity with techniques and legistlation yes. Bluntly, if you give crap advice, the curator will laugh in your face and steam-roller over you MIFA or no MIFA.
The IFA has introduced written standards and a code of conduct. That is their main impact. If you've very done a watching brief or building recording, chances are the minimum standards were set by the IFA (if in part).

I have a question: what does a site assistant with 9 months experience not do that a site assistant with 9 years experience does which would not constitute election to AIFA? - I may edit this question later for clarity....


(I really have worked in the field)

[troll]

Barnsey-tiz late and you have posed a big and extremely good question.Will answer later but for now-here`s a one word answer to your last question...argue!

[Cautionary Tale]

I will open a new topic with this question. It seems this is at the route of the debate of lack of recognition. It shall be known as PIFA or AIFA or MIFA.

(I really have worked in the field)

[1man1desk]

quote:posted by Kevin Wooldridge:
I am in the process of placing my job advert data on a blog site. Hopefully it will be there in the next 10 minutes at http://www.freewebs.com/outwageuk and click onto the November 2005 link

This is a very useful resource - but it needs a health warning. Different organisations use titles differently. I know, for instance, that the advertised posts in the top 3 in the 'archaeologist' column were all for a higher level of responsibility than that shown, while at least one advertised wage level is shown at too high a level of responsibility. This type of error would significantly alter the order in the league table.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished