DIGGER, voice for good or SWP polemic?

[vulpes]

Right, this is all a bit out of hand really. Dunno who posted the slur that's now my sig - but I like it, not sure 'bout the right wing bit tho'. Anyway it did give my colleagues a good laugh this morning. The thing about the Digger subs was a joke that obviously misfired, but hey never mind - I won't be donating my Xmas bonus to it though. My comments if abstruse perhaps - are due to a lack of understanding - from the class comments in the Digger letter and all this campus lite political posturing that has since ensued. I'm not an ist either myself - Well I am, I'm an archaeolog-ist anyway and I thought that was what this board was about. I personally view all this class and politics stuff as a red herring - we are all archaeologists and know what the problems are facing the 'profession', some of which were identified in that letter. From Beer Beast's posts I take it that all that mattered to him was the OA bit whereas I took that and the class stuff as a bit irrelevant. I'd rather be called a Trotskyite than right wing any day - but if that's the way I'm to be painted on the strength of a couple of v. short posts fair play.


Right wing, metal detectorist antiquarian (allegedly).

[monitor lizard]

quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
[One of the big problems that prevents their power from being exersised properly, in my experience (any curators want to comment?), is resources. They don't usually have enough staff/time to monitor properly, and some of the staff don't have sufficient field experience to do the monitoring properly anyway.

Secondly, should they have power over wages/conditions? I think that is out of their remit, to be honest. Their job is to advise the planning authority on what to make developers do, and monitor the work being done to make sure it happens and is done to standard. Wages and conditions of employment are way outside that remit.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

Would never presume to speak for my curatorial colleagues, but I think that staff/resources is a common complaint. Where I've personally drawn the line in regards to field and other monitoring is as follows:
1. all evaluations get visited at least once, unless it is negative from a unit and supervisor I know and trust
2. all excavations are visited at least once, and for larger and/or more complicated sites generally once a fortnight
3. never ever have been out to see a watching brief (NO time for that)
4. never have, and can't see a reason why, to monitor geotechnical works
5. have monitored post-excavation work on several occasions, particularly when I didn't like the way the field work was going
6. will also go out if asked and it is important - but tend to write polite 'no thanks' letters to the general public.

So I try to get to most things - but this is in sacrifice of the piles of post and consultations and other things. Would love to have to time to look at policy documents, for example, in detail, but simply don't. If I go to site, something else will be late or not done, especially if there is a lot of travel involved OR if pesky consultants try to plan meetings for midday so they can avoid driving at rush hour. That's life.

As for point 2, I certainly agree with 1 man here - our job is to make sure standards are upheld, which does not extend to wages/pay. Time on site, yes, post-excavation work, sure, programming, maybe. But not money.

ML

[Post-Med Potterer]

In response to Real Job I agree that my characterisation was broad-brush... also I am not sure that the archaeological market is as well-developed as that for, say, motor car servicing. Basically I was saying that the free market is responsible BOTH for increased professionalism and wages AND for decreased quality and wages. Different archaeological organisations compete in different niches and at different ends of the market.

I also agree that some markets are more free than others (not sure that Private Nurseries are 'heavily regulated by the state' though, really, unless it is to make sure that they don't sell Japanese Knotweed?! )

However, as you yourself point out, regulation to ensure quality is not related to wages. This ties in with what others have subsequently said on the subject of curators. Curators are responsible for policing the quality of archaeological work (and so will comment for example on staffing levels and time allocation) but not on costs (which include wages and are in confidence between client and contractor).

However I go back to my original point that a unit which pays low wages and doesn't invest in its staff will ultimately do worse archaeology than one which does. This is because demoralised staff and under-resourced projects cannot possibly compete with highly motivated staff and well-funded projects. OK in the short term they will pull through with enthusiasm and 'dedication' but you can't ask anyone to perform over and above the call of duty as a matter of course. They will go elsewhere as I have in my time and I am sure many on this board have also.

As 1man points out, poor project planning is ultimately responsible for many of the problems. The money is not really an issue for most developers.

[Real Job]

The problems faced in archaeology boil down to poor wages, poor employment conditions (short contracts, training, pensions etc.), and sometimes poor quality of work.

These can all be laid at the door of competitive tendering and the relatively unregulated market that this produces. Units try to hold down their costs so that they can win contracts more easily - And cost is the main issue; the developers who pay for archaeology are not like ordinary consumer. We might pay extra to have quality oil put in our car by a company who specialise in that particular vehicle, but a business only cares about getting the archaeology done to the minimum standard specified by the curator.

Wages/conditionsCompetition between units drives 'em down. Wages/training/pensions obviously, short contracts because units can't afford to carry staff when the work dries up and have unpredicatable workloads since there is no guarantee they will win contracts.

You can't compare life before the profession existed (when a few archaeologists were employed by councils and had to apply for grants to pay subsistence wages to volunteers to do archaeological work that had no legal basis to it anyway) to the situation now where we have a fully fledged profession on a legal (-ish!) basis. If what Kevin suggests is true, then wages have not in fact increased in relative terms anyway.

Quality is more complicated, but the aspect raised by archaeo_logical about not having enough time on site is also down to competitive tendering. Its usually because units have undercut each other to try to win the contact by claiming to be able to do the work in a quicker time/with fewer resources. Its an inevitable tendency in a climate of cut-throat competition.

There are issues of experience; it is certainly a lot cheaper to employ a team of new graduates than a more mixed team including more experienced field workers... and cheaper means a lower quote. Also experienced archaeologists often leave the profession because they can't afford to buy a house/have a family/go on holiday because the market is holding down their wages or their future employment is uncertain.

regulation of the marketplace is down to the curators - they are under resourced, but do their best to moniter quality. They don't/can't moniter wages and conditions.

The upshot seems to be that, under our free-market set-up, it is diffcult to do anything about wages and conditions, and the under-resourced curators will constantly be battling against the tendency toward cut-price fieldwork. I'm not saying that the system doesn't work - it does after a fashion thanks to the hard work of curators and the dedication of fieldworkers - but is it how we should envisage archaeology's long term future?

[archae_logical]

quote:
Where it breaks down is if the archaeologists themselves have under-estimated the time required (they often do), and the developer has based a complex and very expensive works programme on the assumption that the archaeologists will be off site when they said they would.

Bear in mind that the cost of delay to a major construction programme is completely out of proportion to the cost of the actual archaeological works. A week's delay can cost tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of pounds.

1man1desk

So the question that remains with me is why do archaeologists not allow enough time. Is this just to get the contract or is it lack of knowledge?
I realise the costs involved for a developer, what I can't understand is does the archaeologist not give an alternative time length for if something unexpected is found? This is why I talked about contingency plans. I would imagine very few large developers have only one job on at once.

E
wondering if she's really a blonde [:p]

[Real Job]

quote:However I go back to my original point that a unit which pays low wages and doesn't invest in its staff will ultimately do worse archaeology than one which does. This is because demoralised staff and under-resourced projects cannot possibly compete with highly motivated staff and well-funded projects. OK in the short term they will pull through with enthusiasm and 'dedication' but you can't ask anyone to perform over and above the call of duty as a matter of course

posted by Post-Med Potterer

There is some variation between units - perhaps due to different management philosophies (?) - but the vast mass of units pay poorly (and the vast mass of units do the vast mass of archaeology). I don't recognize the picture of a 'quality' end of the market with high wages and decent conditions of employment. Where are all these units?!

[Real Job]

P.s Vulpes - I didn't see any problem with your posts myself... nor did I get the impression that you were a 'Right wing, metal detectorist antiquarian '...

[Post-Med Potterer]

quote:We might pay extra to have quality oil put in our car by a company who specialise in that particular vehicle, but a business only cares about getting the archaeology done to the minimum standard specified by the curator

In a lot of cases that's true, just as lots of people go to KwikFit for an oil and filter change. Archaeology is also a business, by the way, and when I select subcontractors to work on a site (whether it is plant hire or an environmental specialist) I choose those who offer best value, not always the cheapest - ie. those with a track record of supplying what I want, when I want it, at a reasonable price. I am prepared to pay more for a company that supplies newer machines with well-trained drivers at slightly higher cost. I have never lost a tender because of the cost of machine hire.

A developer is the same - he chooses an archaeologist on the basis of competence first and cost second. OK yes we are tendering competetively, but I am sure that most of the consultants on here will tell you that the difference between most tenders from contracting units is relatively peanuts.

For example. A developer is working on ?10m project where archaeological work is required. He gets a brief from the curator, he maybe has a consultant who runs the tendering competition (or maybe he does it himself). He gets three bids, one from Archaeologist A for ?240,000, one from Archaeologist B for ?270,000 asnd one from Archaeologist C for ?280,000.

Before making a decision on who to engage he looks at it in the round. He will not automatically award the contract to A.

He will ask his consultant (or the curator, or another developer with experience of that firm) what their experiences are of A, B and C. He might ask for clarification of programme details.

He will choose the bid that offers him least trouble. It might be that A has presented an unreasonable timetable and is unlikely to finish on time (a delay on construction by a week will cost the ?30,000 difference between A and B). It might be that A writes shoddy reports which need to be sent back by the curator for a large number of corrections (thus delaying all-important planning approval). It might be that B has shown a greater understanding of Health and Safety and has costed appropriately for it. Maybe C has allowed more staff to ensure higher quality of work.

The real choice will be between B and C. The chances are that A's low bid will be possible because he is giving his staff less time to work on certain aspects of the project, because he is paying them less or offering fewer benefits, or because he is incompetent.

Of course there may be nothing between the bids technically, in which case he will go for the cheaper bid. But this is very rarely the case.

To answer archae_logical's point, a great many do put in contingencies for adverse events - eg. more significant findings, bad weather, other delays outwith the project specification.

[the invisible man]

This is probably one of the most encouraging posts I have ever seen on here. Is this the case, have you other consultanty persons found this?

I have to say that in 30 years in architecture and construction I have only ever know the second lowest tender (for construction) be accepted once, and that was for a small works project (?70k ish) and the difference was about 100 quid - the Employer (a GM school) opted for a local contractor (wrong choice is this case but hey ho). I always developers as hardnosed as you can get and unless there were sound reasons why not, would always go for the cheapest. I seems that they do recognise the sound reasons that PMP has described.

This has quite cheered my morning up!

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[mercenary]

quote:ie. those with a track record of supplying what I want, when I want it, at a reasonable price.

All very sensible. This assumes some kind of track record between contractor and client though. The problems seem to creep in however with developers who have no experience of dealing with archaeological conditions. The current overheated climate of development seems to breed these new developers like maggots on a corpse... sorry got carried away there. We forever deal with clients who don't understand the polluter pays principle, and seem new to the whole thing. They see archaeological conditions as some kind of development tax. The finer points of value with regard to contractors who fulfill the brief and speedily discharge the condition are lost on them. I'd be amazed if this kind of client was clued up enough to not automatically go for the cheapest tender, when they appear wholly ignorant of the reasons for the condition and the whole archaeological planning process.

An example occurred recently when we had a meeting with a client (quite a large building firm) and the curator. The client tried to argue that the whole polluter pays system was wrong and the government should pay to do the archaeology. He also tried to argue that his firm was not the polluter, and that perhaps it was the Romans or Vikings! The mind boggles at such ignorance, it was like it was 1989 all over again.

We have found that developers in the region are put off by contingencies in tenders and prefer a fixed price. It makes for very risky tendering.