Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
30th January 2006, 04:50 PM
What else is a personal licence holder personally responsible, i.e. liable, for? Who hires in all the kit - obviously it's his/her employer in practice, but is there not a legal contradiction here? How can a contrcting unit be party to a contract to whom an individual is held responsble? Whose PI does it all come under?
I can't see a personal licence system working under English law, but it could work with contracting units being licensed.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
30th January 2006, 11:37 PM
After working in Ireland my thoughts are that the licence should be with the company to carry out the work and to employ the staff they saw fit to do the work to be carried out to the correct standard. That work should be then monitored etc and if not done so then the company fined or closed down.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
31st January 2006, 11:30 PM
looking at other threads... hows about this
You start as a digger ... you decide to take it further and your CPDs add up to Supervisor level.then you want more...
If you are up to it... proven ability, report writing, know how to hire a portaloo... that sort of thing. And this is approved by peers.. Curators, COntractors etc.. then you get a licence. This also means that amatuer groups can have licenced grades as well.
IFyou are dodgy.. then licence is removed...
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
2nd February 2006, 02:22 PM
Invisible Man,
Am slightly confused. A licence would simply indicate to all that a person has achieved a certain level of experience and is suitable to undertake certain tasks - in this case that the archaeologist has the experience necessary to undertake archaeological works
There are various organizations that employ licence holders in one form or another to undertake certain jobs. For example a licence is required to operate types of plant ? you don?t have to own the digger ? the company does. You don?t have to have to provide insurance - the company does. Your are required to meet the requirements of that licence (whatever it may be) ? if you don?t the licence should be revoked
Ecologists require personal licences from English Nature to undertake certain types of surveys (crayfish, dormice, newts and also exclude badgers). Suitability to hold a licence is based on experience and references and a spec must be produced on each occasion Unless self employed ecologists tend to work under a companies Professional Indemnity, use company kit, have the same terms and conditions as the rest of us. Ecologists do leave and licences do get transferred. In tenders and contracts tend to state that the ecologist must be eligible to hold licences.
As stated Article 3 requires that that excavations are carried out by qualified authorised persons ? since this has been ratified it is a requirement of English law ? has just not been interpreted as such.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
2nd February 2006, 03:08 PM
Well yes, the simplest analogy might be a lorry driver emloyed by a haulage contractor - he/she obviously has an HGV licence (or whatever they're called these days). The difference is that the driver is not pary to a contract with another party: he/she is not contracted by Fox's Biscuits to move ten tons of choccy biccies from Yorkshire to Istanbul, the employer, Eddie Stoppit Ltd, is. ES Ltd employ staff suitably qualified for their stated duties.
If a government issues a licence to one party (say Carrie Bunliff) to carry out certain work, such as archaeological investigations, there is no contract, or connection, with his/her employer, the contractor doing the work (Wesford Archaeology) and legally responsible for everything else. If Wesford screw up or machine through the lot, the government can then presumably only go for ms Bunliff - penniless and un-sueable, a person of straw, albeit unable to work again. Wesford get off scot-free. (why are Scots free?)
I don't know, there may be no problem, perhaps I woorry too much having had 30 years of worrying about it! First rule of contract administration is know exactly who avery party is!
Please don't get me wrong, I am totally in favour of some kind of licence system, as we are obliged to do as you rightly say.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
2nd February 2006, 05:48 PM
Well, I'm not too sure about this, a few years ago a friend of mine employed a lorry driver to do some continental work, the driver, on his way back decided to buy some extra duty free items, hm customs and excise found it and confiscated the truck!
Now, as I see it, the driver admitted it was his gear so why was my friends truck confiscated, the driver was operating outside of his contracted remit surely he should have bourne the brunt of the punishment?
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
2nd February 2006, 06:26 PM
Do you ever get that feeling, when, you know, you wish you hadn't started something....................
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
2nd February 2006, 10:09 PM
I'm all for licences but only if they were used in conjunction with some kind of charter with the ifa!
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
3rd February 2006, 08:50 AM
I hope I've made clear why I'm wary of licences. However all the differnt strategies to improving standards in archaeology revolve around lobbying cenral government to give proper statuary support for curatorial services.
Instead of licences would it not be simpler to have accredited archaeologists ( both avocational and proffessional) who sign up to a set of standards, but who could lose their accreditation if found guilty of serious breaches of those standards (following a hearing in line with the principles of natural justice), and only accredited archaeologists can run sites.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
3rd February 2006, 12:14 PM
Spot on. But this means "archaeologist" would be a protected title like architect, lawyer or doctor. While I am comletely in favour of this, the general political climate is against it (since a certain PM in the early 80's) is a misdirected drive for egalitarianism and cheapness.
Also, anyone can practise as an architect, and possibly doctor or lawyer (with restrictions at the Bar, please correct me) but they just can't call themselves by that title.
Now, it the IFA was chartered, would it then be legal to require that work is directed/carried out by a chartered archaeologist (or RAO)?
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
