Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
10th March 2006, 06:52 PM
I agree completely 1man1desk.I do however have one small caveat that underpins the crux of my rantings.....
Yes, those individuals/organisations who work in archaeology should be required to sign -up to IFA standards as a minimum. As archaeologists, we are perhaps in the unique position in that, we work with a finite resource that is publically owned.And yet, the IFA are without any legal standing whatsoever. The IFA then (in the eyes of the public) are not accountable to anyone.Theres the caveat: it`s a publically owned national resource.Therefore, any Institute/organisation that will stand for the profession needs to be publically accountable. 
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
12th March 2006, 12:05 PM
As I understand it the reason the IFA has no legal standing is because it is not a chartered institute. Until it is charted it cannot legally insist that all archaeological works are carried out by its members.
The only way around this is, I believe, writing into briefs/specs that the work be carried out according to IFA standards, whether the archaeologist(s) are members/RAOs or not. This would then mean that if the work was not carried out according to these standards, a complaint could be made to the county archaeologist/curator in the case of non-IFA members, (IFA members could of course ALSO be reported to the IFA for any breach of standards).
"a pound of shelled peanuts was handsome pay by any apes standards" Pratchett 1998
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
12th March 2006, 12:26 PM
mornin Lady.It has been written into all sorts of documents that work will be carried out to IFA standards for years.Truth is, this seems to be a magic password that allows archaeologists (IFA or not) to do as they please.The major issue here is that standards are not policed and further, the IFA expect workers to police their bosses.It has to be said that until the IFA confront these issues, they could lower their membership fees to "free" and would still not attract the majority of heritage workers into the fold.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
13th March 2006, 12:43 AM
from troll: 'It has been written into all sorts of documents that work will be carried out to IFA standards for years.Truth is, this seems to be a magic password that allows archaeologists (IFA or not) to do as they please.'
How so? i am the first to admit that i know little about the intricacies of the IFA and its policies/standards. However, if the following of IFA standards has been written into the spec and they are then breached then a report/complaint as i understand it and as others have previously stated can be filed? This is surely a good thing isnt it?....some middle ground...a way of 'policing' the standards to a certain degree?.....How can people do as they please if its written into the spec...say it isnt so!  however, having said that...hmmm think i'm probably being a tad niave...again...!? [:I]
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
13th March 2006, 05:00 PM
Sorry for being a bit late on this but I have recived my bumf from the IFA because my membership is up for renewal. The IFA have suggested based on experiance I could up my membership from PIFA (which I have been for 6 years, more than qualified for AIFA but put it off coz of cost).
Now my great employer has decided to up my pay because I am such a wonderful asset to the company the cost becomes even more prohibitive. If I stay at PIFA I will shell out ?126 or ?114 by Direct Debit. If I wont to up my membership to AIFA I will also have to find another tenner. So I ask myself what will this extra expense gain me!?!?
I am almost at the point of wondering whether th stay in the IFA or not. But I better had as my employer is RAO and likes IFA people on its staff list 
Here there and everywhere, but still no trowel
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
14th March 2006, 02:29 PM
From IF Lostmetrowel: Quote:quote:Now my great employer has decided to up my pay because I am such a wonderful asset to the companythe cost becomes even more prohibitive. If I stay at PIFA I will shell out ?126 or ?114 by Direct Debit. If I wont to up my membership to AIFA I will also have to find another tenner. So I ask myself what will this extra expense gain me!?!?
I am almost at the point of wondering whether th stay in the IFA or not. But I better had as my employer is RAO and likes IFA people on its staff list
This did not sound right to me, so I have checked it out on the IFA site.
Subscription rates are exactly the same for all grades of corporate member - they are graduated by income, not by grade. So, your subscription will only go up if your income has increased enough to put you into another bracket. Seems fair to me.
Your 'extra tenner' is a one-off transfer fee, which covers the administrative cost of processing your application and putting it through the validation committee. That seems fair as well; admin does cost money, and the only other way to cover that cost would be to put it on the subscription rates.
From your post it sounds like you have had a direct financial benefit from IFA membership, in that your employer has decided to pay you more. I would be staggered if your pay increase is outweighed by a one-off ?10 fee, and if your pay has increased to the point where you go into another bracket, then it is only fair that you should pay more (as I do).
On the other hand, if your employer is an RAO and strongly encourages staff to be members, then perhaps they should be paying fees. However, this may be adequately covered by the fact that they appear to be paying you more for upgrading your membership.
Sounds to me like you've got a pretty good deal out of the IFA.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2004
14th March 2006, 05:49 PM
Hhmm. My employer is a Conservative Administration, I wonder if I should join the Conservative party. Let me see, pension plan, perminant contract, pay structure. Seems to me I have got a pretty good deal out of the conservatives.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
14th March 2006, 06:29 PM
Alfie,
Not sure what your point is here.
My comments to IF Lostmetrowel related to his/her perception that upgrading their IFA membership was expensive - which seemed silly, given that their employer seems willing to pay them more for having a higher grade of IFA membership, and that the only additional cost is a one-off ?10 transfer fee.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
14th March 2006, 06:29 PM
Note to Troll (slightly off topic but perhaps pertinent to his world view), who states that archaeology is a
a finite resource that is publically owned
Right on the first part, wrong on the second. Some bits of the UK are publicly owned, but most of this country is in private ownership.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
14th March 2006, 06:54 PM
Ok 1man some points of clarification needed.
From your post it sounds like you have had a direct financial benefit from IFA membership.....However, this may be adequately covered by the fact that they appear to be paying you more for upgrading your membership.
NO, my post is due to the fact that they have increased my responsibility levels further based on experience and skills- many acquired before joining present employer. This is NOT due to IFA rank or the option to increase rank in the IFA.
I would be staggered if your pay increase is outweighed by a one-off ?10 fee, and if your pay has increased to the point where you go into another bracket, then it is only fair that you should pay more (as I do).
Ok, I agree that as you progress you pay more but my point was that I do not see any gain in changing from PIFA to AIFA except that it costs more.
On the other hand, if your employer is an RAO and strongly encourages staff to be members, then perhaps they should be paying fees.
Fat chance. This issue has been raised and we have been told that they cant afford to do this. As an RAO they are meant to help with CPD. We are told fine improve yourself but not on our cost. That said there is a shake up and things might be about to change re training and CPD
Sounds to me like you've got a pretty good deal out of the IFA.
Why? Your misconception of what I was getting, perhaps due to a poorly worded post by self, may appear that I have had a good deal out of the IFA but I do not see it as such. I have applied for jobs where IFA preferred as been advertised but the fact that I am IFA does not appear to have directly influenced my chances of employment. What has influenced it to me is experiance- not wonting to sound big headed!
So this leads me to again ask the question of increasing my membership to AIFA and the related increase in cost does this equal a benefit or not? Of Devils Advocate time- surely if the RAOs were put upon more to ensure that having IFA rated staff within them was essential we might see them prepared to cough up some cash. If the IFA had more teeth in imposing the CPD instead of singing how wonderful it is maybe we could see more people activly pursuing said training with active support from employer?
Mr I F Lostmetrowel
Here there and everywhere, but still no trowel
|
