Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
13th March 2006, 08:03 PM
Hi,
If we are aiming for the equivalent of ?300 a week ( ?15,600 per year) then that can be achieved by 2010 in the formula I suggested with AAWI +3%, starting from 2008.
The three units from Kevin?s survey are 8.16% of the sample (N= 49). If we add your unit (and this is a statistical no no biasing our sample) we have 8% of the sample (N= 50). If we take the estimated numbers of contracting units from profiling the profession page 14
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...eport1.pdf
(156 organisations carrying out field investigation)that is 12- 13 units may be paying at that level at the moment. This does not include any weighting for: part of the country, type of unit, type of client base and structure of unit, number of competitors in the area, regulation of unit?s catchments areas, structural impositions on unit by any parent organisation. all of which would effect how much a given organisation feels it could pay.
In the absence of national pay bargaining, strong active unions, in an extremely unregulated national situation with a large number of graduates wanting to work as archaeologists each year willing to work for very little, the only mechanisms in place to keep wages increasing above inflation are BAJR and the IFA minimum.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
13th March 2006, 08:57 PM
I'm assuming it is before tax, still good tho it would mean I'd have to paying back my student loan again (only advantage to low pay in archaeology, keeping the governments money [:I])
I think part of the problem with pay is that units pay all staff of the same job description exactly the same money no matter what their experience (or pay experienced archaeologists negligibly more than newbies). A complete lack of discrimination, hurrah! [:0]
"a pound of shelled peanuts was handsome pay by any apes standards" Pratchett 1998
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
13th March 2006, 10:56 PM
Quote:quote:I think part of the problem with pay is that units pay all staff of the same job description exactly the same money no matter what their experience
Not always the case. At the ones that don't, you have to get your own rises and fight for everything you can get. (Just like at real jobs). By the way that's also good advice in deciding where to work. Just knowing that some units pay diggers over ?300 a week should convince all of you to start demanding that kind of money. Vote with your feet. I know of units around here that cannot get staff. They just haven't figured out that their pay rates are the problem. Now that
is stupidity.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
14th March 2006, 03:35 PM
From Troll:
Quote:quote
roblem is- an archaeologist with years and years of experience can still be doomed to PIFA level remuneration.How does the IFA intend to differentiate between a PIFA with a degree and 6 months experience and a PIFA with a degree (or three) and a lifetimes experience?
From BAJR Host:
Quote:quote:Which is why I think we have to get away from the PIFA, AIF, MIFA and recognise that responsibility levels (and pay) are a different matter.
ie the 7 BAJR Grades of responsibility... where you get paid for what you are capable of doing, rather than what level of IFA you are.
Why should anyone be paid for what they are
capable of? People should be paid for the job they actually do! Anyway, the principles behind the BAJR and IFA systems are identical; they both define levels of responsibility and pay minima associated with those levels. The differences are ones of detail only (the number of levels involved).
As for experience - either system defines minima. Many employers pay more according to experience, so people can progress through a pay band as time goes by.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
14th March 2006, 03:44 PM
Merc - because if units experiencing recruitment crises
did raise their wages, they would be breaking the gentlemans agreement that says they should abide by the IFAs recommended minimums.
Diggerhobbit - Thats ?300 before tax and its only the starting wage, and I am afraid anonymity forfends...
Kevin - What do you think about broadening out the campaign for a 'dignity wage' beyond the Diggers Forum. A petition (on line and/or paper) directed towards the IFA would add to the pressure on them. A homepage giving the relevant arguments would back up the petition. All interested parties could link to the homepage in their signatures, and perhaps a link from BAJR(?) etc.
If we want the IFA to introduce such rises in the financial year beginning April 2007, your suggested dignity wage should be adjusted for inflation (c.3%) giving us ?309/?360.50/?412.
Based on the constructive discussion in this thread, I think such a campaign will ahve a very sound basis. What do people think?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
14th March 2006, 07:59 PM
If units experiencing recruitment crises did raise their wages, they would be breaking the gentleman?s agreement that says they should abide by the IFAs recommended minimums.
The variation in existing salaries rather counts against your ?gentlemen?s agreement hypothesis? that field units are conspiring to keep wages low, even if it means compromising their ability to carry out work by keeping vacancies open. If there was real difficulty in finding staff willing to take up a position, pay rates would increase rapidly.
I don?t think that a campaign for the compulsory rise by 13% of costs for the 52 RAOs (out of c. 152 organisations carrying out field interventions) in April 2007 would have any effect but for there to be 52 less RAOs if implemented .- and to repeat LG and University based organisations would not be allowed to change pay and grades without lots of negotiation.
In April 2007 the RAOs will be implementing reforms to standardise their benefits packages after a couple of years consultation and warning ? and I?m sure a few are worried about the consequences for their competitiveness over that ?
As is probably clear from my posts (!) I think that an approach with a clear target (for 2010) with incremental changes above inflation starting in 2008, allowing the management of these new costs, and reducing the risk of RAOs being undercut by lower paying non-RAOs has a much greater chance of success...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
14th March 2006, 09:37 PM
Fair points, though getting 300 quid in 2010 is not the same as 300 quid now... it would have to be higher..
BAJR can help with imposition of pay levels (it worked in the past - and the BAJR grade system is now used by most contractors)
the LG and Uni is a thorn that has to be understood and negotiated ... but right now. I hope the IFA are on this now... I have had certain Uni units contact me directly about the problems.... and Kate Geary and myself are pressuring the Unis to regrade ... after all.... a digger does a slightly more specialist job than a janitor. (no offence to janitors)
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
14th March 2006, 11:58 PM
I ought to say that the back of envelope figures (AAWI + 3%) were for an equivalent to ? 300 in 2010, assuming interest at 3% - but still keen to tie with wage increases rather than RPI. Would need proper negotiation though! Please check my figures - the topic is too important not to!!
I hope I have made reasonable clear why I think incremenatal wages starting in 2008 is the best way forward - although I hope real benefits will begun to be felt in 2007 with the compulsory benefits package...
I think negotiating with LG etc. would be easier if you could point to what would be an industry wide agreed pay accelerator.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
15th March 2006, 02:26 PM
From the tone of this discussion (and other threads) it is clear that one of the main 'drags' keeping wages low is the restrictions on the freedom of Local Government owned units.
Personally, I think that LG ownership of units is a bit of an anachronism in the modern world of archaeology, and there are other serious problems with them as well as their effect on wages.
I would favour the idea that all remaining LG units should cut their ties with their authorities, whether that means becoming genuinely independent organisations or being taken over by other commercial organisations. Amongst other benefits, they would then be free of LG restrictions on pay, and it would be much easier to achieve increases across the board.
Uni-based units might still be a problem, but their wage structure has historically had much less influence over the rest of archaeology.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
15th March 2006, 03:12 PM
I would heartily agree that LG 'Units' should become contractors in their own right... this would remove (at least partly) the problem of (in some cases) the perception that contractor and County archaeologist are too close... (or in a few cases.. are the same person.
We should start somewhere though... and If an audit of Contractors - LG Contractors - Uni Contractors showed that the pay/conditions could move without the LGs and Unis then whats stoppping us.... And it must be said in all fairness... thats exactly what the IFA have done.
I would also be interested in any development with Prospects actions with SCAUM... words showing activity or 'just words'?
Another day another WSI?
