15th March 2006, 08:28 PM
The proposed IFA 'benefits package' due to be introduced by RAOs from April 2007 does not really offer much. To my mind the system will be impossible to administer, virtually impossible to calculate the 'true worth' of a wage and enshrining the practice of archaeological employment (based almost wholly on a Local Government model) that over 30 years has proved incapable of being fair or finacially rewarding.
It is a model that is increasingly unworkable as every year less and less archaeologists are employed by local government. Underlying the proposal is the fact that the IFA minimum wage will still be well below ?300 per week. It seems the IFA are coming down wholly on the side of employers and arguing that the value of 'benefits' offsets the need for a 'dignity wage'.
By April 2007 it will be illegal for any employer not to offer short-contract staff comparable benefits to all other employed staff. As I wrote in reply to Kate Geary's 'open letter' to BAJR back in November 'The suggestion ....that an employer can absolve a legal responsibility by paying an enhanced wage is actually a non-starter. If anyone employed in the company gets paid leave, holiday pay, sick leave, access to a pension scheme etc etc, then everyone employed by the company is entitled to same..'
How is it possible to treat sick pay as a 'benefit' rather than a right? What happens at the end of the year if an employee has been lucky enough to work a whole year without a sick day? Do they lose their 'benefit' or abuse the system and cash in by taking time off on the slightest pretence. Certain sections of the media might describe such moves as 'A Slackers Charter', rather than a serious proposal from a professional body.
I calculate that in mainland UK we have 8 bank holidays a year. The IFA proposal for a minimum leave allowance of 20 days per annum [u]inclusive</u> of bank holidays, actually works out as a annual leave allowance of 12 days. That's surely not a serious proposal from a professional body.
Pension rights may or may not be a benefit. I am sure there are many more archaeologists on SERPS alone than there are in company schemes. The IFA proposal actually ignores the perk that would actually benefit the majority of UK archaeologists, that is higher wages leading to a higher SERPS pension at the end of ones working life. Without any guarantee of continuous employment and with a mix of private and public sector employers, SERPS is really the [u]only</u> pension scheme that can benefit many archaeologists.
I notice that the IFA 'consultation period' for the implementation of this scheme runs out in 16 days time. I hope that plenty of RAOs vote against it and instead adopt a policy that archaeology, first and foremost, needs an across the board 'dignity wage'.
It is a model that is increasingly unworkable as every year less and less archaeologists are employed by local government. Underlying the proposal is the fact that the IFA minimum wage will still be well below ?300 per week. It seems the IFA are coming down wholly on the side of employers and arguing that the value of 'benefits' offsets the need for a 'dignity wage'.
By April 2007 it will be illegal for any employer not to offer short-contract staff comparable benefits to all other employed staff. As I wrote in reply to Kate Geary's 'open letter' to BAJR back in November 'The suggestion ....that an employer can absolve a legal responsibility by paying an enhanced wage is actually a non-starter. If anyone employed in the company gets paid leave, holiday pay, sick leave, access to a pension scheme etc etc, then everyone employed by the company is entitled to same..'
How is it possible to treat sick pay as a 'benefit' rather than a right? What happens at the end of the year if an employee has been lucky enough to work a whole year without a sick day? Do they lose their 'benefit' or abuse the system and cash in by taking time off on the slightest pretence. Certain sections of the media might describe such moves as 'A Slackers Charter', rather than a serious proposal from a professional body.
I calculate that in mainland UK we have 8 bank holidays a year. The IFA proposal for a minimum leave allowance of 20 days per annum [u]inclusive</u> of bank holidays, actually works out as a annual leave allowance of 12 days. That's surely not a serious proposal from a professional body.
Pension rights may or may not be a benefit. I am sure there are many more archaeologists on SERPS alone than there are in company schemes. The IFA proposal actually ignores the perk that would actually benefit the majority of UK archaeologists, that is higher wages leading to a higher SERPS pension at the end of ones working life. Without any guarantee of continuous employment and with a mix of private and public sector employers, SERPS is really the [u]only</u> pension scheme that can benefit many archaeologists.
I notice that the IFA 'consultation period' for the implementation of this scheme runs out in 16 days time. I hope that plenty of RAOs vote against it and instead adopt a policy that archaeology, first and foremost, needs an across the board 'dignity wage'.
To the best of my knowledge I have always got 20 days PLUS the 8 or 9 stat holidays whether I was working for a local authority unit or a private one. This may not have been the case from one or two units where I was on a very short contract which I didn't renew, but the norm in my experience is 28-29? days per year. So the IFA wants to enshrine the right to fewer? I guess I won't be working for any RAO's any time soon.