Holiday Pay Ruling

[Reggie]

Toby, if you find a sofa with an inbuilt cat claw repellant let me know. My cats use the sofa as a scratching post and they've totalled 2 sets of removable covers in the last few years.....

[the invisible man]

quote:Originally posted by Real Job
The vast majority of UK units pay rubbish because the IFA tell them its ok to pay rubbish.

This is hardly likely to be the case. And BAJR also tells them it's ok to pay rubbish doesn't it? If IFA/BAJR suddenly said they should double pay rates, would they do it? Or conversely if they were told it's ok to halve them, would they?

I suggest that the answer is also in your post. The pay rates are what they are because staff can be obtained at those rates and competitors do not pay more. The question is how to tease the going rate upwards.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[BAJR Host]

One might also say - BAJR does not say its ok to pay rubbish... BAJR says you can't advertise if you offer less than the pay guidelines that are recommended by the IFA.

BAJR took a stance to say this.. a risk even.. as contractors could have said #### off. but they did not. Now with BAJR and the IFA working together.. there is an opportunity to make significant changes.. now if Prospect was to also work with BAJR..?

Trouble is... BAJR is not able to say... right... 300 quid or else... not without support. And sad but true.. amny diggers would take the 260 quid job.. if it meant the difference betweeen eating and not. (I know I have been there)

If I had a mandate then it might be different.. would people (and that means everyone) back the dignity wage.

And remember that contractors are not all just wanting to screw the digger... they are wanting to keep going... get to expensive... and you don't get work. (once again I know myself ... recently lost jobs because although I put in (their words) ' the best tender... I was also the most expensive' So I value what I can do... but how long can I continue if I keep losing the work??

Pay and conditions is not just the responsibility of the Contractor or the IFA or BAJR... it starts with the Digger/Supervisor etc saying we will not work for less than ?xxx - That is up to a union... so Prospect??? where are you??



Another day another WSI?

[Reggie]

I used to be a member of one of the biggest public sector unions, PCS (formely CPSA) and they were next to useless when it came to getting decent pay rises out of my employer. Sometimes they negotiated for over a year and still we came out with more or less the same as the offer first put on the table. In one case we actually ended up with less because over the negotiation period inflation had decreased and the Treasury had reduced the amount allowed in its remit. Another year we lost pay because we went on strike for 6 days which lost us more money than the pay rise we actually got. Basically because each public or civil service employer negotiates pay with its own employees / union branch, any advantage of being a member of a large union was effectively lost. For anything major to happen to archaeologists wages it would probably need nearly 100% membership and everyone to go on strike for a long period ! Maybe I'm being cynical as my experience of unions was less than satisfactory. I also find them too political for my liking and would need a lot of persuasion to join one again.

For me there is a lot to be said for voting with one's own feet, as Mercenary said above. Also as others have pointed out everyone has responsibility for their own future and if they are not happy with their lot they should at least attempt to sort it out for themselves. Most people I know who work for small companies in other professions annually negotiate their terms personally with their employer and although they don't always get what they ask for, their employer at least has an idea what things could be improved and will perhaps work towards doing so.

At the last unit I worked for people seemed to be very wary of talking to management about pay and holiday etc. Some had not had pay rises for over 3 years, even though they had become more experienced AND were taking on more responsibilities. Staff were apathatic and this was reflected in attitudes to the archaeology as well as no-one seemed willing to stand up to management when what I would consider best practice was being sidelined in order to finish sites quickly and get back to the office to write-up or get to the next site. They were all permanent staff and some certainly seemed to just put up with things the way they were - anything for a quiet life, might get sacked if I say something, better the devil you know and all that. I couldn't see anyway that I could change things on my own so I voted with my feet and left and am now hoping to find work with a company that has a better attitude to both its staff and the archaeology.

[Real Job]

quote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Real Job
The vast majority of UK units pay rubbish because the IFA tell them its ok to pay rubbish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is hardly likely to be the case. And BAJR also tells them it's ok to pay rubbish doesn't it? If IFA/BAJR suddenly said they should double pay rates, would they do it? Or conversely if they were told it's ok to halve them, would they?

I suggest that the answer is also in your post. The pay rates are what they are because staff can be obtained at those rates and competitors do not pay more. The question is how to tease the going rate upwards.

I think there are problems with the argument that says its the market that sets the pay rate in archaeology, and that the IFA minimums do not make any difference:

1) The vast majority of units pay at or very near to the IFA recommended minimums. The onlt regional variation is London, and yet different market conditions exist all over the country (different number of competitor units, different labour supply, proximity of university departments and hence new graduates, different desirability for new workers to move there, different overheads for businesses, different amounts of development taking place).

The only conditions in which the market could dictate pay rates so evenly across the country would be if the same competitive conditions applied evenly and labour could move smoothly and easily at the drop of a hat. Since neither of these conditions apply, it seems the IFA minimums do have an effect on wages.

2) The idea that the current rate is the minimum that archaeological labour can be bought for doesn't hold water either. In some instances, new graduates would be willing to work for much less in order to get their foot in the door and conversely in other cases units struggle to find labour. Yet neither of these market factors seem to influence wages. Thats because units have a long term idea of what wages they should be paying from which they do not want to deviate - and they largely use the IFA minimums as that yardstick.

3) Some units (not many) seem to be able to pay better rates than the IFA rates - they seem to be able to buck the trend of the market. Yet theyu are not the exceptions that prove the rule because they compete alongside units that pay less, not in some special niche of the market. The only difference with such 'rogue' units is that they are unwilling to be bound by the IFA rates.

4) The idea that it is possible to separate the IFA minimums and 'the market' is problematic. The IFA is intimately bound up with the archaeological market with 80 odd (?) RAOs bound by its rules (voluntarily) and its self appointed role as the professional voice of archaeology. It also effectively sets the minmum wages accepted by BAJR.

I agree that the aim should be to tease rates upward. However I think that the best means of doing that is for the IFA to raise its recommended minimums to 'dignity wage' levels. For all the foregoing reasons it is clear that the IFA rates have an intimate connection with the archaeology market. And just as its rates set the level at which archaeology wages tend to cluster, their existence also discourages units from paying more.

The key to getting a dignity wage by this route is that the combined influence of the IFA and Bajr would ensure that such a rate would be near universally accepted. Those few units who refused to pay the new rate and threatened to undercut the units who did pay it would struggle to find staff who would accept their low rate (voting with your feet would become an eminently practical solution when the majority of units pay better) and existing staff would have a new yardstick with which to beat their bosses (!) to get higher wages.

[leg11aug]

Quote;
Pay and conditions is not just the responsibility of the Contractor or the IFA or BAJR... it starts with the Digger/Supervisor etc saying we will not work for less than ?xxx - That is up to a union... so Prospect??? where are you??

Absolutely. The only way we can achieve any real, immediate change, is by realising we are part of the problem as well as its victims. I'd like to think that; if I refused to work on a site because of poor H&S, or rotten wages, there wouldn't be three other unemployed excavators ready to fill my shoes but...without solidarity, no amount of complaining will achieve anything.
Jeez.. I sound like a union rep...sorry

"Never put off 'till tomorrow that which you can put off 'till the day after tomorrow.."

[leg11aug]

Hi DH, You're right of course, I'm just saying that as long as this situation exists, it's going to be difficult to exert any real pressure on anybody. Some short term discomfort may be the price of a longer term gain? I know that's pretty easy to say from the comfort of a uni Library, but I've been in the field long enough to despair of the idea that things will "improve when we are more appreciated etc etc" This will never happen. As several other contributors have pointed out on this site, as long as we are prepared to work for a pittance, that is what we'll be paid. It's the market at work.

"Never put off 'till tomorrow that which you can put off 'till the day after tomorrow.."

[Tile man]

from real job

quote:The IFA is intimately bound up with the archaeological market with 80 odd (?) RAOs bound by its rules (voluntarily) and its self appointed role as the professional voice of archaeology. It also effectively sets the minmum wages accepted by BAJR.

There are 52 RAOs representing about a third of the estimated number of organisations carrying out fieldwork type operations ( c. 152 from profiling the profession page 14)

[1man1desk]

From Real Job:

quote:I think there are problems with the argument that says its the market that sets the pay rate in archaeology, and that the IFA minimums do not make any difference:

1) The vast majority of units pay at or very near to the IFA recommended minimums....

...it seems the IFA minimums do have an effect on wages.

...In some instances, new graduates would be willing to work for much less in order to get their foot in the door .... Thats because units have a long term idea of what wages they should be paying from which they do not want to deviate - and they largely use the IFA minimums as that yardstick.

3) Some units (not many) seem to be able to pay better rates than the IFA rates ... they compete alongside units that pay less ... the only difference with such 'rogue' units is that they are unwilling to be bound by the IFA rates.

... it is clear that the IFA rates have an intimate connection with the archaeology market. And just as its rates set the level at which archaeology wages tend to cluster, their existence also discourages units from paying more.

You point out that there are plenty of people willing to work for less than the IFA rates. Taken together with the rest of your arguments, the logic that follows is that, if the IFA minima have a real influence on pay, it is to prevent some employers from paying even less (which is what they were brought in for).

As for 'voting with your feet', you can only go where there is work available. Units paying less will have an advantage in tendering, and will win more tenders than a better paying unit. They will have jobs to dish out, and the other unit won't, no matter how many people want to work there.

So, the current operation of the market in archaeology is to depress wages, and the IFA minima help to mitigate that effect. If they are placed too high, they would become less effective, because they would increase the competitive disadvantage and more units would ignore them.

The market in archaeological labour works this way because (notwithstanding local or temporary variations) it is generally a 'buyer's market'; i.e. on a national basis there are more young archaeologists looking for work and experience than there are jobs for them. One potential solution would be to reduce the number of undergraduate places in archaeology at university; the labour supply would be reduced, and it would become a 'buyer's market', forcing employers to pay more.


1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Real Job]

Hi OneMan,
My point is that it is wrong to think that the market and the IFA minimums can be divorced from one another when we are talking about wages (as the Invisible Man seemed to be suggesting).

The rates set by the IFA have a profound effect on wages, in some cases raising wages from what the market would dictate, in other cases keeping wages low (which is why the vast majority of units pay at or around those rates regardless of localised market conditions).

quote:If they are placed too high, they would become less effective, because they would increase the competitive disadvantage and more units would ignore them.

Of course there are limits to how high the IFA can put their rates, but based on the discussion on another thread, I have no doubt that RAOs could collectively agree to raise the minimums to a perfectly reasonabl 'dignity wage' of ?300 which would bind all RAOs and all companies advertising on BAJR.

At present the IFA rates seem to 'set' the wage for nearly all companies (RAOs and non-RAOs). Why don't non-RAOs undercut that rate at present? Why would they be more likely to if the rate was set higher?