Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
14th April 2006, 06:46 PM
Which is where partnership with BAJR comes in... By April 2007, I will be requiring adherence to IFA standards throughout the companies policy... so advert will appear with an IFA 'kitemark' where they are either RAOs or smaller organisations led by MIFA (I would hope that RAO costs are dependant on business size)
That way you will know that the company MUST follow certain requirements in pay and conditions...and there is a formal procedure to back that up. It should then be seen as better to be in the RAO scheme than out, as archaeologists will recognise that working for an RAO guarantees good practice (or else) and working for a company that is not RAO means you have no comeback on pay, conditions, training, holidays etc etc?
The benefit for RAOs will be a staffing policy that sees training, learning, professionalism and reasonable pay and conditions as ?best practice? providing archaeology with motivated, skilled, loyal, respected staff who will enjoy working and be rewarded for their efforts. Everyone a winner?.. now it will take a couple of years to see it through?. But I actually think that by 2008/9 this will be seen as standard and the winners will be everyone, Companies with staff that like to work and are part of the structure (stakeholders in the process if you like) and this gives the companies the benefit of receiving respect and hardwork in return.
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
14th April 2006, 06:58 PM
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
18th April 2006, 03:01 PM
Size is no obstacle to becoming an RAO. One of the first was a company I know which has a total staff of 2, and for which I recently heard a ringing endorsement from a County Archaeologist as the best consultant they knew.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2006
21st April 2006, 02:13 PM
I think that if units should be paying their existing staff at the recomended BAJR rates before they advertise for new staff it should be spelt out to them in no uncertain terms.
Begining last september i ran a project for 4 months where my company advertised for new staff on BAJR. Of the 14 new staff i recieved 11 were straight out of uni requiring full training. All new staff were taken on at the recomended pay scales (which i do not have any problem with) but as the project officer on site and sole full time member of staff i was being paid ?1,500 below the BAJR recomendation. Now the scales have increased so has the gap between them and my actual pay (and that of all other members of staff at my unit).
In general i love working for this unit, everyone gets on and we always do right by the archaeology (well 95% of the time!). However it can be dishartening when new staff with vastly less experience than you are taken on at only ?400pa less than you cos you did not get you job by applying through BAJR!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2006
21st April 2006, 02:20 PM
I think that if units should be paying their existing staff at the recomended BAJR rates before they advertise for new staff it should be spelt out to them in no uncertain terms.
Begining last september i ran a project for 4 months where my company advertised for new staff on BAJR. Of the 14 new staff i recieved 11 were straight out of uni requiring full training. All new staff were taken on at the recomended pay scales (which i do not have any problem with) but as the project officer on site and sole full time member of staff i was being paid ?1,500 below the BAJR recomendation. Now the scales have increased so has the gap between them and my actual pay (and that of all other members of staff at my unit).
In general i love working for this unit, everyone gets on and we always do right by the archaeology (well 95% of the time!). However it can be dishartening when new staff with vastly less experience than you are taken on at only ?400pa less than you cos you did not get you job by applying through BAJR!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
21st April 2006, 02:33 PM
something i sadly took as a given.... that payscales were across the board,,,
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
21st April 2006, 03:58 PM
However shocking this post is, it nonetheless highlights the power that BAJR has in imposing minimum pay rates. Ever considered beating the IFA rates hosty?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
21st April 2006, 04:07 PM
Shall we say that instead of beating, I will work with them
and together we can significantly increase across the board to a reasonable level... those of you at the Diggers FOrum will have seen concensus... and the IFA are keen to ensure we lose no momentum... so are even coming up again to meet with me to discuss how we keep it going. This time next year - you can bet yer bottom that a lot will change. watch out for BAJR II to see the first hint of cooperation between the IFA and BAJR
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
21st April 2006, 05:35 PM
All good stuff. I look forward to BAJR dragging commercial archaeology into the 20th century if not the 21st!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
22nd April 2006, 11:04 AM
just realised..... this is Less Favourable Treatment (2002) in reverse!
Another day another WSI?
