Performance Related Bonuses

[drpeterwardle]

Illuminated makes some very interesting comments.

for example:

"I can not see how any routine task in field archaeology can be given a set 'standard' time. There are too many variable factors ranging from .....spoil dumping difficulties, not always having the best tool for the job ....

I can also see people making a huge rush for the one or two good mattocks and barrows first thing in the morning. I personally find having good tools is a great benefit to speed and efficiency, but the general standard of tool quality on most sites does not reflect this need (another issue perhaps)."

All other things being equal if there were enough good mattocks and better spoil management etc how much would the speed of an excavation increase. Both of these things are down to poor management. A mattock costs UKP 30 even a slight increase in speed say 2% this could equate to something like a UKP500 per year more pay for a grade III.

If what Illuminated is saying is right then one reason for the poor pay in archaeology is some pretty poor management at a very basic level.

I am unsure why Troll is being so dogmatic - I have made it clear that quality would have to remain unchanged. The reality of modern day archaeology is that there are commercially imposed time limits. Can we discuss this on the assumption that the standard/quality of work remains constant.

Peter

[troll]

Good day Doctor Wardle-
We would of course need to assume that commercially imposed time restraints are set by competent field archaeologists who do in fact, have the slightest idea of what they are talking about.Poor management is indeed one of the main stalling points in the modern heritage arena.Performance-related bonuses could work IF-and only IF, we re-structure the current modus operandi.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[drpeterwardle]

Troll now we talking.

In this day and age the time limits should be imposed by the tendering process and thus by archaeological contracts manager so the notion that "time restraints are set by competent field archaeologists who do in fact, have the slightest idea of what they are talking about" ought to be a given.

If the standard of tools is so bad I think I will start specifying that good and appropriate tools should be used. I think what I am exploring is how in the current situation people could be paid more and still be competative.

yes the way we work would have to change but if that results in better pay and conditions surely that would be no bad thing.

Peter Wardle

[troll]

Good to hear from you sir.
Surely it is the case that the standard of tools provided by an employer would be adequately covered by HS legislation? I would also have to emphasise that speed and efficiency will only improve when:
1. Project designs and method statements are written by competent personnel
2. Checks and balances (curatorship) are in place and functional
3. Competent and experienced field staff are available and retained
4. the interests of the finite resource are given equal weight to the interests of the client and,
5. the industry is geared to retain competent, professional and motivated supervisory/directing field staff.It does go without saying that such superb field staff should be rewarded for their output-if not awarded medals for being so damned good despite the current shambles they have to operate in.............

I`ve been lucky enough to have worked alongside some extremely talented field staff recently and yes-we can be fast/professional and outshine optional standards but if- as is ubiquitous- the staff on the ground are not let down by the lack of 1-5 above.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Dave-Bonner]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle


On site take an adult skeleton assumming good weather and all other factors (like skill and quality) except the efficiency of work are equal then people should take the same time to excavate them. If somebody can do the same standard of work faster should they be paid more?

Is that not simply describing the difference between different grades of archaeologist (e.g. G2 and G3)?

quote:
By the same token if an archaeological company worked as a collective with all the profits being shared would this be a bad thing?

We (almost) accept that archaeology is a profit making activity now so is there a mechanism by which the employee can share in those profits?

The difference between a worker's co-op and a company, public shareholding or not! And the most conventional way around sharing wealth generated in a company is by offering a stake in that company - an investment opp. But that requires job security and long-term contracting, purely from the point of view of the employees, let alone the requirements on the financial structure of the company (out of my depth in economics and finance now).

Are you not talking about by-passing traditional capitalist techniques of money-makeing. I think there's a lot of unit owners/upper management who would have an issue with this at some point!

The trust type units are quite nice for putting money back into the archaeology (not directly relevant), although not necessarilly for the employees. There's no reason a cooperative based unit couldn't work, but how many are there? And is there not a limit to scale inherent in such a set-up, before it becomes another tiered unit?? There's almost certainly available niches for them in the current system though, surely???[:I]

Gizza job!!!!! ....please!!!!!

[Real Job]

I can't believe there is a serious discussion about performance related pay! Surely this Thatcherite rubbish doesn't cut any ice these days? I suppose we'll start talking about how the wealth 'trickles down' to the workers soon...

quote:We (almost) accept that archaeology is a profit making activity now so is there a mechanism by which the employee can share in those profits?

The answer is BETTER PAY, not some mad post hole digging competition - there is quite enough rush-job ethos in archaeology thanks to the competition thats already built into the system without adding any more.

[Dave-Bonner]

quote:We (almost) accept that archaeology is a profit making activity now so is there a mechanism by which the employee can share in those profits?

Incidentally, I'd say the people who are making the profit are pretty damn excepting that archaeology is a profit making activity! (I apologise for the flippancy, but I don't quite see the direction that this discussion can move in at the moment.......please do enlighten me).[?]

Gizza job!!!!! ....please!!!!!

[BAJR Host]

one word that did spring to mind was Stakeholder - where in a way what Peter is suggesting would work. If you are part of the company.... and by that I mean you have put your money/time/effort into making that company win tenders, finish ahead of schedule, do the best job etc etc... then you are rewarded for your part in making that company a success...

Some companies do already treat their 'staff' as 'equals' - it does not mean that you have a socialist utopia, with every decision made by collective vote, but it does mean that people feel that their opinion is valued, and they have a stake in the company success.....rather than just diggin oles.

puff on that concept...roll it around like a fine whiskey... whatda you think?

I have to confess, this is not my idea... but watching a company, that will remain nameless but was at the IFA conf, and showed me just how a company could act.

Another day another WSI?

[Dave-Bonner]

That does sound like an idea. Might well fit with the attitudes of many people as well.

Once again, though, it does require a settled work-force, doesn't it? You'd be buying into the future of the company and so buying into the requirements and commitments that go with that. A commitment in itself, of a kind, more than just an investment of money once you have a stake in that companies success.



Gizza job!!!!! ....please!!!!!

[BAJR Host]

Even had thoughts about that....

if you can transfer your skill between work - taking with you a pension scheme, a level of pay, a general respect for your abilities - etc etc

then even if you are moving from site to site and working for only a few weeks or months, the end result is the same.... the workforce that feels that the end result is a better job and there is a reward will be a workforce that cares.

What I jokingly reffered to in the first post of buckets of soil moved per day.. (actually did happen) - so it is a fine line.... thats where strict controls and professional attitude comes in.



Another day another WSI?