From Britarch

[garybrun]

Thought this is good to post here as you guys are quite active in the "job cuts area"

quote:I have received this and I am passing it on as it is revealing of the context in which archaeologists operate nowadays. One of the goals of Archaeologists for Global Justice is of course campaigning for the dignity of our profession and against the loss of knowledge and expertise. I believe that this is not only of concern for British-based colleagues.

Cheers,
Umberto



Museum of London Branch of Prospect
Stop job cuts at MoLAS!

Major redundancies and restructuring have been proposed by executive managers at the Museum of London's Archaeology Service. Out of a pool of
13 finds specialists, 8-11 job cuts are proposed, with a further 5-6 redundancies in MoLAS's 15-strong management team. The job losses amount to a 10% cut in the workforce and mean that vital skills could be lost to the Museum completely. The threatened staff have worked at MoLAS for at least eight years, some for over twenty years.

Executive managers, advised by business consultants with no previous experience of archaeology, argue in their redundancy Consultation Document that there is a 'decrease in demand' or 'demand does not exist'
for the 13 Post-Roman Finds, Building Material, Animal Bone and Botany Specialists. Yet figures show there is a total of four to five years'
work waiting to be done by the threatened finds specialists. In addition to this, MoLAS is about to start digging major archaeological sites in London and elsewhere that will produce an avalanche of finds for the specialists to analyse. Demand for the specialists is set to increase, not fall. Executive managers also argue that the specialists are not 'financially sustainable', yet increases in specialist charge-out rates in April will not be given the chance to take effect before redundancy notices are handed out. The £250,000pa the specialists bring into MoLAS from external clients will be put in jeopardy by the cuts and MoLAS may not be able to honour existing commitments.

The redundancies in MoLAS's management team don't add up either. Fifteen posts are threatened but with sixteen posts in a new proposed management structure, executive managers can't explain how they have arrived at a figure of 5-6 redundancies. They argue that the new jobs are fundamentally different from the current ones. But is the new 'Post Excavation Manager' job really that different from the current 'Project Manager (Post Excavation)' job, for example? Similarities in the job descriptions between the current and the new jobs suggest that managers will effectively be forced to reapply for their own jobs.

The MoLAS website says that specialists 'are at the forefront of current research in their fields and command international reputations' and 'offer a comprehensive range of services that combine reliability and cost-effectiveness with academic excellence.' The management team has worked on hundreds of projects in London, the UK and abroad, including the proposed Olympics sites. The work of specialists and management has helped ensure MoLAS is one of the leading archaeological units in the country and one of the foremost archaeological publishers in Europe. The loss of their skills will damage not only MoLAS and the Museum, but British archaeology and heritage too.

In 1998, MoLAS staff were told by executive managers to accept cuts in annual leave and other conditions to 'secure the long-term future' of specialists and make MoLAS 'more competitive'. But it didn't work - MoLAS is in trouble again. The current redundancy proposals will also fail to improve MoLAS's long term financial viability because they too ignore the underlying problem - that, just like other archaeological units, MoLAS does not charge clients enough in the cut-throat archaeological market.

There is an alternative. Prospect is currently negotiating with employers' organisation SCAUM to mitigate the affect of the cut-throat market. The idea is that archaeological units agree to work together to make improvements that benefit everyone rather than undercutting each other. Instead of axing skills, executive managers should be using MoLAS's dominance of the London market and influence with the archaeologists' professional body the IFA in backing Prospect's initiative. They should be investing in specialists and managers, not making job cuts.

What you can do: write to Michael Cassidy, Chairman of Museum of London Board of Governors, Members' Room, PO Box 270, Guildhall, London, EC2P 2EJ, michael.cassidy@dlapiper.com telling him to stop the job cuts.


--
Umberto Albarella
Department of Archaeology
University of Sheffield
Northgate House
West Street
Sheffield S1 4ET
United Kingdom
Telephone: (+) 44 (0) 114 22 22 943
Fax: (+) 44 (0) 114 27 22 563
http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/albarella.html
For Archaeologists for Global Justice (AGJ) see:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/global-justice.html

"There is no way to peace. Peace IS the way".

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[BAJR Host]

cheers gary.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[tom wilson]

I seem to recall that a group of specialists were laid off from MoLAS in the late nineties, including the less common specialisms like slag, timber, etc. When I was at MoLAS we were employing those people as external specialists, no doubt at greater expense. Other specialists I have spoken to have intimated that getting laid off was the best thing that happened to them. Is there anyone out there that can comment more authoitatively on those previous layoffs, or my optimistic view of self-employed specialists? As far as MoLSS are concerned the MoL really looks to be shooting itself in the foot. However, since any rising cost of external specialists will be explicitly passed on to the client (so not the fault of the main archaeological contractor) perhaps this is efficient risk management on MoLAS's part. In that case, those soon-to-be very in-demand specialists should receive our support in charging rates that reflect the business risk being passed directly onto their shoulders.
God knows what the management cuts are about though. That looks like more typical management consultant hack and slash mentality to me. Re-interviewing people for their existing job is generally regarded as a way to introduce wage cuts, is it not?

freeburmarangers.org

[Curator Kid]

If anyone feels inclined to comment as the message indicates, it will be worth bearing in mind that the closing date for the "consultation" is the 28th March, and the redundacy notices go out on the 2nd April.

So they've left plenty of time to consider what anyone may say :face-confused:

[monitor lizard]

(Takes a deep breath preparing to be castigated)

Why should we BAJRites be commenting at all? MoLAS is a commercial company, and companies do restructure from time to time. It strikes me that this is a private and internal matter between the company and its staff.

Don't get me wrong - I have friends and colleagues that are caught up in this potential round of redundancies (or round of potential redundancies - not sure which!), and this is never a happy situation. But is this the business of a public forum? Certianly of interest, but to send comment to the head of the musuem group seem to me to be inappropriate.

ML

[tom wilson]

castigate castigate

Why do you regard it as inappropriate? MoLAS may be a comercial arm, but the MoL is in part publicly funded. They work for you (as a London taxpayer), even if the people they are laying off don't.

freeburmarangers.org

[historic building]

It does seem like an incredibly shortsighted move by Molas if the summary supplied on Britarch is correct. The self-funded elements of Molas are separate from the publicly funded Museum of London so this does not impact upon the London taxpayer except where the London taxpayer is directly funding a development.

If there were funded work to be done by the threatened staff then I would assume that the management of Molas and their consultants have considered this. Molas are a self-funded company working in a commercial environment.

[leic]

Some of the replies to this thread make my blood boil. Life as a free-lance is no easy option. The rates that are paid are derisory. Ok if you take early retirement with a full pension it may be a nice earner on the side but many of todays free-lances will work today until they drop. I am personally OK as I am married to the director of a large museum service yet i struggle to pay tax despite having a PhD, a hundred plus publications and a world-wide reputation. I have been paying into a pension for 25 years and if I am lucky it may pay for a yearly hol in Brittany. The other problem is this will increase the deskilling of the profession. Most free-lance specialists are an ageing bunch. Museums have shed themselves of curators and now have a crisis as no one knows anything about collections anymore and university politics have led to artefact specialist being seen as second rate. Does it matter. Well someone is eventually going to point out that standards have fallen so much that much of the commercial archaeology produced is not worth the paper it is written so why pay for it. Why spend tens of thousands on an excation to know it had 52,00 sherds of pottery no once can date never mind anything else, the site had beed totally misinterpreted amd most of the finds misidentified.

[drpeterwardle]

This is about redundancy in a major contracting unit in a commercial unit allbeit one within a museum. The figures for the specialists tell there own story 13 specialists earning 250k a year this is about half what it should be (using the figures published in the Field Archaeologists).

I calculate that MOLAS have to loose 6 jobs not 8-11 (assumming all specialists can do all work which clearly they cant). Clearly all is not well with this part of MOLAS.

MOLAS employ 150 core staff plus 200 field staff so with a total payroll of 350 loosing 17 jobs is not that great a proportion.

Specialists always have the option of setting up as freelancers in any event. If somebody has done 20 years with MOLAS they will get a decent redundancy pay and will have a significant pension accrued to them. Reddundancy may therefore suit some people.

These people are specialists with skills and there are other employers in London so they may get jobs with other firms.

Prospects suggestion of "units agree to work together to make improvements that benefit everyone rather than undercutting each other" sounds very much like a cartel arrangement to me and therefore is illegal.

We have seen massive pay increases in archaeology in true terms in the last 12 months and the question has to be asked are these redundancies a consequence of those pay increases.

Peter Wardle

PS Leic said "i struggle to pay tax" sounds to me like you have a good accountant!.

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

MOLAS employ 150 core staff plus 200 field staff so with a total payroll of 350 loosing 17 jobs is not that great a proportion.

According to MoLAS, they currently employ about 160 permanent staff (including fieldies). So a 15-20 post reduction is quite significant one. Added to that is the fact that the reductions are targetted, so finds and environmental work will be visibly reduced by about a third of their numbers as I understand it. Dr. Pete are you sure you've read the Britarch message properly? It says the specialists bring 250k pa in to MoLAS - not get paid that between them. I don't think I've noticed "massive" pay increases in archaeology in the last 12 months either. What increases were these?!


I doubt there will be any changes in the proposals, and ML has a valid point about whether or not it's appropriate to make comments on an internal reorganisation. Keeping a (more) beady eye on MoLAS' standards over the next few years will be interesting for the likes of me at least, to see how this affects the work and results.