Movement on the living wage?

[putt1ck]

Maybe I didn't put my argument very well, or the discussion has pushed off down one particular aspect i.e. enforcement of standards. While enforcement is essential, to have a solid impact on the archaeological sector (in terms of both wages and the quality of output) higher starting standards need to be set, creating barriers to entry. These standards need to be present at the first stage, the PQQ and tender.

The simplest standard to set and enforce would be RAO status or the equivalent measures thereof. While this puts a burden on the IFA to monitor RAOs and RAO applicants, it would also tend to increase their membership, providing the additional resource required.

Doctors, lawyers, accountants and engineers; teachers, personnel managers, chartered surveyors; all have two things in common: they get paid more than archaeologists and they have enforced standards for entry to the profession. This is not a coincidence.

Currently archaeology has no barriers to entry; it is easiest to start by raising the bar for the employing organisations than for the people - that will come naturally in time.

------
Strictly my views, which occasionally may also be those of my employer!
------

[the invisible man]

Not entirely striclty true. Most professions do not have required "standards" for entry in the sense used on these forums; they usually have academic standards (more of a level really), and sometimes practical experience has to be demonstrated. However, im many cases anyone can practise in that "profession" - you simply cannot call yourself an architect, doctor etc. as they are protected titles. I believe that "engineer" is not a protected title, which is why they sometimes expressly call themselves Chartered Engineers (and of course there are many sorts of engineer).

There is not alweays a progression either. An architect is an architect is an architect. You do your 7 years, sit your Part 3 and attend an interview and if successful can call yourself an architect. Clearly most of these have a total of 2 years working experience, one of which is at a very junior level (year out after degree), and are more or less equivalent to PIFA I suppose. No-one in their right mind would give them a large project to do on their own. Nevertheless they are entitled to use the title Architect.

Obviously it varies between professions, this is just one example. And none of it has much to do wages levels.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[hurting-back]

The reason standards is a bigger issue in archaeology is because it is harder to quantify whether an excavation is done to a high standard than it is to see whether a building has been built to a high standard. In the latter case, you would look for a good architect with a strong record and probably pay a bit extra (in large developments in any case) to know that your building is well designed as you have an economic interest in having the building built to a high standard. As I have already explained, in archaeology the only economic interest for the client (except in very rare circumstances) is in the discharge of a planning condition; how well it is done cannot usually be ascertained by the paying client, and nor does it need to be in their eyes as they are looking to build something and the archaeological work is a distraction from this rather than a goal in of itself. The only agents who give a value to the quality of archaeological work are curators (explained in detail above).

So, as everyone (I hope) understands, clients will pay more for something if they perceive they are getting a better service or product for it. For instance, in the case of services, better reliability is something which can be worth paying more for. For a company undertaking the work, the more value that is placed (economically) on quality work, the more it is worth retaining staff who work very well and to a high standard. A common way to prevent staff leaving is to entice them to stay with pay rises, benefits etc.... In short, it would make it economically viable to offer higher pay to people who work very well.

Sure, telling RAOs to pay more helps a bit, as do the efforts of BAJR and the IFA, but if significantly higher pay is not economically viable because there is no economic reason to value work of a higher quality it will not happen; companies will negotiate any rises downwards to survive. It is obvious that standards of work and wages are linked, particularly in the service industry in which we work; if people make a company more money due to efficient and high quality work, they will be rewarded in order to retain them, however if quality is not high on the agenda economically, there is no reason to reward high quality work as it makes the company no extra profit.

don't panic!

[vulpes]

Oh dear you're going to have the consultants hopping mad with that. They'll say (and I would agree to an extent) that they also give value to archaeological work, through enforcing standards and compliance with written schemes, briefs etc. So, HB perhaps the key to better wages is more and and better consultants too? I would still dispute the direct link between quality and price that you are pushing here. Just because something costs more doesn't mean it is of higher quality :face-huh:

[hurting-back]

quote:Originally posted by vulpes

Oh dear you're going to have the consultants hopping mad with that. They'll say (and I would agree to an extent) that they also give value to archaeological work, through enforcing standards and compliance with written schemes, briefs etc. So, HB perhaps the key to better wages is more and and better consultants too? I would still dispute the direct link between quality and price that you are pushing here. Just beacause something costs more doesn't mean it is of higher quality :face-huh:

But something of higher quality does cost more, unless someone finds a more efficient way of achiving a set standard, and in a competitive environment that balance tends to find itself naturally. The issue is obviously to make sure the standard is set.

As for consultants, they can sometimes make a small impact (on the market overall) if they have good standing with their client and a very good reason for avoiding a particular firm (due to past performance for instance), but ultimately their role is to facilitate planning consents for their client and making sure work gets past curators is part of that job.

And they still have to get things past curators; their interest in standards (economically remember! I am not implying that consultants do not care, but they cannot overrule their clients) can only extend as far as attaining that consent for the same market led reasons (i.e. if they do not do it, someone else will). If a consultant demands that more work occurs than is strictly necessary to achieve the discharge of a condition, they run the risk of falling foul of their client if they are found out (by looking at the level of work they are paying for in a similar but unrelated project, for instance).

don't panic!

[beamo]

This consultant is not hopping-mad about H-Bs comments as much of what has been said is true. Obviously I would consider that my role does result in added value, but equally I am also acting in my clients interest in achieving planning consent, discharge of conditions etc.

However, and I have said this before on the forum, the client's best interests usually lie in meeting programme deadlines rather than in reducing specific target costs attached to archaeological work, i.e. the actual costs of undertaking a piece of fieldwork do not really matter as long as the work is carried out within the agreed timescale and does not over-run. It is usually correct to say that the client is not particularly concerned about the quality of the fieldwork, and that most clients cannot tell if the quality is good or bad - that is why they employ consultants.

It is actually possible for consultants to play some part in raising standards). The production of a detailed and rigorous brief (either with or without a specification from the curator) should result in a reasonably level playing field for contractors to tender against. Although it is likely that the lowest bid will be successful, the quality standards should be fixed as these should be set out clearly in the brief.

The brief then forms part of the contract for the works - if the work is not up to the standard in the brief, then the contractor is in breach of contract and action can be taken (legal or otherwise) by the client or consultant - this is totally separate to the issue of enforcement (or lack thereof) by planning officers advised by curators. The consultant can monitor compliance with standards, as well as the curator.

However, none of this has any real effect on the matter under debate -pay levels within the contracting part of the profession - I would welcome suggestions on how consultants can assist in this.

Now that the IFA (along with ALGAO) has managed to produce a Standard and Guidance document for archaeological curators, perhaps we could look for one that is specifically for archaeological consultants. Failing that, I suppose that the next best move would be to establish a separate professional body for archaeological consultants that could produce its own standards and guidelines.


Beamo

BTW - Putt1ck - is there really such a thing as a chartered personnel manager, and do they have enforced standards for entry to the profession - I guess I must have just met the (non-chartered) inept ones.

[1man1desk]

Posted by Hurting Back:

quote:As for consultants, they can sometimes make a small impact (on the market overall) if they have good standing with their client and a very good reason for avoiding a particular firm (due to past performance for instance), but ultimately their role is to facilitate planning consents for their client and making sure work gets past curators is part of that job.

Consultants will usually (but not always) appoint the cheapest tenderer - but then, if they have any sense they will only have invited tenders from units whose competence they have confidence in.

"Making sure work gets past curators", of course, can be translated as "agreeing in advance what is required and then ensuring that the work is done to the standard expected by the curator".

quote:And they still have to get things past curators; their interest in standards (economically remember! I am not implying that consultants do not care, but they cannot overrule their clients) can only extend as far as attaining that consent for the same market led reasons (i.e. if they do not do it, someone else will). If a consultant demands that more work occurs than is strictly necessary to achieve the discharge of a condition, they run the risk of falling foul of their client if they are found out (by looking at the level of work they are paying for in a similar but unrelated project, for instance).

It is ultimately up to the planning authority (advised by their curator) to define the scope and standard of work required. The planning authority, after all, is the decision-making body. Once defined, the consultant and their client do have an interest in making sure that the work they pay for is done to the standard specified.



1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

Posted by Beamo:

quote:Now that the IFA (along with ALGAO) has managed to produce a Standard and Guidance document for archaeological curators, perhaps we could look for one that is specifically for archaeological consultants. Failing that, I suppose that the next best move would be to establish a separate professional body for archaeological consultants that could produce its own standards and guidelines.

IFA standards generally relate to specific activities (such as DBA), rather than to specific groups of workers. Many aspects of what consultants do are already covered by existing standards and the Code of Conduct. Others may be covered by non-IFA documents (such as guidance on EIA).

I can't see any good reason to separate archaeological consultants from the IFA in their own professional body.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[monitor lizard]

quote:Originally posted by beamo

Now that the IFA (along with ALGAO) has managed to produce a Standard and Guidance document for archaeological curators, perhaps we could look for one that is specifically for archaeological consultants.

Have they? This curator has't seen it, and it isn't on their website.

ML

[hurting-back]

Beamo, 1man,

Thanks for your comments! I don't really disagree with either of you, but if I may comment on a few things:

"The brief then forms part of the contract for the works - if the work is not up to the standard in the brief, then the contractor is in breach of contract and action can be taken (legal or otherwise) by the client or consultant - this is totally separate to the issue of enforcement (or lack thereof) by planning officers advised by curators. The consultant can monitor compliance with standards, as well as the curator."

I might add that I don't really see legal action occurring unless precipitated by the dissatisfaction of the curator/council. If a contractor doesn't really comply with the brief, but the consent is granted regardless, would the client or the consultant really waste time and money trying to sue the contractor into doing more?

"However, none of this has any real effect on the matter under debate -pay levels within the contracting part of the profession - I would welcome suggestions on how consultants can assist in this."

Ok, I would have to disagree here beamo, I obviously think these things are indeed interrelated, otherwise I would have started a new thread on curatorial enforcement or whatever. But I don't want to because I am not saying that anyone is doing a bad job (well some individuals do, but this is not as widespread as people seem to think) as everyone is doing the best they can within the existing framework. What I am saying is that defining a detailed scope of works which allows contractors to cost to the same level of work is actually quite difficult and time consuming. Obviously is this because you can get several archaeologists to look at a site even after it is stripped, and they can still disagree about how to achieve the same set of objectives in terms of methodology and resourcing. This makes things variable enough without adding overworked curators to the mix. I have gone over why I think these issues are linked at great length (I am sure everyone will agree about that!!) so if I have not convinced you I am sorry but I am out of arguments, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

1man - I don't have any issue with what you say...in theory. In my experience consultants are under considerable market pressures of their own. For example once a contractor is appointed for a cheap price, and say the excavation is finished, while the consultants heart may be wanting to push the contractor to the full letter of the brief, their head has to consider that if the curator will let the site go, it is in their own (and their client's) interest to let that happen as this will be the cheaper option. And as much as beamo has pointed out that clients really care about deadlines rather than costs, most contractors can mobilise relatively quickly (within four weeks) and will tell you they can achieve the deadlines, so things will quickly go to costs.

We are now truly getting away from the topic however, as in bringing this up I was trying to put forward the notion that limited resources for curators would restrict movement on the living wage, but we can discuss this elsewhere if you'd like!

don't panic!