5th June 2007, 11:35 PM
This was a popular feature of the moribund digger magazine, and served a very useful purpose.
I would love to see it resurrected, as there are both a lot of good and bad archaeological units out there, and those of us prepared to supply our labour deserve the best information possible about our potential employers.
BAJR is I think now the best known and widely accessed portal in the profession, and I'd like to think it could be used to give a 'users guide' to the companies who employ archaeologists.
I realise there is an acceptable use policy which would prevent specific grievances (and maybe excessive praise?) being aired, but perhaps there is some way units could be compared relatively objectively on this site with the results being made public?
I would suggest (as in the past) a mark from 1 to 5 on the categories of: Training, PPE supplied, Respect and responsibility given to staff, Pay, Sick pay, Paid days holiday, room for advancement, and Site hut banter. Three individual entries would be needed for any particular employers results to be published to rule out any particularly disgruntled or over enthused employees distorting the picture.
The only fair way I can think of is for people to supply info to one person to objectively compile results. I don't know who this person could be to give any results any credibility, but suggestions would be welcome.
I would love to see it resurrected, as there are both a lot of good and bad archaeological units out there, and those of us prepared to supply our labour deserve the best information possible about our potential employers.
BAJR is I think now the best known and widely accessed portal in the profession, and I'd like to think it could be used to give a 'users guide' to the companies who employ archaeologists.
I realise there is an acceptable use policy which would prevent specific grievances (and maybe excessive praise?) being aired, but perhaps there is some way units could be compared relatively objectively on this site with the results being made public?
I would suggest (as in the past) a mark from 1 to 5 on the categories of: Training, PPE supplied, Respect and responsibility given to staff, Pay, Sick pay, Paid days holiday, room for advancement, and Site hut banter. Three individual entries would be needed for any particular employers results to be published to rule out any particularly disgruntled or over enthused employees distorting the picture.
The only fair way I can think of is for people to supply info to one person to objectively compile results. I don't know who this person could be to give any results any credibility, but suggestions would be welcome.