Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Just been having an interesting discussion with a client who wanted to know why a programme of p/x is going to cost more money despite a reduction in the scope of work following the initial submission of programme and costs.
Close examination of cost breakdown and discossuion with the contracting organisation in question reveals that the overall increase is because the new costs are based on 2007/8 rates whereas the inital submission was based on 2006/7 rates - acceptable so far.
However some day rates have gone up by as much as 20% (this is charge to client, presumably not salary). Client is not at all happy, claiming that uplift due to a new financial year should be 'reasonable'. Perhaps the client will want to tender out the p/x (against my advice), and the contractor will lose out - see alternate thread). Remember, if salaries go up by 5% then charge out is likely to go up more than that.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Quote:quote:I pointed out once that some grades should be up to 42% upgraded.. but then how do you do that in one go... you can't...
I don't mean to criticize your efforts Mr Host; on its own, there is only so much that BAJR can do.
The real villains of the piece aren't SCAUM either, they are there to represent the interests of (some) employers, not employees (Hmm, employers want to pay workers low wages...Shock!), although it would be nice if they took a more far-sighted view about the state of working conditions in field archaeology.
The IFA? Well, over the years they have shown themselves to represent only the interests of the employers in the wages debate. Why don't they set a 5% increase (a token improvement at least), and then kick the Local Authority units out of the RAO scheme if they can't manage it. That would be the brave and decent thing for them to do at this point but its too much to expect.
What I want to know is what the hell are PROSPECT up to? The sum total of all their years negotiations with SCAUM is a statement that wages should go up by inflation??? I am, and will remain, a subs payer for the legal back-up that it provides, but I wonder what my subs are being spent on; evidently not 'negotiating skills' courses.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
I think we are all in agreement with the points made here that pay minima are exactly that, the minimum decent living wage, whereas aspirational rates are in line with those that would allow us to buy houses in our chosen areas. The issue is that Prospect are limited to what they can do and BAJR, IFA, SCAUM and others are limited to what is supportable in statute and policy. BAJR's aspirational rates are the first step .... and a small above inflation increase year on year is the best way to achieve better rates of pay. An increase of 20% just isn't sustainable.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Quote:quote:and a small above inflation increase year on year is the best way to achieve better rates of pay.(posted by Chris Jones)
RPI (what most people call inflation)= 4.5%
RPI excluding mortgages (why?) = 3.6%
£14,300 = 3.2% rise over previous years IFA minimum.
So it would be nice even to get a rise of inflation.
None of this is unexpected, I just wish there was no attempt to put a positive spin on it. We are still at square 1.
"Does your partner have a real job?" (Casual question from a potential archaeological employer).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
You have every right to be angry ⦠so please join the Diggers Forum and channel that angerâ¦
As to inflation increases ---- The big problem at the moment - Unison and the LGA are still fighting about what the increase should be⦠LGA says 2% Unison says 5% (which is why I put a BAJR 5% aspirational rate)
Gordon Brown is trying to cap pay rises⦠others are saying it is not fair⦠if inflation is higher than the pay riseâ¦
I and many others in Local Govt are being regraded⦠some losing money.. others being dropped a grade so we end up with a pay cut⦠so it could be worse!!
If you really think that we are still at square oneâ¦. Cast your mind back 10 yearsâ¦
A starting salary of 14300 ainât to bad ⦠but it has to go somewhere⦠hence the meetings on pushing forward the benchmarking and career scales and formal training (linked to a skills passport) which rewards progression⦠rather than the good old.. drop down to the bottom every time you move ..
There are solutions⦠there is a way forward⦠getting angry about it is good ( hence BAJR ⦠I stated it because I was angry) and then doing something with it⦠And then⦠the hardest one for me personally --- realise that you canât change the world singlehanded⦠you need to be part of the movement.. you have to use all your time and patience to put forward your case⦠to make people trust you⦠to show where you are going in such a way as you are not an outside force shouting from the sidelinesâ¦
For seven years now I have been hoping for this moment⦠it is happening⦠and BAJR is a part of it⦠(a small part⦠but important) Creating the first grade system ⦠creating a base rate for different jobs⦠being seen to be fair being honest and trying to do the best⦠This seems to be paying off.. and real change is happening⦠real change that I will be part of⦠part of the discussions, part of the Diggers Forum, part of the IFA⦠and not just focussed on one issue⦠but trying to grapple with the whole picture⦠where its not just about pay⦠that this is a spiders web of issues, that to touch one is to touch them allâ¦
It ainât easy⦠but it is worthwhile⦠Anger is only good when channelled into a focused issue⦠putting energy and time into itâ¦
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
I think it is important that bodies such as SCAUM, Prospect and the IFA start to draw lines in the sand regarding the archaeological remuneration package (I agree with previous posters that it can't all be put down to pay). From here there really is no going back.
Henceforth when archaeological remuneration fails to keep up with the aspirations of its receivers, we can all reference the day that such bodies agreed a 'minimum' (and ask with righteous indignation why they have failed to increase the minima to take account of inflation etc).
That said I am also of the belief that the organisations that pay relatively well in archaeology and are able to keep their business on a steady footing (some making significant profits I understand) will eventually get tired of being tarred with the same brush as the 'crap payers' in archaeology and will seek to create clearwater between the two extremes of archaeological employment. I believe that this will be reflected in a campaign calling for 'higher' standards for organisations that wish to be registered with the IFA and as members of SCAUM, and inevitably will mean exclusion of those bodies unwilling to improve the remuneration of its workforce. Of course I am assuming this will not happen overnight....
One of the interesting developments of this year's 'Profiling the Profession' survey by the IFA is that they are going to include a parallel survey of the remuneration packages available to archaeologists in 10 other European countries. So we will see where we all stand on a pan-Euro basis....just hope they include Norway!!
