2nd November 2009, 10:23 AM
I notice that an IFA Registered Archaeological Unit is advertising through the IFA for experienced archaeologists (curiously called Assistant Archaeologists - is it only me that is mystified by the title?) at a headline range which starts below the recommended IFA minimum. The advert states (later in the text) that applicants with PIFA level experience will be paid at the PIFA recommended minimum at least, but I don't see how anyone applying through this advert could have anything less, given the range of skills and experience requested. Is this just a way of driving starting salaries down?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd November 2009, 10:35 AM
Thanks for that information. I will discuss this with the IfA and ask them to comment. As if it appears in their JIS then they must have accepted it as meeting their strict Guidelines for ROs to advertise.
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
2nd November 2009, 11:03 AM
I too had thoughts about this ad, but from a slightly different angle.
Presumably one way to guarantee that you are paid the IFA minimum PIFA rate by the company in question is to make sure that you are a PIFA at the time of applying. If non-IFA members are paid less than IFA members is that really a problem for the IFA?.....I think not. I recognise that this might be a way of getting around asking for IFA membership without insisting upon it.....(Discuss!!)
I obviously can't speak on behalf of the company involved (and wouldn't be so presumptuous), but they might well be signalling to new or relatively new entrants to our profession that those who take-up IFA membership stand a better chance of being considered for employment, and in doing so are merely satisfying their RAO responsibility to promote wider IFA membership amongst their staff
Personally (and writing as a long-time IFA member) I have no problem with that although I recognise this might upset others....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
2nd November 2009, 11:52 AM
Kevin Wrote:If non-IFA members are paid less than IFA members is that really a problem for the IFA?.
This is plain and simple discrimination? It surely must be illegal to do this. :face-rain:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd November 2009, 12:33 PM
Kevin Wrote:Presumably one way to guarantee that you are paid the IFA minimum PIFA rate by the company in question is to make sure that you are a PIFA at the time of applying. If non-IFA members are paid less than IFA members is that really a problem for the IFA?.....I think not. I recognise that this might be a way of getting around asking for IFA membership without insisting upon it.....(Discuss!!)
A very interesting take indeed. So what you are saying is that people are forced into becoming PIFAs or they won't get paid the same as others who are PIFA. (er... very interesting) You also seem to suggest that Field Staff who are not PIFA are effectively barred from employment or paid less.
Frankly I am shocked at the suggestion that membership of an organisation can be seen as a requirement (by whatever means) There are many people who choose for whatever reason not to be in the IfA. The IfA could and should (and often are) be promoting the benefits for people to join, rather than forcing the issue with discrimination.
BAJR will continue to hold to minima based on responsibility.
You are right that some may be upset..........however I fear you will find that is more than some that will be upset. To suggest that to get employed you MUST be IfA rather than to be employed on merit and willingly join the IfA is likely to cause a rift and a massive feeling of workers rights that have been so long fought for (need I remind you of what it was like before the BAJR Grades were implemented?) are eroded and cut back.
There are ways - and to me the statement that this is somehow "satisfying their RAO responsibility to promote wider IFA membership amongst their staff " is bizarre
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
2nd November 2009, 12:37 PM
It would only be legally 'discrimination' if you were offering lesser money due to a factor covered by discrimination law i.e gender, race, disability, trade union membership etc etc.
I am not so sure that offering a higher wage to someone on the basis of membership of a professional body counts as discrimination Otherwise a whole host of employment situations would surely be discriminatory.....but I will check it out...
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd November 2009, 01:01 PM
So what we are saying is that it is fine to pay people the minima if they are members of an organisation but also fine to pay people less if they are not.... based solely on that criteria? the same job requirement, the same workload, the same everything... but membership of an organisation is good enough to lower peoples wages?
we should be clear this is not even about higher wages, the question is lower wages
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
2nd November 2009, 01:01 PM
The IFA recommendation for the minimum starting salary for those with PIFA responsibilities - not membership - is ?15,054. The IFA recognises that professional archaeologists with this range of skills should be paid a particular wage, whether they choose to join the IFA or not. Should an IFA Registered Organisation not follow the same criteria?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd November 2009, 01:32 PM
Thats my thoughts on the matter.
I have discussed it extensively and according to ACAS and DirectGov the matter is not discrimination, rather a matter of 'not being best practice' The criteria you mention above is supposed to cover all staff whether IfA or not - just like my BAJR Grades. I was amused to find out that I could legaly put up a job that had differential pay based on whether you were a BAJRFed member or not. So... if you are not a member of the BAJR Fed I could knock money off my minima and pay you less.... forcing you to make a choice....
You will be glad to hear that I won't be taking that line.
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
2nd November 2009, 06:38 PM
The units are (presumably) saying that any inexperienced staff being taken on will be paid a lesser rate (ie the bottom of their scale), whilst those who can demonstrate competance will be paid accordingly. Membership of the IfA at PiFA level is obviously a way of demonstrating competance at Pifa level (by definition), although one assumes that they would have to pay the minima to anyone with equivalent (or greater) experience who didn't happen to be in the IFA.
The problem is that they say they want applicants who are by their own definition of skills and experience what we would call PiFA level staff. If they want a few inexperienced diggers they should clearly state that they are also looking to employ a proportion of entry level graduates or similar.
There were a couple of similar adverts a few months ago that did not even include the Pifa equivalent statement, those were changed to include the Pifa statement shortly after. Presumably after someone complained.
Assuming it is a badly worded advert, and the sub PIFA wage is intended for entry level staff it is still a worrying trend, although I guess the units will say that they are only employing inexperienced staff at the lower rate and that anyone with PIfa equivalence will get the Pifa minima. As long as it is fairly applied (and staff get the pay hike when they achieve equivalence) then technically there should be no problem. I guess the units can say that they are giving those starting out a helping hand onto the bottom rung of the ladder...
I don't see it as 'discriminating' against non-IFA members, merely it is accepting the industry 'benchmark' for basic digging level pay based on the accepted Pifa definition. I imagine they have discussed this with the IFA to ensure compliance with their rules?
It must be straightforward to define PIFA level competance, otherwise the whole point of PIFA falls apart.....I would sincerely hope this is not a backdoor way of paying less experienced staff a lower wage: If this wage was being applied to people who normally would get a Pifa level wage (or in the worst case had worked for the unit before on a Pifa level wage) then that would be a retrograde step and surely against the spirit of the minima. I guess it comes down to how you define PiFA level? and whether working as a PIFA level wage for one unit means you should continue on that wage level for other units? In the last few 'boom years' we all know of new entrees working on the same PIFA wage as more experienced diggers, now it is returning to the old ways, and we risk losing the small increases the lowest level of archaeologists made.
What would be interesting is if anyone with PIFA level competence (but not necessarily a PIFA) had been or was taken on at the lower level. That WOULD be against the IFA code as far as I can see....
Another problem is that although these adverts often offer a fairly wide pay band (eg ?15,300-?16,400), I would imagine that all aplicants will be getting the bottom of the pay band....
PS, Kevin, stop stirring!!
