IfA Council Statement on Archaeological Salaries

[BAJR Host]

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...laries.pdf

I will leave people to read it.

It is quite far-reaching and will be open to (indeed it welcomes) debate.

In a nutshell, the Council decided to not allow ROs to reduce salaries, but will work on a system of Pay Bands rather than minima ( I would say a bit like the overlapping bands of BAJR) and finally that in 2010-2011 there will be no increase in pay rates.

That simplifies a complex document - so do please take the time to read it before commenting.

[BAJR Host]

Pay deals in the UK could come under renewed pressure next year despite signs of an economic recovery, a new study has warned.

According to the Labour Research Department (LRD), a significant number of long-term pay deals are set to expire next year and this is one of several factors that will place downward pressure on salaries.

It found that one in seven deals in 2010 will be long-term arrangements, compared to one-quarter of settlements in 2009.

Lewis Emery, the LRD's pay and conditions researcher, believes a number of other factors could keep pay deals on the low side next year, despite signs of growth since April.

He said: "At least four crucial questions overshadow the chances of continuing pay growth: Will current pay freezes be lifted? What kind of pay offers will employers make with fewer long term deals setting the pace? Will Retail Price Index inflation return? And most decisively of all, what will happen with public sector pay?"

Recently, research by Incomes Data Services revealed that a third of businesses have imposed a pay freeze so far during 2009.

http://www.lrd.org.uk/issue.php?pagid=1&issueid=1345

However, averaged over the whole year, however, the picture does not look quite so bleak. From August 2008-July 2009, 30% overall received less than a 2% rise, including cuts and freezes, covering almost one-third of the workforce; however, a significant 22% (over one-fifth) of deals were for 4% or more, covering 13% of the workforce. This leaves over two-fifths (41%) of deals achieving between 2% and 3.99%, applying to almost half (49%) of workers.

So I would suggest a wait and see - Lets wait until April 2010 and see where we are as an industry, before saying freeze. I don't feel we know enough... and given that the planned return in the main VAT rate to 17.5% from January 2010 would affect us all. Continued weak or frozen wage growth would imply a squeeze on disposable incomes (which for a 15k a year - working every week! - is already non-existant) , potentially undermining prospects for consumer spending and an economic recovery in general. Accomodation? TRavel? lots to mull over. AND this is complicated.

I don't have a full handle on this yet, so perhaps the IfA could comment more on the statement

Where did this come from, as it seems to have taken up a Council Meeting, and must have origins.

[Ken]

Hmm, could it be, finally, the IfA has decided to bare it's teeth on a matter of principle? If so I might even consider joining. What I found particularly interesting was the statement made under the heading Behaviour in a democratic institute;

"Council has tried to steer a principled yet pragmatic course through one of the most potentially divisive and damaging debates within the Institute for 20 years. Emotions have run high and threats have been made"

I'd love to know what the nature of these threats are, who made them and more importantly who was responsible for bringing the issues to debate within the framework of the IfA. Bet it wasn't the IfA themselves.

[kevin wooldridge]

I have several comments to make on the IfA statement.

I should declare that I have been a member of the IfA for over 20 years and therefore feel justified in making comment and I am happy to do so on BAJR due to the lack of an equivalant IfA forum.

In the first instance, I am happy that this attempt by RAOs to change IfA policy on pay minima has been thrown out. But the fact that it has happened at all is very worrying. The IfA held its AGM as recently as September, but the RAO promoters of this proposition obviously felt unable to present this as a motion to the general membership of the Institute and instead tried to force it through by talking to a few buddies on IfA council. That is totally outrageous!! As Gerry Wait reminds us, in the final paragraph of the IfA statement, the IfA is a democratic body. This suggests to me the proposers of this suggestion should be reminded of the IfA constitution and perhaps sent to democracy re-education!! Such actions hardly promote themselves to an already disillusioned and frankly sceptical archaeological profession.

My second point arises directly from the first. At what point does IfA council feel able to take such a significant step as announcing a pay freeze without presenting the proposition to the membership? Again Gerry if you want to demonstrate democracy within the IfA, put it to the vote. If we cant wait until next September's AGM, lets have a special meeting to discuss this matter and to formulate a propsition for the whole of the membership to vote upon.

Thirdly what does a proposed pay freeze in 2010/11 do to the previous IFA plan to increase pay levels by a minimum of 13% by 2013?

And finally (for now), I kinda think that including a small detail in this memo regarding the IfA ?major campaign ?..to encourage local planning and national heritage bodies to exercise their powers to require archaeological work to be undertaken by (IfA) Registered Organisations? is slightly detracting from the main point. I am not necessarily against such a campaign, but again feel that the membership as a whole should be consulted. What of those IfA members not employed by RAOs who stand to lose work as a result?. Are we not worthy of consultation? This smacks of Labour Party practice of burying bad news in other bad news?.

:face-crying:

[chiz]

I have to agree with all of Kevin's points. There appears to have been a concerted and organised campaign by 'responsible postholders ' (ie heads of RO's) to push through a change. Is the nature of the threats that the RO's threatened to leave the RO scheme? Or did someone get offered out the room for some 'education'?

I have to completely agree with Kevin that this should have been put to IFA membership, I couldn't make the AGM, as I was digging a hole, but such a radical change (more details please??) should not be railroaded through without recourse to the membership. I'd have said that there should have been a fully prepared draft of the new scheme, and knowing the IFA that would have taken about 20 years!

Whilst we're declaring interests, I'm a member of the IFA and Diggers' Forum, and recently stood for IFA council on a 'fair pay now' ticket. I wish I'd got voted in now.....

[Mattymooface]

Surprised, i thought it would be a story about how they bended over and did nothing

I would, like others like to know what the threats were

Perhapes a diffrent thread for suggestions

[BAJR Host]

I can now say, that this has been weighing heavy upon me, the enormity of this meeting was not lost.
As per your suggestions - You as members have that right to know.

I am worried about the decision of a pay freeze, and the affect it will have. My own suggestion (which I held back until this statement was made) is to wait until April 2010 and then access the situation before making any statement about pay and conditions - (of course tenders muct be made, and this will have implications to this) BUT To condemn a whole year based on today's conditions is not something to be made. As IfA members I urge you to voice your opinions. VAT increases in January, the cost of living will increase, and wages are already being driven down - how low would you go.

Kevins post perhaps summarises the feelings that I am sure many hold - What happened and why....:face-confused:

BAJR is but one small voice, but it does allow free speech and comment for all. Use it as you wish.

[GnomeKing]

i thik a new thread IS justified on the completley symptomatic (alleged) behaviour of these RAO's - or more speficically elements of their Directorship and Senior Management Groups.

CAN THE DIRECTORSHIPS OF REGISTERED ARCHAEOLOGICAL ORGANISATIONS REALLY BE TRUSTED TO DO WHATS RIGHT - NOT ONLY FOR THEIR STAFF AND THE PROFFESION - BUT FOR THE OVERALL UK ARCHAEOLOGICAL ENDEVOUR?

[BAJR Host]

Go for it.

[Steven]

Hi
I am very dismayed to read about the "major campaign to encourage
local planning authorities and national heritage bodies to exercise their powers to require archaeological work to be undertaken by Registered Organisations."

What about all those self-employed IFA members? Are they supportive of a campaign to exclude them from work? According to Profiling the Prof RAO's represent only 17% of heritage organisations.

I would estimate that half the work carried out in my patch is by non-RAOs. They are (normally) appropriate, dedicated and with a very good local knowledge base. As an advisor to authorities it's going to take some much more persuasive arguments than the IFA has put forward to try and create an RAO "monopoly". Maybe by becoming a chartered organisation the IFA might influence me to require "Chartered Archaeologists" to carry out work, but at the moment I think the disadvantages of only accepting RAOs far outweighs the advantage of having a more flexible approach.