Pay and Conditions

[BAJR Host]

David C's approach of softly softly coaxing levels is best, but the recession has rather interfered.

I would have gotten away with it, ifn't it hadn't been for that pesky recession!

[Davidh]

Please give me some time to get back to you invisible man. I have been away and I'm in a rush to go to a meeting soon but your reply warrants an explanation as to why I haven't got back to you yet.

As you say, we are in agreement on a lot of things, what we may disagree on is how to go about the best for your profession.

I owe an explanation on my views of construction site staff by the looks of it.

[jeremiah]

I've been reading the thread on here with interest and a lot of sadness. Invisible Man is bang on the money when he says archaeological employers pay appalingly low wages "because they can." And he's also right to say that it is not fundamentally competitive tendering which has brought this about; if it was, we would see the same situation across the construction sector. Personally, over a decade of observing contract archaeology from the inside has led me to believe that the problem, in commercial terms, lies in the way that commercial unit managers view competition and the value of the product which they offer, and the product which their staff produce.

So they will pay these wages because there's always a supply of labour willing to be paid at that level. At the moment, with labour outstripping demand, this is doubly true. That's market forces. And yet... a few years ago when, certainly in many areas (such as London and the south-east), the opposite was true, wages did not rise commensurately - indeed they generally lagged behind inflation. Thus all the talk of market forces within commercial archaeology has to be taken with pinch of salt. The market is skewed and it is archaeological managers in general who have skewed it. That's perfectly understandable psychologically (it's akin to what's called The Prisoner Dilemma) but it's fairly damning of that part of the profession and their reasoning that they didn't seek to transform and escape that situation through dialogue and co-operation between organisations and companies when times were relatively good.

Sadly, I don't believe that things will improve for a long time and they certainly won't improve without an almighty shove collectively from those at the bottom of the pile. It's true to say that things have improved from the situation in the '80s (!!!), but they haven't happened quickly enough: that's twenty years ago!!! A sector in which it can be claimed that's something to be proud of, is in serious need of a reality check. There's an excellent case to be made by saying that if you genuinely care about the long-term future of British Archaeology, and if you care about the profession and those who in future will have to follow the path you have trodden, you will leave archaeology. Many of us have been forced into this position by economic circumstances, and any exodus would not start to have an effect until the need for labour rises. It all depends upon whether or not people are willing to accord themselves the self-respect which they deserve. Plenty of people stay in archaeology because, after a certain amount of time, they can't really imagine that they could do anything else. Well, that's rubbish, but the reason many feel this way is that they are never properly valued by the companies they work for. And, if you do stay in the profession, you will most likely end up knackered physically (if not semi-crippled) by back-breaking physical labour, with little money with which to deal with those things which life will throw at you and always fundamentally having been treated with scant consideration. I'm sorry to be the bearer of a Jeremiad (and nothing I've said here hasn't been said before), but you have to ask yourself whether this industry deserves you. I don't think it does and it's time to do yourselves and others all an almighty favour and vote with your feet.

[trowelfodder]

Having been away from the forum since its revamp I have to say how depresing it is to come back and read this thread. None of the issues, attitudes or solutions seem to have changed in the seven years i've been using BAJR.

The question of pay levels has been rattling on way before the recesion and it is as simple now as its ever been - if you do not value yourself and your skills then why would anyone else?

I for one am never prepared to work below BAJR guidelines and would not take a pay cut. If I am paid less then I will undertake a lower level of responcability and stick to my guns on this.

Taking lower wages is not a viable solution in the long term - and talking of the inevitabe progression of an archaeological career being to leave the proffession is unhelpful. If a defeatist stance is taken as the default then how is anything ever going to change.

Rather than seeing each other as competition - which is essentially what everyone who uses the lines "theres always someone else to take my job, or theres more labour than jobs" is doing we need to work together.

[BAJR Host]

Having been away from the forum since its revamp I have to say how depresing it is to come back and read this thread. None of the issues, attitudes or solutions seem to have changed in the seven years i've been using BAJR.

Are we so surprised... given that we can't stand up for what is right.! However... and this is honestly the last time - I am returning to an exciting new/old format... and can bring back ALL hte past 7 years worth of threads again .. however this final incarnation will be more stridant in pushing the limits.

I for one am never prepared to work below BAJR guidelines and would not take a pay cut. If I am paid less then I will undertake a lower level of responsibility and stick to my guns on this.

You have the right idea... however... we need to stand together... be willing to stop grumbling in the site hut, but start acting! Like you the rest of the field arch has to pull the finger out and realise just how powerful they are. Recently a company director who is sympathetic said, the field archaeologist does not realise ho powerful they are.... however, as long as some are wiling to be paid anything - then they will keep the wages down to the level they complain about. 2010 is going to be a year where we have a choise... who will support, and who will sit back and watch --- thank goodness for people like you Trowel!

[Mattymooface]

How to move on, is worth carrying out our own survey and submitting it to IFA,All Party Parliamentary Archaeology Group,and other partys,

Is that the right way to go?

[Unitof1]

we need to work together

so stop working for someone then and set yourself up as an archaeologist.

[Stonner]

I think you need to get together and create a good trade union.

I cannot think of any industry that would expect such high levels of education and training and expect to get away with paying so little.

[Davidh]

I don't really follow your arguments about construction site staff. Yes I know the CSCS card is absurdly simple, I have one myself, but that is not all you need. Sure you don't need anything other than muscle to be a labourer, but other trades all require varying degrees (pardon the pun!) of training and/or qulaification and/or experience. To be honest we must have been on very different construction sites in recent decades, iny experience there are very few traditional labourers on site these days.

However, I'm not trying to suggest that everyone on site has a degree or an academic background as do most (not all) archaeologists. I (and others) are comparing archaeological wages with those in construction because commercial archaeology is part of the construction industry.

Think of a larger construction firm as a site management company. Most of the larger construction firms only employ traditional labourers, the skilled workforce are normally sub contractors who themselves have very little use for labourers, including myself. Now then, I am not saying that all labourers are uneducated but the fact remains that some are and regardless of this they still get the same pay as those around them. The fact is the traditional labourer can more than hold his wage in comparison to a field archaeologist if he plays his cards right. I dread to think what a fully trained tradesman earns let alone a craftsman in comparison to a field archaeologist. I know of some labourers who rely on colours on signs, some who have to get their colleagues to check their wage docket. They still get paid very very well.

That's all of our gripes I think. I don't understand why there are some FA's who readily accept this as 'this is the way it has always been.' I think it is time for change as I find this unacceptable and judging from some of the posts above I see there are lots of people who think likewise. Getting there is a different beast though.

I'm not sure who you are saying you can take for a ride at will. I don't know what your position in construction was/is, but I have to say that I find this unlikely.

Of course you find it unlikely. Lets just say I work on the renovation side of things, a specialised area within that field. I have always found it quite funny that when managers on site find out my GSCS card is gold, they always act a bit funny. Makes me smile anyway.

Architects produce specifications for me. I rarely follow them. If they are nice too me or I find they are a sociable person I normally tell them and explain why. If they are not, normally because I turn up for meetings in my glad rags and they disapprove, I take them for a ride and complete the contract as I see fit. I have always got paid and used again.

I can give examples of heritage management not having one clue on how to go about the protection of listed buildings but to what end? Reading back what I have just printed can read bad enough as it is and that isn't how I really wanted it all to come over.

:face-plain:

[Davidh]

"I think you need to get together and create a good trade union.

I cannot think of any industry that would expect such high levels of education and training and expect to get away with paying so little."

Exactly.

I have to ask why this has never been done before? Are archaeologists so laid back that it was never thought of as important?

Also, the talk of having a good trade union comes over as being a bit seventies or a bit wolfie if you don't mind me saying so.