Pay and Conditions

[mididoctors]

I hear more and more the issues of skills and standards being raised... one should see (as many have also said to me) Archaeology Fieldwork is a skilled Craft... one that needs training and learning in the manner of a master mason or carpenter.

The more skill and the adherence to a common standard (which can be judged) should relate to a pay level that is comensurate.... otherwise what is the point when a raw recruit can earn teh same as a 10 year old hand who can draw a section with one hand while interpreting a complex series of intercutting features with the other... Surely Skills count?

the issue is standards are not enforced... why not?

Because low standards produce no discernible difference than high standards in the public eye

it doesn't matter to a great degree what the standard is because the monitoring regime is not powerful or empowered enough to discriminate between a good or bad job and moreover even if they are aware they feel obliged to collaborate in covering up poor practice so as not to show archaeology in a poor light.

again this disrepute issue.. a monitor is placed in a difficult position if the archaeology is cr4p...


it all comes down to the monitoring and standards... if archaeological practice has to be of a higher standard to achieve the goals laid out in the method statements and monitors come down hard on units conducting bad practice pay and conditions take care of themselves .

thats why undermining the credibility of our current understanding and practices in the academic and public domain opens the door to change.. the truth will tend to itself if people believe in what they are doing and make these new ideas a force that can not be ignored... the monitors themselves should placed under public pressure (the press?) for ensuring standards.

when their postion is scrutinised they are freer to act against poor practice for the public good because they are societies custodians of the record so to speak

NOTE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAS TO CHANGE VIS A VIS REGULATION ETC its a perceptual and cultural change that cost nobody anything directly in the short term

if you; create, publish or disseminate ideas that question the current standards that in time harden up as an accepted new standard no one has other choice but to follow that path.


A few years ago there was a move to rewrite the 1994 site manual at Molas which was essentially a carte blanche to rewrite a new set of standards and was avery postive thing...

they had the ability to revamp the entire industry as the manual was a default standard... we could have written what the hell we liked...

Molas at the time was at the time employing external business consultants who were advising them on business developments.... the exact in and outs of it all are unknown to me but the new manual idea was dropped and the personnel put in charge of its rewrite sidelined and effectively placed in an untenable position one resigned.. stunning stupidity of almost galactic proportions

think about what an opportunity this was and how it was squandered... astonishing madness

the same consultants advised Molas to position and organize itself for large projects...and as a result nearly went bust in a downturn lay corner shop economists like myself foresaw and TOLD the management was coming..

its hard to imagine how one could go about making things worse really

[YellowMike]

standards are merely the populus bench mark.

rewriting a manual could do a great deal, but nowadays the issues of copyright would hinder the days gone by approach, now you would have to buy a copy and pay for licensing acts.


Might have worked out, but who would be honest, to support a major competitor?




As for unionisation:

Pay should be attached to risk, that way, the injuries involved in doing the job would be reflected in the pay for its conduct.

Likewise accident books could get filled in and have references for long term developing injuries charted and mapped to provide data to support AN INCREASE IN PAY, BENIFITS and conditions!



the only major problem for such a thing is that it does nothing for the people whom have nnever made accident claims in the face of never getting another archaeological job!


thats alot of people and a huge number of people with experience, whom could potentially loose out on any such thing!




We do need to to continue to work towards standards, but the major issue will be the based upon actually making any kind of standard meaningful.

one persons standard is another persons excessive recording.





we need to think about costing diffferent standards and reliabilities for that standard, but in the current climate the only way this works out is by someone being proffessionally exposed by their employers and superiors, where there is not even enough time to read the Written scheme of investigations let alone the DBA.

There is no accounting for time in any invoicing code into the proffessionalisation of the intialisation of any works.


standards are being left to the senior site staff to take and carry the buck and smooth over debacles, for the sake of keeping their jobs and getting thhe jobs they are told to undertake.



In the end you could end up arguing that there are some people whom should be runn ning sites and those whom should be back in the trenches, but here i would ask:

who decides?

whose going to support such a mutiny on the bounty?

should we live and work in anarchy

Or should we work towards behaving proffessionally and to the conduct of works to the best of the standard we as diggers could be proud enough to get fired over?



sitting here in full time employment, or unemployed back seat driving is just ultimately insulting to those whom would merely try their best in any given circumstances.

However, as ever there is always someone who will want to rip you down, degrade you and get promoted over those we each believe we are better than.


In the end we are out there on our own and those with the troops can keep plying the booze and those viewed as company hags can keep their backs to the wall.

These are never easy places, but we do need to break out of old and rutted paths to PROFESSIONALISE this place.


anyways

till the next time gadget...............................................

[vinnie0057]

Totally agree with Geli. Previously worked with a Co where i had access to monthly invoices to the contractor for our services. All i'm going to say is that if a digger was getting ?300 pw, the contractor would be billed approx ?700-?800. Whilst i appreciate that the Co has to cover its overheads, this is really taking the piss!!!!!! If you take into account a medium-size project with approx 25 diggers, that's a nice earner by any standard. At the same time, these same Co's will justify lower wages, no sub, no accom by citing "the economy". Maybe it's time for major contractors and local authorities to cut out the "middle-man". This would result in much lower operating costs for them, and a better, more respectable wage for the archaeologist. Alternatively, we could just give up archaeology and get a job on-site as a general labourer,= better wages, treatment and conditions. Now there's a thought!!!!!

[vinnie0057]

Just looked at the poll results. Commenting on those who voted that they would do the job for free; I spent my first 2 yrs or so in archaeology working for nothing or even paying to go on excavs in order to gain experience. I suspect that many of us have had to do this due to the catch 22 riddle of "no experience- no job;no job- no experience". In most cases, many of us do this not just for the love of archaeology, but also in the hope (ha!!!) that somewhere down the line, our passion and commitment will be rewarded with a stable (ish) job and a decent wage. Dream on!!!!!! The saddest thing about this situation is the loss to archaeology of many excellent, dedicated excavators who have become tired of the whole "circus" and have thrown-in the towel (or should that be "trowel"). Nuff' said.

[YellowMike]

depends if your a horse

the poll is a little misleadding in that there is no option to say i will put up with it while the economuy is bad

or when the employment economy recovers and pay gets worse



as for the circus material well in the end the clowns are wearing a mask where the parody between life and limb are lost

[GnomeKing]

hmm, YellowM, not sure about the risk-pay thing...
but i do like;

"Or should we work towards behaving proffessionally and to the conduct of works to the best of the standard we as diggers could be proud enough to get fired over?" - ar, i reckons!

Vinnie - you are right to worry - for example many earlier contirbutors to this thread have not posted for some time...

[Windbag]

Totally agree with Geli. Previously worked with a Co where i had access to monthly invoices to the contractor for our services. All i'm going to say is that if a digger was getting ?300 pw, the contractor would be billed approx ?700-?800. Whilst i appreciate that the Co has to cover its overheads, this is really taking the piss!!!!!!

Then again, a junior solicitor's charge-out rate is around ?100/hour, but they'll see about ?20-25/hour. If archaeological fieldwork was so profitable, where is the profit going? New equipment? Rarely. Technology? Nope. BMWs for the company directors? I haven't seen one yet. Where's the interest in investing or buying archaeological companies from outside the heritage sector?

[Oxbeast]

Well, most of the companies with serious turnover can't be bought out because of their company structures. Companies outside the heritage sector are mostly only interested in the lower risk side of the heritage industry, EIA, DBA, consultancy and that kind of thing. I thought it was completely normal in business to charge people out at three times their salary.

[BAJR]

Yeah... I think we should move away from the evil boss is driving around in a Ferrari type perception.

Nobody is making a real packet... its pocket money at all levels. AND will remain pocket money until the cut throat underbidding war comes to an end. (dream on)

Teh loss of field staff with any experience is the most worrying part. Especially as now the jobs are picking up... :face-huh:

[ecmgardner]

a junior solicitor's charge-out rate is around ?100/hour, but they'll see about ?20-25/hour. If archaeological fieldwork was so profitable, where is the profit going? New equipment? Rarely. Technology? Nope. BMWs for the company directors? I haven't seen one yet.

(new to the quoting system - I'm quoting from Windbag's post...)

In my (admittedly limited) experience of budgeting and tendering while I was working in a comercial unit the fieldwork phase of the project was the money maker and had to cover the costs of staffing for post-excavation analysis and report production. Because tenders I helped to produce were submitted before any kind of fieldwork and sometimes even DBA/EIA work there had to be an overhead to allow for RC dating or reports from any other specialists required. Some projects made a loss and others a profit so overall things broke even(ish).

Personally, as fieldworkers effectively underwrite the rest of the staff, if pay was going to be cut it should be cut across the board. However, the only reason to cut pay (IMHO) would be to reduce the cost of tenders and undercut the competition which only makes the situation in the whole of the profession worse... question to me is - how do you stop the cut-throat undercutting culture that tendering for work creates? Any suggestions?