Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
19th March 2010, 01:02 PM
mididoctors Wrote:PANDORAS BOX
do you really want to go there?
the current procedures in place in commercial archaeology (whatever the original intent was) are now a function of middle management decision making too such an extent that commercial archaeology is now optimized around the day to day problems faced by middle management! All the decision making concerning how the record is extracted is function of these middle management issues rather than recovering relevent data that can help get "the right answer" this extends into every area EG site specific reserch agendas which have become an exercise in absurd confirmation bias rather than probing the limits of Knowledge and understanding... which in turn should be instructing us as field archaeologists to modify our techniques to collect data in meaningful ways thus revealing "the truth" or "a truth"
evaluations appear at first glance to be a very sensible idea but have in practice become a way to preempt inquiry so that they are subservient to middle management problems IE archaeological practice has evolved to solve middle management issues rather than solve the riddles of the past.
evaluations are probably unavoidable for practical reasons that are too obvious and boring to mention
The current problems with commercial archaeology can be best described as a profession that has become optimized around middle management cack
interestingly this is occurring in other professions and disciplines. Some will argue our role is not to solve specific research goals but just collect data but this assumes we are collecting data in a manner our descendants (or academic contemporaries) will find useful ... ie we have reached the ultimate methodology. That assumption is so stupid I can't be bothered to labour the point. What you need is a system that feed-backs modifications from the analysis interpretation end to the field end in the most productive and expedient way possible. What we have now falls short of that by a few parsecs. We are currently moving in the opposite direction and the misuse of evaluations is part of that.
if you want to keep archaeology in the commercial sector you need to engineer evaluations so they are able to function in the role of middle management quantification assessment but not form part of a mitigation strategy to ease middle management functioning.. a default human behaviour that is not always the primary goal.
I don't know ..something like
evaluations should be paid for by a consortium of potential tendering archaeological units for cost estimation... all sites are dug 100%
THE END
identifying where the problems are and why isn't difficult... trying to undermine the entrenched thinking is a ffffing nightmare
not least because the IFA itself operates as a middle management facilitator and has one of its major clauses acting as a block on any change whatsoever
its position of authority on the need to avoid bringing the profession of archaeology into disrepute is a tremendous own goal
So many things going on there I'm not sure where to start, but I certainly don't understand your proposal of ' evaluations should be paid for by a consortium of potential tendering archaeological units for cost estimation... all sites are dug 100%'. I'm not sure what you've got against evaluations, I would say they are one of the more interesting and useful methods of making new discoveries.
Far too much use of the term middle management (what does that even mean, do you know?) and your notion of 'a system that feed-backs modifications from the analysis interpretation end to the field end in the most productive and expedient way possible' is potentially even more flawed than the alternative you are criticising as it too will always be seen as the 'ultimate methodology' while constantly shifting. The most current methodology is always going to be perceived as the best one.
Clearly you missed the session from our guest lecturer Professor Jones 'Archaeology is the search for facts, not truth'.
Enough about all that talk about drugs, it had got very boring, a bit like drugs, ironically enough.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
19th March 2010, 01:49 PM
RedEarth Wrote:So many things going on there I'm not sure where to start, but I certainly don't understand your proposal of 'evaluations should be paid for by a consortium of potential tendering archaeological units for cost estimation... all sites are dug 100%'. I'm not sure what you've got against evaluations, I would say they are one of the more interesting and useful methods of making new discoveries.
Far too much use of the term middle management (what does that even mean, do you know?) and your notion of 'a system that feed-backs modifications from the analysis interpretation end to the field end in the most productive and expedient way possible' is potentially even more flawed than the alternative you are criticising as it too will always be seen as the 'ultimate methodology' while constantly shifting. The most current methodology is always going to be perceived as the best one.
Clearly you missed the session from our guest lecturer Professor Jones 'Archaeology is the search for facts, not truth'.
Enough about all that talk about drugs, it had got very boring, a bit like drugs, ironically enough.
see you here
http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?2974-No-srsly-Commercial-Archaeology-Sucks-The-debate-thread
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2006
Well thanks to some steering away from the original subject this thread now seems to have come to an end. It has been quite interesting to see the various opinions regarding random testing. For my part I have never seen the issue as whether or not anyone does or doesn't do drugs but rather one of further invasion into peoples private lives. All this done for a bit of health and safety window dressing. Since about 2003 (I think) when members of the board of Directors of Macalpine were on trial in the states on Corporate manslaughter charges (under a class action taken against them by families who have lost relatives in the workplace), there has been a growing paranoia in the construction industry. Many of the resulting new introductions in H&S practice can definitely be seen as a good thing. However, the real safety issues in this instance are not being addressed by random testing. Indeed it is expressive of the bad side of the H&S paranoia, where things are just seen to be done rather than real changes made to working practices. Busting a few stoners may seem to give results and indeed probably some nice statistics, but not I feel make the workplace any safer. Nuff said.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Geli Wrote:Well thanks to some steering away from the original subject this thread now seems to have come to an end. It has been quite interesting to see the various opinions regarding random testing. For my part I have never seen the issue as whether or not anyone does or doesn't do drugs but rather one of further invasion into peoples private lives. All this done for a bit of health and safety window dressing. Since about 2003 (I think) when members of the board of Directors of Macalpine were on trial in the states on Corporate manslaughter charges (under a class action taken against them by families who have lost relatives in the workplace), there has been a growing paranoia in the construction industry. Many of the resulting new introductions in H&S practice can definitely be seen as a good thing. However, the real safety issues in this instance are not being addressed by random testing. Indeed it is expressive of the bad side of the H&S paranoia, where things are just seen to be done rather than real changes made to working practices. Busting a few stoners may seem to give results and indeed probably some nice statistics, but not I feel make the workplace any safer. Nuff said.
The problem isn't with people who turn up wasted and go crazy at the wheel, it's about people who turn up on monday after an enjoyable "day after the night before" fully unaware that they are potentially dangerous, and other such types. Almost everyone I know in archaeology has done it, and almost none of them acknowledge themselves as being at risk. Indeed, I've done it myself; it's not something to be proud of, but it needs to be understood. The statistics and arguments suggesting that random/alcohol drug tests don't reduce drug/alcohol taking can't possibly be right, it's just not quantifiable.
The whole thing sounds a lot like the speed cameras argument. A system that is on a very fundamental level designed to protect people from other people's mistakes is vilified by people who think they know better. But doesn't it make more sense for a system to allow for the lowest common denominator? That's why we have systems. For bad drivers and people who shouldn't be on site when they think they're ok.
And we can complain about how it's protection for employers and HSE window dressing, but while this is very much true, it's also there for our protection. The rules aren't there for big companies, they're there for us, and to ignore them is just to allow the big companies to absolve themselves from the other life-threatening mistakes they habitually make. If I fall down a hole on site after two pints, life becomes much more financially complex (for me, not for my employer) than if I'd been drinking water.
The HSE has developed a system of CYA (cover your arse) for the entire industry, from top to bottom. This includes drugs and alcohol. You can ignore it, or bitch about it, but ultimately if you fall foul of it you've only yourself to blame because it's actually there for you, though it might not seem that way.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
have you actually read any of this thread 'doodle'?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
GnomeKing Wrote:have you actually read any of this thread 'doodle'? Apologies.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
oh look - another UK government science advisor on drugs has resigned - specifically stating that "hysteria" and political prostitution to the media have clouded reality and made nonsesnse of the science.... political opinion in the UK regarding cannabis (again) is shown to lack credibility...that makes 7 in c.12 months following the change from class C to class B of cannabis....and yet we are still happy for colleagues to face loss of job for using it? (safely, in thier own time ect etc)....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2010
7th April 2010, 11:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 7th April 2010, 11:57 PM by trainedchimp.)
can someone explain why doodle felt the need to apologise? their post made sense - something intended to make sure that you don't die or kill anyone else while you're at work strikes me as a Good Idea.
Fundamentally, under UK law you (second person used impersonally as a general reference- 'one' is so trustafarian, don't you think) don't actually have a right to take drugs in your spare time- the classification doesn't actually make any difference, they're still, um, well, illegal, and getting arrested, a criminal record and the chances of getting screwed over by a dodgy dealer or grassed up by ambitious/embittered colleagues (I don't appreciate getting searched in a bust of my flatmates dealing at 6am, or seeing a very good supervisor get grassed up by an ambitious and unpopular digger- it almost cost him his career, but it wasn't him that the union would defend) are risks you accept by taking drugs.
Personally, I don't think the gear's worth it for me for those reasons. Don't get me wrong, I don't give a monkeys what you do in your spare time, but as soon as you come in to work, this is a responsibility issue. You know it's illegal, will possibly get you sacked, and will quite possibly put you and those around you at risk, and you have a choice not to do it, or alternatively, to do a job where you won't get tested (all right, second option not automatic at the moment). It comes down to a choice whether you prefer the work or the weed. This is why I despaired at the thread. If we're not professional enough to to weigh up the risks, make our choices and be prepared to stand by the consequences, we deserve what we get. and I fear that's another decade of low pay, dodgy job security and general lack of respect unless we start worrying about stuff that matters.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
Not sure if anyone has mentioned drugscopes independant enquiry into random drug testing at work? Its very interesting....
I think this link will work
http://www.drugscope.org.uk/Resources/Dr...place2.pdf
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
Yes, link works fine.
On page 13 this:
: First, the majority of employers who gave
evidence did not believe that drug misuse was a
serious or widespread problem for them.
Second, employers in safety-critical
industries stressed the importance of
implementing drug testing in a fair and
transparent way.
Third, employers said that, even in safetycritical
environments, drug testing could be
divisive and counterproductive if it was
clumsily handled.
Fourth, a number of employers emphasised
the need for welfare and support services for
staff with alcohol and drug problems.
Most interesting....forgive me for reading between the lines here and extrapolating wildly but....the majority of employers who gave evidence who didn't believe there was a problem....I wonder what sort of employers they are? Perhaps not the ones working in "safety critical" environments....hmmm?
"The world can only be grasped by action, not by contemplation". (Jacob Bronowski)
|
