Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
I'm going to be very careful how I say this as I don't want offend the AUP troll or criticise those involved.
As of last week a major east anglian unit has become ex-county council and been taken over by the largest archaeological unit in the country...
and will now be known as XXX East
Said company already has a large central office and a northern division.
I have no doubt that all the archaeologists involved are of the very highest standard, but does this represent a disproportionate amount of power and resources in the hands of one unit. And in the long term future, might this threaten to create a monopoly over much of England? It's sound business but is it good for archaeology?
[hm]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Yes. Disappointing and a potential precursor to worrying times in my opinion, monopoly-wise.
Im not on the inside!, but know people involved at both ends. Apparently, the staff of the unit being taken over preferred the 'largest unit's' pitch to other tenders. So, there are no potential quality of work issues or even management not considering the opinions of staff issues. On the face of it everything is hunky-dory.
However, as time progresses i worry whether this growing situation might lead to complacency of practice (such as sanitised interpretation through nationwide standardisation of field practice, 'archaeology painting by numbers-) and eventually pseudo-legal status (e.g. the replacement of English Heritage with privitised equivalents).
Im sure i'll get shouted down by the capitalists!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
see
http://oaeast.thehumanjourney.net/
for more details.
This is far from a monopoly situation.
Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
I never really liked the way that 'the human journey' had been privatised.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
Just thinking... in some ways a 'monopoly' might be quite positive.
A single, acredited and [u]answerable</u> organisation (with set rules and regulations) rather than a load of competitive tendering units doing the usual under and corner-cutting!
One of the things about a monopoly is that it is singularly answerable to its staff, its regulators and to its public. Elsewhere on here (BAJR) we've been highlighting 'strikes' and 'positive action'... only really works when we are together. One unit = one system. If conditions and pay were that bad in a single unit, then we could [u]all</u> go on strike and actually make a difference.
Just a thought
I hate every ape I see,
From chimpan-a to chimpanzee,
You'll never make a monkey out of me!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Very good point there Gorilla... we seem to want a unified system, but shy away from it
I, like Dr Pete, don't think that a monopoly will come about, and job security? career progression... all things that are highlighted in the latest BAJR Poll...
http://www.bajr.org/BAJRForum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1704
they are achievable in that climate.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I'm not really convinced by the theoretical advantages of a monopoly, gorilla. I just don't see them working well in other situations.
Quote:quote:One of the things about a monopoly is that it is singularly answerable to its staff, its regulators and to its public.
But the main difference between archaeology, and, say, the water or rail monopolies is that there is no regulator. Severn Trent were recently fined millions of pounds for lying to their regulator: there is just no mechanism for this in archaeology. There is still plenty of competition in UK archaeology.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
Of course competition [u]is</u> the regulator in a free market.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
The benfits of career progression and training definitely appear to be one potential benefit, but its very easy to get lost as a number in such a large system. Currently the standards within what was the CC unit are in my opinion (and I don't work for them) some of the highest in the region, and I have to question whether this will be maintained as aspects of the unit get amalgamated.
I agree that there are many benefits to a 'single, accredited and answrable' organisation but shouldn't this be English Heritage (before it was emasculated) rather than what is essentially a corporate, development (or developer) led commercial unit?
