Launch of MetroMOLA

[GPStone]

Virtually all the charities were set up as the big fish in their ponds.

The whole lot came out of a piecemeal privatised county council system with entities like Network for instance partially originating from post-privatised (previously state-owned) 'consultancies' and other private start-ups and amalgamations slotting in as they started to take advantage of the expanding market. It was a mess which is why there was little consensus and the precedent was set for the same mess we're in now.

That said, I think the larger entities may well have contributed significantly to that at the time, as you say.....

"They set the so called market price which it never was."

....however.....

At the same time they gave the major impression that archaeologists are charity workers and possibly worst of all attracted people who wanted to work in such an environment. (lets call them the legacy).

I don't think that's what happened. Yes, people have traditionally wanted to work in this sector but usually because they thought it would change and because they were attracted by something other than the ability to accrue personal wealth. Many have got out, many are regretting it but I don't think any though of themselves as working in a charity-based industry (however you want to define the term industry) and I don't know anyone who would define archaeologists as appearing like charity workers or anything close.

Unfortunately the charity units were the most outrageous in their exploitation of archaeologists and archaeology and set the standard which private units can only have undercut for work.

It works both ways, charity and private. There is no way anyone could suggest charities effected a lowering of prices more than private. The argument for that applies mostly to subsidised units such as county council or university backed businesses. Undoubtedly some charities will fall in with that category but blaming the whole lot doesn't add up.

If it was a level playing field an archaeologist would surely work for a charity unit because as it is not a profit making organisation all that lovely profit should have gone to the archaeologist because it would be a charity for the archaeologist but they didn’t. Who knows what it was wasted on. The great fat controllers pet projects or meetings with fellow service providers to discuss council business or national policy. Must be 15 years since I was at Exeter. [/FONT]

[/SIZE]

And in the past the difference in treatment has been visible amongst some charitable companies as it has amongst some private. That reinvestment has occurred in a number of places I can think of. In many instances it hasn't though. As for pet projects, if you mean consistent research that has subsequently been fully funded, comprehensively undertaken and fully published to a high standard, then I can't see to much of an issue. If its something else then there's an issue. And if charities aren't allocating profit into their charitable aims, there's another issue (if they're making profits).

Charities for archaeologists? I doubt it. Charities with educational and community aims - sure. But if you want to be an archaeologist you've got to accept the state of the industry as it is and has been, and I personally hope that is accompanied by the aim of changing and improving it for all of us.

[GPStone]

Hang on unit, are we talking at tangents? Are you referring to the MSC backed work?

[RedEarth]

Ok, Unit first. You might well see a difference in price but it wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with it being a charity as much as the actual financial capability of the company and the local competition. I've worked on enough jobs where I've been working for a large archaeology charity/company where they've won the job while tendering at a higher price because of they're ability to carry the financial risk. I've also worked for non-charities and not won tenders on the same basis or visa versa on both counts. It will depend on the capability of the company, not what it is and companies may take the opportunity to use loss-leading tactics like doing DBAs for free on the proviso that they'll be considered for any follow-on work because they can carry the financial risk. That has everything to do with the health of their accounts but not necessarily their status (unless they're incorperating odd aspects like substituting paid 'pros' with volunteers which is ethically dubious in the extreme and becomes complicated but might look good in light of community commitments etc).

RedEarth: You're quite right, that does sound very strange on the face of it. I assume any real example you may be alluding to features substantially higher figures than that but based on that, yes, I don't understand it unless the 25% is accounted for in something like a pensions defecit. In that instance it obviously wouldn't amount to an operating cost (hence wouldn't require paying) but its simply offset against the accounts so appears as a loss.

------If the ?400k figure is a real one then I might be getting what you're hinting at and if it is the situation I'm thinking of (and have perhaps alluded to in a previous paragraph) then its essentially to do with subsidising a commercial arm with a different aspect of commercial operation, all of which falls under a charitable status of one kind or another. Its also pretty unique to that situation and I personally don't like it at all but not because its a charity as such......but then we might be talking at completely cross purposes here. Message me if you like.------

I might add that I'm not suggesting profits are creamed off by greedy directors, but they can be if the said directors want regardless of the reasonable obligations to anyone else, up to the point of their ability to pay debts. As for competative tendering environments and similar markets, the difference in the way companies operate is often what allows them to make money in otherwise unforgiving markets and that includes using charitable status. Sure, if everyone was the same and operated in the same way (and was able to operate in the same way) without exploiting niches and other aspects or assets, it would be much simpler, there would probably be fewer companies, higher pay as a result of the fewer companies allbeit with less archaeologists working in the sector as a whole (perhaps with lower unemployment as a result of that)........or some other combination of those and other factors. But that isn't the case.

As for charities undertaking dodgy financial deeds - the regulations prevent them from doing so or at least should do. If they are still doing that and the regulations are not being enforced, report them to the charities commission. I'm not saying companies and charities don't flout the rules, I'm saying their charitable status is not what allows them to do it and doesn't really give them more leeway beyond the obvious tax breaks in return for charitable work (in theory). There is also an ultimate comeback which is the auditting system and allows the charities commission (either of their own accord or when prompted by a third party) to monitor and assess the financial state of the company. if you think there is something to raise with them, do it.

My original point was more about the way we see big companies and big charities operating in archaeology and whether it is fair to label them negatively in the way that many people do. The reality is that the negative aspects of working in this market are often determined by either the parameters of the market itself or issues attributable to a range of companies that work in it, not simply big charitable trusts. I still think that is the case. The big independents contribute to the problems with standards, wages and Ts&Cs as much as the charities and the smaller ones. There are some parameters and some things about this market that we can dismiss as being bad to the cows come home but won't achieve anything by it. If we want to improve things we have to do it within those parameters or completely outside of them. Unfortunately, that doesn't help small independents and one or two-man-bands who simply have to find a niche or flex there way into any gaps available with the risk being loaded entirely onto themselves. Unfortunately, that's the way the economics of this industry, like many others, work.

Your're perhaps right, maybe it is to do with something like this pensions deficit, which appears as a loss, but the figures are real enough.

All of this discussion ultimately just points out the mess we are due to the complex and seemingly disorganised way in which things started off. Bit late to fix after the event?

[GPStone]

All of this discussion ultimately just points out the mess we are due to the complex and seemingly disorganised way in which things started off. Bit late to fix after the event?

I almost completely agree. I don't think we can simply fix things, but I do think we can move on and improve things over time. It means accepting things for why they are right now and then building on them to make things better. We don't have the luxury of ripping it all out and starting from scratch. Unfortunately, for anyone's best intentions we might be staring down the barrel of the gun for completely unrelated reasons now!

[P Prentice]

so for all the hyperbole the crux of the matter is that some think others have an unfair commercial advantage in a system organically developed in the dark ages where everybody was paid in buttons and nobody was commercial
yet commercial concerns will continue to undercut commercial concerns at the expense of commercial concerns and still we are paid in buttons
why dont we all join together in one ginormous uber unit and demand extra buttons?

[Unitof1]

no you must go self employed friend

[SIZE=3]The big independents contribute to the problems with standards, wages and Ts&Cs as much as the charities and the smaller ones. There are some parameters and some things about this market that we can dismiss as being bad to the cows come home but won't achieve anything by it. If we want to improve things we have to do it within those parameters or completely outside of them. Unfortunately, that doesn't help small independents and one or two-man-bands who simply have to find a niche or flex there way into any gaps available with the risk being loaded entirely onto themselves. Unfortunately, that's the way the economics of this industry, like many others, work.

[/SIZE]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]843[/ATTACH]And that?s what these two probably have to believe-? simply have to find a niche or flex there way into any gaps available with the risk being loaded entirely onto themselves.? What you see is the two-person- band but totally exploited (if they don?t mind me saying) by a system called a charity which involves magmums of champagne, offices at Birmingham, Manchester and somewhere called Portsmouth and a list of trustees who have nothing to do with archaeology.

Now is this the way I would go about paying for it all? Odd looking trench, possibly some variation of dinos box section or is it quadrants. Starting to close in to the 1.2 metre depth and have put spoil over the trench. That tape down the middle must be annoying and whilst bending over with hard hat on, good show. Apparently this was set up from a brief set by the local authority. What 50% of all features? Maybe those two are locals or subcontractors. Always interesting decision to undertake publicity in predetermination. They probably worried about travel time or is it living expenses.

Any way I do think that it is worth knocking against the charity units at every opportunity. I would like to think that I have always been consistent in knocking them at every opportunity. I like to see my self as being amongst the first to knock them and the kiddy fiddlers. I always tell my clients what subsidies the local ones are getting and what rouges they are.

Whats also interesting about molas is the museum aspect. Almost all the charity units were divorced form the museum system (budgets) at birth. Hereford seems to be a case in point. Every time I hear the word curator it worries me that I have given up museum exploitation and presumably they are also up to their eyeballs in trustess who have nothing to do with archaeology.

[P Prentice]

blimey - what must your reports be like unit !!

[Unitof1]

I see reports as a construct of the charity units way of doing thinks that dont need doing. Archive is more than enough

[Dinosaur]

Would love to be working to the same WSIs/Specs as you then, where can the rest of us get them? :face-approve:

[P Prentice]

that'll be noddy land