Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
10th October 2011, 07:02 PM
Am still intensely concerned/alarmed that the IFA, which only represents a proportion of British archaeologists, thinks it has the right to pursue a policy which will significantly affect all archaeologists in this country, in the case of the non-members severely adversely - presumably their ultimate aim with Chartership is that non-members will be unable to work commercially in Britain?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
10th October 2011, 07:39 PM
Dinosaur Wrote:Am still intensely concerned/alarmed that the IFA, which only represents a proportion of British archaeologists, thinks it has the right to pursue a policy which will significantly affect all archaeologists in this country, in the case of the non-members severely adversely - presumably their ultimate aim with Chartership is that non-members will be unable to work commercially in Britain?
Whether the IfA represents a
significant proportion or merely a proportion of UK archaeologists will of course be one of the factors that the Privy Council consider before approving Chartered status. IfA has the right through default...there is no-one else out there contesting their role. Whether Charted status will 'severely adversely' affect the careers of non-IfA members is open to question. I would be surprised if part of the package didn't involve the opportunity for noin-members to apply for IfA membership and eventually Chartered status, remembering of course that the IfA as a Chartered body does not have to have a completely Chartered membership. In fact very few Chartered bodies do - the majority contain members working towards Chartered status.
From a personal point of view I would like to see the IfA instigate a qualification period if they achieve Chartered status so that no one can become Chartered unless they have been a paid up member for a time. This to me would avoid the jump from nothing to MIFA that currently happens when some folk finally decide they are now important enough to join the IfA. I am sure Dinosaur with their experience and aptitude would have no problem with meeting the IfA membership minima.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
10th October 2011, 07:47 PM
Then the IFA should already be providing a Service and Representing Dinosaur (i.e.; if Dino already meets the criteria, and, de facto, IS a practising archaeologist).....
Perhaps they are/have been...perhaps they will/should...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
10th October 2011, 09:18 PM
P Prentice Wrote:we can quite easily sit back and know that the causes we believe in will be implemented by those others that can be bothered to do the monkeywork.
unfortunately that is very true.
The DF surveyed why site archaeologists didn't vote in the last IfA elections, the main reasons were that there were no 'suitable candidates', and that 'it wouldn't change anything' anyway. Well this year at least there have been candidates who are prepared to stand for Diggers' rights and will be trying to change things. And that has been exactly the same in the past. One of the main reasons why the DF doesn't call for a resolution at AGM to increase minima is that we can't rely on the hundreds of our members who say they want increased wages to actually vote (in person or by proxy) for it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
10th October 2011, 09:33 PM
Dinosaur Wrote:Am still intensely concerned/alarmed that the IFA, which only represents a proportion of British archaeologists, thinks it has the right to pursue a policy which will significantly affect all archaeologists in this country, in the case of the non-members severely adversely - presumably their ultimate aim with Chartership is that non-members will be unable to work commercially in Britain?
I raised a closely related question to this at the AGM. My personal and long-stated view is that the IfA needs to become more representative and represent all members of the profession at all points in their careers, not just the MIfA-entry level (like I was).
BTW the IfA already pursues policies which significantly affect all archaeologists in the country, and its a good thing they do in my opinion. I'd like them to put another policy into action which is the implementation of the staged increases to meet the 'benchmarking increases' and raise minima to something respectable.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
11th October 2011, 12:23 PM
With hindsight one could suggest that if the DF had put 10 candidates up for election to the council this year as well as campaigning to to maximise the Digger vote, then they might now hold the majority on IfA council. Now there's a thought....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
11th October 2011, 01:09 PM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:With hindsight one could suggest that if the DF had put 10 candidates up for election to the council this year as well as campaigning to to maximise the Digger vote, then they might now hold the majority on IfA council. Now there's a thought....
precisely - so everyone else should stop bleating
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
11th October 2011, 01:22 PM
chiz Wrote:unfortunately that is very true.
The DF surveyed why site archaeologists didn't vote in the last IfA elections, the main reasons were that there were no 'suitable candidates', and that 'it wouldn't change anything' anyway. Well this year at least there have been candidates who are prepared to stand for Diggers' rights and will be trying to change things. And that has been exactly the same in the past. One of the main reasons why the DF doesn't call for a resolution at AGM to increase minima is that we can't rely on the hundreds of our members who say they want increased wages to actually vote (in person or by proxy) for it.
Does make you wonder who was voting - if only 4% of the membership voted and yet all of the 'digger' candidates got through does that mean a large proportion of that 4% were 'diggers'? In which case, this would seem to buck previous trends, based on what you were saying, and makea one wonder what all the rest were doing. Was it to do with ballot papers and details being sent in the post (perhaps more so to those on site and with less easy access to a computer) as opposed to by email (to those in the office)? I personally forgot when the deadline was and so missed it, but I suspect the reason is that because I had the information by email it was very easily forgotten and left in the in box. Had it been in paper in front of me I probably would have dealt with it. I wonder if anyone else felt the same?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
11th October 2011, 03:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 11th October 2011, 04:12 PM by Julie.)
I think its a good idea for companies (especially RAO's) to actively encourage an interest by offering to send staff votes as a group - only one envelope and one stamp then........
............(eta) actually thinking about my comment above (i.e. trying to get companies involved more too) i imagine that many will jump on the 'company v. individual' and 'manager v. digger' debate that seems to permeate so many discussions here lately.
However these shouldnt be mutually exclusive, membership and representation should matter just as much to companies and i think it is an individuals responsibility to make companies and the IfA listen if you feel they are on a different page from you.....it is us, the individuals, working for a company that assure they maintain RAO status in the first place.....help make the system work for us all and do a little for yourself at the same time
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
11th October 2011, 06:10 PM
"help make the system work for us all and do a little for yourself at the same time" - an honourable sentiment with much wider social applications
