IFA RO only as approved contractors

[Sparky]

So, if the IFA sit on their hands and do nothing all the dissenters will suddenly join and make them more representative? I'd rather the IFA just got on with things as they are doing, their main responsibilitty is to their members. Why alienate those who have joined by abandoning the plan?

Foxy. You are the classic example of being part of the problem. Furthermore, your position is a great advert for not joining. Perhaps we all need to view the archaeological situation in Vulpineshire and witness the scenario of perfect archaeological practice, where curator and the IfA are the apple of all archaeological eyes. You must share with us and the many disatisfied curators (and there are many, as you well know) the secret of your ways. Whereabouts is it you work?

[Marcus Brody]

you will be swallowed up, spat out and expunged from the not-so-free market you so perilously cling to.

Don't get me wrong, PP, in my ideal world archaeology wouldn't be done under free market conditions, I'd have non-commercial regional units, each of which would work only in its defined area, allowing local knowledge, experience and contacts to develop. However, I think you're being naive if you expect this tory-led government to roll back the private sector free market they're so fond of by restraining trade in the way advocated by the IfA. Personally, I'm pinning my hopes on a post-2015 independent Scotland organising its heritage sector on slightly less rapacious lines!

you need to start making preparations to be incorporated into something with a responsible post-holder (and i dont mean a post hole)

What makes you think I'm not a responsible post-holder? While I'm not personally in the IfA, I work for a company that is a registered organisation, but that doesn't mean I have to agree that only RAOs should be allowed to undertake archaeological work. Nice line about the post-hole though

[P Prentice]

marcus tis not the government you should fear but the big 5/6 contractors who will not tolerate minows
and you cant be a responsiible postholder if you are not in the ifa - so it was taken as a given
but i whole heartedly agree with your perfect world

[Marcus Brody]

marcus tis not the government you should fear but the big 5/6 contractors who will not tolerate minows

Really? It's not the big 5 or 6 contractors or the government that are saying that I need to join a particular club to carry on doing my job, it's the IfA, so if I shoud fear anyone, it's surely them. They're the ones telling me that I may not be able to work in my chosen field unless I give them a chunk of money every year.

and you cant be a responsiible postholder if you are not in the ifa - so it was taken as a given

I can currently, though, and I've said elsewhere that I would join the IfA if I was forced to because it became a requirement to carry on doing my job. But I wouldn't be particularly happy about being compelled to join a club in this way.

[Wax]

marcus tis not the government you should fear but the big 5/6 contractors who will not tolerate minows
and you cant be a responsiible postholder if you are not in the ifa - so it was taken as a given

So the big five/six are out to drive out everyone else! What about the law on cartels and monopolies? I also know many archaeologists in responsible posts who are not members of the IFA. PP you are not doing a good job of selling the IFA and if that is your attitude can you wonder at the agnostics?

Let's give it a rest there are far bigger issues facing archaeology at the moment.

[Dinosaur]

Enthusiastic applause :face-approve:

[Martin Locock]

I think Wax may be slightly confused: under the RO scheme, the Responsible Postholder must be an IfA member. The Postholder does not have to be the most senior member of staff (for example, Chair, Chief Executive, or Head of Operations could all be counted).

Rather than restricting the business to 5 or 6 major companies, there are currently 69 ROs including those with one or two staff. Cartels can only work if there are substantial barriers to entry, and anyone who puts their minds to it can become an RO if they wish.

[kevin wooldridge]

So the big five/six are out to drive out everyone else! What about the law on cartels and monopolies? ...... Let's give it a rest there are far bigger issues facing archaeology at the moment.

Cartels, monopolies? This was covered a few pages worth of posts back, but to save yourself the effort of finding the mail in question I will quote it again...

"I haven't been privy to the IfA legal advice, but I would imagine that it says something to the effect that acknowledging membership of a professional body is not tantamount to restricting competition or forming a cartel or constraining trade provided that membership of that body is open to all and that the terms and conditions of membership are fair and appropriate. As most practising archaeologists (well maybe with One or two exceptions) irrespective of whether they are IfA members acknowledge that the IfA duties and ethical oblgations are fair and appropriate, it doesn't seem to me there is a case to oppose.

If you are asking whether it will become harder for persons who don't subscribe collectively and financially to the IfA i.e non-members, to get work in archaeology, I suspect the answer is 'yes', but I would doubt that classes as a constraint to trade. It should also be borne in mind that provision of public services (of which development control is clearly a part) can actually override European competition law. So whichever way up you look at it, the IfA is probably in the clear. And as I said before unless someone has the appetite to challenge their interpretation of the law, we are probably seeing the beginning of 'IfA-creep' i.e once one planning authority takes it on others will follow...."


I'm not sure bout 'lets give it a rest, there are other bigger issues facing archaeology at the moment'.....I think this may be eventually a turning point in UK archaeology. Combined with the recession trimming the belly end of the archaeological pork loin, it may be, by the time that the IfA Charter transition goes through (and I personally think it is inevitable although I wouldn't predict the timescale) that many individuals/contractors will be queuing up to become members if they see that is the route to more work and better days. Many may regret not being involved in discussion of the issue at an earlier stage.

And for those that confidently assert they wouldn't join, even if dragged kicking and screaming to such an abattoir of cosy self-interest, maybe plenty of notice is the least they can expect in way of planning their alternative career path...

[Wax]

Yup I am totally b..... confused to the point of not caring. My issue is that the way some of the IFA members on this forum talk they do the organisation no favours at all!!!!!! and to be honest put me off with their attitude. I am not totally against the IFA but some of the comments on this forum are driving me further from it. And yes like many others who have been let down over the years by the archaeological establishment I am looking at alternative careers though it has long been too late for that.

[Marcus Brody]

So the argument is basically 'you can join our club, or you can f**k off to another career', and it doesn't matter whether you're more interested in getting four new letters after your name than in doing a good job? Well that seems reasonable, where do I sign up?