IFA RO only as approved contractors

[Martin Locock]

Marcus, that is a false dichotomy: you get the letters by demonstrating that you do a a good job.

If we care about the archaeological resource, we should be willing to accept that we need more than just people's own opinion that they are competent before being let loose on it?

[Sith]

Marcus, even if you feel you have to 'f**k off to another career', unless you're planning to make a life's work of stacking shelves in T*sco you'll still end up having to join a professional body to get anywhere. They might be better organised and stronger but it's still the same.

Sorry to dredge this up from many pages ago...

Seeing all these posts suggest the following.

d) Are curators saying that the current system does not work and there are too many cases of non-ROs doing questionable work that they are powerless to stop.

If the work's been conditioned then they could refuse to sign it off, or hint that it won't be if something isn't done. However, even before archaeology became a 'barrier to growth' in the eyes of Pickles and his acolytes I presume curators would have been leant on by their planning colleagues to wind their necks in.

[P Prentice]

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.

you sound a bit bitter about being let down by the 'archaeological establishment' (whatever that is) and yet you havent joined the one organisation that stands any chance of doing something about it. you wax on about how that organisation is failing and yet rather than doing anything positive you bemoan the fact that it is too late to find an alternative career.
grow up

[Marcus Brody]

Marcus, that is a false dichotomy: you get the letters by demonstrating that you do a a good job. If we care about the archaeological resource, we should be willing to accept that we need more than just people's own opinion that they are competent before being let loose on it?

I realise that I have no way of proving this as it's purely based on personal experience, but over the last 15 years I've come across a huge number of people with the letters 'IfA' after their name who appear to be borderline incompetent on site, and yet who seem to progress through the IfA grades regardless. Conversely, some of the best archaeologists I've worked for / with haven't been in the club, so I wouldn't accept that signing up is any kitemark of quality. Indeed, as has been pointed out by others, there's a perception that IfA disciplinary procedures are applied so rarely, inconsistently and opaquely that they don't really act as any sort of brake on poor work, and that actually the responsibility for ensuring that work is carried out to a reasonable standard falls on curators. Simply saying that only RAOs are allowed to undertake archaeological work won't change that.

Marcus, even if you feel you have to 'f**k off to another career', unless you're planning to make a life's work of stacking shelves in T*sco you'll still end up having to join a professional body to get anywhere. They might be better organised and stronger but it's still the same.

Well, that's self-evidently not true, I've been lucky enough to have had a decent career in archaeology without joining the IfA. Sure,while there may be some professions where it's considered necessary or advantageous to join a professional body, there are plenty of jobs other than shelf-stacking where you can make a living without needing to be a member of an institute. As I said above, if it were to become a hard-and-fast requirement that I had to be in the IfA to carry on doing my job, I probably would have to sign up, but I'd be very uncomfortable with being forced to join.

If the work's been conditioned then they could refuse to sign it off, or hint that it won't be if something isn't done.

Absolutely right, but there's no reason why the company concerned being a member of the IfA would make any difference to that process. The curator could refuse to sign off on work done by RAOs as easily as non-RAOs, and the fact that one company was a member of the club while the other wasn't would make no material difference

[P Prentice]

marcus - you are right about standards and it is an issue - but you cant change it from the outside

pay and conditions are appalling and these wont change unless we act in unison

[Marcus Brody]

Pay and conditions could probably be better tackled by unionisation, though.

[diggingthedirt]

To improve our profession we have to get used to charging more for our services, and restricting competition to accredited individuals and companies is the first step towards achieving that aim.

It?s nothing personal. It?s Business.

[Wax]

PP. You know nothing about what I may or may not be doing and I am certainly not sitting on the side lines. Do not judge by a few comments on an internet forumm!!!!

[P Prentice]

PP. You know nothing about what I may or may not be doing and I am certainly not sitting on the side lines. Do not judge by a few comments on an internet forumm!!!!

surely that is the point of a forum - i will judge you by what you say

@ marcus - there are probably less archaeologists in a union than there are in the ifa so it remains unlikely that will help the cause

[Sith]

Absolutely right, but there's no reason why the company concerned being a member of the IfA would make any difference to that process.

I know, and aplogies if that bit of spleen was slightly off topic. I've flipped on a number of occasions about the 'hey, what can you do?' attitude of some curators.