IFA RO only as approved contractors

[Oxbeast]

On the (sort of) upside, from trowelfodder's point of view, the choice is not join or be unable to work, but work for an RO or do archaeology that is not developer funded/planning monitored.

I've worked for an RO for years, and it hasn't made any appreciable difference to me. Its not as if they're offering to pay for membership or pressuring me to join or anything. It's just one more conference which my boss gets to go on and I don't. I must mention to him next time I see him that if I fuck the job up, the worst that can happen to me is getting fired, while he might also lose the chance for a subsidised piss up with his old digging mates.

[kevin wooldridge]

... he might also lose the chance for a subsidised piss up with his old digging mates.

Subsdised? since when?

[Oxbeast]

I thought someone would pick up on that. I mean the conference costs are met by our employer. I don't mean there is a free bar.

[Jack]

I would second Dinosaur's support for Trowelfodder's statement - the sentence quoted above exactly summarises the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread, but does it much more clearly. If it became a requirement that I had to be an IfA member in order to work, I probably would join up, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

I third that. It does all read like an attempt to take control of the industry on a false premise........weapons of mass destruction anyone.

After the war, when we are all forced to jump through someone else's hoops to become RO's will the quality of work improve? I doubt it.
Its far more likely that all that will happen is someone will be creaming off a nice profit from other peoples work........

The only fair system is one that judges people on their actions (and final product) in a fair, even handed and transparent way.

Such a system should never be in the hands of those who are set to profit from it.

Constitutional societies/organisations and charities are just an excuse for some individuals to cream of profit under the guise of 'project management fees' or 'expenses' !:face-stir:}

I wish there was a independantly-funded organisation that was responsible for managing our Heritage ............

But such an organisation would have to have the clout to enforce standards of work and maybe even granting licenses to work (or not). They would also have to be accountable to some higher power though.

But many folk, in other industries wish the same...........the older I get the more I realise this country is just as corrupt as it always has been......people have just got better at hiding it and distracting the masses with something shiny.

[P Prentice]

yep - a bit like democracy - who needs it

[Dinosaur]

But such an organisation would have to have the clout to enforce standards of work and maybe even granting licenses to work (or not). They would also have to be accountable to some higher power though.

What, a bit like EH but with expanded powers to control archaeological work on all archaeological sites? I actually prefer working on Scheduled jobs, you know exactly where you stand legally, quality, no getting f**ked over by stroppy or 'ignorant' (ie can't be bothered to read their contract) contractors etc and (without demeaning overworked CC curators) I welcome the regular monitoring that always seems to come with them, often weekly, keeps 'deviations' by the client/contractors at bay if nothing else - have just had a nightmare day dealing with one of those....would never have happened if the site was Scheduled.....

[GnomeKing]

Regular Inspections....:face-thinks:

[tmsarch]

Are we in a position where we can say for certain that some Councils are requiring development led archaeology to be undertaken by ROs only, or is this still hearsay? If so can we name exactly which councils are requiring this? I don't see that this would be a break of the AUP as this would be council policy and public knowledge. There's been a lot of useful discussion on this thread, but are we worrying about something that isn't happening. Some councils may be requiring RO status for council own developments (ie where they are the client), but are any actually dictating RO status for all development control work in their area?

[Martin Locock]

tmsarch - that's a good point; there is a halfway house where LAs may be choosing to restrict any information on possible contractors to a list of ROs. My understanding is that LAs have the power to do this if they choose, but its actual impact depends on how many developers find their archaeological contractors from the LA: in a mature business (like building) the LA has no real role in funneling work to the industry.

[Marcus Brody]

tmsarch - that's a good point; there is a halfway house where LAs may be choosing to restrict any information on possible contractors to a list of ROs. My understanding is that LAs have the power to do this if they choose, but its actual impact depends on how many developers find their archaeological contractors from the LA: in a mature business (like building) the LA has no real role in funneling work to the industry.

My understanding is that local authorities have no legal requirement to maintain a list of archaeological contractors, and that those who do, do so mainly in response to people asking how they find an archaeologist. Martin is correct that in most cases this question will only be asked by small-scale developers who may need to appoint an archaeologist only once - most large companies will probably have dealt with archaeology in the past, and will have contacts with preferred contractors who they know can do the job. I have no problem with Councils who don't wish to maintain their own list, and who simply direct enquiries about how to find a contractor to some external list (whether this is the IfA, BAJR or the phone book).

Again, however, this is different from what has been proposed on this thread, which was that Councils should only allow ROs to undertake developer-funded commercial fieldwork. I'd agree with tmsarch that if there are Councils who have adopted this policy, there should be no problem with naming them - after all, if this is their formally-adopted policy, it must be in the public domain, as otherwise it would be pointless as no-one would know about it!