Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries

[Unitof1]

http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/defa...Report.pdf

Seems to me that if you were to set up an association of field archaeology that the subscription rates should add up to more than your administration costs, how else could you start up?, unless you were subsidized from somewhere and if you were subsidized from somewhere my suspicion would be that the association was really the puppy of the subsidizer.

Could anybody tell me where the IFA gets half a million pounds a year get out of jail money from? We could then ask what this sugar daddy thinks about running cartels, price fixing and general illegal practises.

(also interested that they made a loss of £118643 in 2010 but paid £344 coporation tax? but back on track in 2011 and paid £273 on the tidy £11554 profit)[SIZE=1][SIZE=1]
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[BAJR]

It would be interesting to hear some frank view about whether licensing protected standards in Ireland.

I would agree with that, as I hear mixed reviews. it does however create a sanction... and it is universal - ie it is not a case of RO / nonRO it is licensed or not..

[CARTOON REALITY]

Licensing is just another way of organising things -can't say I fully understand how the UK system works, so I'm not going to compare. But as regards standards I imagine (much like the UK) it's all down to who can quote the cheapest price and what they do when the money runs out.
I think licensing has worked to an extent - but the major problem in Irish archaeology is still one of full publication - licensing has not sorted this out. As regards wages - if what I have heard is correct, there are ground staff out there being paid minimum Irish wage (paying minimum wages means: if we could pay you less we would.) So licensing hasn't helped there.
I'm rambling here - yes we have licensing, I'm in favour of it, but it's no magic bullet. Whether standards here are worse than standards over your side are debatable but the situations seem (to me at least) very comparable.
Anyone I know working in Irish archaeology at the moment (and God knows there aren't many of those) have the same sort of complaints I see posted on this forum.

[P Prentice]

There's a difference between curators monitoring standards on a project-by-project basis, using the planning system to require conformity, and the IfA role: it requires ROs to put into place policies that should ensure routine performance to standard.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

anybody can put together a policy but unless it is policed it is just so much ink. the current market requires successful organisations to run on 'the least we can get away with' business model, which is currently a long way removed from any attempt to maintain/raise standards. diggers are expendable pawns, the least significant aspect of a project, yet weirdly they provide the substance of what is being sold. it is a nonsense to suggest that standards will be anyway maintained or improved when the primary facet is being exploited across the entire sector. a line has to be drawn and a stand has to be made.

for me the major cause for concern and probably the major factor in the flaws in the current system is rampant expansionism. this serves no purpose other than to generate wealth at the expense of labour.

[P Prentice]

.. And that its all well being appalled and having a go at the IfA, but maybe if those of you who are in the IfA had stood for Council.

nobody would vote for me but i would help out if df wanted to survey employees with regard to payrates/ro status/pension contributions/non ro status

[BAJR]

Just to remember

At its meeting on 15 November 2012 Council carefully considered the report of its working party and the responses to IfA’s consultation on some options for recommended minimum salaries for April 2013 to March 2014. Taking account of the range of viewpoints in the membership and a very wide variation in recommendations in the consultation responses, Council decided to accelerate its Strategic Plan commitment to a review of its strategic approach to encouraging increases in remuneration for archaeologists. This review will include inter alia consideration of approaches by other professional institutes and the potential legal constraints on its current and future courses of action. Pending the results of this review Council has decided to defer decisions both on its salary recommendations for 2013-14 and on the application of those recommendations using the mechanisms available to the Institute. The issues will be reconsidered by Council on 30 January 2013.
Council wishes to reaffirm that it will maintain a firm and clear commitment to addressing remuneration issues in the profession, and to working with other sector partners that have responsibilities in this area.
Jan Wills, Honorary Chair

[Dinosaur]

diggers are expendable pawns, the least significant aspect of a project, yet weirdly they provide the substance of what is being sold. it is a nonsense to suggest that standards will be anyway maintained or improved when the primary facet is being exploited across the entire sector

:face-approve: without the diggers/fieldworkers most of the higher-up staff would be on the dole (nothing to manage etc), there are only just so many'consultancy' jobs to go around

Speaking as someone working for a non-RO, our main business issue is being undercut by ROs trying to muscle in on the patch, but maybe thats just a local thing....

[BAJR]

This just in::

Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries

First, thanks to those many union members and others who have sent letters and emails to the IfA Council urging them to keep minimum recommended salaries. The Council meets on the 30 January (this Wednesday), so make sure you send your message before then. Council members will get to see all the messages – email yours to admin@archaeologists.net (cc’ing prospectcampaign@hotmail.co.uk). You don’t have to be a member of the IfA or of Prospect to send a message.

Secondly, a number of people have asked if there is a standard pro-forma letter that they can use to send to the IfA Council to urge them to keep minimum recommended salaries.

Whilst it is important that people register their own views in their own words as it is these messages that are likely to carry the most weight with the IfA, it is the nature of our industry that many archaeologists who would want to send a message may be too busy to write an email or letter themselves.

Therefore, a standard text that can be modified as required, cut and pasted and sent to the IfA is below.

Best wishes,

Antony Francis, Chair, Archaeologists Branch of Prospect

Standard text:



Dear IfA Council,

I am writing to register my protest at the prospect that the IfA may not continue to set minimum recommended salaries.

In 2008 a working party report showed how far archaeologists pay had fallen behind similar professions: IfA minimum salaries were up to 53% lower than some comparable posts.

The minimum recommended salaries act as a safety net for the poorest paid in our industry and help in union negotiations with employers over pay. Getting rid of minimum salaries will be a green light to the most unscrupulous employers to drive pay and conditions through the floor.

In April last year, the IfA stated that it still intended to increase minima by 13% above inflation 'as soon as economic and market conditions allow'. Later in 2012, a second working party recommended that the IfA should continue to set pay minima.

The current crisis in archaeology was not caused by archaeologists being paid too much. Cutting pay and getting rid of the minima is no solution - it will just make things worse as units compete to cut pay, forcing colleagues out of the profession while those who stay are driven further into poverty.

I would urge the IfA to keep setting minimum recommended salaries.

Yours,

YOUR NAME



Send to admin@archaeologists.net, cc’ing prospectcampaign@hotmail.co.uk, by the time of the IfA Council meeting on 30 January.

[BAJR]

Interestingly... the Solicitors Regulation Authority seemed to have no worries about setting minimum wages for trainees... and they would know about legalities?
They are considering dropping it. BUT not because of legal challenge.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sra-con...e-trainees

It may be that this could be a way round... entry level rate... ?

[kevin wooldridge]

Interestingly... the Solicitors Regulation Authority seemed to have no worries about setting minimum wages for trainees... and they would know about legalities?
They are considering dropping it. BUT not because of legal challenge.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sra-con...e-trainees

It may be that this could be a way round... entry level rate... ?

I like the quote 'It would appear that setting a minimum salary does not address any identified risk to the public interest or the rule of law’. That is the opinion of the Law Society, who as you say ought to know