IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT

[leg11aug]

Crikey! Haven't logged in for about 3 years, but I'm pretty sure this was where I left off...

[Unitof1]

cor blimy, strick alite, you left us hanging, what! you still saouf of the river- platt, (did i spell that right).

[sadie]

As Chiz says, its not an ideal situation (understatement!) but we are where we are and we have to shoulder it and move on now.

I was worried things would be much worse to be honest, and an unanimous Council in support of minima was satisfying to see. Council is made up of democratically elected people from every corner of archaeology, all of whom think minima should stay in whatever form we can get away with legally.

You may not know but as Council we are also Directors of the IfA and therefore liable in the event of a financial disaster such as a challenge from the Office of Fair Trading. Your DF reps voted to reject the legal advice, but you may think we were reckless? Others took a different view and the result was that minima cease to be a requirement of RO registration.

But they remain central to IfA standards and to pay below them will result in a whole load of hassle for ROs. We are taking on the job of launching disciplinary cases if we hear that an RO pays below minima. Read the updated Code of Conduct, it is clear that ethical standards rely upon paying minima.

I am sorry the news isn't exactly what people wanted, but 3.1% isn't a bad rise, and that was almost unanimous too!

Over the Prospect and FAME and DF, tell us if anyone pays below and we will chase it.

[akforster]

Thanks very much to BAJR for getting me on and able to respond to this thread – I had a pretty frustrating day yesterday.

Speaking as a member of staff at IfA (thought I should get that out there straight away), it is always difficult to balance the disparate views of members (which includes both employers and employees), and non-members, on issues which are so important and emotive. Personally (speaking as a member), I am very glad that Council voted unanimously to continue its commitment to minimum salary recommendations – this is a big deal and should be celebrated. In the face of potential risks, Council could have backed away from the issue – or at the very least shown mixed feelings across the group (which represents a cross section of the profession). Council also agreed to increase the current minima by 3.1% and increase the recommended starting salaries. The benchmark is going up for a second year – another thing to celebrate.

The move away from compliance with minimum salary recommendations being an absolute requirement of Registered Organisation status is a more difficult pill to swallow for us all. However, the wording of the statement is important – especially the word absolute. The baby has not been thrown out with the bathwater; meeting the minima will still need to be demonstrated by ROs (and by any member who employs archaeologists). Not meeting the minima will trigger a more detailed audit both for new applications and for existing ROs. I can see from this thread that there is a lot of feeling that the RO scheme is problematic. Personally, I think it is a good scheme – it has its problems, but having been a postholder at an RO and a member of RO committee prior to working for IfA, I genuinely feel the scheme has had an impact on the standards of work undertaken and on issues such as training. But there are issues; all I can say now is that the scheme is constantly being developed, and with statements from Council such as this one, that development will be accelerated. To me, in terms of minimum salaries, the important clause is the one that all voting members sign up to as part of the Code of Conduct (which is what any complaint or disciplinary case is judged against): 5.5 A member shall give due regard to the welfare of employees, colleagues and helpers in relation to the terms and conditions of service. He or she shall give reasonable consideration to any IfA recommended pay minima and conditions of employment, and should endeavor to meet or exceed the IfA recommended minimum salaries.

I would urge people to look at the proposals for the next phase of the pay working party research (http://www.archaeologists.net/IfAsalary2013to14), and what it could mean for the profession; Stage two of the pay working party report will present a strategy, for Council’s future consideration, for facilitating an industry-wide approach to improving pay and conditions. There is a long to-do list there, but it is an important one. A few people have already highlighted the fact that improving pay and conditions should not be a responsibility shouldered by IfA alone; there are other bodies (specifically unions) and organisations (such as FAME) who need to get more involved. IfA is the professional body for archaeologists – that is the reason why I joined up, and that is the reason so many people were involved its formation. IfA is neither a trade union, nor a body which solely represents employers. In the UK we are lucky to have all three types of organisations – it is time to get together and look at these issues collectively.

Sorry for the essay, but I had saved up some thoughts from yesterday when I couldn’t get on. In short (and in my opinion), the fact that Council has raised the minima is good for us all, and the fact that IfA are committed to improving pay and conditions is also pretty positive. I personally think that the move away from the absolute condition to meet pay minima was a difficult decision, but one which probably had to be made. The fact that the working party will now be looking into how the profession can take on the issue collectively, is a really positive move – if we can get everyone who should be talking about it, actually talking about it, that can’t be bad thing. I also think the fact that so many people responded to the call sent out by Prospect and reiterated on BAJR is also positive (about 150 responses altogether) – there will be more debate and discussion on how this can develop – please get involved in it.

I am not expecting everyone to suddenly get behind IfA but I would like to think that most archaeologists are keen to see the profession develop and for conditions to improve for everyone. To achieve that has to involve everyone who works in archaeology; from diggers to managers, and including specialists, company directors, academics, students and planning archaeologists – we are a pretty diverse bunch. IfA represents about 3200 archaeologists at the moment, two thirds are corporate members, and there are 74 registered organisations. That level of representation is meaningful, and IfA is well placed to get this particular ball rolling. But to do so, there needs to be some joined up thinking and my hope is that the most recent decisions and recommendations from Council, and the work the pay working party will now go on to achieve, will get that started.

[Unitof1]

Not sure that it is the job of a member of staff to balance the views of members? I would be more worried about where the special project money is coming from to pay the wages of the workers at the ifa. Any chance that you could tell us. Is it all from english heritage?

[GnomeKing]

I would just like to take time to thank all those working hard in the IFA and elsewhere.

However, i don't see how an audit can work;

"-When the overskilled/underpaid employee is found, what exactly will the IFA do, if that person has willingly signed an employment contract for that wage?
-When underskilled/underpaid staff are located, presumably the employer will argue that they are protecting the wages of more experienced staff, and providing valuable 'training' (at reduced wages). Presumably the IFA, with its commitment to CPD, will heartily applaud this, and hand out gold stars.
-What, i wonder, will the procedure be, if any, when underskilled/over-paid individuals are located?"

what criteria will be used in making these kinds of assessment?

while i again appreciate the commitment to fair pay and conditions, agian the role of technical standards is elusive. It almost seems like skills are defined by pay-grade, rather than the other way round...

(I can't help thinking that not moving backwards is not the same as moving forwards.)

[akforster]

Interesting point Unitof1 - I didn't think when I starting working for IfA it meant I lost my ability to have an opinion as a member. My post above is a personal view, and I am pretty certain it would be the same if I worked for IfA or not. Is my view as a member, or my experience prior to joining IfA, no longer valid? I didn't think it was appropriate to not be open about who I work for.

In terms of staff wages, the core staff of the institute are paid for by member and RO subs. Additional project funds or support can come from a number of sources, such as HLF, Historic Scotland and, yes, English Heritage - depends on the project and is usually pretty flagged up on the website, or any documents coming out of projects.

[Unitof1]

well its about 1/2 a million pounds a year and mostly coming from so called advisors to the government, its more than you get from subs.

When you start getting advisors advising the advisors the plots get so thick that mud isnt the word for it. Thank you for saying who you are but it seems to me as such that there is absoluty every right to point out that the decision was unanimously but its the feelings of gladness that confuse me for as you say the move was "away from compliance with minimum salary recommendations being an absolute requirement of Registered Organisation status". It begs the question what exactly was the motion that was being voted on? Was it that eh should sign up as an RO?

[akforster]

Thanks Gnomeking, it is difficult to say prior to the pay working party looking into it. Currently an RO inspection is carried out at both new application stage, and when an organisation needs to re-register (every three years). Although the form which ROs complete is important, it is the inspection visit which makes recommendations, and the RO committee which considers the Inspection panel comments and then sets conditions and recommendations. The panel usually includes a local planning archaeologist, a member of staff and a member of the RO committee. The inspection and audit is what I suspect the working party will look into with the RO committee (but its not for me to decide), but I suspect the questions you ask above are more than likely to come up. Certainly at the moment, quality, technical standards etc, are all part of an inspection process- the panel usually looks through project archives, visits a site, talks to staff on-site and in the office, and interviews the postholder at the beginning (to discuss anything that has come up int he form filling in stage) and at the end (to discuss the inspection findings). Is is a comprehensive inspection, but with room for improvement. One thing that I will be working on is communicating more about how the scheme works and how it is being developed - as it is developing we need to do a better job of making sure everyone (and not just members) understand what changes may be happening and how they affect the scheme.

Sorry to side-step your direct questions - I can ask colleagues what would happen within the current process and report back...

[GnomeKing]

cheers.that would be interesting and good to post for people to read