Is it me? the rise of teh "trainee"

[monty]

Next gripe is the rise of the "trainee grade". some really are. I have spent time talking over such positions with a company recently. Others are just because rates have sunk below minima... no worries, we will just call em trainees, mutter something about on the job training, and pay less ... whooo hoo. --- so now you need at least 6 months commercial experience to even get paid the bare minimum for a commercial archaeologist. - tell me... if I have 5 months. does that mean I suddenly go up to the full 17094 rate after a month..? or does that not count?

Other companies seem to be able to afford the enormous £14 a week to bring them up to the bare minimum ----

I may have to bring in a new rule on BAJR... nothing... NOTHING less than 17094 ( unless we have talked about it first, and it is something like a pay grade that needs the bottom level put in for HR Department not to kick up a stink) the words BAJR Approved means, "I knows what goes on, and we have a handshake agreement... that the minima is really (wink) what it should be."

Anyways. before people say... ah... but where do I get experience. it is not rocket science FFS... 6 months is perhaps over long to learn how to write your name and the colour of soil on a context card... or take a digital photograph of a pit..... being good at it... takes time. but really. these are not shaved apes... these are your graduates (in the main) who have shown they can hold a thought and perhaps have a modicum of ability in holding a shovel the right way up... and if not. then it will take less than 6 months to work that one out!

aaaarg! I despair!

I just did part of a short term contract for a well known unit, the pay was 16160 pa despite my twenty seven years experience ! The lack of diggers this year now things have taken off had this outfit using inexperienced students as diggers. This current state of affairs should be pushing wages UP not down. The day rate has not gone down so it is a case of project managers keeping their arses on comfy seats in most cases. OUTRAGEOUS !

[Marc Berger]

Yes monty the archaeological boom is back in full bloom and they can still find mugs with 27 years to act as trainees. Care to name the "unit". What job title they given you?

[monty]

Hey no mug I ! They usually paid me 20202 pa but I did not receive a detailed contract until the first pay day....sneaky bastards ! Job title "Archaeologist"........Needless to say I walked after a few weeks. Unfortunately I cannot name them on here.

[Sikelgaita]

i think the singlemost important thing keeping contracts short and wages down etc is the assumption that anyone can dig and that the profession does not require graduate entry. on one hand the industry is intent on showing the world just how easy it is to do archaeology and then it moans about being seen as some kind of esoteric calling that does not require propoer pay and conditions - we are looking ever more like jobbing labourers for anitiquarians.

I disagree. I think that units have kept contracts short and wages low because they have always understood that there is a constant throughflow of graduates willing to take that first step on the ladder to try to get a career in archaeology before they realise that archaeology does not provide that career path and that diggers are just an exploitable resource. Thus they give up to pursue a different line of employment whilst the units take on a new batch of graduates and the cycle repeats.

Personally I would rather work with those with a 'natural affinity for digging' every time, be they graduate or non graduate.

[P Prentice]

Personally I would rather work with those with a 'natural affinity for digging' every time, be they graduate or non graduate.

you'll not get any argument there. units dont really care who digs the holes but we do care where the next batch of report writers will come from. those able to make the transition are becoming a rare breed precisely because they are less likely to put up with the short contracts and low wages that would get them in the right place to be in that position. brain drain springs to mind.

[Jack]

Interest, enthusiasm, disillusion, despair, anger, apathy, consultant, death

Brilliant! I actually laughed out loud. Good job the office is nearly empty at the mo.

The way I see it though (just my opinion). There is no natural progression through a career in archaeology.

It's like walking down a twisty turny corridor flanked by doors either side. These doors open and close randomly, offering new directions, new challenges but rarely stay open for very long.

If you just follow the corridor you'll find it goes nowhere. If you try the doors, you get a mix of success and defeat, but after a while you'll find a direction that suits you.
If your lucky, if you're in the right place at the right time and paying attention to whats being offered, and what guidance those that have ridden the corridor longer say; if the right door opens at the right time, then you can achieve your goals, whatever they may be.

Don't just follow the flow, try and ride the waves.

Personally I have a set of lockpicks and a lump hammer to bash down the doors. All I need is a map to know which door to kick in then I'm set.}

[Jack]

Thanks for clarifying, sorry if that felt like abuse, although you do kind of ask for it.

However, there is a difference between working in archaeology because you are interested in it (I too would find it hard to believe there can be anyone who works in archaeology who isn't at least fairly interested) and being obsessed to the point where you willingly forego any kind of life outside of it and consider that to be a normal and reasonable state of affairs for everyone. It is then a slippery slope - a small number put themselves in that position, so everyone is expected to follow suit, and pay and conditions suffer. I'm not saying it is the sole cause of the problems in commercial archaeology that we have today, but it certainly doesn't help, and I'm sure that attitude of 'we have to save as much archaeology as we can now because imagine the terrible consequences if we don't so everyone has to give 110% all the time' is exploited by those higher up the employment chain.

No worries, its good to vent. And yes I do ask for it!

Its good to have two or three sides to a discussion.

I agree an unhealthy obsession is...well...unhealthy. And yes those that expect a total 24 hour dedication to archaeology beyond anything set down in a contract (or in the variety of standards and guides that exist), those that expect more than a good work ethic are wrong.

But, on the flipside. Those that do work 110% do not in anyway drive pay and conditions down, they just show an added commitment that usually single's them out as being attractive to employers.

Pay and conditions are set by market forces. That is what the clients are willing to pay. This idea that the evil management squalor in opulence and laziness while the workers toil to line their sty's. The idea that managers are deliberately holding back profit from those doing the work as a form of wage-slavery is outdated. The managers I know/ have talked to would love to put in higher tenders, would love to increase everyone's wages and hence increase their companies profit margins.

But without some kind of earthquake in the world of heritage - (Ala ozone layer/ global warming), or some form of price-fixing, the 'value/cost tag' attached to archaeology will remain pitifully low.

[Sikelgaita]

you'll not get any argument there. units dont really care who digs the holes but we do care where the next batch of report writers will come from. those able to make the transition are becoming a rare breed precisely because they are less likely to put up with the short contracts and low wages that would get them in the right place to be in that position. brain drain springs to mind.

Many are no longer choosing to become archaeologists in the first place. An archaeology degree is a good background subject for becoming a.....lawyer, teacher, journalist etc...anything except an archaeologist.

However I passionately care about who digs the holes. Without a high quality excavation team there is no high quality record with which the report writer can interrogate to produce the report. It has been my long held belief that it is not the quantity of diggers put on a site that is important but the quality of them. It has been my experience that one digger with a natural affinity for digging is worth two or three of those that do not have that innate ability. Surely one experienced digger paid, lets say £22,500 is both cheaper and more productive than two diggers with little experience and limited skills paid at £17,500. Furthermore skilled operatives can work more independently and require less supervision. Why do units not cost jobs and employ diggers on this basis is a question I ask myself constantly. All this requires a much greater recognition of the digger as a technician in their own right, not just the bottom rung in a career ladder that I think is broken and which helps perpetuates the low pay and short term contract problem.

Also rather than calling them trainees what about treating them like apprentices similar to those from other trades. The experienced and technically skilled digger can provide on the job training to the apprentice.

[Sikelgaita]

Discussion is good, the world would be a boring place without people articulating differing opinions.

Pay and conditions are set by market forces.

Are they though? Except the very smallest builders and PCC's it has been my experience that most clients want surety. Cost, although a factor, is not always the deciding factor. They want confidence that the company they employ to undertake their archaeological work will not hold them up and will deal with their archaeological constraints. This is why many of the larger companies employ consultants to manage this process on their behalf. Personally I think some consultants have a lot to answer for in maintaining the status quo. Understandable though as they are representing their client first and the archaeology second.

It has not helped that for the last 5 years there has been a recession which has forced companies to produce cutthroat tenders and hammer down on pay and conditions just to survive in a much diminished market. Hopefully that is all in the process of changing and that some enlightened managers will realise there might be different ways of doing things.

[P Prentice]

Without a high quality excavation team there is no high quality record with which the report writer can interrogate to produce the report. It has been my long held belief that it is not the quantity of diggers put on a site that is important but the quality of them. It has been my experience that one digger with a natural affinity for digging is worth two or three of those that do not have that innate ability. Surely one experienced digger paid, lets say £22,500 is both cheaper and more productive than two diggers with little experience and limited skills paid at £17,500. Furthermore skilled operatives can work more independently and require less supervision. Why do units not cost jobs and employ diggers on this basis is a question I ask myself constantly. All this requires a much greater recognition of the digger as a technician in their own right, not just the bottom rung in a career ladder that I think is broken and which helps perpetuates the low pay and short term contract problem. Also rather than calling them trainees what about treating them like apprentices similar to those from other trades. The experienced and technically skilled digger can provide on the job training to the apprentice.

again i will come back to my point that we need to differenciate between low skill diggers, be they trainess apprentices or old lags, and skilled archaeologists. as far as i can see chartering archaeologists is the best way to achieve this. trainees, apprentices and old lags could all strive to become such given perseverance, training, and technical ability - all demonstrable, measured and assured.
when i rule the world i will make it mandatory for all projects to be populated with a chartered archaeologist / technician / apprentice ratio of 1:1:1 and the minimum pay ratio would currently be £35K £26K: £18K