Is it me? the rise of teh "trainee"

[Marc Berger]

Isn't the problem that they are called archaeology degrees but that no one anywhere has certified them as making the person eligible under the Valetta convention to monopolise excavation?

ii. to ensure that excavations and other potentially destructive techniques are carried out only by qualified, specially authorised persons;

Add to this that any authorising authority is a polluter and that they should pay for the archaeology and not the production costs of the archaeology and you just might create a viable archaeology career.

[Jack]

<snip>

3c. Until you actually constrain who can be a commercial archaeologists you are not going to see wages increase much. All other variables are meaningless in terms of trying to figure out if wages will go up.

Absolutely, 100%, nail on head!!

[Sikelgaita]

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.

And again I will return to my point that we need to stop seeing diggers as low skilled. They are very highly skilled, it is just their skills are in a different field to those of the report writing 'academic' archaeologist. So to be a Chartered Archaeologist you would need to have the digging skills of an experienced old hand, possess first class person management skills, financial management skills, a knowledge of the workings construction industry, be extensively read across the subject and have superb report writing ability. Well if that is the case they are going to be spread pretty thin across the country - maybe for the largest projects but a Chartered Archaeologist for every small eval and WB?

It has been my experience that those with the academic credentials get fast tracked into PO/Consultant/HER positions and are often significantly lacking in the skills that they really need. I would expect that the chartering process would mirror this. Those with an aptitude for writing fluently and eloquently will become chartered and little heed will be paid to the skill that actually matters the most, namely the successful retrieval of information from the site. Maybe this does just reflect my cynacism about the CIfA though.

[Sikelgaita]

and there was me thinking you had no time for passion

Oops, didn't mean to give that impression.

[Sikelgaita]

I am hearing on the grape vine that universities are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit students to archaeology degrees. And that partly as a consequence of this Archaeology departments in universities are being increasingly cut back. Are we begining to see the serious skills shortage that might up the wages in the profession?

We are seeing a skills shortage and I sincerely hope there will be an increase in wages because of this, however are the skills being taught to archaeology students in universities actually the skills that will bring this increase about. I don't think that a greater understanding of post-processual or behavioural archaeological theory etc in any way helps you learn how to be a good digger. It may help fast track graduates to be Chartered Archaeologists though.:face-stir:

[P Prentice]

And again I will return to my point that we need to stop seeing diggers as low skilled. They are very highly skilled, it is just their skills are in a different field to those of the report writing 'academic' archaeologist. So to be a Chartered Archaeologist you would need to have the digging skills of an experienced old hand, possess first class person management skills, financial management skills, a knowledge of the workings construction industry, be extensively read across the subject and have superb report writing ability. Well if that is the case they are going to be spread pretty thin across the country - maybe for the largest projects but a Chartered Archaeologist for every small eval and WB?

It has been my experience that those with the academic credentials get fast tracked into PO/Consultant/HER positions and are often significantly lacking in the skills that they really need. I would expect that the chartering process would mirror this. Those with an aptitude for writing fluently and eloquently will become chartered and little heed will be paid to the skill that actually matters the most, namely the successful retrieval of information from the site. Maybe this does just reflect my cynacism about the CIfA though.

i've never said that diggers are low skilled or that their skills are any thing less than those who write. those fast-track types you refer to are amongst the ones i would weed out. skillful digging is fundamental to an archaeologist. far too many miss these skills and cannot therefore do the office based ones correctly or from a position of understanding th limitations and nuances of digging. management skills do not come into it at all. you dont need to be a good archaeolgist to be a good manager. you do need to be a good digger to be a good planning archaeologist/mountie, or finds specialist. you probably dont need to be a good digger to be a consultant but you do need to be a good manager. i dont think management needs to be accounted for in the necessary qualifiacation to chartered archaeologist but digging certainly does.

[Marc Berger]

Isn't this thread confusing getting a job with getting a job. On one hand there is being employed by fellow archaeologists and the other is archaeologists getting a contract with a developer. Just where in the trainee, academic politic is the archaeologist/digger saying to the clients this is what it costs for what I do. What's not said in the advert for the trainee is who the client is, who is paying and who owns the archaeology. Automatically anybody applying does not apparantly care and those archaeologists putting the advert out are also saying that it is not important. Why is Everybody after picking their teeth on the qualities of trainees then bemoaning the good digger being a good report writer is how things should work.(and out of interest what is the satisfactory proportion of diggers to report writers that would satisfy a reasonable career progression?)

Look folks they are employing trainees. This is a boom folks, a boom has little to do with individual single build client customers and is all about government inferstructure spending. These clients will be headless, you will find it almost impossible to pin anybody down as to ownership or even who is paying. What will be going on is that "archaeology" will create a dizzying hierarchy of "archaeologists" all commitment in the creation of a pecking order of trainee assistants to somebody who might be called an archaeologist. Now form an orderly queue folks. In the name of growth Roll over.

[Jack]

Isn't this thread confusing....<snip>

Forgive my heavy snipping, but yes this thread is confusing....several arguments running around like headless chickens!

Just where in the trainee, academic politic is the archaeologist/digger saying to the clients this is what it costs for what I do. .

In the tender for the job?

What's not said in the advert for the trainee is who the client is, who is paying and who owns the archaeology. Automatically anybody applying does not apparantly care and those archaeologists putting the advert out are also saying that it is not important.

This is an interesting question. Care to expand on why it should matter who the client is?

Look folks they are employing trainees. This is a boom folks, a boom has little to do with individual single build client customers and is all about government inferstructure spending. These clients will be headless, you will find it almost impossible to pin anybody down as to ownership or even who is paying.

yes there is much profit to be made during both a recession and a boom. Thats just good business. But yes employing trainees to do the work of skilled employees and not actually training them is not only immoral, and destructive for the industry, it is dangerous for the company doing the job when the quality of work is shown to be not up to scratch or they are whistleblown within their own industry or even in the wider scope of the public/press. Private eye anyone?
But, with regard to payment: contracts and purchase orders, purchase numbers etc.

What will be going on is that "archaeology" will create a dizzying hierarchy of "archaeologists" all commitment in the creation of a pecking order of trainee assistants to somebody who might be called an archaeologist. Now form an orderly queue folks. In the name of growth Roll over.

Not likely. There are many cabals of beardy pawn-pushers in the background.

PPG16 didn't kill archaeology (just the opposite if you ask many)
The Localism bill didn't kill archaeology
The NPPF didn't kill archaeology
Cuts to local councils didn't kill archaeology (though has cause severe problems)
The infrastructure projects haven't killed archaeology
Growth wont kill archaeology. The watchers who watch the watchers watching the watchers are paying attention.

Never underestimate the lobbying power of those interested in their own heritage!

[Marc Berger]

Jack you have missed the archaeologist employing another archaeologist bit. What set up are you working in? In the last boom the "archaeology" industry was dominated by charity trust RAOs all working on infrastructure work or sometime also called compulsory purchase work. The heads of those units were normaly on different permanant pay and conditions often related to council public service rates compared to the digger on the ground who due to the temporary nature of the "boom" was expected to put up with all manner of trainee abuses.

To my mind all these abuses were because diggers took no responsibility over ownership of the archaeology. What I would like to see is that the digger owns what they create and is then paid for that archaeology by the eventual owner of the archaeology. It's a rubbish model I know but it is based on my other job which is selling lemonade which is a manufacturing job where you have bought the ingredients and then you have to find the rare customer who might like to buy the product and then you make it for them.

[Jack]

Marc,
Yep. We seem to be observing from very different perspectives.

The archaeology is 'owned' by the landowner.

As with many professions, the photo's, drawings etc 'created' by the employee are owned by the employer.

Think of your lemonade making as a larger scale operation e.g. a production line. (a crude analogy). Those mixing the ingredients or working/maintaining the machine that mixes are employed by you to do so. They get paid by you. They don't own the lemonade they make, you do.

Now in archaeology a 'digger/archaeologist' is either employed by an archaeological company, a non-archaeological company or they are self-employed. In the first case anything they produce is owned by their employer (depending on the terms of their contract). In the second it would be dictated by the contract for the job in question.

I don't see the link between low pay and 'taking ownership'. In my understanding, ownership is dictated by law and formalised by contracts. Pay is dictated by market forces and negotiations between employer/employee, unions and institutions.

There is no magical ethereal entity that flits from industry to industry waving a wand of higher pay on whim. There is no complex economic formula or social conundrum that can be manipulated. Its as simple as:

P=B-C

that is profit (for whoever can bid for and win a particular 'job') = Amount you can charge the 'client' to do the job - the cost to carry out the work (including any overheads you have to operate).

If someone doesn't make enough profit they starve/ their company goes into liquidation etc.

This formula is applicable at all levels from the employee at the sharp end, to the government minister who manipulates policy. You could see it as the ultimate capitalist expression of survival of the fittest.

I am confused by your alternative model. Your beginning to sound like the long lost unit of 1!:face-stir: