Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th January 2009, 11:56 AM
Amber has a point when she says there is a conveyor belt of new graduates but the notion of no toilets and no holiday pay are both illegal practices which should have disappeared long ago.
If they havent then action is needed against these organisations.
In 2009 we should not be basing our discussions on the assumptions that illegal employment practices occurr.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th January 2009, 11:59 AM
I take your point about hot and exotic volunteering, Dr Wardle. However, these digs abroad and the community projects are (almost exclusively) research projects. I don't really see any place for volunteers on commerical sites. The principle behind PPG16 is that the polluter pays, meaning that they should pay/be charged at a sufficient level to allow for training.
However, this is that way that things used to work in archaeology, with volunteers being given pocket money and one or two people with jobs supervising them.
I would wonder what the reason is for encouraging more fresh graduates into the industry.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th January 2009, 12:00 PM
Quote:quote:BAJR and past horizons both extoll the virtues of voluntary work particularly in hot exotic places. Similarly there is widesperead acceptance of the notion of community archaeology based upon volunteers or people who pay to do archaeological work.
But not where it is providing free work for the profit of others. A volunteer is part of a project where the participation does not ensure additional profit for the provider. I would be well peeved if I volunteered, and because of it, both a paid member of staff was not required AND my presence meant the provider was able to either undercut (can't get cheaper than nought)
Dr P is right though that training costs.. but it should be over and above what would happen anyway, not in place of..
ie.. instead of 5 skilled diggers... have 4 skilled diggers and 1 intern. doing the same job... It would have to be 5 skilled diggers AND 1 intern.
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
13th January 2009, 12:14 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
ie.. instead of 5 skilled diggers... have 4 skilled diggers and 1 intern. doing the same job... It would have to be 5 skilled diggers AND 1 intern.
actually David, it should be 5 AND A HALF skilled diggers AND 1 intern, as someone has got to train/mentor/babysit the intern, A fact that is usually forgotten when volunteers/interns/unskilled new staff of any type are put on sites
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th January 2009, 12:25 PM
OK.
We arguing about the ratio of interns to skilled diggers. 4-5 I would have thought is about right for interns/new graduates. So is the verdicts using interns/new graduates is OK provided that they are indeed adequately supervised and trained.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
13th January 2009, 12:53 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
So is the verdicts using interns/new graduates is OK provided that they are indeed adequately supervised and trained.
Err....as I have stated I have no objection to interns in archaeology. Err....I do have an objection to paying them slavery wages.
So perhaps you could 'clarify' your question Peter. Are you asking specifically about the principal, the training, the pay or all three?
I see that there is are examples of good internships advertised today. One on BAJR and one on the ******* <sorry, but they are refusing to advertise on BAJR -so would rather not give them any free advert> . Both positions are offering bursaries in excess of £16500 per year...If only we could have two-a-day advertised for the next 3 months or so.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th January 2009, 02:10 PM
I have to say I find some of the responses rather blinkered to what the government is trying to do and what employment in archaeology in 2009 is all about. Kevin's notion of 100 internships at £16.5k per year would cost £3 million for example and still not solve the problem.
Most of the posts relate to excavation and hence comments like. "No intern will get a job at the end of 3 months when there are diggers with 20 years experience out there on the dole." This is simply not true in any event.
We have an opportunity with the governments suggestion to solve something that has been discussed for years training new graduates in field or other skills and getting new graduates experience. The internship lasts three months - is there any difference to a placement undertaken within a course as is done at Bradford.
Peter
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
13th January 2009, 02:12 PM
The reason for graduates 'piling'into archaeology is because that's what they want to do ! ......surely that is why they have studied for a degree in the subject !!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th January 2009, 02:30 PM
5 AND A HALF skilled diggers AND 1 intern, >> you are right of course... what I meant was what you have corrected me to..
It would be possible to have a trainee on the G1 rate... Where the employer gets two and a half grand from Govt and tops up the rest.. As long as training takes place.
"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
13th January 2009, 02:48 PM
Subject to caveats regarding exploitation, unreasonably low wages and the job being a meaningful "real" job, not an entirely made-up one consisting entirely of photocopying, tea making etc, (although any newcomer to a profession can expect to perform a certain amount of menial tasks) I am guardedly in favour of "internships".
In fact I believe such practices should be the norm, not a desperate recession-only measure. It used to be considered the moral duty of a professional practice or firm to employ a new graduate, school-leaver or (in the case of architecture for example) a year-out student and was expected by the professinal institution (although not, I believe, obligatory). Almost all architect's offices would have, for example, a year-out student and a 16-20 year old trainee technician/office boy/girl. In this way, something was "given back" and the supply of experienced professionals was assured: the industry (profession) met its responsibilty to train its own people. Of course those were the days when "professional" meant something other than a job title and a suit... and before the concept of professionalism was whittled away by the dogma of the eighties... sorry, a seperate rant!!
If the government (us) want to chip in and help, fine, but as I say I share many of the concerns expressed by others. I imagine that there would be a limit on how many interns could be part-funded per firm so a site (or office) being flooded with the young rascals is fairly unlikely.
