professional institute

[gumbo]

clearly night should have been spelt knight in the above post, I wasnt advocating some form of west-country mugging

G

[troll]

I might... Yep, the "change the beast from within" concept seemed an attractive proposition to me some years ago. Sadly, even when cornered, the most the IFA will do is commit subscription fees to another "ten-year study". These flights of fancy provide someone with an income for ten years but in reality, produce very,very little of any pro-active motivation for change. Time and again, the IFA have closed ranks and gone deaf. I would run off and join them at a moments notice if just for once, they would react to the offerings from the workforce with professionalism and be motivated enough to work for real change.Sadly, the consistant response from them is to take criticism personally and become emotionally dented before branding us all "moaners in the pub". Enough already.

[drpeterwardle]

It seems to me that the IFA is now an organisation for archaeological managers. To be become a full member you have to be in a management position.

Indeed The IFA has never been popular with diggers. In the 1980s ACT (Archaeologist Communicate and Transform) was set up and was quite successful for a while.

In the legal profession there are two professional institutes the law society and the Institute of legal executives. The former being for solistors and barristers and the latter for what were called legal secretaries. The legal executives are a parallel career structure to lawyers who undertake more routine legal work.

Peter

[the invisible man]

It depends what you mean by "full member". If you mean MIFA, or indeed AIFA, then yes, you will need a number of years experience iat a certain level of responsibilty. A PIFA however only needs 6 months experience, with a degree, at any level (if level is the correct word).

All three grades are Corporate, i.e. have voting rights, and are all therefore full members.If all diggers joined then perhaps it would better reflect the interests of that group.

I see what they are trying to do by having different grades, but many other professions abandoned them long ago - you are either an architect or you're not, for example.

It would be less divisive perhaps if ALL full (corporate) members were MIFAs. To denote experience, responsibility and maybe specialization they could have a system like the BAJR CV list, akin to the Assoc of Arch Illustrators.

[Oxbeast]

While the IFA remains an association of employers and managers they would have little incentive to do this. I read the conference procedings online, and was struck by the TOTAL lack of any issues to do with employment, training, organisation, terms and conditions, or indeed any of the issues commonly mentioned on this forum.

Its like the National Farmers Union pretending to be a union, when actually they are an employers association.

[the invisible man]

Yes, that's more or less what I'm saying. An organisation will naturally reflect its membership. You can't rail against a body not doing what you want if don't belong to it.

So...............

[troll]

...we let the big boys play in their den and we`ll build our own. I take the point raised earlier that two separate organisations may present a divided front to the world but, compared to the political carnage inevitable during an IFA voting session if we ALL voted as members....
I think it`s high time we seriously considered looking after our own interests and more importantly, the interests of the archaeology.I feel that unions are there simply to make money out of you-of all the pledges Prospect offered, what has changed?

[Oxbeast]

"Yes, that's more or less what I'm saying. An organisation will naturally reflect its membership. You can't rail against a body not doing what you want if don't belong to it." - invisible man.

Excuse me, but I certainly can. I'm not a member of the National Trust, English Heritage, the Labour Party or the National Front. It doesn't stop me criticising them. I was pointing out that the IFA won't ever act in the interests of workers while they are an association of employers. I'm not sure what kind of forum the IFA have for decision making, but I take the point that if every digger showed up at a conference and wanted to table motions about sick pay and training, the whole house of cards would collapse.

The IFA does not debate any of these things, because they are happy with the status quo.

[troll]

Further, the IFA are demonstrably geared towards managers.There are PIFA members out there with donkey`s years experience-real FIELD archaeologists that are not valued. Conversley, an office archaeologist who has filled the boxes on excell sheets for 5 years can attain a higher level of membership. An "Institute" of field archaeologists needs to be just that. For field archaeologists. The IFA seem to place more accreditation upon those who are the furthest away from the coal-face. Field Archaeology is a skilled profession.We are all currently allowing an organisation largely comprised of non-field archaeologists to determine our value and competence.

[Stig]

ok lets summarise...

1) Most diggers don't feel IFA or Prospect represent their interests.

a) The perception being that these institutions are primarily
made up of "office" archaeologists not field archaeologists.
And what has been said many times in different ways, is these
institutions are only concerned with the opinions of its
active members, no real surprise there.

2) That leaves diggers with two options:

a) Try and change IFA / Prospect, in the face of "Political
carnage".
b) Head off into the sunset and setup an alternative.

Personally I'm for the political carnage, but if people are serious about setting up a serious alternative then people have got to start thinking/ talking about:

a) How do we set one up?
b) How do we make it recognised?
c) Who's going to run it?
d) How do we pay them? (if at all??)

and many, many, many, other questions...

Stig

dead cat tell no lies