31st March 2009, 12:31 PM
Leaving aside the fact that your figures literally don't add up, again (run 'em through a calculator if you have to...), you are again playing with the figures to make your point. Whilst a months sick pay is indeed a potential cost to employers, it is not available to most casual staff until a probation period is up, normally three months, and very few workers will ever use more than a few days over a year; plus most casual staff don't have a pension so that cost is rarely implemented.
Your adding in the new total for leave as an additional increase in pay assumes that previously staff had NO leave entitlement, which is, of course, complete nonsense.
This was not a huge increase as you state, especially as for many many archaeologists there was already provision at or near these levels at many major, and minor, units, how else would it have got through IfA council? What happened were only slight increases for many, and greater increases for others as units were pulled up towards the higher end of pay and conditions, actually levelling the playing field and so making pay costs less of an issue in a competitive market than before.
Your adding in the new total for leave as an additional increase in pay assumes that previously staff had NO leave entitlement, which is, of course, complete nonsense.
This was not a huge increase as you state, especially as for many many archaeologists there was already provision at or near these levels at many major, and minor, units, how else would it have got through IfA council? What happened were only slight increases for many, and greater increases for others as units were pulled up towards the higher end of pay and conditions, actually levelling the playing field and so making pay costs less of an issue in a competitive market than before.