7th June 2004, 03:12 PM
Destroyer (and others)
Sorry about my previous posting, it started out as a bit of a generalised rant, and due my own incompetence it was sent to the list without being edited or even finished. So my apologies.
I do stand by my original point that within Local Authorities [u]generally</u> (and I don't mean just archaeology departments) there [u]can be</u> an certain attitude amongst certain staff that is (to those of us in the private sector) somewhat old-fashioned - a job for life, final salary pension, regular wage-rises without corresponding rises in productivity etc. This is not a 'politics of envy' type of response to the situation - rather an observation over many years that such cushioned working environments [u]can</u> lead to a lot of 'dead wood' in an organisation.
As to Local Authority archaeology units, yes, on one level they are 'self-funding' but in many cases they do not pay business rates, rents on buildings, telephone and internet charges, etc. and have the use of a number of other benefits (underwritten pension schemes, an abundance of health and safety officers etc) which other purely private-sector businesses do not have.
Also, in some instances (happily fewer nowadays) Local Authority units are often able to pick up work which may not have gone out to tender in the usual way. I am stopping short of accusations of 'backhanders' as such, but I do know personally of projects where this kind of thing has happened.
However, I digress. A National Minimum Wage is acceptable - indeed essential - for any civilised society (as the invisible manpoints out). However fixed wage rates for any profession are in fact illegal. This country operates as a free market capitalist economy, and, whether you like it or not, that is the reality.
In most markets (including the market for archaeological services) the two most important factors for consumers are price and quality. So, yes, we all know about 'cowboy' units who compete on price - and, in many cases, because the requirement for archaeological work is enforced on an unwilling small or medium scale development, the lowest price wins (also with local authorities, incidentally, who often mis-understand the notion of best value in construction projects and equate it with lowest price, but that's another debate for another thread). However there are many other units in the private sector that are trying to compete on quality. Now quality comes in many forms, and this can mean the ACADEMIC quality of the archaeological research, the PROFESSIONAL quality of the relationship with clients, and the quality of staff. But as any business in the private sector is aware, good quality staff need to be paid well, nurtured and retained. If you pay poor wages, and offer poor conditions, then staff turnover will be high and out of the window goes accumulated knowledge, consistency of product and so-on.
It does therefore seem strange that, almost uniquely in the professional world, the best paid archaeologists are in the public or academic sectors. However many of us running private sector units try to treat our staff with the respect they deserve - I for one do not like to be accused of treating my staff like vermin, or of running a 'cowboy' business. Yes we are a small unit, and no we don't offer pensions. We offer each employee a three month contract initially, and 3/5 of our staff are on 'permanent' contracts at present (the others are on six month rolling contracts).
We pay our staff above the BAJR minimum levels, we provide them with regular training and appraisals, we engage with the community on all our sites, we have a comprehensive health, safety and welfare policy (which is enforced). We strive to undertake work to the highest academic and professional standards, and most of the time we succeed. We also have copious amounts of tea and cake, occasionally even champagne at team meetings. And I am sure we are not alone in doing this in the private sector. Oh, and I forgot, we also MAKE A PROFIT
Sorry about my previous posting, it started out as a bit of a generalised rant, and due my own incompetence it was sent to the list without being edited or even finished. So my apologies.
I do stand by my original point that within Local Authorities [u]generally</u> (and I don't mean just archaeology departments) there [u]can be</u> an certain attitude amongst certain staff that is (to those of us in the private sector) somewhat old-fashioned - a job for life, final salary pension, regular wage-rises without corresponding rises in productivity etc. This is not a 'politics of envy' type of response to the situation - rather an observation over many years that such cushioned working environments [u]can</u> lead to a lot of 'dead wood' in an organisation.
As to Local Authority archaeology units, yes, on one level they are 'self-funding' but in many cases they do not pay business rates, rents on buildings, telephone and internet charges, etc. and have the use of a number of other benefits (underwritten pension schemes, an abundance of health and safety officers etc) which other purely private-sector businesses do not have.
Also, in some instances (happily fewer nowadays) Local Authority units are often able to pick up work which may not have gone out to tender in the usual way. I am stopping short of accusations of 'backhanders' as such, but I do know personally of projects where this kind of thing has happened.
However, I digress. A National Minimum Wage is acceptable - indeed essential - for any civilised society (as the invisible manpoints out). However fixed wage rates for any profession are in fact illegal. This country operates as a free market capitalist economy, and, whether you like it or not, that is the reality.
In most markets (including the market for archaeological services) the two most important factors for consumers are price and quality. So, yes, we all know about 'cowboy' units who compete on price - and, in many cases, because the requirement for archaeological work is enforced on an unwilling small or medium scale development, the lowest price wins (also with local authorities, incidentally, who often mis-understand the notion of best value in construction projects and equate it with lowest price, but that's another debate for another thread). However there are many other units in the private sector that are trying to compete on quality. Now quality comes in many forms, and this can mean the ACADEMIC quality of the archaeological research, the PROFESSIONAL quality of the relationship with clients, and the quality of staff. But as any business in the private sector is aware, good quality staff need to be paid well, nurtured and retained. If you pay poor wages, and offer poor conditions, then staff turnover will be high and out of the window goes accumulated knowledge, consistency of product and so-on.
It does therefore seem strange that, almost uniquely in the professional world, the best paid archaeologists are in the public or academic sectors. However many of us running private sector units try to treat our staff with the respect they deserve - I for one do not like to be accused of treating my staff like vermin, or of running a 'cowboy' business. Yes we are a small unit, and no we don't offer pensions. We offer each employee a three month contract initially, and 3/5 of our staff are on 'permanent' contracts at present (the others are on six month rolling contracts).
We pay our staff above the BAJR minimum levels, we provide them with regular training and appraisals, we engage with the community on all our sites, we have a comprehensive health, safety and welfare policy (which is enforced). We strive to undertake work to the highest academic and professional standards, and most of the time we succeed. We also have copious amounts of tea and cake, occasionally even champagne at team meetings. And I am sure we are not alone in doing this in the private sector. Oh, and I forgot, we also MAKE A PROFIT