2nd November 2005, 01:52 PM
I think the main problem is the saying and doing...
take this quote from 1996 Assemblage
http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/1/aitch.html
"..It is archaeologists who decide how much archaeologists get paid. The only body which has any possibility of insisting upon minimum conditions of service and wages is the IFA.
The IFA wishes to establish standards of practice and professionalism. These standards should include pay and conditions, which would in turn help to create a firmer career structure within archaeology. Jobs are already informally graded within archaeological organisations (Aitchison and Anderson 1995::face-thinks:, and the IFA should take the bold step of clearly defining jobs by responsibility and reward, and crystallising the fine words of the Code of Conduct.
Such action would help the IFA gain esteem in the eyes of its members, and in the eyes of the many archaeologists who do not wish to join the Institute because of their negative perceptions of it.
If the need for increased wages leads to archaeology becoming more 'expensive', then so be it. If a site is under threat from development, then the requirements of PPG 16 and the equivalent guidelines in Scotland and Wales mean that the developers will have to pay for that archaeology to be preserved or recorded. If that is going to be more expensive than at present, then, to paraphrase the sentiment of PPG 16, the polluters will just have to pay more. 'The main reason why non-archaeologists have an unrealistic impression of the cost of archaeology is because the profession has consistently underbid' (Fahy 1987:9).
Similarly, if invasive work is planned for a site that is not under threat, then adequate funds will have to be raised to pay adequate rates for the professionals involved in the excavation. If that is not possible, then excavation should not take place.
The IFA does not have to act as a trades union in order to protect its members; it can do that by acting as the professional association that it is. The constitutional framework and declared intentions are already in place. What is needed now is the will to act, and that can only come from the membership of the Institute. Those who work in field archaeology and who feel that their skills and abilities are not being rewarded should join the IFA to demonstrate their professional credentials, and then press for the Institute to adopt standards for pay and conditions that will reward field workers and give them the respect that they are due."
What it shows is a recognition of the problems and pitfalls, and an acceptance that the role it should play? but where are we?
?and the IFA should take the bold step of clearly defining jobs by responsibility and reward?. Still waiting?
? The IFA does not have to act as a trades union in order to protect its members; it can do that by acting as the professional association that it is?. But could be chartered ?. Still waiting
The fabled circular argument?..
?Those who work in field archaeology and who feel that their skills and abilities are not being rewarded should join the IFA to demonstrate their professional credentials, and then press for the Institute to adopt standards for pay and conditions that will reward field workers and give them the respect that they are due?..
SO there we have it?. IFA can?t do it without help but people won?t join until it shows it will actually do something rather than talk about it.
For example? the IFA still ?recommend? pay levels? BAJR has (for the last 3 years) enforced 7 levels of pay. IFA does not disseminate what it is up to to non members? BAJR is open to all. Etc etc?.
Now if BAJR can do it??? surely the IFA can?.. perhaps they are? But nobody is saying.
For example? it would be useful if representatives of the Diggers Forum post on here to keep people up to date about what is going on? after all it is a good way to spread the news to those that are most disenfranchised?
Action is a two way street? and standing for something is very different from acting
Another day another WSI?
take this quote from 1996 Assemblage
http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/1/aitch.html
"..It is archaeologists who decide how much archaeologists get paid. The only body which has any possibility of insisting upon minimum conditions of service and wages is the IFA.
The IFA wishes to establish standards of practice and professionalism. These standards should include pay and conditions, which would in turn help to create a firmer career structure within archaeology. Jobs are already informally graded within archaeological organisations (Aitchison and Anderson 1995::face-thinks:, and the IFA should take the bold step of clearly defining jobs by responsibility and reward, and crystallising the fine words of the Code of Conduct.
Such action would help the IFA gain esteem in the eyes of its members, and in the eyes of the many archaeologists who do not wish to join the Institute because of their negative perceptions of it.
If the need for increased wages leads to archaeology becoming more 'expensive', then so be it. If a site is under threat from development, then the requirements of PPG 16 and the equivalent guidelines in Scotland and Wales mean that the developers will have to pay for that archaeology to be preserved or recorded. If that is going to be more expensive than at present, then, to paraphrase the sentiment of PPG 16, the polluters will just have to pay more. 'The main reason why non-archaeologists have an unrealistic impression of the cost of archaeology is because the profession has consistently underbid' (Fahy 1987:9).
Similarly, if invasive work is planned for a site that is not under threat, then adequate funds will have to be raised to pay adequate rates for the professionals involved in the excavation. If that is not possible, then excavation should not take place.
The IFA does not have to act as a trades union in order to protect its members; it can do that by acting as the professional association that it is. The constitutional framework and declared intentions are already in place. What is needed now is the will to act, and that can only come from the membership of the Institute. Those who work in field archaeology and who feel that their skills and abilities are not being rewarded should join the IFA to demonstrate their professional credentials, and then press for the Institute to adopt standards for pay and conditions that will reward field workers and give them the respect that they are due."
What it shows is a recognition of the problems and pitfalls, and an acceptance that the role it should play? but where are we?
?and the IFA should take the bold step of clearly defining jobs by responsibility and reward?. Still waiting?
? The IFA does not have to act as a trades union in order to protect its members; it can do that by acting as the professional association that it is?. But could be chartered ?. Still waiting
The fabled circular argument?..
?Those who work in field archaeology and who feel that their skills and abilities are not being rewarded should join the IFA to demonstrate their professional credentials, and then press for the Institute to adopt standards for pay and conditions that will reward field workers and give them the respect that they are due?..
SO there we have it?. IFA can?t do it without help but people won?t join until it shows it will actually do something rather than talk about it.
For example? the IFA still ?recommend? pay levels? BAJR has (for the last 3 years) enforced 7 levels of pay. IFA does not disseminate what it is up to to non members? BAJR is open to all. Etc etc?.
Now if BAJR can do it??? surely the IFA can?.. perhaps they are? But nobody is saying.
For example? it would be useful if representatives of the Diggers Forum post on here to keep people up to date about what is going on? after all it is a good way to spread the news to those that are most disenfranchised?
Action is a two way street? and standing for something is very different from acting
Another day another WSI?