4th November 2005, 02:39 PM
I would guess that the difference is between guidelines and the visible enforcement
the recommendation of pay scales and the enactment of these pay levels. (such as refusing to include jobs on the JIS that fall below minimum levels (as BAJR does))
It is good to publish minimum standards, but by making minimum standards it is providing the contract cop out of saying "we have adhered to the minimum requirements." rather than standards which are above these minimum... to do 'more' is to jeopardise the tender.
:face-confused:
The need for the IFA to publicise its work out with the IFA membership, in order to ?show? those that are not members what is happening, why it is worthwhile joining, what it is doing. The list you provided is a simple and worthwhile course.. as is a section on BAJR where the IFA can announce what is going on ? for all to see.
The sticky issue of membership fees as well. Much confusion there? and perhaps a simple statement with examples of how much it would cost and what you get for your cash (remembering that most diggers make a lot less than the 13458 per year ? even if the weekly rate is equivalent) :face-confused:
The IFA should and could be a professional body for all archaeologists (hence my suggestion that I join) but communication is paramount.
Ps?. Although people may rant on this forum (though now under the AUP policy!) BAJR always does positive action?. Whether it is the list of 16 guidance documents (new one on Battlefields coming in a week) or the enforcement of pay levels and the quiet resolutions of disputes (usually comes down to a lack of communication). So rants are turned into positive action.
Another day another WSI?
the recommendation of pay scales and the enactment of these pay levels. (such as refusing to include jobs on the JIS that fall below minimum levels (as BAJR does))
It is good to publish minimum standards, but by making minimum standards it is providing the contract cop out of saying "we have adhered to the minimum requirements." rather than standards which are above these minimum... to do 'more' is to jeopardise the tender.
:face-confused:
The need for the IFA to publicise its work out with the IFA membership, in order to ?show? those that are not members what is happening, why it is worthwhile joining, what it is doing. The list you provided is a simple and worthwhile course.. as is a section on BAJR where the IFA can announce what is going on ? for all to see.
The sticky issue of membership fees as well. Much confusion there? and perhaps a simple statement with examples of how much it would cost and what you get for your cash (remembering that most diggers make a lot less than the 13458 per year ? even if the weekly rate is equivalent) :face-confused:
The IFA should and could be a professional body for all archaeologists (hence my suggestion that I join) but communication is paramount.
Ps?. Although people may rant on this forum (though now under the AUP policy!) BAJR always does positive action?. Whether it is the list of 16 guidance documents (new one on Battlefields coming in a week) or the enforcement of pay levels and the quiet resolutions of disputes (usually comes down to a lack of communication). So rants are turned into positive action.
Another day another WSI?