18th November 2005, 09:33 AM
Troll, if you go to the actual IFA website you will be able to read the whole document and see what it says about non-permanent staff.
The point is not whether the IFA recommendations give you/us everything we would like, but whether they achieve an improvement over the status quo. These do, because when implemented they will make it mandatory for RAOs to provide some of the benefits not currently offered to many archaeologists in or out of RAOs, or to financially compensate for not providing them.
There are already minima in place for 2005/2006. These new recommendations could not be brought in before 2007, because many employers are in legally binding arrangements that would prevent them from complying.
What do you want the IFA to do - work miracles? They are working to improve pay and conditions, but they can't do it all at once, if they tried to do so it would simply fail. This bit is principally about conditions rather than pay. Look at in an unbiased way and you will see plenty there that is an improvement on current conditions.
On the size of the minima, well, I wouldn't pay anyone that much and in my organisation (which is an RAO) we pay PIFA level people more than the AIFA minimum. However, we are not a field unit and we can charge more for our staff time.
Kevin compares these minima with the current average. Well, he might have a point, but then he is comparing a minimum acceptable level with an average, which is not really valid.
Troll, you say "if the IFA have no role in PPG land who are they to determine wage levels for the mass of us who work in that environment". I am not sure of the relevance of PPG16 here - that is about planning permission, this is about wages. In any case, the IFA are not determining wage levels - the employers do that; the IFA are simply setting a minimum acceptable level for RAOs.
How do you get away with simultaneously complaining that the IFA are not doing enough to improve pay and conditions while saying that it is nothing to do with them?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
The point is not whether the IFA recommendations give you/us everything we would like, but whether they achieve an improvement over the status quo. These do, because when implemented they will make it mandatory for RAOs to provide some of the benefits not currently offered to many archaeologists in or out of RAOs, or to financially compensate for not providing them.
There are already minima in place for 2005/2006. These new recommendations could not be brought in before 2007, because many employers are in legally binding arrangements that would prevent them from complying.
What do you want the IFA to do - work miracles? They are working to improve pay and conditions, but they can't do it all at once, if they tried to do so it would simply fail. This bit is principally about conditions rather than pay. Look at in an unbiased way and you will see plenty there that is an improvement on current conditions.
On the size of the minima, well, I wouldn't pay anyone that much and in my organisation (which is an RAO) we pay PIFA level people more than the AIFA minimum. However, we are not a field unit and we can charge more for our staff time.
Kevin compares these minima with the current average. Well, he might have a point, but then he is comparing a minimum acceptable level with an average, which is not really valid.
Troll, you say "if the IFA have no role in PPG land who are they to determine wage levels for the mass of us who work in that environment". I am not sure of the relevance of PPG16 here - that is about planning permission, this is about wages. In any case, the IFA are not determining wage levels - the employers do that; the IFA are simply setting a minimum acceptable level for RAOs.
How do you get away with simultaneously complaining that the IFA are not doing enough to improve pay and conditions while saying that it is nothing to do with them?
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished