18th November 2005, 10:05 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
I fear that the RAO`s will accept, tiz in their financial interests after all.
Interesting point. Is it in the financial interest of RAOs to accept this deal?
There are currently 12 RAOs who have advertised experienced digger posts at or above the industry average wage of ?278 per week. There are 17 RAOs offering wages below that level.
It seems to me that if I were a senior manager of an RAO paying above the current average experienced digger wage (and I know that some of you 'lurk' on this site!!) I might ask myself why the IFA should be 'legitimising' competitor units who seek to undercut the fianacial value of my units work. I might be tempted to express oppposition to these proposals because I actually want to see a high value, high wage archaeological industry where good firms prosper and the bad firms go to the wall. I might also ask myself what is RAO status worth if all it does is propogate bad practice, low wages and disenchantment amongst the workeforce.
So perhaps there is still some hope that RAOs will reject this deal.
1man1desk says it is invalid to compare the average archaeological wage with the proposed minima. I don't see that. The average wage is calculated across the industry including both RAO and non RAOs. My point is that as the standard bearers for 'best practice' the IFA should be campaigning for it's registered organisations to be in the top percentage regarding pay and conditions rather than propping up the industry. It ought to be at least a given surely that RAOs pay the 'average' archaeological wage.