20th November 2005, 03:37 PM
I would agree with 1man on this: the IFA has very reasonably stated their reasons for their currently recommended wages levels. They link them to the local council wages levels not just because they have been negotiated by unions, but because council units represent a large chunk of RAOs and to set the wages too high too soon would be incredibly damaging to them or the IFA in almost equal measure. Yes, wages are low. Yes, they need to improve. The pace of change cannot be too dramatic if these employers are not to be left behind. From a council perspective, the units are not necessarily a profitable subsection, yet they probably conduct a big chunk of work outside the normal pressures of commercial activity. I know of at least two council units which yearly come under the threat of closure because they are an easy target. I personally would consider the closure of these units to be an absolute disaster as they normally pick up unprofitable jobs which other units simply would not consider. I realise this is a no win situation, I just thought I'd have a rant.:face-confused:
The validation issue is one which is never going to be to the satisfaction of field specialists/site assistants. The issue of link to wages has been dealt with elsewhere - stick with a decent unit and increments in wages will see your wage packet becoming respectable. In my experience of tendering for sites, the issue tended to be have you undertaken work in the area before, was your tender feasable etc. Very rarely did I experience issue because i was an AIFA rather than an MIFA, and when the matter was brought up, normally was dealt with quickly and with little fuss after explaining my level of experience. Other ex colleagues of mine had similar experiences with no IFA acreditation. Leaving the IFA completely aside, direct marketing was normally as important as IFA listing in my experience anyway - right place right time to get the job.
After that it may seem like a contradiction, I really strongly believe that IFA membership should be a priority for everyone in the profession, whatever branch. Get on the committees. Go to the conferences. Make it clear from within that the IFA standards are minimums and get them increased. Nobody would object to better standards as long as they were applied across the board, which higher IFA membership will make more likely because, to look at the issue in a depressingly financial way, higher standards patchily applied will put good units at a disadvantage through higher costs.
(I really have worked in the field)
The validation issue is one which is never going to be to the satisfaction of field specialists/site assistants. The issue of link to wages has been dealt with elsewhere - stick with a decent unit and increments in wages will see your wage packet becoming respectable. In my experience of tendering for sites, the issue tended to be have you undertaken work in the area before, was your tender feasable etc. Very rarely did I experience issue because i was an AIFA rather than an MIFA, and when the matter was brought up, normally was dealt with quickly and with little fuss after explaining my level of experience. Other ex colleagues of mine had similar experiences with no IFA acreditation. Leaving the IFA completely aside, direct marketing was normally as important as IFA listing in my experience anyway - right place right time to get the job.
After that it may seem like a contradiction, I really strongly believe that IFA membership should be a priority for everyone in the profession, whatever branch. Get on the committees. Go to the conferences. Make it clear from within that the IFA standards are minimums and get them increased. Nobody would object to better standards as long as they were applied across the board, which higher IFA membership will make more likely because, to look at the issue in a depressingly financial way, higher standards patchily applied will put good units at a disadvantage through higher costs.
(I really have worked in the field)