5th December 2005, 04:52 PM
Quote:quote:Hi 1man,(posted by Real Job)
Sorry, I have got to get back to work so can't give your point the attention it deserves. But I suppose my key question would be do curators have sufficient resources/power at present to solve the problems afflicting archaeology (to say, e.g, 'you can't use that archaeological contractor because they pay their staff too little')? Even given greater power, they will still be battling against the tendency of the market to drive down wages and conditions and quality.
Two questions in one there, I suppose.
Firstly, do curators have sufficient resources/power?
From experience (and from asking them), I think that they do actually have quite a lot of power (or at least influence), although not all of them realise how much they have and it does vary according to the attitude of the planning authority. However, the power they have is to do with the scope and standard of archaeological work to be done. Their powers over who does the work are limited, and they don't have any power over wages/conditions, other than through potential complaints to the IFA about breaches of the Code of Conduct/By-Laws. They can only do that when the contractor is an RAO or an offending individual is a member of the IFA.
One of the big problems that prevents their power from being exersised properly, in my experience (any curators want to comment?), is resources. They don't usually have enough staff/time to monitor properly, and some of the staff don't have sufficient field experience to do the monitoring properly anyway.
Secondly, should they have power over wages/conditions? I think that is out of their remit, to be honest. Their job is to advise the planning authority on what to make developers do, and monitor the work being done to make sure it happens and is done to standard. Wages and conditions of employment are way outside that remit.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished