8th March 2006, 03:25 PM
Is the fact that other professional institutions (i.e. the teachers architects, surveyors you mention) do not concern themselves with employment issues not due to them perhaps being a stage ahead of where we are? As far as I am aware, basic working conditions, levels of pay etc. are fairly standardised for virtually all professions (within that profession) because these careers/jobs/vocations/professions are more established than archaeology? They have dealt with these issues in the past, and are now able to concentrate on "professional" matters such as codes of conduct, disciplinary procedures and so on. By trying to equate the I.F.A. with its brief history with, say, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (136 year history), the National Association of Head Teachers (founded 1897) or the Royal Institute of British Architects (founded 1837) seems to me to be a little overambitious, and perhaps trying to put the cart before the pony. A professional assocation can only prosper once it has established a level playing field from which it can move forward. I agree with 1man in that the IFA is trying to be professional and deal with professional issues. But my view is that the I.F.A. can only deal fully with these professional issues once everybody within archaeology (or at least an overwhelming majority) are on that same level playing field. Should the first step for a professional institute not be to establish that level playing field, by ensuring that all its members have the same rights and responsibilities?