11th March 2006, 02:15 PM
Far too many archaeological employers are paying close to the minimum amounts that qualify that organisation to advertise jobs on BAJR and qualify for membership as an IFA RAO. I would argue that the ?minimum? wage which underlines qualification for BAJR adverts and IFA RAO status is far too low and needs to be changed.
Both IFA and BAJR minimum scale rates are based on local government scales. Roughly, the PIFA grade equates to scale 2, AIFA scale 3-4, and MIFA scale 5 and above. Why choose these scales? It can hardly be because the vast majority of archaeologists are employed by local authorities. Only one of the big 3 units in UK archaeology are a local government employer.
Most of this is probably historical. Well isn?t that what local government used to pay once upon a time when nearly everyone worked for a local authority? Possibly the case. But on what basis was the original grading arrived at?
In the case of one local authority employer (MoLAS), a grading review carried out in the early 80s concluded that an appropriate LG scale for experienced archaeologists would be grade 4, for supervisors grade 5 and for Project officers and above grade 6.
Other local authority employers seemed to have worked out grading based on a top-down basis. Archaeologists must get paid less that their betters. ?If the county Archaeologist is only on grade 4, how can we possibly pay the diggers any higher. No far better that they are paid less?.
I have heard the claim (from someone that still works for a local authority) that I don?t realise how difficult it is to organise and implement a pay review. I wouldn?t dispute this other than to say that there are local authority employers who have not undertaken an archaeological grading review in over 30 years and it seems to me that they would be unlikely to do so now.
I would argue that it is possible for IFA members to improve their pay rates by the simple device of proposing a motion at the next IFA AGM (September 2006) that the IFA minima for RAOs is raised. I would suggest to a minimum of ?300 pw for PIFA (vaguely LG grade 4), ?350 for AIFA (vaguely LG grade 5) and ?400 for MIFA. I wouldn?t bother with graduations over several years, but go for the ?big bang? effect that at least would create a ?dignity wage? threshold for archaeology.
The IFA ?management? may argue against this, but I am sure that the will of the membership would carry the motion. I don?t forsee a great revolt amongst RAOs. Some RAOs already pay these rates anyway. Those who leave as a protest against paying a living wage may be cutting off their nose to spite their face, particularly those who claim a ?dividend? from RAO membership (said to be worth ?250,000 a year by the head of one of the ?big 3? contracting units). Losing the right to advertise on BAJR might also be a disincentive for some RAOs.
Whilst any IFA member could propose an increase to the IFA minima motion, I would personally like to see it come from the Diggers Forum (which could then also set about canvassing for a ?Yes to a dignity wage? campaign).
Both IFA and BAJR minimum scale rates are based on local government scales. Roughly, the PIFA grade equates to scale 2, AIFA scale 3-4, and MIFA scale 5 and above. Why choose these scales? It can hardly be because the vast majority of archaeologists are employed by local authorities. Only one of the big 3 units in UK archaeology are a local government employer.
Most of this is probably historical. Well isn?t that what local government used to pay once upon a time when nearly everyone worked for a local authority? Possibly the case. But on what basis was the original grading arrived at?
In the case of one local authority employer (MoLAS), a grading review carried out in the early 80s concluded that an appropriate LG scale for experienced archaeologists would be grade 4, for supervisors grade 5 and for Project officers and above grade 6.
Other local authority employers seemed to have worked out grading based on a top-down basis. Archaeologists must get paid less that their betters. ?If the county Archaeologist is only on grade 4, how can we possibly pay the diggers any higher. No far better that they are paid less?.
I have heard the claim (from someone that still works for a local authority) that I don?t realise how difficult it is to organise and implement a pay review. I wouldn?t dispute this other than to say that there are local authority employers who have not undertaken an archaeological grading review in over 30 years and it seems to me that they would be unlikely to do so now.
I would argue that it is possible for IFA members to improve their pay rates by the simple device of proposing a motion at the next IFA AGM (September 2006) that the IFA minima for RAOs is raised. I would suggest to a minimum of ?300 pw for PIFA (vaguely LG grade 4), ?350 for AIFA (vaguely LG grade 5) and ?400 for MIFA. I wouldn?t bother with graduations over several years, but go for the ?big bang? effect that at least would create a ?dignity wage? threshold for archaeology.
The IFA ?management? may argue against this, but I am sure that the will of the membership would carry the motion. I don?t forsee a great revolt amongst RAOs. Some RAOs already pay these rates anyway. Those who leave as a protest against paying a living wage may be cutting off their nose to spite their face, particularly those who claim a ?dividend? from RAO membership (said to be worth ?250,000 a year by the head of one of the ?big 3? contracting units). Losing the right to advertise on BAJR might also be a disincentive for some RAOs.
Whilst any IFA member could propose an increase to the IFA minima motion, I would personally like to see it come from the Diggers Forum (which could then also set about canvassing for a ?Yes to a dignity wage? campaign).