16th March 2006, 02:15 PM
So the IFA are being widely criticised for proposing a package that is better than the present one. A few points:
Holiday - the IFA proposal that the minimum standard should be 20 days, not including statutory holidays, is better than the legal entitlement (20 days including statutory holidays).
Sick pay - the IFA propose to make the minimum standard a 1-month paid sick leave allowance. At present there is no statutory requirement for paid sick leave, and many employers (in and out of archaeology) do not pay for more than 3 days a year. So, again the proposed IFA minimum standard is better than legal entitlement and common practice.
Pension contribution - the IFA propose that employers either contribute to pensions, or pay more salary as compensation for not doing so. I think that addresses Kevin Wooldridge's point about SERPS.
Working hours - the IFA propose an average working week of 37.5 hours, which is less than many people have to work now.
In each of these items, they propose a scale of financial contribution if the standard is not met (bearing in mind that these standards exceed legal entitlements).
These proposals do not separate the pay scales from LG scales, which I think is necessary. However, they would significantly improve terms of employment for many archaeologists in the UK, without causing a financial loss to compensate. So, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Bear in mind that neither the IFA nor any other public body (not even HM Government) can do more than define a minimum standard. There is nothing to stop RAOs or other employers from exeeding the standard (as my employer, an RAO, does in every respect already).
Nor can the IFA single-handedly resolve all the problems that exist with employment in British archaeology. They can push in the right direction though, and this proposed minimum standard would be a significant step forward from the present position.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Holiday - the IFA proposal that the minimum standard should be 20 days, not including statutory holidays, is better than the legal entitlement (20 days including statutory holidays).
Sick pay - the IFA propose to make the minimum standard a 1-month paid sick leave allowance. At present there is no statutory requirement for paid sick leave, and many employers (in and out of archaeology) do not pay for more than 3 days a year. So, again the proposed IFA minimum standard is better than legal entitlement and common practice.
Pension contribution - the IFA propose that employers either contribute to pensions, or pay more salary as compensation for not doing so. I think that addresses Kevin Wooldridge's point about SERPS.
Working hours - the IFA propose an average working week of 37.5 hours, which is less than many people have to work now.
In each of these items, they propose a scale of financial contribution if the standard is not met (bearing in mind that these standards exceed legal entitlements).
These proposals do not separate the pay scales from LG scales, which I think is necessary. However, they would significantly improve terms of employment for many archaeologists in the UK, without causing a financial loss to compensate. So, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Bear in mind that neither the IFA nor any other public body (not even HM Government) can do more than define a minimum standard. There is nothing to stop RAOs or other employers from exeeding the standard (as my employer, an RAO, does in every respect already).
Nor can the IFA single-handedly resolve all the problems that exist with employment in British archaeology. They can push in the right direction though, and this proposed minimum standard would be a significant step forward from the present position.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished