17th March 2006, 01:57 PM
Mercenary said
From what I can see 3 months non-commercial experience seems to be inadequate for most jobs advertised at Site Assistant 2 level on BAJR. Most adverts request a minimum of 6 months commercial experience. As far as I am aware this particular RAO unit do not have the lower paid trainee position on their pay scale and the Site Assistant 2 is the pay entry level.
After this contract and a few months of unemployment, job applications, letter writing, phone calls direct to units, etc., I was finally offered a job with another unit (non-RAO) in the region. This time my lack of commerical experience did seem to matter and I was taken on as a Trainee with a probationary period of 1 month, which I passed and was then on a semi-permanent contract. The pay rate was somewhere in between Site assistant 1 and 2. Of course I took the job as it was my first decent break into the profession. I was there for around 4 months before I left voluntarily (but that is a whole other story for another thread, perhaps!).
I didn't see the extra 0.54 per hour as a perk. It was holiday pay, no more, no less and I have never said otherwise. In reality it wouldn't have made any difference to my final wage packet as it would have been the same amount whether paid as it was or if I had been paid for the 2 weeks, plus 0.835 days pay for untaken leave on top. It is simple maths !
You are quite correct that I didn't need time off because I was going to be unemployed again afterwards. As I said before, it was stated in my offer letter than time off could still be taken, with the agreement of the project manager. For a 2 week contract my own personal work ethic and sense of repsonsibility to my employer would prevent me from asking for time off, unless I had some sort of domestic crisis to deal with !
I have never implied I think the wage levels in archaeology are fine. They are most certainly not. My post was in answer to an implication that a certain RAO was using holiday pay to mask paying under the IFA agreed levels. They were not and are not to my knowledge and experience.
As far as I am concerned I was put on the appropriate pay for my level of experience, according to the agreed and established responsbility grade/level. If I entered any other profession with the minimum experience I would expect to be paid the minimum on the scale and work my way up from there. The fact that the pay on those scales is ridiculously low is another point entirely and I completely agree they need to be raised substantially across the board. The actual grade/responsibility scale seems fine, but the pay is not.
I hope this explains my position a little more clearly.
Quote:quote:- Three months experience is quite a lot when starting out in commercial archaeology. It is certainly not worthy of a trainee position. Would you have accepted a trainee position and wage?
From what I can see 3 months non-commercial experience seems to be inadequate for most jobs advertised at Site Assistant 2 level on BAJR. Most adverts request a minimum of 6 months commercial experience. As far as I am aware this particular RAO unit do not have the lower paid trainee position on their pay scale and the Site Assistant 2 is the pay entry level.
After this contract and a few months of unemployment, job applications, letter writing, phone calls direct to units, etc., I was finally offered a job with another unit (non-RAO) in the region. This time my lack of commerical experience did seem to matter and I was taken on as a Trainee with a probationary period of 1 month, which I passed and was then on a semi-permanent contract. The pay rate was somewhere in between Site assistant 1 and 2. Of course I took the job as it was my first decent break into the profession. I was there for around 4 months before I left voluntarily (but that is a whole other story for another thread, perhaps!).
Quote:quote: - You were being paid the absolute minimum that they were allowed to by following then current employment law and the IFA minimum pay as an RAO. The supplement was not a perk in any way except for those who want to sell their health for money. Perhaps you didn't need the time off because you were going to be unemployed after 2 weeks.
I didn't see the extra 0.54 per hour as a perk. It was holiday pay, no more, no less and I have never said otherwise. In reality it wouldn't have made any difference to my final wage packet as it would have been the same amount whether paid as it was or if I had been paid for the 2 weeks, plus 0.835 days pay for untaken leave on top. It is simple maths !
You are quite correct that I didn't need time off because I was going to be unemployed again afterwards. As I said before, it was stated in my offer letter than time off could still be taken, with the agreement of the project manager. For a 2 week contract my own personal work ethic and sense of repsonsibility to my employer would prevent me from asking for time off, unless I had some sort of domestic crisis to deal with !
Quote:quote: - Even the staunchest IFA defenders on this messageboard seem to agree that the IFA minima are set far too low. Many of us are campaigning to raise them. You, with all due respect, seem happy with your employer paying the minimum. One question - Why?
I have never implied I think the wage levels in archaeology are fine. They are most certainly not. My post was in answer to an implication that a certain RAO was using holiday pay to mask paying under the IFA agreed levels. They were not and are not to my knowledge and experience.
As far as I am concerned I was put on the appropriate pay for my level of experience, according to the agreed and established responsbility grade/level. If I entered any other profession with the minimum experience I would expect to be paid the minimum on the scale and work my way up from there. The fact that the pay on those scales is ridiculously low is another point entirely and I completely agree they need to be raised substantially across the board. The actual grade/responsibility scale seems fine, but the pay is not.
I hope this explains my position a little more clearly.