20th March 2006, 02:38 PM
From Real Job:
As for 'voting with your feet', you can only go where there is work available. Units paying less will have an advantage in tendering, and will win more tenders than a better paying unit. They will have jobs to dish out, and the other unit won't, no matter how many people want to work there.
So, the current operation of the market in archaeology is to depress wages, and the IFA minima help to mitigate that effect. If they are placed too high, they would become less effective, because they would increase the competitive disadvantage and more units would ignore them.
The market in archaeological labour works this way because (notwithstanding local or temporary variations) it is generally a 'buyer's market'; i.e. on a national basis there are more young archaeologists looking for work and experience than there are jobs for them. One potential solution would be to reduce the number of undergraduate places in archaeology at university; the labour supply would be reduced, and it would become a 'buyer's market', forcing employers to pay more.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:I think there are problems with the argument that says its the market that sets the pay rate in archaeology, and that the IFA minimums do not make any difference:You point out that there are plenty of people willing to work for less than the IFA rates. Taken together with the rest of your arguments, the logic that follows is that, if the IFA minima have a real influence on pay, it is to prevent some employers from paying even less (which is what they were brought in for).
1) The vast majority of units pay at or very near to the IFA recommended minimums....
...it seems the IFA minimums do have an effect on wages.
...In some instances, new graduates would be willing to work for much less in order to get their foot in the door .... Thats because units have a long term idea of what wages they should be paying from which they do not want to deviate - and they largely use the IFA minimums as that yardstick.
3) Some units (not many) seem to be able to pay better rates than the IFA rates ... they compete alongside units that pay less ... the only difference with such 'rogue' units is that they are unwilling to be bound by the IFA rates.
... it is clear that the IFA rates have an intimate connection with the archaeology market. And just as its rates set the level at which archaeology wages tend to cluster, their existence also discourages units from paying more.
As for 'voting with your feet', you can only go where there is work available. Units paying less will have an advantage in tendering, and will win more tenders than a better paying unit. They will have jobs to dish out, and the other unit won't, no matter how many people want to work there.
So, the current operation of the market in archaeology is to depress wages, and the IFA minima help to mitigate that effect. If they are placed too high, they would become less effective, because they would increase the competitive disadvantage and more units would ignore them.
The market in archaeological labour works this way because (notwithstanding local or temporary variations) it is generally a 'buyer's market'; i.e. on a national basis there are more young archaeologists looking for work and experience than there are jobs for them. One potential solution would be to reduce the number of undergraduate places in archaeology at university; the labour supply would be reduced, and it would become a 'buyer's market', forcing employers to pay more.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished