11th April 2006, 10:14 PM
The comparison is usually made with architects and civil engineers and the like - correct me if I'm wrong, but the professional intitutes associasted with those professions [u]do not</u> have to deal with the problem of a large sector of the workforce that is on appalingly low wages. That s the difference.
And if they did, don't you think they might make it a priority to do something about that situation and seek to represent the interests of that section of the workforce? They certainly wouldn't sit back contentedly with the status quo and then expect their low paid colleagues to rush excitedly to their door as the IFA seems to do.
The IFA according to its own charter should represent the interests of all archaeologists: why doesn't it?
And if they did, don't you think they might make it a priority to do something about that situation and seek to represent the interests of that section of the workforce? They certainly wouldn't sit back contentedly with the status quo and then expect their low paid colleagues to rush excitedly to their door as the IFA seems to do.
The IFA according to its own charter should represent the interests of all archaeologists: why doesn't it?