27th October 2006, 03:53 PM
I would like to pick up on the 'duty to profit' element involved in commercial archaeology. I think the difference between a job being done by all-qualified staff as per the best of local rules and it having corners cut is down to how that duty to profit is interpreted.
The small firm has to break even after wages on pretty much all but the most instant jobs. They don't have the luxury of taking the longer view of providing 110% of what's needed or providing 'freebies'. The larger contractors usually have enough budgetary slack to provide those without it impacting on their ability to meet the bills or demonstrate a profit to shareholders etc.
What's the answer? If I knew that, I would be owning my own business instead of working for Pat - but it might have a little something to do with the pay scales.
Yes, it's right that everyone doing Grade 4 work gets Grade 4 cash in their hands - but that is disadvantageous to the smaller contractor unless they can replace part of that with a share option, bonus or such (say 90% rated salary and the remaining 10% being replaced with shares issued to the value of 15%). Allowing smaller contractors to keep their direct cash costs down without ruining the earnings of employees and potential employees will help those smaller contractors to engage enough of the professional staff.
It's a rather simplistic solution, but when it's competition time and it's David Vs Goliath, David needs a gimmick or an edge if he's ever to win. True, it might be said that all the unique selling points of personal service and not being a faceless corporation count - but I doubt they count that much when it comes to dealing with non-archaeologically-minded pursestring-holders.
The quality issue and building a relationship does.
The small firm has to break even after wages on pretty much all but the most instant jobs. They don't have the luxury of taking the longer view of providing 110% of what's needed or providing 'freebies'. The larger contractors usually have enough budgetary slack to provide those without it impacting on their ability to meet the bills or demonstrate a profit to shareholders etc.
What's the answer? If I knew that, I would be owning my own business instead of working for Pat - but it might have a little something to do with the pay scales.
Yes, it's right that everyone doing Grade 4 work gets Grade 4 cash in their hands - but that is disadvantageous to the smaller contractor unless they can replace part of that with a share option, bonus or such (say 90% rated salary and the remaining 10% being replaced with shares issued to the value of 15%). Allowing smaller contractors to keep their direct cash costs down without ruining the earnings of employees and potential employees will help those smaller contractors to engage enough of the professional staff.
It's a rather simplistic solution, but when it's competition time and it's David Vs Goliath, David needs a gimmick or an edge if he's ever to win. True, it might be said that all the unique selling points of personal service and not being a faceless corporation count - but I doubt they count that much when it comes to dealing with non-archaeologically-minded pursestring-holders.
The quality issue and building a relationship does.