17th December 2006, 08:14 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
....the point is the vast majority of archaeologists are employed in the private sector.
Indeed the vast majority of archaeologists are employed in the private sector, so why do both the IFA and BAJR persist in linking their archaeological wage grades to the Local Government salary scheme? (Rhetorical question really, as it has been asked before and I am sure the last time the answer was 'Because they do!!').
What is worse is that as a result of 'tracking' Local Government wage scales, the annual increase in both BAJR and IFA wage levels is the same as that enjoyed by the lower levels of Local Government employees. As the Chancellor repeatedly tells Local Government negotiators that these increases must not exceed the rate of inflation, archaeology would appear to be stuck in a vicious loop with no hope of real improvement (and certainly no hope of achieving a dignity wage level) whilst Local Government tracking continues.
IF we are stuck with Local Government tracking, how about if the promised review of IFA and BAJR rates actually 'regrades archaeological 'wages to some reasonable point on the LG scales. I would suggest for starters, graduate entry at minimum LG grade 3, LG4 for excavators after 6 months experience for [u]any</u> archaeological employer, LG5 for supervisors and LG6 and above for managers.