17th April 2007, 02:20 PM
Much of this debate appears to have moved way off-topic - it's not so much about 'movement on the living wage', and much more about what curators can and can't do or should and shouldn't do in monitoring standards.
Monitoring and enforcing standards of archaeological work won't have a direct effect on wages, and that is not the reason it is (or should be done). For instance, to use one of the examples previously quoted, if you make sure that the unit doesn't skimp on the required sample of the ditches, that means they may need more staff on site (or the same staff for longer), but does not create any pressure to pay more.
Checking the quality rather than the quantity of work, for instance by inspecting written and drawn records, might help more on the wages front, because there you are dealing with the quality rather than quantity of the staff on site. However, that would require even more time from the curatorial monitors. It would also take them into arguments based on opinion, rather than objectively-measurable quantities.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Monitoring and enforcing standards of archaeological work won't have a direct effect on wages, and that is not the reason it is (or should be done). For instance, to use one of the examples previously quoted, if you make sure that the unit doesn't skimp on the required sample of the ditches, that means they may need more staff on site (or the same staff for longer), but does not create any pressure to pay more.
Checking the quality rather than the quantity of work, for instance by inspecting written and drawn records, might help more on the wages front, because there you are dealing with the quality rather than quantity of the staff on site. However, that would require even more time from the curatorial monitors. It would also take them into arguments based on opinion, rather than objectively-measurable quantities.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished