5th June 2007, 09:59 PM
As I said there is a need for precision in these matters and for dialogue.
To be picky David Jenning said.
"The policy was discussed at our AGM".
Technically David is incorrect it was not discussed at the AGM and I don't recollect it being an aggenda item. Pay and conditions was discussed at the committee meeting afterwards according to the SCAUM website.
In many ways this does not matter. What does matter is that SCAUM is doing something about pay and conditions. What would be useful if there was a list of employers who endorse the SCAUM statement and the statement published on the SCAUM website.
Indeed David BAJR could you post on the BAJR website a set of the three pay standards we now have in archaeology as a reference guide.
Peter Wardle
To be picky David Jenning said.
"The policy was discussed at our AGM".
Technically David is incorrect it was not discussed at the AGM and I don't recollect it being an aggenda item. Pay and conditions was discussed at the committee meeting afterwards according to the SCAUM website.
In many ways this does not matter. What does matter is that SCAUM is doing something about pay and conditions. What would be useful if there was a list of employers who endorse the SCAUM statement and the statement published on the SCAUM website.
Indeed David BAJR could you post on the BAJR website a set of the three pay standards we now have in archaeology as a reference guide.
Peter Wardle