5th November 2007, 03:20 PM
It does seem that SWAT are attempting to tick all of the 'right' boxes, but maybe they are a little vague regarding the precise
'master-servant' relationship that might be involved. Despite all of SWAT's efforts to avoid being seen as an 'employer', Customs and Revenue are likely to interpret any hint of a 'master-servant' relationship as evidence to the contrary.
But good luck to anyone interested. Biggest problem I can see for any archaeologist becoming involved, is that a genuinely self-employed archaeologist providing their own tools, transport and 'self-sufficiency' in the south of England should probably be asking for a day-rate approaching twice the figure that SWAT are quoting...
'master-servant' relationship that might be involved. Despite all of SWAT's efforts to avoid being seen as an 'employer', Customs and Revenue are likely to interpret any hint of a 'master-servant' relationship as evidence to the contrary.
But good luck to anyone interested. Biggest problem I can see for any archaeologist becoming involved, is that a genuinely self-employed archaeologist providing their own tools, transport and 'self-sufficiency' in the south of England should probably be asking for a day-rate approaching twice the figure that SWAT are quoting...