26th February 2008, 12:32 PM
Hi
Does Chartered status automatically mean that an organisation can enforce salaries? I'm not too sure that?s the case. I'm certain that the status is a fantastic bargaining tool in pay discussions and it can assist with salary benchmarking but I don't think it implies automatic pay scales/starting salaries. I'm really not sure if local governments will start paying their archaeologists more because they are chartered.
If the IFA goes down the same route, as Chartered Architect then all that?s required to be chartered is that you pay an annual fee to the professional body. It does not mean that your are better qualified than a non-chartered person as the only other requirement in law is for an architect to be registered with the ARB. To be a registered architect (with the ARB) you have to finish your qualifications.
In that case anybody who gets a degree in archaeology can then be a "registered archaeologist", if they then pay an annual fee they can be a Chartered Archaeologist. How does this solve any problems?
If a more professionally rigours (i.e. IFA membership) route is decided on then will chartering just be a bit more of an "old boy network"? Will all Members (MIFA) automatically be chartered, or will each have to reapply? As many MIFAs were originally self-certified will they be given chartered status just because they say they are skilled enough? Will it actually create a sharper division between non-chartered and chartered salaries with people who may be PIFA now not being considered proper "archaeologists"?
I'm not sure that it is possible to stop non-chartered people carrying out work, so it can't remove the problem of undercutting leading to lower quality work. Its possible that curators could state that only chartered archaeologists can carry out work but I'm not even certain that's legal.
Also what happens if the unit tendering manager isn't chartered but the "responsible" person (i.e. the on-site PO) is? This will places all responsibility for standards etc squarely on the individual chartered archaeologist, meaning that their managers could under budget a project leaving the Chartered PO as the fall guy for any comeback.
Please tell me if I'm wrong on any, or all of my points because I'm quite happy to be in error, and I think I would welcome Chartered Status but I don't think it will solve most of the issues faced by low paid, temporary contracted commercial archaeologists.
Steven
Does Chartered status automatically mean that an organisation can enforce salaries? I'm not too sure that?s the case. I'm certain that the status is a fantastic bargaining tool in pay discussions and it can assist with salary benchmarking but I don't think it implies automatic pay scales/starting salaries. I'm really not sure if local governments will start paying their archaeologists more because they are chartered.
If the IFA goes down the same route, as Chartered Architect then all that?s required to be chartered is that you pay an annual fee to the professional body. It does not mean that your are better qualified than a non-chartered person as the only other requirement in law is for an architect to be registered with the ARB. To be a registered architect (with the ARB) you have to finish your qualifications.
In that case anybody who gets a degree in archaeology can then be a "registered archaeologist", if they then pay an annual fee they can be a Chartered Archaeologist. How does this solve any problems?
If a more professionally rigours (i.e. IFA membership) route is decided on then will chartering just be a bit more of an "old boy network"? Will all Members (MIFA) automatically be chartered, or will each have to reapply? As many MIFAs were originally self-certified will they be given chartered status just because they say they are skilled enough? Will it actually create a sharper division between non-chartered and chartered salaries with people who may be PIFA now not being considered proper "archaeologists"?
I'm not sure that it is possible to stop non-chartered people carrying out work, so it can't remove the problem of undercutting leading to lower quality work. Its possible that curators could state that only chartered archaeologists can carry out work but I'm not even certain that's legal.
Also what happens if the unit tendering manager isn't chartered but the "responsible" person (i.e. the on-site PO) is? This will places all responsibility for standards etc squarely on the individual chartered archaeologist, meaning that their managers could under budget a project leaving the Chartered PO as the fall guy for any comeback.
Please tell me if I'm wrong on any, or all of my points because I'm quite happy to be in error, and I think I would welcome Chartered Status but I don't think it will solve most of the issues faced by low paid, temporary contracted commercial archaeologists.
Steven