4th February 2010, 04:48 PM
Jasper makes some valid points, but I would disagree on one. I don't think that Prospect discriminates against archaeologists because of the size of the section. I am thinking about recent publicity that Prospect has attracted to campaigns by its much smaller 'Football Referees' section and previously to its 'Religious Ministers' and Meterologist sections.
To my mind, and I speak as a previous Branch Secretary of a large Prospect archaeology branch, there is a need to engage the whole union membership (and potential union membership) in every aspect concerned with the workplace, the archaeological site and the wider aims of the union. The union cannot function and won't attract and keep members if it is purely reactive, it has to be proactive. That means health and safety commitees, negotiations with management on jobs and job losses, equality committees, staff grievance committees, workplace learning committees, workplace education, training committess, the national union organisation, inter branch organisations, external trade union work (local campaigns, Trades Council etc etc).
It isn't possible to sit back and say 'Well we don't have any of that so we don't have to bother with it'. It is important for archaeological trade unionists to get across the message that the union is more than just about wages, contracts and job losses. And where the union organisation or workplace organisation is lacking, to campaign to improve things. My take on the failure of trade unions in the archaeological profession is that too many of us have fallen for the trap laid by 'conservative' politicians over the past 30 years. We need as workers to invest time and effort into our future and not to think about such investment in pure short term monetary gains or as to whether we are going to be unpopular in the short term, but as building blocks for our later careers and the careers of archaeologists to come.
(And David is right the same could be applied to the IFA. Rather than the 'what have they ever done for me' attitude wouldn't it be more professional to see that many small steps taken now could become giant leaps in the future....well maybe....)
To my mind, and I speak as a previous Branch Secretary of a large Prospect archaeology branch, there is a need to engage the whole union membership (and potential union membership) in every aspect concerned with the workplace, the archaeological site and the wider aims of the union. The union cannot function and won't attract and keep members if it is purely reactive, it has to be proactive. That means health and safety commitees, negotiations with management on jobs and job losses, equality committees, staff grievance committees, workplace learning committees, workplace education, training committess, the national union organisation, inter branch organisations, external trade union work (local campaigns, Trades Council etc etc).
It isn't possible to sit back and say 'Well we don't have any of that so we don't have to bother with it'. It is important for archaeological trade unionists to get across the message that the union is more than just about wages, contracts and job losses. And where the union organisation or workplace organisation is lacking, to campaign to improve things. My take on the failure of trade unions in the archaeological profession is that too many of us have fallen for the trap laid by 'conservative' politicians over the past 30 years. We need as workers to invest time and effort into our future and not to think about such investment in pure short term monetary gains or as to whether we are going to be unpopular in the short term, but as building blocks for our later careers and the careers of archaeologists to come.
(And David is right the same could be applied to the IFA. Rather than the 'what have they ever done for me' attitude wouldn't it be more professional to see that many small steps taken now could become giant leaps in the future....well maybe....)
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...