2nd November 2009, 06:38 PM
The units are (presumably) saying that any inexperienced staff being taken on will be paid a lesser rate (ie the bottom of their scale), whilst those who can demonstrate competance will be paid accordingly. Membership of the IfA at PiFA level is obviously a way of demonstrating competance at Pifa level (by definition), although one assumes that they would have to pay the minima to anyone with equivalent (or greater) experience who didn't happen to be in the IFA.
The problem is that they say they want applicants who are by their own definition of skills and experience what we would call PiFA level staff. If they want a few inexperienced diggers they should clearly state that they are also looking to employ a proportion of entry level graduates or similar.
There were a couple of similar adverts a few months ago that did not even include the Pifa equivalent statement, those were changed to include the Pifa statement shortly after. Presumably after someone complained.
Assuming it is a badly worded advert, and the sub PIFA wage is intended for entry level staff it is still a worrying trend, although I guess the units will say that they are only employing inexperienced staff at the lower rate and that anyone with PIfa equivalence will get the Pifa minima. As long as it is fairly applied (and staff get the pay hike when they achieve equivalence) then technically there should be no problem. I guess the units can say that they are giving those starting out a helping hand onto the bottom rung of the ladder...
I don't see it as 'discriminating' against non-IFA members, merely it is accepting the industry 'benchmark' for basic digging level pay based on the accepted Pifa definition. I imagine they have discussed this with the IFA to ensure compliance with their rules?
It must be straightforward to define PIFA level competance, otherwise the whole point of PIFA falls apart.....I would sincerely hope this is not a backdoor way of paying less experienced staff a lower wage: If this wage was being applied to people who normally would get a Pifa level wage (or in the worst case had worked for the unit before on a Pifa level wage) then that would be a retrograde step and surely against the spirit of the minima. I guess it comes down to how you define PiFA level? and whether working as a PIFA level wage for one unit means you should continue on that wage level for other units? In the last few 'boom years' we all know of new entrees working on the same PIFA wage as more experienced diggers, now it is returning to the old ways, and we risk losing the small increases the lowest level of archaeologists made.
What would be interesting is if anyone with PIFA level competence (but not necessarily a PIFA) had been or was taken on at the lower level. That WOULD be against the IFA code as far as I can see....
Another problem is that although these adverts often offer a fairly wide pay band (eg ?15,300-?16,400), I would imagine that all aplicants will be getting the bottom of the pay band....
PS, Kevin, stop stirring!!
The problem is that they say they want applicants who are by their own definition of skills and experience what we would call PiFA level staff. If they want a few inexperienced diggers they should clearly state that they are also looking to employ a proportion of entry level graduates or similar.
There were a couple of similar adverts a few months ago that did not even include the Pifa equivalent statement, those were changed to include the Pifa statement shortly after. Presumably after someone complained.
Assuming it is a badly worded advert, and the sub PIFA wage is intended for entry level staff it is still a worrying trend, although I guess the units will say that they are only employing inexperienced staff at the lower rate and that anyone with PIfa equivalence will get the Pifa minima. As long as it is fairly applied (and staff get the pay hike when they achieve equivalence) then technically there should be no problem. I guess the units can say that they are giving those starting out a helping hand onto the bottom rung of the ladder...
I don't see it as 'discriminating' against non-IFA members, merely it is accepting the industry 'benchmark' for basic digging level pay based on the accepted Pifa definition. I imagine they have discussed this with the IFA to ensure compliance with their rules?
It must be straightforward to define PIFA level competance, otherwise the whole point of PIFA falls apart.....I would sincerely hope this is not a backdoor way of paying less experienced staff a lower wage: If this wage was being applied to people who normally would get a Pifa level wage (or in the worst case had worked for the unit before on a Pifa level wage) then that would be a retrograde step and surely against the spirit of the minima. I guess it comes down to how you define PiFA level? and whether working as a PIFA level wage for one unit means you should continue on that wage level for other units? In the last few 'boom years' we all know of new entrees working on the same PIFA wage as more experienced diggers, now it is returning to the old ways, and we risk losing the small increases the lowest level of archaeologists made.
What would be interesting is if anyone with PIFA level competence (but not necessarily a PIFA) had been or was taken on at the lower level. That WOULD be against the IFA code as far as I can see....
Another problem is that although these adverts often offer a fairly wide pay band (eg ?15,300-?16,400), I would imagine that all aplicants will be getting the bottom of the pay band....
PS, Kevin, stop stirring!!