2nd November 2009, 07:56 PM
chiz Wrote:It must be straightforward to define PIFA level competance, otherwise the whole point of PIFA falls apart.....
Would be lovely to know what that is.... I have talked to the IfA about this - perhaps they would like to comment.
chiz Wrote: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....
As the definition is tricky, it would indeed be.
chiz Wrote: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
see above :face-angel:
Its tricky... and a bit of discussion is under way, with I hope a suitable outcome. At the end of the day, we must move forward. In many cases, I discuss with groups and ensure that staff are paid according to ability and responsibility. Still it could be worse and you could be on 67.50 a day as a self emplotyed person.
I do sincerely hope the IfA and BAJR can work on this and other issues. After all, we are aiming for a strong profession that has opportunity to make a decent level of pay and produce the senior archaeologists of the future.
I have been busy today, and hope people will understand that this is delicate.
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Thomas Rainborough 1647