6th November 2009, 10:26 PM
David, really don't want to get drawn into this....but.
You have defined your G1 and G2 grades, but there is a clear gap between the two:
G1: trainee, nicely defined, but your G2 specifically states that it is 'for a person with from 6 months-1 years work at this [G2] level'. So what happens between your student/trainee grade, and the G2 basic digger grade that demands 6 months experience at that grade before you can be on that very grade?? Catch 22 no? How do you get 6 months work at a level that takes 6 months work to get to? Absurd isn't it!
It is all a confused area at the portals to an archaeological career, acknowledged by your 11 grades, the IfA have taken a different aproach of three grades, (that for field staff do basically fit to Pifa digger, Aifa supervisor/junior PO and Mifa PO/manager)which have to fit all members of the profession. Its two different takes on the same problem.
You say that the IFA system is a mess, fine, they have apparently recently tried to get away from definition of time served, to one based on responsibility, knowledge and skills. They have published a skills matrix defining what you should be expected to do at what grade, and back this up by asking for statement of competance. The applicants handbook defines Pifa as :
PRACTITIONER (blue form) (see section 3)
This is our first level of corporate grade membership, open to those who have
undertaken skilled tasks within the historic environment sector under the guidance of
others, and carried out responsible work under a level of supervision.
Practitioners (PIfAs) also
? have a good working knowledge of key aspects of historic environment practice
? are able to achieve tasks using their own judgment, whilst working under general
supervision
? appreciate complex situations and are able to achieve a partial resolution alone
? see actions as a series of steps and recognise the importance of each role in the
team
so it is demonstrably higher than your G1 grade, and appears pretty similar to your G2 grade. It expects that you don't just walk into Pifa, but have to show some ability/knowledge/experience etc. It is what we would all recognise as 'digger grade'. We have to acknowledge that there are some new archaeologists who are not yet G2/Pifa level.
The problem here is that the advert appears to want applicants that have abilities, skills and experience that we would all see as clearly fitting the Pifa definition, but offers a pay range that at its lowest end is below the IFA minima for such aplicants. It then qualifies this lowest end pay by stating that anyone who is Pifa level will get Pifa minima.
So unless someone who should be getting Pifa wages is given sub Pifa level wages, whats the problem? Maybe they are one of the students who post on here wanting a foot on the ladder?
You have defined your G1 and G2 grades, but there is a clear gap between the two:
G1: trainee, nicely defined, but your G2 specifically states that it is 'for a person with from 6 months-1 years work at this [G2] level'. So what happens between your student/trainee grade, and the G2 basic digger grade that demands 6 months experience at that grade before you can be on that very grade?? Catch 22 no? How do you get 6 months work at a level that takes 6 months work to get to? Absurd isn't it!
It is all a confused area at the portals to an archaeological career, acknowledged by your 11 grades, the IfA have taken a different aproach of three grades, (that for field staff do basically fit to Pifa digger, Aifa supervisor/junior PO and Mifa PO/manager)which have to fit all members of the profession. Its two different takes on the same problem.
You say that the IFA system is a mess, fine, they have apparently recently tried to get away from definition of time served, to one based on responsibility, knowledge and skills. They have published a skills matrix defining what you should be expected to do at what grade, and back this up by asking for statement of competance. The applicants handbook defines Pifa as :
PRACTITIONER (blue form) (see section 3)
This is our first level of corporate grade membership, open to those who have
undertaken skilled tasks within the historic environment sector under the guidance of
others, and carried out responsible work under a level of supervision.
Practitioners (PIfAs) also
? have a good working knowledge of key aspects of historic environment practice
? are able to achieve tasks using their own judgment, whilst working under general
supervision
? appreciate complex situations and are able to achieve a partial resolution alone
? see actions as a series of steps and recognise the importance of each role in the
team
so it is demonstrably higher than your G1 grade, and appears pretty similar to your G2 grade. It expects that you don't just walk into Pifa, but have to show some ability/knowledge/experience etc. It is what we would all recognise as 'digger grade'. We have to acknowledge that there are some new archaeologists who are not yet G2/Pifa level.
The problem here is that the advert appears to want applicants that have abilities, skills and experience that we would all see as clearly fitting the Pifa definition, but offers a pay range that at its lowest end is below the IFA minima for such aplicants. It then qualifies this lowest end pay by stating that anyone who is Pifa level will get Pifa minima.
So unless someone who should be getting Pifa wages is given sub Pifa level wages, whats the problem? Maybe they are one of the students who post on here wanting a foot on the ladder?