10th November 2009, 02:49 PM
In the pre-crash days, there was a common but unstated assumption that we were all working towards a common goal to improve the pay and conditions of all staff and drive up the quality of the archaeological product. As we come out of recession businesses are faced with the problem of how to maintain quality whilst reducing cost, in a market that has no conception of a quality archaeological product. They have been forced to restructure their models to adapt to new realities, and forensically examine their cost base.
The market pressure is on archaeological businesses to maintain a core staff of ?permanent?, experienced employees who are responsible for the final product, and a temporary staff of diggers who generate the raw material of data ? shaped into quality reports and illustrations back in the office. Whereas the cost of permanent employees is quite high (as it must also include for the entire business apparatus), the cost of temporary employees is quite low (as it only needs to be calculated contract to contract). Businesses seek to generate as much mark-up as possible on temporary employees, to off-set the other (barely breaking even, but quality orientated) elements of the business. If this can also be achieved by reducing the wages of temporary employees, businesses will have a competitive advantage in open tender.
This is a very relevant issue, and one that all commercial archaeologists need to carefully consider. It?s more complicated than just saying that manager grade staff should take a pay cut ? in many instances they already have. It also makes no sense to pose this in personal terms. If it?s the difference between eating or starving, people would take any job however badly paid, or at least do anything to keep their current poorly paid job whether that means sacrificing principles or not.
Markets have a heard mentality, and if we have learnt anything of the last 18 months it is that they need a strong regulatory hand. I would look to the IFA for leadership on this issue; the ROA scheme may be a voluntary regulation, but has critical mass and is the only show in town. If the IFA do not enforce compliance with minimum pay standards, prices will fall through the floor.
If the presumption to raise standards for the lowest level of site staff is rejected it has long term implications for the profession; the damage will be lasting, and potentially irreversible.
The market pressure is on archaeological businesses to maintain a core staff of ?permanent?, experienced employees who are responsible for the final product, and a temporary staff of diggers who generate the raw material of data ? shaped into quality reports and illustrations back in the office. Whereas the cost of permanent employees is quite high (as it must also include for the entire business apparatus), the cost of temporary employees is quite low (as it only needs to be calculated contract to contract). Businesses seek to generate as much mark-up as possible on temporary employees, to off-set the other (barely breaking even, but quality orientated) elements of the business. If this can also be achieved by reducing the wages of temporary employees, businesses will have a competitive advantage in open tender.
BAJR Host Wrote:The discussion hinges on whether you feel that pay for junior staff should be frozen or cut - in order to allow companies to continue to be competitive? In principal it is the question... Is it better to have a job for less than no job?
This is a very relevant issue, and one that all commercial archaeologists need to carefully consider. It?s more complicated than just saying that manager grade staff should take a pay cut ? in many instances they already have. It also makes no sense to pose this in personal terms. If it?s the difference between eating or starving, people would take any job however badly paid, or at least do anything to keep their current poorly paid job whether that means sacrificing principles or not.
Markets have a heard mentality, and if we have learnt anything of the last 18 months it is that they need a strong regulatory hand. I would look to the IFA for leadership on this issue; the ROA scheme may be a voluntary regulation, but has critical mass and is the only show in town. If the IFA do not enforce compliance with minimum pay standards, prices will fall through the floor.
If the presumption to raise standards for the lowest level of site staff is rejected it has long term implications for the profession; the damage will be lasting, and potentially irreversible.