10th November 2009, 04:52 PM
I voted for the 'no cuts' option.
There are lots of good points raised above. On a couple of them:
archaeology being covered over because 'there's no money left in the pot' - is it also possible that this site went on to further work and so it was not neccesary to excavate at this point?
I've come across sites where people were being charged out at a (for example) project officer rate, but paid as a supervisor. Not on. As suggested above though, the difference in hourly rate covers a lot more than just the staff pay (employers NI, insurance, travel, company overheads to name just four).
The accomodation issue is, I think you'll find, down to the Tax Office suddenly pulling the plug on that by making it taxablle - I think there's at least one very large thread on the old BAJR site about that, so I suggest people go and have a look at that.
Personally, I've been paid pretty much the same (with some small fluctuations)for at least the last 10 years (as I realised when I filled in application forms in the last year). I have taken a lower paid job (not even in archaeoology!) in the last year because it's better than nothing, no-one should have to be in that position.
However why are we asking this question? Is the thought that we can employ 5 archaeologists for the cost of three if we pay them less? That doesn't make any sense. We only need a certain number of archaeologists for the contracts that are around, paying them less in order to charge less doesn't make commercial sense. This is the sort of thnking that led to a lot of small, new organisations going under in the 1990s. A lot of other types of oorganisation have put their staff onto shorter working weeks for set periods of time. Is that what we should be really thinking about? Not asking people to get paid less for the same amount of hours, but working less hours for a while to help with cash flow. Personally, I think it's still a non-starter given the issues of low pay, but at least it would be fairer than just cutting pay.
And finally - people talk about competitive tendering driving down quality and wages. Isn't that what your doing if you take a job that's badly paid?
There are lots of good points raised above. On a couple of them:
archaeology being covered over because 'there's no money left in the pot' - is it also possible that this site went on to further work and so it was not neccesary to excavate at this point?
I've come across sites where people were being charged out at a (for example) project officer rate, but paid as a supervisor. Not on. As suggested above though, the difference in hourly rate covers a lot more than just the staff pay (employers NI, insurance, travel, company overheads to name just four).
The accomodation issue is, I think you'll find, down to the Tax Office suddenly pulling the plug on that by making it taxablle - I think there's at least one very large thread on the old BAJR site about that, so I suggest people go and have a look at that.
Personally, I've been paid pretty much the same (with some small fluctuations)for at least the last 10 years (as I realised when I filled in application forms in the last year). I have taken a lower paid job (not even in archaeoology!) in the last year because it's better than nothing, no-one should have to be in that position.
However why are we asking this question? Is the thought that we can employ 5 archaeologists for the cost of three if we pay them less? That doesn't make any sense. We only need a certain number of archaeologists for the contracts that are around, paying them less in order to charge less doesn't make commercial sense. This is the sort of thnking that led to a lot of small, new organisations going under in the 1990s. A lot of other types of oorganisation have put their staff onto shorter working weeks for set periods of time. Is that what we should be really thinking about? Not asking people to get paid less for the same amount of hours, but working less hours for a while to help with cash flow. Personally, I think it's still a non-starter given the issues of low pay, but at least it would be fairer than just cutting pay.
And finally - people talk about competitive tendering driving down quality and wages. Isn't that what your doing if you take a job that's badly paid?