10th November 2009, 08:05 PM
I have several comments to make on the IfA statement.
I should declare that I have been a member of the IfA for over 20 years and therefore feel justified in making comment and I am happy to do so on BAJR due to the lack of an equivalant IfA forum.
In the first instance, I am happy that this attempt by RAOs to change IfA policy on pay minima has been thrown out. But the fact that it has happened at all is very worrying. The IfA held its AGM as recently as September, but the RAO promoters of this proposition obviously felt unable to present this as a motion to the general membership of the Institute and instead tried to force it through by talking to a few buddies on IfA council. That is totally outrageous!! As Gerry Wait reminds us, in the final paragraph of the IfA statement, the IfA is a democratic body. This suggests to me the proposers of this suggestion should be reminded of the IfA constitution and perhaps sent to democracy re-education!! Such actions hardly promote themselves to an already disillusioned and frankly sceptical archaeological profession.
My second point arises directly from the first. At what point does IfA council feel able to take such a significant step as announcing a pay freeze without presenting the proposition to the membership? Again Gerry if you want to demonstrate democracy within the IfA, put it to the vote. If we cant wait until next September's AGM, lets have a special meeting to discuss this matter and to formulate a propsition for the whole of the membership to vote upon.
Thirdly what does a proposed pay freeze in 2010/11 do to the previous IFA plan to increase pay levels by a minimum of 13% by 2013?
And finally (for now), I kinda think that including a small detail in this memo regarding the IfA ?major campaign ?..to encourage local planning and national heritage bodies to exercise their powers to require archaeological work to be undertaken by (IfA) Registered Organisations? is slightly detracting from the main point. I am not necessarily against such a campaign, but again feel that the membership as a whole should be consulted. What of those IfA members not employed by RAOs who stand to lose work as a result?. Are we not worthy of consultation? This smacks of Labour Party practice of burying bad news in other bad news?.
:face-crying:
I should declare that I have been a member of the IfA for over 20 years and therefore feel justified in making comment and I am happy to do so on BAJR due to the lack of an equivalant IfA forum.
In the first instance, I am happy that this attempt by RAOs to change IfA policy on pay minima has been thrown out. But the fact that it has happened at all is very worrying. The IfA held its AGM as recently as September, but the RAO promoters of this proposition obviously felt unable to present this as a motion to the general membership of the Institute and instead tried to force it through by talking to a few buddies on IfA council. That is totally outrageous!! As Gerry Wait reminds us, in the final paragraph of the IfA statement, the IfA is a democratic body. This suggests to me the proposers of this suggestion should be reminded of the IfA constitution and perhaps sent to democracy re-education!! Such actions hardly promote themselves to an already disillusioned and frankly sceptical archaeological profession.
My second point arises directly from the first. At what point does IfA council feel able to take such a significant step as announcing a pay freeze without presenting the proposition to the membership? Again Gerry if you want to demonstrate democracy within the IfA, put it to the vote. If we cant wait until next September's AGM, lets have a special meeting to discuss this matter and to formulate a propsition for the whole of the membership to vote upon.
Thirdly what does a proposed pay freeze in 2010/11 do to the previous IFA plan to increase pay levels by a minimum of 13% by 2013?
And finally (for now), I kinda think that including a small detail in this memo regarding the IfA ?major campaign ?..to encourage local planning and national heritage bodies to exercise their powers to require archaeological work to be undertaken by (IfA) Registered Organisations? is slightly detracting from the main point. I am not necessarily against such a campaign, but again feel that the membership as a whole should be consulted. What of those IfA members not employed by RAOs who stand to lose work as a result?. Are we not worthy of consultation? This smacks of Labour Party practice of burying bad news in other bad news?.
:face-crying:
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...