1st December 2009, 03:05 PM
I feel that many of these arguments, while valid, avoid the issue at the core of pay/condition problems: the process of competitive tender. This misguided attempt to introduce market forces to archaeology was always bound to fail. In order for market forces to be effective, there need to exist three preconditions:
a) a demand for the product (in this case archaeology, a demand which has been enshrined in planning law)
b) a range of suppliers (in order for competition to take place)
c) a discerning consumer/customer
Unfortunately, while the reforms of the last two decades have taken care of a) and b), there is no discerning customer for our services. Developers attach no importance WHATSOEVER to the quality of the archaeological work they pay for.
In other industries, if a poor service is provided, customers can and will switch to a supplier who better meets their needs. If Sony began shipping a TV set that failed to function, customers would not buy it, and would turn to a supplier that sold a functioning set. The discerning customer would balance the cost of the different products against the quality of the product they received.
A developer DOES NOT NEED ARCHAEOLOGY! The work we do is of benefit to the nation, not the developer. The developer is simply being asked to pay for it. Of course this has, and will continue to, drive down pay and conditions, as companies vie with each other in a relentless dive to the bottom of both pay scales and professional standards. There is no cost/quality trade-off made. Just cost. As long as competitive tender remains in place, there will be no improvement. None. Ever. Market forces DO NOT WORK WITHOUT A DISCERNING CONSUMER. The only grounds upon which commercial archaeological contractors genuinely 'compete' any more is who can put in the lowest bid.
a) a demand for the product (in this case archaeology, a demand which has been enshrined in planning law)
b) a range of suppliers (in order for competition to take place)
c) a discerning consumer/customer
Unfortunately, while the reforms of the last two decades have taken care of a) and b), there is no discerning customer for our services. Developers attach no importance WHATSOEVER to the quality of the archaeological work they pay for.
In other industries, if a poor service is provided, customers can and will switch to a supplier who better meets their needs. If Sony began shipping a TV set that failed to function, customers would not buy it, and would turn to a supplier that sold a functioning set. The discerning customer would balance the cost of the different products against the quality of the product they received.
A developer DOES NOT NEED ARCHAEOLOGY! The work we do is of benefit to the nation, not the developer. The developer is simply being asked to pay for it. Of course this has, and will continue to, drive down pay and conditions, as companies vie with each other in a relentless dive to the bottom of both pay scales and professional standards. There is no cost/quality trade-off made. Just cost. As long as competitive tender remains in place, there will be no improvement. None. Ever. Market forces DO NOT WORK WITHOUT A DISCERNING CONSUMER. The only grounds upon which commercial archaeological contractors genuinely 'compete' any more is who can put in the lowest bid.