3rd December 2009, 11:27 AM
I said; Deep down I suspect that the reason archeological employers pay so badly is simply because they can. Thus, they'd be mad not to.
Davidh said: Can they really? What year are we in again? Does nobody understand employment law here?
Yes, they can. Wilst low, archaeological salaries are above the national minimum wage. It is 2009 and I have reasonable lay grasp of employment law, but I can't speak for anyone else here.
Davidh said: Competitive tendering is all of the reasoning behind bad practise in a science. Competitive tendering is all of the reasoning behind bad employment
We must agree to differ on this. Certainly the artificially created commercial system has many faults, but so do the alternatives - what are they, some form of state or local authority run regional units perhaps? A nice idea but with obvious difficulties. As for tendering being the root of all bad employment, frankly this is ludicrous. Almost every industry and profession follows some form of competetive tendering or at least essentially price based competiton.
Davidh said: Do not hold up all aspects of construction in the tendering field and then relate them to archaeology. It's an impossible equation, an oxymoron if you like. These are not people who have studied for a degree for three years.
No it's not. The commercial archaeology sytem was set up in direct imitation of the construction model: the roles and responsibilties of the various parties are the same - contractor, curator and consultant all have direct equivalents. The standard form of contract is adapted from the ICE (strangely not the JCT). Of course many people in construction have degrees, some rather more than that. Not everyone drives a digger, there are profesionals involved too.
Davidh said: They work machinery or tools like clockwork and that's that.
I have to say I find this more than a little patronising and insulting to your fellow construction workers. A big problem in construction today is the shortage of proper skilled time-served tradesmen, but I would respect everyone for what they do, regardless of its "status". A site needs the big hairy unskilled labourer (of which very few are required in this day and age) as much as the architect, the QS or the contracts manager. Neither is remotely capable of doing the other's job. I have worked with countless tradesmen who are motivated, highly skilled, enthusiastic and take great care and pride in their work, and have worked with me and made suggestions for the improvement of the job. (Yes, some of the other sort as well) I accept and agree however that an archaeological contract employs almost entirely degree (or higher) qualified staff on site, doing physical work as much as mental work. Interestingly though many on here argue that a degree is not essentail or is inappropriate, and support vocational NVQ type qualifications.
Davidh said: Can they really? What year are we in again? Does nobody understand employment law here?
Yes, they can. Wilst low, archaeological salaries are above the national minimum wage. It is 2009 and I have reasonable lay grasp of employment law, but I can't speak for anyone else here.
Davidh said: Competitive tendering is all of the reasoning behind bad practise in a science. Competitive tendering is all of the reasoning behind bad employment
We must agree to differ on this. Certainly the artificially created commercial system has many faults, but so do the alternatives - what are they, some form of state or local authority run regional units perhaps? A nice idea but with obvious difficulties. As for tendering being the root of all bad employment, frankly this is ludicrous. Almost every industry and profession follows some form of competetive tendering or at least essentially price based competiton.
Davidh said: Do not hold up all aspects of construction in the tendering field and then relate them to archaeology. It's an impossible equation, an oxymoron if you like. These are not people who have studied for a degree for three years.
No it's not. The commercial archaeology sytem was set up in direct imitation of the construction model: the roles and responsibilties of the various parties are the same - contractor, curator and consultant all have direct equivalents. The standard form of contract is adapted from the ICE (strangely not the JCT). Of course many people in construction have degrees, some rather more than that. Not everyone drives a digger, there are profesionals involved too.
Davidh said: They work machinery or tools like clockwork and that's that.
I have to say I find this more than a little patronising and insulting to your fellow construction workers. A big problem in construction today is the shortage of proper skilled time-served tradesmen, but I would respect everyone for what they do, regardless of its "status". A site needs the big hairy unskilled labourer (of which very few are required in this day and age) as much as the architect, the QS or the contracts manager. Neither is remotely capable of doing the other's job. I have worked with countless tradesmen who are motivated, highly skilled, enthusiastic and take great care and pride in their work, and have worked with me and made suggestions for the improvement of the job. (Yes, some of the other sort as well) I accept and agree however that an archaeological contract employs almost entirely degree (or higher) qualified staff on site, doing physical work as much as mental work. Interestingly though many on here argue that a degree is not essentail or is inappropriate, and support vocational NVQ type qualifications.