4th December 2009, 01:16 AM
the invisible man Wrote: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.
Ok, no worries. You are correct, I apologise. I mixed up working conditions and pay, my bad.
You have the same rights as my daughter who is studying for her A levels right now and works part time as a waitress to gain income. You probably may not be surprised that she has also been treated in an unacceptable manner by her employers. That's changed since she has been there.
What is grating me is that you are happy to accept low pay because 'that is the norm'. It doesn't have to be at all.
the invisible man Wrote: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.
What are the difficulties? Are difficulties not challenges that can be overcome with reasoned thought applied to the challenge in hand?
Your right by the way, all industries & professions compete with each other on price. If its the same with science then fair enough. If it it done with a science where the employer (Main contractor) can not grasp, or more importantly, respect what has to be completed within the process of thought over time then you hit a problem with that particular science.
Competitive tendering is not ridiculous when you take into account of bad employment. The first thing that is done is that processes are compromised. That can be H&S issues or conditions, take your pick it affects the worker in the most direct manner.
the invisible man Wrote: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.
Yes they do but do they understand your specialised field? Give me the equivalents between the fields please. They don't understand what is what, trust me on this one they haven't a clue. They destroy and construct for profit, nothing more, nothing less. "If we discover archaeology then it will be covered in concrete within the hour". That was said to me a few years ago. Do you honestly think that people who have studied for degrees in architecture, construction techniques and general building are taught about the needs of archaeology?
the invisible man Wrote: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.
This is where I may have a problem posting my views. To work on a large commercial construction site you have to pass a test. Its multiple choice.
You tell me.
You see a bare electrical wire exposed in a wall.
Do you
A) Touch it to see if it is live
B) Ignore it
C) Cover it with insulating tape and report it as bare
One of the best is this (and I will only put down the first choice).
You see a large hole in a floor in a multi story building
Do you
A) Jump down it to see how deep it is...
So you go on about the higher people in the construction industry, the contract managers, QS' and architects.
I can take them for a ride at my will, when I want to, how I want to.*
Ya see, they just don't understand my profession.
*Its fun
