4th December 2009, 01:30 PM
Ok David, I think we may have been at cross purposes on on one or two points. For example, yes pay is bad but legal, but yes working conditions often, shall we say, flirt with illegality. It would certainly be ideal if people wouild simply walk off site if matters cannot be resolved. I think we are making the same point about low pay, it is paid because it is accepted. But the alternative is for everyone to resign and take up alternative employment, and not come back until jobs are advertised at (say) 500 a wek min. I'd love to see this happen, but rather doubt that it will. Maybe David C's approach of softly softly coaxing levels is best, but the recession has rather inerefered.
Difficulties with state organized regional units include the lack of transparency for the developer: he has no way of knowing that the price or contract period are reasonable, and to be frank, they probably won't be.
Science works to budgets, funding has to come from somewhere even for pure research: granted this is not commercial as such but much scince is essentially commercial, even if carried out by universties - for example drug testing. Incidentally the Employer is not the Main Contractor: those two are the two parties to the Main Contract i.e. the client, or developer, and the builder. I do agree there is often a communication problem - very few people actually realise that archaeology is carried out commercially at all. Part of this is archaeology's fault: we have in part a captive client so to speak: the work has to be done, we need more teeth from curators, consultants and indeed contractors alike. We need to fight our corner more, I agree with you there. It is easy for an employee to say of course, but a bit harder if you're running the firm and desperate to win contracts.
I have mentioned the direct equivalents on a another thread. In short, curator = planner (and in effect also building control); consultant = architect (and QS); contractor = contractor; specialists more or less = subcontractors. Obviously developers and building contractors work for profit, they wouldn't exist otherwise. Archaeological contractors also work for profit, like any other construction related contracting industry. I am aware that heritage legislation has a minimal part(if any) im most construction professional's education, but some are more aware than others, and they pretty soon find out when a condition is applied. I was in architecture for 30 years and only once was an archaeological condition appplied to a planning consent. I know others who have thenm on most of their applications: it depends on your field. Obviously the developer is likely to want to minimise time and cost on archaeology: they want to on the entire design and construction process, they are fighting their corner (that's why design services and construction are all (generally) tendered). I think you and I are in agreement that archaeology should do so, better, too. And to be honest it works both ways, archaoelogists (and most builders) have little actual clue what an architect really does, or how or why. We are all in our niches.
I don't really follow your arguments about construction site staff. Yes I know the CSCS card is absurdly simple, I have one myself, but that is not all you need. Sure you don't need anything other than muscle to be a labourer, but other trades all require varying degrees (pardon the pun!) of training and/or qulaification and/or experience. To be honest we must have been on very different construction sites in recent decades, iny experience there are very few traditional labourers on site these days.
However, I'm not trying to suggest that everyone on site has a degree or an academic background as do most (not all) archaeologists. I (and others) are comparing archaeological wages with those in construction because commercial archaeology is part of the construction industry.
I'm not sure who you are saying you can take for a ride at will. I don't know what your position in construction was/is, but I have to say that I find this unlikely.
I have posted some thoughts several times before on archaeological contracting methodolgy so won't do so again.
Difficulties with state organized regional units include the lack of transparency for the developer: he has no way of knowing that the price or contract period are reasonable, and to be frank, they probably won't be.
Science works to budgets, funding has to come from somewhere even for pure research: granted this is not commercial as such but much scince is essentially commercial, even if carried out by universties - for example drug testing. Incidentally the Employer is not the Main Contractor: those two are the two parties to the Main Contract i.e. the client, or developer, and the builder. I do agree there is often a communication problem - very few people actually realise that archaeology is carried out commercially at all. Part of this is archaeology's fault: we have in part a captive client so to speak: the work has to be done, we need more teeth from curators, consultants and indeed contractors alike. We need to fight our corner more, I agree with you there. It is easy for an employee to say of course, but a bit harder if you're running the firm and desperate to win contracts.
I have mentioned the direct equivalents on a another thread. In short, curator = planner (and in effect also building control); consultant = architect (and QS); contractor = contractor; specialists more or less = subcontractors. Obviously developers and building contractors work for profit, they wouldn't exist otherwise. Archaeological contractors also work for profit, like any other construction related contracting industry. I am aware that heritage legislation has a minimal part(if any) im most construction professional's education, but some are more aware than others, and they pretty soon find out when a condition is applied. I was in architecture for 30 years and only once was an archaeological condition appplied to a planning consent. I know others who have thenm on most of their applications: it depends on your field. Obviously the developer is likely to want to minimise time and cost on archaeology: they want to on the entire design and construction process, they are fighting their corner (that's why design services and construction are all (generally) tendered). I think you and I are in agreement that archaeology should do so, better, too. And to be honest it works both ways, archaoelogists (and most builders) have little actual clue what an architect really does, or how or why. We are all in our niches.
I don't really follow your arguments about construction site staff. Yes I know the CSCS card is absurdly simple, I have one myself, but that is not all you need. Sure you don't need anything other than muscle to be a labourer, but other trades all require varying degrees (pardon the pun!) of training and/or qulaification and/or experience. To be honest we must have been on very different construction sites in recent decades, iny experience there are very few traditional labourers on site these days.
However, I'm not trying to suggest that everyone on site has a degree or an academic background as do most (not all) archaeologists. I (and others) are comparing archaeological wages with those in construction because commercial archaeology is part of the construction industry.
I'm not sure who you are saying you can take for a ride at will. I don't know what your position in construction was/is, but I have to say that I find this unlikely.
I have posted some thoughts several times before on archaeological contracting methodolgy so won't do so again.