12th December 2009, 11:16 AM
I'm sorry if some of my comments were seen as being unhelpful or perhaps even defeatist; they were meant to be realistic and bluntly honest, the latter two characteristics being sorely needed in this profession - unfortunately, the first two are omnipresent.
For what it's worth (and, for some of you, that won't be very much), I strongly expect any attempt to substantially raise wages will founder in the face of opposition from commercial unit managers. I don't mean to be defeatist or mischeivous, but I am just stating what I believe to be empirically true. When labour was at a premium in certain areas, wages to attract new employees barely matched inflation. Archaeologists who act as employers will simply state now that times are bad, and with increases in taxes, NI contributions and little or no need to attract new employees, wages will not rise. We've seen this bargaining position outlined once or twice in BAJR recently. Then there's the apparent skullduggery occurring in the IfA Council with at least one RO attempting to cut wages. Whilst this was defeated, with many plaudits going to Council, we don't know why it was rejected; other ROs might not have wanted one of their number to gain an advantage over them. And finally, nobody at the top appears to feel any shame about paying these wages. Most archaeological employers pay their field staff a wage which appears to qualify them for Working Tax Credits, a government indicator of chronically low wages. Quite why the wider tax-paying public should have to subsidise an industry which gains its revenue from the construction trade (hardly short of a bob or two) is beyond me and I suspect would baffle the general public, even before one takes account of the skillset of those paid at such a pitifully low level.
About unionisation: most of the larger units do have union membership and representation. In my personal experience, as being (a small) part of unionisation within a sizeable unit, whilst some very modest benefits did appear initially, these quickly tailed off. Pay negotiations, in particular, became tortuous and obfuscatory, a situation which also occurred in at least one other major unit. In short, the benefits of unionisation which bear upon pay seem to me to be limited.
People who want to transform this situation must be applauded and I genuinely wish them all the best. The fact that many of you wish to do it from "from below" is great. But I really do think you have to be prepared to walk from the profession in order to get people to take you seriously; strikes are too short-term and won't work. I don't think that the consensus exists amongst units to raise pay by realistic levels (at least to take people out of those Tax Credit thresholds and really by more). I would, however, love to be proved wrong and wake up with egg on my face in, say, a year's time!!!!
For what it's worth (and, for some of you, that won't be very much), I strongly expect any attempt to substantially raise wages will founder in the face of opposition from commercial unit managers. I don't mean to be defeatist or mischeivous, but I am just stating what I believe to be empirically true. When labour was at a premium in certain areas, wages to attract new employees barely matched inflation. Archaeologists who act as employers will simply state now that times are bad, and with increases in taxes, NI contributions and little or no need to attract new employees, wages will not rise. We've seen this bargaining position outlined once or twice in BAJR recently. Then there's the apparent skullduggery occurring in the IfA Council with at least one RO attempting to cut wages. Whilst this was defeated, with many plaudits going to Council, we don't know why it was rejected; other ROs might not have wanted one of their number to gain an advantage over them. And finally, nobody at the top appears to feel any shame about paying these wages. Most archaeological employers pay their field staff a wage which appears to qualify them for Working Tax Credits, a government indicator of chronically low wages. Quite why the wider tax-paying public should have to subsidise an industry which gains its revenue from the construction trade (hardly short of a bob or two) is beyond me and I suspect would baffle the general public, even before one takes account of the skillset of those paid at such a pitifully low level.
About unionisation: most of the larger units do have union membership and representation. In my personal experience, as being (a small) part of unionisation within a sizeable unit, whilst some very modest benefits did appear initially, these quickly tailed off. Pay negotiations, in particular, became tortuous and obfuscatory, a situation which also occurred in at least one other major unit. In short, the benefits of unionisation which bear upon pay seem to me to be limited.
People who want to transform this situation must be applauded and I genuinely wish them all the best. The fact that many of you wish to do it from "from below" is great. But I really do think you have to be prepared to walk from the profession in order to get people to take you seriously; strikes are too short-term and won't work. I don't think that the consensus exists amongst units to raise pay by realistic levels (at least to take people out of those Tax Credit thresholds and really by more). I would, however, love to be proved wrong and wake up with egg on my face in, say, a year's time!!!!