6th February 2010, 01:56 PM
piffle, tosh and balderdash...it'll never happen, and here's why....
1. the reason for the miserable, impoverished, unappreciated existence of field archaeologists is due to the utter ineffectuality and uselessness of the IFA.
Its obsession with 'status' and peer-group back-slappery, within the proffesion has eclipsed the important issues of pay and conditions.
Its membership and governing body are made up of academics and people connected with large, private limited units...i know, no names, but we all know who we're dealing with here...
2. The govts' advisor on heritage and such matters is useless and is mired in private business and developer led lobbiests.
3. Units have NO INTEREST in better conditions or pay for their 'temporary' field staff. These workers create the wealth that pays for permanant positions within these units and of course, it is in the interest of units to pay 'us' as little as possible and thus maximise their own profits, which are made in post-ex and in charging for the glossily produced reports.
4. Units DO NOT WANT to employ people with years of experience...why? because they are generally better informed and more skilled tthan the permanant staff, certainly know more than ones who have recently left uni, walked into supervisor/PO jobs with these few units [especially with spurious MAs in site techniques] which recruit large numbers of workers for big projects. Also, more experienced workers tend to be more aware of their rights and units dont want people 'who rock the boat', do they.
5. There is a top down, too many chiefs, structure in many units which makes their ability to compete and pay reasonably very difficult as they are supporting a lot of fatuous and product-less jobs 'in-house'. The allowance of charity status to some units encourages the bad business practise of many units, especially the charity registered ones.
They are not real charities, people at the top earn very well and enjoy very comfy conditions. This should be acknowledged and these units forced to become proper businesses.
6. Units are obsessed with new technology and shiny bits of fancy kit, rather than in training basics. This is why many reports from projects are frankly, nonsense, and the veracity or reliability of a particuular report at a particular site will largely depend on the individual on the ground at the time, usually a lowly supervisor. This contribution will never be acknowledged in the final report.
7. Units cover mistakes in management and poor work practise and training by 'letting people go', and effectively shifting responsibility onto the temporary staff.
8. UK archaeology units are run by people with NO experience in bidding for commercial contracts or in good management practises.
Ten years ago, the sub levels in the UK were higher than they are now, FGS! Unionization will not make any difference, because of the fractured way archaeology in the UK is managed. Private units, charity status ones, together with council and authority units and the various university efforts all makle unified action virtually impossible and workers who do get a name for action will son find themselves looking for other employment outside the profession.
During the 'boom' years, we, as a profession, had developers over a barral, as far as PG16 was concerned and if the IFA had any backbone then, they would have doubled wages overnight and stood their ground until the developers paid up, and they would have.
Now, with the economic situation as it is, there will be no public support for archaeology action and we have lost our chance.
To be honest, after ten years plus in the trade, i do question the use and point of archaeology at all. It is merely providing data for the self serving opionating academics who feed on our work, as locusts on wheat, and after which, we are cast out, as chaff....
As for this site! pah!
1. the reason for the miserable, impoverished, unappreciated existence of field archaeologists is due to the utter ineffectuality and uselessness of the IFA.
Its obsession with 'status' and peer-group back-slappery, within the proffesion has eclipsed the important issues of pay and conditions.
Its membership and governing body are made up of academics and people connected with large, private limited units...i know, no names, but we all know who we're dealing with here...
2. The govts' advisor on heritage and such matters is useless and is mired in private business and developer led lobbiests.
3. Units have NO INTEREST in better conditions or pay for their 'temporary' field staff. These workers create the wealth that pays for permanant positions within these units and of course, it is in the interest of units to pay 'us' as little as possible and thus maximise their own profits, which are made in post-ex and in charging for the glossily produced reports.
4. Units DO NOT WANT to employ people with years of experience...why? because they are generally better informed and more skilled tthan the permanant staff, certainly know more than ones who have recently left uni, walked into supervisor/PO jobs with these few units [especially with spurious MAs in site techniques] which recruit large numbers of workers for big projects. Also, more experienced workers tend to be more aware of their rights and units dont want people 'who rock the boat', do they.
5. There is a top down, too many chiefs, structure in many units which makes their ability to compete and pay reasonably very difficult as they are supporting a lot of fatuous and product-less jobs 'in-house'. The allowance of charity status to some units encourages the bad business practise of many units, especially the charity registered ones.
They are not real charities, people at the top earn very well and enjoy very comfy conditions. This should be acknowledged and these units forced to become proper businesses.
6. Units are obsessed with new technology and shiny bits of fancy kit, rather than in training basics. This is why many reports from projects are frankly, nonsense, and the veracity or reliability of a particuular report at a particular site will largely depend on the individual on the ground at the time, usually a lowly supervisor. This contribution will never be acknowledged in the final report.
7. Units cover mistakes in management and poor work practise and training by 'letting people go', and effectively shifting responsibility onto the temporary staff.
8. UK archaeology units are run by people with NO experience in bidding for commercial contracts or in good management practises.
Ten years ago, the sub levels in the UK were higher than they are now, FGS! Unionization will not make any difference, because of the fractured way archaeology in the UK is managed. Private units, charity status ones, together with council and authority units and the various university efforts all makle unified action virtually impossible and workers who do get a name for action will son find themselves looking for other employment outside the profession.
During the 'boom' years, we, as a profession, had developers over a barral, as far as PG16 was concerned and if the IFA had any backbone then, they would have doubled wages overnight and stood their ground until the developers paid up, and they would have.
Now, with the economic situation as it is, there will be no public support for archaeology action and we have lost our chance.
To be honest, after ten years plus in the trade, i do question the use and point of archaeology at all. It is merely providing data for the self serving opionating academics who feed on our work, as locusts on wheat, and after which, we are cast out, as chaff....
As for this site! pah!