10th March 2010, 11:34 AM
This initiative appears to be aimed exclusively at field staff and the discussion about this issue across several threads has mentioned Prospect almost to the exclusion of all other unions. Some field archaeologists work in local government units where UNISON would be a more appropriate union to join than any of the others; my original question was raised with that in mind.
A trawl through UNISON's website shows that they don't have a dedicated section for heritage workers but a quick straw poll by telephone of UNISON heritage workers shows that most local government archaeologists originally started their careers in fieldwork and have years if not decades of relevant experience and a commitment to union activism. To use the authority I work for as an example, five of the six members of the Heritage Service are UNISON members and two of those five are elected officials within the branch. That level of commitment and understanding of the issues is representative of local government archaeologists across the country, rather than inviting yet another union (Unite) to be involved, wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the ones we already have?
A trawl through UNISON's website shows that they don't have a dedicated section for heritage workers but a quick straw poll by telephone of UNISON heritage workers shows that most local government archaeologists originally started their careers in fieldwork and have years if not decades of relevant experience and a commitment to union activism. To use the authority I work for as an example, five of the six members of the Heritage Service are UNISON members and two of those five are elected officials within the branch. That level of commitment and understanding of the issues is representative of local government archaeologists across the country, rather than inviting yet another union (Unite) to be involved, wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the ones we already have?