11th May 2010, 01:00 PM
Ah, am seeing a larger picture now...from peoples contributions here and the employmewnt law and prospects website. Cheers.
But I'm still not sure of how a union could change the face of archaeology on a grand scale (cf. pay and conditions) due to the situation of competetive tendering.
Am I understanding correctly (with respect to this issue of pay) that a union would negotiate with an employer on behalf of the member? So how about the case where a company of say 20 staff has one member of a union. This member is unhappy with his pay, would the union be obliged to negotiate on that single members behalf? Do unions have those kind of resources to cater for every individual...
Or is it a case of larger volumes of people and larger companies? i.e. the majority of archaeologists have to be in a union before anything is likely to happen (on the issue of pay and conditions)
But I'm still not sure of how a union could change the face of archaeology on a grand scale (cf. pay and conditions) due to the situation of competetive tendering.
Am I understanding correctly (with respect to this issue of pay) that a union would negotiate with an employer on behalf of the member? So how about the case where a company of say 20 staff has one member of a union. This member is unhappy with his pay, would the union be obliged to negotiate on that single members behalf? Do unions have those kind of resources to cater for every individual...
Or is it a case of larger volumes of people and larger companies? i.e. the majority of archaeologists have to be in a union before anything is likely to happen (on the issue of pay and conditions)