16th September 2010, 11:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 16th September 2010, 11:15 PM by vulpes.)
Quote:to be an RO and open yourself up to scrutiny...
hmmm...
Quote:with BAJR the criteria is based on ok till I find out different.
With respect, that's purely reactive and hardly an improvement on the Yellow Pages. Fair pay and conditions, although important to employees, do not necessarily equate to good standards of archaeological work.
I know which approach I'd be more comfortable with as someone procuring an archaeological service.
Quote:BAJR's vetted employer list is and was a benchmark towards improving pay and conditions in archaeololgy and its criteria or sorts was adopted by the IfA
Quote:If you read my post again, you'll see I was referring to pay and conditions...So I'm just supposed to ignore the first bit of that sentence am I? My post was to highlight that the IfA has had a 'vetted employer list' since 1996 it's called the Registered Organisations scheme.
Quote:I am self employed, I am happy with it, and I am not an ROAye good for you, I wouldn't expect a sole trader to be an RO. But corporate IfA membership commensurate with the work they're taking on would be a good thing. :face-approve:
Quote:why should some curatorial staff be forced to accept only ROs to conduct archaeological work in their area when non-RO units have functioned perfectly well and without cause for complaint?
I don't know, and having too much time on my hands I've scoured this thread for a reference to curatorial staff being 'forced' to do this, to no avail. Interesting scenario Sparks, but is that actually happening anywhere? :face-huh: