11th July 2008, 10:57 AM
As someone on the inside,of both the old and new, it's been interesting following this thread.
What can I tell you? Well, for starters - OA weren't the largest organisation that expressed an interest in our externalisation. In terms of annual turnover and staffing levels, there was a substantially larger organisation - but the majority of staff, including myself, felt that OA were the only interested body that shared the same work ethic culture, commitment to open archaeology and whose standards were more akin to our own.
All staff have been transfered under TUPE, retaining our terms and conditions of employment, pensions etc. There may well be a harmonisation of pay grades and scales at some point - but then it will be up to individual staff as to whether or not they wish to take up an OA contract of employement or remain with the terms and conditions that were transfered under TUPE.
As to the question of monopoly and whether this is a good or bad for the profession.....does anyone out there really think the rise of competative tendering was a good thing for the archaeology we investigate? If you need to cut tenders to the bone to win contracts, something has to give if you end up bitting off more than you can chew.
Unitof1...
SLA/ALSF - subsidies??!! Tell me - what's the difference between entering into an agreement to provide a service to a local authority and providing a service to a housing developer, quarry company, EH, or the various framework agreements that are starting to spring up?
Yes - we did have a lot of pensions walking around, we still do.
Backlog? You know, what I find interesting is the number of times during this externalisation process that concern was expressed to me on the outside about liabilitiy of and commitment to backlog - and how those that did, didn't once raise concerns of staffing, commitment to outreach, standards etc.
Looking forward to seeing the charity accounts? Look forward to seeing your own.
ShadowJack
What can I tell you? Well, for starters - OA weren't the largest organisation that expressed an interest in our externalisation. In terms of annual turnover and staffing levels, there was a substantially larger organisation - but the majority of staff, including myself, felt that OA were the only interested body that shared the same work ethic culture, commitment to open archaeology and whose standards were more akin to our own.
All staff have been transfered under TUPE, retaining our terms and conditions of employment, pensions etc. There may well be a harmonisation of pay grades and scales at some point - but then it will be up to individual staff as to whether or not they wish to take up an OA contract of employement or remain with the terms and conditions that were transfered under TUPE.
As to the question of monopoly and whether this is a good or bad for the profession.....does anyone out there really think the rise of competative tendering was a good thing for the archaeology we investigate? If you need to cut tenders to the bone to win contracts, something has to give if you end up bitting off more than you can chew.
Unitof1...
SLA/ALSF - subsidies??!! Tell me - what's the difference between entering into an agreement to provide a service to a local authority and providing a service to a housing developer, quarry company, EH, or the various framework agreements that are starting to spring up?
Yes - we did have a lot of pensions walking around, we still do.
Backlog? You know, what I find interesting is the number of times during this externalisation process that concern was expressed to me on the outside about liabilitiy of and commitment to backlog - and how those that did, didn't once raise concerns of staffing, commitment to outreach, standards etc.
Looking forward to seeing the charity accounts? Look forward to seeing your own.
ShadowJack