24th March 2011, 05:55 PM
Ok, Unit first. You might well see a difference in price but it wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with it being a charity as much as the actual financial capability of the company and the local competition. I've worked on enough jobs where I've been working for a large archaeology charity/company where they've won the job while tendering at a higher price because of they're ability to carry the financial risk. I've also worked for non-charities and not won tenders on the same basis or visa versa on both counts. It will depend on the capability of the company, not what it is and companies may take the opportunity to use loss-leading tactics like doing DBAs for free on the proviso that they'll be considered for any follow-on work because they can carry the financial risk. That has everything to do with the health of their accounts but not necessarily their status (unless they're incorperating odd aspects like substituting paid 'pros' with volunteers which is ethically dubious in the extreme and becomes complicated but might look good in light of community commitments etc).
RedEarth: You're quite right, that does sound very strange on the face of it. I assume any real example you may be alluding to features substantially higher figures than that but based on that, yes, I don't understand it unless the 25% is accounted for in something like a pensions defecit. In that instance it obviously wouldn't amount to an operating cost (hence wouldn't require paying) but its simply offset against the accounts so appears as a loss.
------If the ?400k figure is a real one then I might be getting what you're hinting at and if it is the situation I'm thinking of (and have perhaps alluded to in a previous paragraph) then its essentially to do with subsidising a commercial arm with a different aspect of commercial operation, all of which falls under a charitable status of one kind or another. Its also pretty unique to that situation and I personally don't like it at all but not because its a charity as such......but then we might be talking at completely cross purposes here. Message me if you like.------
I might add that I'm not suggesting profits are creamed off by greedy directors, but they can be if the said directors want regardless of the reasonable obligations to anyone else, up to the point of their ability to pay debts. As for competative tendering environments and similar markets, the difference in the way companies operate is often what allows them to make money in otherwise unforgiving markets and that includes using charitable status. Sure, if everyone was the same and operated in the same way (and was able to operate in the same way) without exploiting niches and other aspects or assets, it would be much simpler, there would probably be fewer companies, higher pay as a result of the fewer companies allbeit with less archaeologists working in the sector as a whole (perhaps with lower unemployment as a result of that)........or some other combination of those and other factors. But that isn't the case.
As for charities undertaking dodgy financial deeds - the regulations prevent them from doing so or at least should do. If they are still doing that and the regulations are not being enforced, report them to the charities commission. I'm not saying companies and charities don't flout the rules, I'm saying their charitable status is not what allows them to do it and doesn't really give them more leeway beyond the obvious tax breaks in return for charitable work (in theory). There is also an ultimate comeback which is the auditting system and allows the charities commission (either of their own accord or when prompted by a third party) to monitor and assess the financial state of the company. if you think there is something to raise with them, do it.
My original point was more about the way we see big companies and big charities operating in archaeology and whether it is fair to label them negatively in the way that many people do. The reality is that the negative aspects of working in this market are often determined by either the parameters of the market itself or issues attributable to a range of companies that work in it, not simply big charitable trusts. I still think that is the case. The big independents contribute to the problems with standards, wages and Ts&Cs as much as the charities and the smaller ones. There are some parameters and some things about this market that we can dismiss as being bad to the cows come home but won't achieve anything by it. If we want to improve things we have to do it within those parameters or completely outside of them. Unfortunately, that doesn't help small independents and one or two-man-bands who simply have to find a niche or flex there way into any gaps available with the risk being loaded entirely onto themselves. Unfortunately, that's the way the economics of this industry, like many others, work.
RedEarth: You're quite right, that does sound very strange on the face of it. I assume any real example you may be alluding to features substantially higher figures than that but based on that, yes, I don't understand it unless the 25% is accounted for in something like a pensions defecit. In that instance it obviously wouldn't amount to an operating cost (hence wouldn't require paying) but its simply offset against the accounts so appears as a loss.
------If the ?400k figure is a real one then I might be getting what you're hinting at and if it is the situation I'm thinking of (and have perhaps alluded to in a previous paragraph) then its essentially to do with subsidising a commercial arm with a different aspect of commercial operation, all of which falls under a charitable status of one kind or another. Its also pretty unique to that situation and I personally don't like it at all but not because its a charity as such......but then we might be talking at completely cross purposes here. Message me if you like.------
I might add that I'm not suggesting profits are creamed off by greedy directors, but they can be if the said directors want regardless of the reasonable obligations to anyone else, up to the point of their ability to pay debts. As for competative tendering environments and similar markets, the difference in the way companies operate is often what allows them to make money in otherwise unforgiving markets and that includes using charitable status. Sure, if everyone was the same and operated in the same way (and was able to operate in the same way) without exploiting niches and other aspects or assets, it would be much simpler, there would probably be fewer companies, higher pay as a result of the fewer companies allbeit with less archaeologists working in the sector as a whole (perhaps with lower unemployment as a result of that)........or some other combination of those and other factors. But that isn't the case.
As for charities undertaking dodgy financial deeds - the regulations prevent them from doing so or at least should do. If they are still doing that and the regulations are not being enforced, report them to the charities commission. I'm not saying companies and charities don't flout the rules, I'm saying their charitable status is not what allows them to do it and doesn't really give them more leeway beyond the obvious tax breaks in return for charitable work (in theory). There is also an ultimate comeback which is the auditting system and allows the charities commission (either of their own accord or when prompted by a third party) to monitor and assess the financial state of the company. if you think there is something to raise with them, do it.
My original point was more about the way we see big companies and big charities operating in archaeology and whether it is fair to label them negatively in the way that many people do. The reality is that the negative aspects of working in this market are often determined by either the parameters of the market itself or issues attributable to a range of companies that work in it, not simply big charitable trusts. I still think that is the case. The big independents contribute to the problems with standards, wages and Ts&Cs as much as the charities and the smaller ones. There are some parameters and some things about this market that we can dismiss as being bad to the cows come home but won't achieve anything by it. If we want to improve things we have to do it within those parameters or completely outside of them. Unfortunately, that doesn't help small independents and one or two-man-bands who simply have to find a niche or flex there way into any gaps available with the risk being loaded entirely onto themselves. Unfortunately, that's the way the economics of this industry, like many others, work.