4th August 2011, 03:35 PM
BAJR Wrote:i think what we see from this is that a framework for archaeology posts and the resposibility attached to said post (inc progression) would be useful. i did once consider creating this, however was informed that i would have difficulty in enforcing it...and had no right too... fair enough.
it should be pointed out that this post is not for the only person doing it... but for the most junior level of said post... with others proving guidance, etc. progression possible.
this is why the g levels give suggestions of job title...but lean more to responsibility. otherwise job title is open to abuse. in this case i was satisfied that the post (if not the post title) fitted the grade just.
the rest of the discussion about what we pay in general... now that requires an industry wide movement. can you imagine the uicide that a company would commit if it raised rates by 45% every other company would be cheaper. and of course the ROs would not agree... as the non ROs would always be cheaper... do we value ourselves? i think we know the answer to that one.
no fault to you bajr but what this dosent address is the fact that the postholder will have project officer on there cv but not necessarily the relevant skills or experience
we all know what a supervisoe is and we all know what the next tier of project officer should be - dont we?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers