The advert referred to here has been noted in an additional thread "Site Tech Role".
Simply thinking out loud while trying to digest any implications:
Does this undermine the role of the digger? In the context of the advert what value is placed on fieldwork? Doesn't this artificially keep wages low, even for experienced field staff? Though not a "training" dig, are we really to believe that untrained individuals are to be let loose on an archaeological site? So..., one assumes there will be suitably qualified staff on site...to do....? Doesn't this approach really chip away at remuneration, better terms and conditions? Using the advert as an example is this an indirect condition/response to the southport consultation?
As I said, just thinking out loud.
*apologies for the misspelling in the headers, the result of an overused and underworked brain....*
Simply thinking out loud while trying to digest any implications:
Does this undermine the role of the digger? In the context of the advert what value is placed on fieldwork? Doesn't this artificially keep wages low, even for experienced field staff? Though not a "training" dig, are we really to believe that untrained individuals are to be let loose on an archaeological site? So..., one assumes there will be suitably qualified staff on site...to do....? Doesn't this approach really chip away at remuneration, better terms and conditions? Using the advert as an example is this an indirect condition/response to the southport consultation?
As I said, just thinking out loud.
*apologies for the misspelling in the headers, the result of an overused and underworked brain....*
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.