3rd December 2011, 01:28 PM
I'd also be interested in answers on those two points - talking to 'itinerant' diggers and looking at job adverts there seems in reality to be little difference in wages/conditions, from a diggers point of view there are good/bad employers in both camps (and a number of posts on other threads have indicated that some ROs recently seem to have been back-tracking badly in this area, so even if there was a difference it's been severely eroded). And speaking as someone who spends a lot of time using both published and 'grey' end product from the full range of sources, there seems to be little difference between RO and non-RO - some RO product is academically and professionally shameful (I'm currently grappling with two successive published reports on the same site by the same v. large outfit that present the same archaeological features but with differing relationships and phasing, without any explanation as to any reinterpretation, its just different in version 2...errr) and some non-RO product is brilliant! Show me a tangible difference on either count, with some supporting factual evidence that RO status is somehow better