21st December 2011, 09:08 PM
Whether or not Ken's figures are a true reflection of wider construction industry pay scales, it is a little tragic that everyone is so desperate to ridicule such aspiration. I believe this started as a 'fantasy'?
Nevertheless, the point I am more interested in is the disparity between consultant fees compared to most other archaeologists, be they local authority, specialists or field. Perhaps the desire for an increase in industry-wide pay is to save the blushes of the consultant when they present the fieldwork costs of a unit compared to their own advisory costs? I am aware of one consultant who was actually charging more to prepare the WSI than the unit was to undertake a three trench evaluation and report on it (although plant was not included in the price). In these lean times surely any savvy developer would query such bizarre and obvious inequality? Not on the basis of morality but on the basis of 'why am I paying a consultant that much for a ten page document when the contractor can commit that many people days for less?'
Nevertheless, the point I am more interested in is the disparity between consultant fees compared to most other archaeologists, be they local authority, specialists or field. Perhaps the desire for an increase in industry-wide pay is to save the blushes of the consultant when they present the fieldwork costs of a unit compared to their own advisory costs? I am aware of one consultant who was actually charging more to prepare the WSI than the unit was to undertake a three trench evaluation and report on it (although plant was not included in the price). In these lean times surely any savvy developer would query such bizarre and obvious inequality? Not on the basis of morality but on the basis of 'why am I paying a consultant that much for a ten page document when the contractor can commit that many people days for less?'