8th February 2012, 04:02 PM
I note that the Diggers Forum report excluded data provided by individuals working outside the UK....I don't have a problem with that but as Overseas suggests there maybe something to be learnt from systems that are in place in other European nations.
Here in Norway archaeological field workers are paid an addition to their salary to cover overnight accommodation and meals, when away from the office for a specified period of time. The rate varies with different employers but is roughly in the region of ?90 per day/night. It is also payable for each weekend day if you are unable or chose not to return to your home accommodation for any reason. A smaller allowance is payable if working out of the office for the day but not requiring overnight accommodation. The payment is taxable, but at a much lower rate than the rate for salary.
I'm not sure that anyone makes a 'profit' out of the allowance (bearing in mind that short term accommodation and food come at a price in Norway), but it is certainly the case that no-one should be signficantly out of pocket through the demands of their job. I think where Norway has an advantage over the UK is that the system is accepted throughout all sectors of industry, central and local government and in effect the same claim form with the same details is used throughout the country by anyone who has to make a claim The Prime Minister fills in exactly the same form as I do and claims under the same conditions of entitlement. In that sense the system is at least recognised as a 'national standard' for recompensing staff for work related expenses. I mention this because it seems to me that IfA could lead a campaign to establish a 'national minimum standard' for such claims amongst UK archaeologists, perhaps in the first instance being adopted by RAOs but also promoted to the industry as a whole
The second advantage I think is that the component of the budget that recompenses staff for their 'away' expenses is identifiable as an element within the overall project budget. A construction company having to pay for archaeology, would easily recognise that it is no less than the amount they would have to pay their own staff in similar circumstances. Of course Norwegian archaeology's biggest advantage (at least in terms of staff pay, terms and conditions) is that it does not have competitive tendering for the field work component of archaeology, nor the distraction of 'local' archaeological companies able to set 'local' prices as a competitive advantage. In that sense their system is proabably closer to the state service outlined by Overseas, than the common or garden UK scenario.
But it does work and everyone knows where they stand.....no ambiguity here.
Here in Norway archaeological field workers are paid an addition to their salary to cover overnight accommodation and meals, when away from the office for a specified period of time. The rate varies with different employers but is roughly in the region of ?90 per day/night. It is also payable for each weekend day if you are unable or chose not to return to your home accommodation for any reason. A smaller allowance is payable if working out of the office for the day but not requiring overnight accommodation. The payment is taxable, but at a much lower rate than the rate for salary.
I'm not sure that anyone makes a 'profit' out of the allowance (bearing in mind that short term accommodation and food come at a price in Norway), but it is certainly the case that no-one should be signficantly out of pocket through the demands of their job. I think where Norway has an advantage over the UK is that the system is accepted throughout all sectors of industry, central and local government and in effect the same claim form with the same details is used throughout the country by anyone who has to make a claim The Prime Minister fills in exactly the same form as I do and claims under the same conditions of entitlement. In that sense the system is at least recognised as a 'national standard' for recompensing staff for work related expenses. I mention this because it seems to me that IfA could lead a campaign to establish a 'national minimum standard' for such claims amongst UK archaeologists, perhaps in the first instance being adopted by RAOs but also promoted to the industry as a whole
The second advantage I think is that the component of the budget that recompenses staff for their 'away' expenses is identifiable as an element within the overall project budget. A construction company having to pay for archaeology, would easily recognise that it is no less than the amount they would have to pay their own staff in similar circumstances. Of course Norwegian archaeology's biggest advantage (at least in terms of staff pay, terms and conditions) is that it does not have competitive tendering for the field work component of archaeology, nor the distraction of 'local' archaeological companies able to set 'local' prices as a competitive advantage. In that sense their system is proabably closer to the state service outlined by Overseas, than the common or garden UK scenario.
But it does work and everyone knows where they stand.....no ambiguity here.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...