2013 BAJR Grades

[kevin wooldridge]

I just had an email from a digger bemoaning a non RO who pays fieldstaff lower than BAJR rates in order to win the fieldwork. strangely I had heard about the same company from a project Manager who complained about the how it was difficult to compete with them, given they had to pay higher rates.

It seems we should put this debate on some kind of rotary until such time the situation is resolved, if ever. Because until then it just goes round and round and round........

I read in this mornings newspaper that the Labour party's next manifesto will contain a commitment to 'name and shame' companies who voluntarily don't pay a 'living wage'. At the same time they are refusing to make a manifesto commitment to raise the level of the minimum wage to reflect 'living wage' reality.....My first thought was: the Labour Party must be taking advice from IfA council!!.

RAO status is voluntary.....As you rightly say David any number of persons or companies can drop off the consensus without fear of sanction. In reality it even allows unscrupulous RAOs to intimidate the IfA, by threatening to drop out, if demands for wage restraint aren't met. Clearly nonsense from both parties, because there is nothing in reality that IfA can do about wage levels, other than bluff that it has some influence.

The only way that archaeological salaries will ever rise significantly is if a compulsory, rather than voluntary, licensing system is introduced. If the UK archaeological profession, including IfA council or the majority of IfA members wanted to raise wages through regulation, they should be campaigning for a licensing system and not for voluntary lip service. IfA pay grades in that sense are a specious red herring!! In recognising this fact IfA should end this farce and drop out of the wage level recommendation business completely. Leave it either to the market or to regulation.....

PS: Same advice to the Labour party by the way!!