27th January 2013, 12:58 AM
Braving the potential furore... setting pay minima could certainly be viewed as anti-competitive and price fixing by the monopolies and mergers commission. In most industries pay setting keeps pay low - erm now I know in archaeology that's not the case!
So, playing devils advocate and I'm not a lawyer (but my brother is..) - if setting pay minima is legally viewed as anti-competitive can IfA apply them by using BAJR style guides applied to the submission of job ads to the JIS? What other mechanisms could they use to fulfil the commitment to raising pay levels as indicated by profiling the profession?
Isn't this a much wider and long-standing problem of how archaeology is funded? The money to pay us all has to come from somewhere, and I don't see any archaeologists at any levels driving supercars and taking regular Caribbean holidays so I reckon it's safe to say no-one is earning truly big bucks in archaeology. The biggest problem as I see it is that we are paid by developers who don't want to pay for us. They go for the cheapest options, and we undercut ourselves into the situation we're in now because we need the work to stay afloat. Even if we could go on strike for better pay and conditions I'd put money that when I got back on site the archaeology would be destroyed. Would the developer really have to pay a penalty for this? Maybe a fine? Would they really care? Probably cost the same as the archaeology, and there'd be no post-ex to pay for?!
So I contend the problem is much deeper than simply pay minima it's where the pay comes from, and the legislation that governs it. I'd see individual jail sentances for developers who breach their archaeological planning conditions, then you can use strike because there's an actual penalty that the developer would fear if they destroy the archaeology and you hurt them in their balance sheet by striking. Bingo you've got their attention and thus we take over the world! Mwahh haaa haaa... Erm have I gone off topic a bit?
So, playing devils advocate and I'm not a lawyer (but my brother is..) - if setting pay minima is legally viewed as anti-competitive can IfA apply them by using BAJR style guides applied to the submission of job ads to the JIS? What other mechanisms could they use to fulfil the commitment to raising pay levels as indicated by profiling the profession?
Isn't this a much wider and long-standing problem of how archaeology is funded? The money to pay us all has to come from somewhere, and I don't see any archaeologists at any levels driving supercars and taking regular Caribbean holidays so I reckon it's safe to say no-one is earning truly big bucks in archaeology. The biggest problem as I see it is that we are paid by developers who don't want to pay for us. They go for the cheapest options, and we undercut ourselves into the situation we're in now because we need the work to stay afloat. Even if we could go on strike for better pay and conditions I'd put money that when I got back on site the archaeology would be destroyed. Would the developer really have to pay a penalty for this? Maybe a fine? Would they really care? Probably cost the same as the archaeology, and there'd be no post-ex to pay for?!
So I contend the problem is much deeper than simply pay minima it's where the pay comes from, and the legislation that governs it. I'd see individual jail sentances for developers who breach their archaeological planning conditions, then you can use strike because there's an actual penalty that the developer would fear if they destroy the archaeology and you hurt them in their balance sheet by striking. Bingo you've got their attention and thus we take over the world! Mwahh haaa haaa... Erm have I gone off topic a bit?