27th January 2013, 09:31 AM
I think the motives of the units are a little more rational than this discussion has implied. The RO scheme was not intended to be back-door method of enforcing improved pay and conditions across the profession -it was supposed to raise the standards of archaeological work (broadly defined) through the implementation of the Code of Conduct's principles throughout organisations , whether the staff were individual members of not, making the organisation accountable for any breaches.
The argument the employers are making is that in the current market conditions, where a substantial amount of archaeological work is undertaken by contractors who are not ROs (and are therefore not bound by pay minima), an increase in pay minima will have the effect of shifting work from ROs to non ROs, to the detriment of the profession and standards in general.
It seems reasonable to at least consider the possible unintended consequences of minima on the profession they are supposed to be helping.
The argument the employers are making is that in the current market conditions, where a substantial amount of archaeological work is undertaken by contractors who are not ROs (and are therefore not bound by pay minima), an increase in pay minima will have the effect of shifting work from ROs to non ROs, to the detriment of the profession and standards in general.
It seems reasonable to at least consider the possible unintended consequences of minima on the profession they are supposed to be helping.