27th January 2013, 09:06 PM
sadie Wrote:I wasn't going to wade in on this one, but as a member of Council it probably does fall to me to clarify some things. There are issues of confidentiality though, and I am not going to betray anybody's confidences or say anything that would result in fewer DF members on Council than there are already!
The issue revolved around those mentioned by David earlier: that some people think the requirement of ROs to adhere to salary minima is on dodgy ground legally, and that the IfA may be leaving themselves open to legal challenges on the basis of price fixing etc. Other professional bodies do set salaries/prices in other ways, it may be that the IfA just has to be more circumspect about how they do it in future. The legal advice has been sought and will be discussed at the Council meeting on 30th (which is in London by the way, so don't bother protesting in Reading!). The Working Party discussed it last week but I am not going into details here.
The letter was signed by many RPHs, from units all over the country, of all sizes. There were a couple of notable, honourable exceptions, and I hope we can tell you who they are sometime soon, as not all employers are bad guys. Most are though, unfortunately. They have jumped on this 'legal problem' bandwagon in the hope of frightening Council into rejecting the whole concept of minima, to force their own political will upon Council. I find it disgraceful, undemocratic and intimidatory. That's what we are up against, and we have said as much in the last DF newletter.
I can't stop myself adding that if we had more DF members or sympathetic ears on Council we may not be in this mess at all- there are a few now, but maybe not enough to ensure the coup we need on 30th. Please feel free to stand next time,or to volunteer for DF duties- Gwyl (full time SPO job, 4 kids to support, Chiz (self-employed,1 kid to support) and myself (full time SPO job, 2 kids to support) could really do with the help quite frankly.
I just want to second Sadie's comment. And that its all well being appalled and having a go at the IfA, but maybe if those of you who are in the IfA had stood for Council or even just bothered voting for the wide range of candidates who stood for Council, that maybe we'd have had a chance of shaping the IfA for the benefit of the widest membership. And for those who aren't in the IfA you could still help with the Diggers' Forum; we may be tarred in some eyes by being an IfA group, but we speak how we find things.
The situation with the effect of minima on pay is complex (isn't it always), a while back I asked the FAME chair what the figures were for non-RO companies who pay below IfA minima rate, and for what % of the market they had, they couldn't tell me. Perhaps because all the arguments about non-RO units stealing work aren't really based on any real data and are just as anecdotal as the arguments from the other side of the fence? The companies systematically underpricing on tenders are ROs as well as non-ROs (although the smaller size of most ROs means they may actually be pricing at a sustainable level), that's not the issue.
The issue for me is the state of archaeology as a profession, and that it should be a sustainable career from start to finish, for everyone. I want a profession that isn't reliant on a minima, but on doing the work well, and treating archaeologists with respect and paying them according to their skills and rewarding quality work. Pay minima are at present an essential safety net and must be retained, but we do need to sort out a lot more issues in archaeology that have an equal effect on archaeologists in the medium and long term.