18th June 2014, 09:08 AM
I know the idea of 'trainees' is fundamentally a good idea, and one that BAJR is right to embrace, BUT...
I whole heartedly agree with your cynicism. When it comes to boots on the ground, are 'trainees' treated any different to other site assistants/excavators? In my experience, no, and I'll wager they are charged out at an identical rate when it comes to billing the client. There is no formal process of shadowing and assisting someone more experienced for a set period, and any buddy system basically equates to what a supervisor should be doing anyway.
Though it may be mocked by some, at least CPD logs show that training is a continual process and that even those who've been around the block are sometimes suprised by what we learn. Most importantly this process exposes as a fallacy that you can be a trainee for six months and then emerge into the archaeological world. Fair enough that companies may want to put experienced staff on a slightly higher grade, but all staff should be above 17094. I'm afraid the trainee idea is allowing too many to cut corners in recruiting new graduates despite its well-meaning stance, and is another example of detrimental working conditions in commercial archaeology.
Just my tuppence, and I think I will shortly be seeing several 'trainees' :-(
BAJR, time to take a tougher stand.
I whole heartedly agree with your cynicism. When it comes to boots on the ground, are 'trainees' treated any different to other site assistants/excavators? In my experience, no, and I'll wager they are charged out at an identical rate when it comes to billing the client. There is no formal process of shadowing and assisting someone more experienced for a set period, and any buddy system basically equates to what a supervisor should be doing anyway.
Though it may be mocked by some, at least CPD logs show that training is a continual process and that even those who've been around the block are sometimes suprised by what we learn. Most importantly this process exposes as a fallacy that you can be a trainee for six months and then emerge into the archaeological world. Fair enough that companies may want to put experienced staff on a slightly higher grade, but all staff should be above 17094. I'm afraid the trainee idea is allowing too many to cut corners in recruiting new graduates despite its well-meaning stance, and is another example of detrimental working conditions in commercial archaeology.
Just my tuppence, and I think I will shortly be seeing several 'trainees' :-(
BAJR, time to take a tougher stand.