24th June 2014, 04:57 PM
Jack Wrote:I see several sides to this argument. Being Satan's own advocate......
'We are all equal, except some are more equal than others'
1) Why should one digger who can do everything themself with little supervision, who can dig like crazy all day, can interpret complex remains only get paid the same as someone who can't dig for long without having a rest, can't find their edges, can't photograph, can't draw a section or plan and frankly can only be used on site for unimportant features to limit the damage they do?
2) Trainees need to be trained until they are no longer a trainee. Why are these individuals on commercial sites unless this is so?
3) When there is a lack of experienced and competent staff you have to employ who you can get or the job wont get done in time and on budget.
That seems to be the reality I see. And there does appear to be a shortage, at least in our area, of experienced field archaeologists. In my world it was always accepted that whilst training you'd get paid very little. It's the pay after that that needs looking at, and may lead to more people staying the course. Its those who have a couple of years and upwards under their belt, but have no desire for the headaches of running projects, that really struggle, and it is those who talk most about leaving to do other things.
I reserve the right to change my mind. It's called learning.