24th June 2014, 06:02 PM
BAJR Wrote:Next gripe is the rise of the "trainee grade". some really are. I have spent time talking over such positions with a company recently. Others are just because rates have sunk below minima... no worries, we will just call em trainees, mutter something about on the job training, and pay less ... whooo hoo. --- so now you need at least 6 months commercial experience to even get paid the bare minimum for a commercial archaeologist. - tell me... if I have 5 months. does that mean I suddenly go up to the full 17094 rate after a month..? or does that not count?
Other companies seem to be able to afford the enormous £14 a week to bring them up to the bare minimum ----
I may have to bring in a new rule on BAJR... nothing... NOTHING less than 17094 ( unless we have talked about it first, and it is something like a pay grade that needs the bottom level put in for HR Department not to kick up a stink) the words BAJR Approved means, "I knows what goes on, and we have a handshake agreement... that the minima is really (wink) what it should be."
Anyways. before people say... ah... but where do I get experience. it is not rocket science FFS... 6 months is perhaps over long to learn how to write your name and the colour of soil on a context card... or take a digital photograph of a pit..... being good at it... takes time. but really. these are not shaved apes... these are your graduates (in the main) who have shown they can hold a thought and perhaps have a modicum of ability in holding a shovel the right way up... and if not. then it will take less than 6 months to work that one out!
aaaarg! I despair!
I don't have problems with a trainee wage perse, as I can appreciate that someone who has been doing it a few years should get paid more than someone who needs constant supervision. That said, I think there needs to be far more variation in the upper levels of the site assistant/digger/field archaeologist pay scale to take account of more experience, perhaps rather than a below minima 'trainee' scale.
IF trainees are to be hired, I would simply ask where the training plan is: i.e. - when do I become an archaeologist. Not some nebulous point where you are thought to be 'good enough', but a written statement of what needs to be learned in order to become a 'full' field archaeologist. These need to be achievable, measurable and demonstrable. I'm thinking along the lines of hosty's skills passport here - I think its a great idea for new starters. If there is a list of things to be learned, e.g. levelling, photography, strat - a trainee can see what they need to work on in order to finish training, ideally with written feedback on how to improve if they are not at the correct standard.
If such a training plan does not exist, I would say it's not a proper trainee position and shouldn't be offered.