4th July 2014, 02:22 PM
P Prentice Wrote:you'll not get any argument there. units dont really care who digs the holes but we do care where the next batch of report writers will come from. those able to make the transition are becoming a rare breed precisely because they are less likely to put up with the short contracts and low wages that would get them in the right place to be in that position. brain drain springs to mind.Many are no longer choosing to become archaeologists in the first place. An archaeology degree is a good background subject for becoming a.....lawyer, teacher, journalist etc...anything except an archaeologist.
However I passionately care about who digs the holes. Without a high quality excavation team there is no high quality record with which the report writer can interrogate to produce the report. It has been my long held belief that it is not the quantity of diggers put on a site that is important but the quality of them. It has been my experience that one digger with a natural affinity for digging is worth two or three of those that do not have that innate ability. Surely one experienced digger paid, lets say £22,500 is both cheaper and more productive than two diggers with little experience and limited skills paid at £17,500. Furthermore skilled operatives can work more independently and require less supervision. Why do units not cost jobs and employ diggers on this basis is a question I ask myself constantly. All this requires a much greater recognition of the digger as a technician in their own right, not just the bottom rung in a career ladder that I think is broken and which helps perpetuates the low pay and short term contract problem.
Also rather than calling them trainees what about treating them like apprentices similar to those from other trades. The experienced and technically skilled digger can provide on the job training to the apprentice.