One Minima to Rule them All

[Crocodile]

I'd be interested to know how the average figures are reached. I presume the average pay rates are based on advertised jobs and do not include the actual wages of employed archaeologists. How do you work out average pay from job adverts such as the one I am reading now? This lists three levels of responsibility between £18500 and £26000. How do advertised jobs reflect what people actually get paid? There Is one position in that mix that is grossly below the average and the other two positions are obscured by the combined pay range. We don't know if these positions will be grossly underpaid, paid the average, or above the average. I see a potential for rate ranges like this to skew the figures beyond reality.

I am no expert but it appears to me that the current wage averages above the minima have increased above the average percentage of wage increases over the past two years. This is good but it needs to be this way, and more so, if we archaeologist are to achieve the recommended pay scale without increases being negatively affected by inflationary lag and inertia.

The rise in minima though over the last two years seems to be substantially below the average. Is there any good reason for such a poor increase for some of the lowest paid archaeologists? Does it reflect the average? or is the average better than minima?

The going rates don't give the average rate for G3 or the intermediary grades. This makes it difficult to assess if the pay on offer meets or exceeds the average for these levels of competence.