8th December 2008, 01:49 PM
Given the choice of name perhaps something more akin to the FSB (federation of small businesses) is a better way to go. Protecting the interests of the little guy is a good thing, although I think you could have perhaps included smaller companies because the situation is already in danger of polarization, with mega units and one-man-bands being all that's left.
The FSB work mainly as an advisory service, for a fee of course, and lobby on behalf of small companies. Of course archaeological organisations can just join the FSB anyway, but a specific archaeological federation is not a bad idea as this could then also aid standards and deal with particularly archaeological issues. As for pay - there are dangers but I would have thought the existing BAJR pay scales have already done more to improve archaeologist's pay than anything else.
There are of course ways in which responsible organisations and individuals can help to improve standards - agreed codes of conduct including information sharing (why do I have to go to the SMR to see someone else's reports, assuming it's not on OASIS, when in most cases it could just be put on a disk and sent to me? I would be happy to reciprocate but at present there is no easy form of agreement over this to make sure it is not abused). If such things were agreed between those intending to do decent work it would help squeeze out those who weren't, although existing RAO status could cover this, it again only really applies to the larger organisations - I fear the polarization might only get worse in a recession with the most dubious small organisations and one-man-bands winning all the small jobs, because they are the cheapest, and the massive units doing all the large ones because no-one else can, leaving little in between.
The FSB work mainly as an advisory service, for a fee of course, and lobby on behalf of small companies. Of course archaeological organisations can just join the FSB anyway, but a specific archaeological federation is not a bad idea as this could then also aid standards and deal with particularly archaeological issues. As for pay - there are dangers but I would have thought the existing BAJR pay scales have already done more to improve archaeologist's pay than anything else.
There are of course ways in which responsible organisations and individuals can help to improve standards - agreed codes of conduct including information sharing (why do I have to go to the SMR to see someone else's reports, assuming it's not on OASIS, when in most cases it could just be put on a disk and sent to me? I would be happy to reciprocate but at present there is no easy form of agreement over this to make sure it is not abused). If such things were agreed between those intending to do decent work it would help squeeze out those who weren't, although existing RAO status could cover this, it again only really applies to the larger organisations - I fear the polarization might only get worse in a recession with the most dubious small organisations and one-man-bands winning all the small jobs, because they are the cheapest, and the massive units doing all the large ones because no-one else can, leaving little in between.