18th December 2008, 01:05 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Paul BelfordI agree, I HOPE that the RO's survive, from the news piece the RO's are clearly very worried about non-RO's cutting wages and undercutting them. If things continue to get very bad then people will end up taking even worse wages as they can see no other option to stay in archaeology. That's not good for anyone.
Quote:quote:In commercial archaeology there are two types of units-those registered with the IFA and those who are not,I wonder what percentage of each will go bust?
That is a very good question. One would hope that the ROs, with their explicit commitments to training, reasonable wages, career development and archaeological ethics, will have a better chance of survival. Non-ROs with the same commitments might struggle.
Whether that is what will happen or not, who knows, but small units that aren't ROs have more 'flexibility' to cut wages to survive than RO's tied to IFA minima. If all the units were RO's then would we have this potential problem? (Please note I am NOT calling all non-RO's cowboys, charlatans or any other names! I understand the reasons some don't affiliate).
Are we facing a future with a few big units and a lot of minnows as has been suggested by some? Small 'one man bands' (non-judgemental description) suffer from cash flow, but may be more resilient and pop-up again when things improve. Big lumbering units take a long time to do things normally, although some seem to have acted fast enough to axe swathes of employees. Who will win out? Whatever you think of the IFA, I reckon its better that employers are RO's, rather than not RO's.