21st January 2009, 02:38 PM
The IfA/FAME are to be congratulated on a speedy response to the situation and further surveys will no doubt prove useful in charting the depths of the recession.
A few points.
I find the question regarding whether other businesses are likely to fail slightly spurious ('speculation me'onour' as Rumpole might say) and wonder why the IfA/FAME ducked the more obvious question of whether the responents felt their [u]own</u> business would survive.....
Secondly, the survey should ask more specific questions about the persons made redundant. Were they expired contracts or cuts to 'core' functions? Have you been forced to lay-off your husband/wife/kids yet? I think those kind of job losses say a lot more about the nature of the economic downturn, more than mere figures of contracts not renewed? It might also suggest that having got rid of the 'easy' redundees, the next round of forced cuts could be very painful indeed. It could be that anyone who takes heart from 'a mere 8%' as inspiring confidence that the recession is not as bad as it seems, is about to get a very big shock indeed. This must be of concern to a lot of IfA members, whom I would suggest are probably not likely to be in the kind of posts abolished by the first round of redundancies.
Thirdly, persons having been made redundant would have found some other way to survive. Some may have stayed in archaeology as self-employed, some may have got associated jobs, some may have gone to work for non-surveyed archaeological employers. Some may have gone back t college or onto the dole. I don't see how the survey can be really valid unless some of those 345 persons are surveyed as well. I mean the truth is that if they are all struggling along as individuals, but still within archaeology then the number of job losses in the industry is.....er.... zero. I'm sure that it isn't but would like to know the truth.
A few points.
I find the question regarding whether other businesses are likely to fail slightly spurious ('speculation me'onour' as Rumpole might say) and wonder why the IfA/FAME ducked the more obvious question of whether the responents felt their [u]own</u> business would survive.....
Secondly, the survey should ask more specific questions about the persons made redundant. Were they expired contracts or cuts to 'core' functions? Have you been forced to lay-off your husband/wife/kids yet? I think those kind of job losses say a lot more about the nature of the economic downturn, more than mere figures of contracts not renewed? It might also suggest that having got rid of the 'easy' redundees, the next round of forced cuts could be very painful indeed. It could be that anyone who takes heart from 'a mere 8%' as inspiring confidence that the recession is not as bad as it seems, is about to get a very big shock indeed. This must be of concern to a lot of IfA members, whom I would suggest are probably not likely to be in the kind of posts abolished by the first round of redundancies.
Thirdly, persons having been made redundant would have found some other way to survive. Some may have stayed in archaeology as self-employed, some may have got associated jobs, some may have gone to work for non-surveyed archaeological employers. Some may have gone back t college or onto the dole. I don't see how the survey can be really valid unless some of those 345 persons are surveyed as well. I mean the truth is that if they are all struggling along as individuals, but still within archaeology then the number of job losses in the industry is.....er.... zero. I'm sure that it isn't but would like to know the truth.