28th January 2009, 07:47 PM
Hi all,
I saw the introduction post to this topic by YellowPete.
It (kind of) reminds me of a conversation I had down the pub with "Dirty Dave" (from this board) the other week. We jokingly contemplated a thread on BAJR called "Archaeology - The Cynical Side" but this Democracy thread triggers some of those same-intended thoughts, anyway.
I go back in time to 1985. "Back then" I imagined that if I got into archaeology, it would be a well-respected profession, with "a duty" shared by us all, to re-discover our lost archaeology / heritage, that in turn would go into museums and help to give improved knowledge for our history books and our school history lessons?
Well, that was the "dream" or whatever you want to call it.
I remember sitting in the diggers' hut (as a dig volunteer, 1986)and someone (an older digger) saying that funding from the government was phasing out and everything would be paid for, by the developer.
I remember saying: "But the developer will not want to pay for a big dig - they will only want the minimum".
So straight away, ARCHAEOLOGY is not a democracy, in the sense that all archaeologists in the UK cannot vote on what the National Policy for the "profession" is? Not that they ever could, of course?
Does the IFA or any other body truly act as a "indirect democracy organisation" in that it is representing all UK archaeologists, in regards to influencing government policy? This "debate" continues, regardless of your view, on this point.
What if, the Government, desparate to kick-start the Building Industry, relaxes nearly all archaeology planning reulations, to aid the industry further (my particular horror scenario, that I dwell on too much, perhaps)?
Connected to the paragraph above, what if the IFA complains to the Government about this scenario and the government, in turn replies: "The economty is in dire straights. Homes and Industries are important. History and Museums are a luxury items that we cannot invest in any further, right now. We have made our decision. You IFA people have no political rights / legislation to fight us, anyway". There would be nothing any archaeologist could do, if the government decided that; none of us would have a democratic / influencing vote on that - except vote against that government at the next general election? But in the long run, that would make no difference.
Another huge factor is, ARCHAEOLOGY IS PERMANENTLY DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. At least in the sense of units, tenderring against each other, for jobs each month. You might be able to get them to "vote" for an agreed minimum standard of digging and report writing but remember UNDECUTTING has been the name of the game for a while and will get worse, if the recession drags out?
If the heads of units are desparate to (job-wise) survive, are they likely to "vote" for increases in standards or workers conditions, when such things would further drive-up their overheads?
Needless to say, contracts are getting fewer and shorter and the out-of-work digger does not get a "vote" on who will take them on, for how long, or for what wages. The digger never did.
Sure, units some times have staff meetings. These are NOT to give everyone a say on all aspects of company policy. They are to get everyone to suggest better work methods within their jobs but nothing more than that. (If diggers could vote on everything in such meetings, would they vote themselves redundant - even if it was obvious there was little work, vote that they themselves must improve, or vote themselves a wage freeze for the next year - to help the company?)
If two employees at a unit have an argument, will they both be fairly / democratically be judged by their peers and bosses? Answer: ONLY IF THE TWO IN DISPUTE ARE OF EQUAL RANK. The lower rank person (ultimately) will always be outranked / disbelieved by those of higher rank. The true question is then "will a grudge be held against the lower rank complainer?" because if so, the excuse of redundancy will eventullay be used as the means to get rid of the lower rank complainer. And the lower rank person never gets a "vote" on this. (This paragraph is based on true events - many times over).
In regards to the paragraph above, membership of PROSPECT will only help you if your dismissal is a sacking (i.e. something that can definitely be seen as "disputable"). To nullify the effects of a digger's union membership / support, all the employer has to do, is declare the digger "redundant" - be that in a genuine round of redundancies that are about to occurr, or one "manufacured" for the purpose of getting rid of a digger.
What conclusions, can I offer?
ONE:
Archaeology is a profession permanently divided against itself (They should have nationalised it in the 80s - made it a branch of the civil service, not privatised it?) Whilst archaeology remains divided / competing against itself, everyone is not truly going to vote for better standards in absolutely everything. They (unit bosses) will vote for a few (academic side of) things - to pretend to show-willing but not on everything.
TWO:
Archaeology is at the mercy of the government (or is that government indifference?) and the Building Industry. If the building industry manages to get "lower tender prices" for archaeology work from now on, they will stay lower.
THREE:
It still has not been established nor "nationally accepted, in view of the UK population and government" that any one archaeology "body" represents the Archaeology profession in this country and can say YES or NO to government / industry and ENFORCE its archaeological decisions. Only curators in county planning departments can do this?
FOUR:
"The lot" of the digger, with or without IFA / PROSPECT membership will only improve, according to what unit it joins - that are (A)the "better treatment" units to work for and (B) which units gets the longer contracts. The digger cannot "vote" on which units these will be. He has to travel / work around the country and find this out by experience.
FIVE:
I think a lot of the "older" diggers endure all of the above, out of memory of "the good old days" (1970s - 1980s ?) The spirit of thought, that said archaeology was about going into a field, digging down and finding ancient things, that then improve our knowledge. I would like to "keep thinking this" as in essence, that is what archaeology should be about but the politics, insecure work conditions, divided profession and lack of will, on the government to show improved comittment, funding and legislation, cast a shadow upon "the idyllic archaeological attitude" I have presented at the start of this paragraph.
SIX:
I would like to offer positive ideas to solve what I have written above but I honestly cannot. What I have written above is TRUE from my perspective but whether others share my views I have no idea. If the majority do not, I would say "well, it is ONLY a post on a forum board what difference can it make to you or anyone else, whether you agree or not?"
My "what difference does it make" attitude is brought about because I cannot see how a change / difference can be brought about.
A change of government policy (to the supportive) would greatly help but I cannot envisage that happening.
The IFA would have a greater legal effect if "a benevolent government alowed them to have more effect" but it is not going to happen in a Recession?
Jobs for unemployed diggers will only be brought about by units winning contracts, nothing else. The unit bosses ultimately control diggers wages and conditions. If the IFA were to complain, the unit merely leaves the IFA and continues to tender / practice as usual.
As usual, I say, "it is not WHAT you know but WHO you know that counts". Find the units, supervisors and diggers you like working with (which also incorporates working out which units pay the best wages)and stick with them (in a work and social sense)as much as you can.
I saw the introduction post to this topic by YellowPete.
It (kind of) reminds me of a conversation I had down the pub with "Dirty Dave" (from this board) the other week. We jokingly contemplated a thread on BAJR called "Archaeology - The Cynical Side" but this Democracy thread triggers some of those same-intended thoughts, anyway.
I go back in time to 1985. "Back then" I imagined that if I got into archaeology, it would be a well-respected profession, with "a duty" shared by us all, to re-discover our lost archaeology / heritage, that in turn would go into museums and help to give improved knowledge for our history books and our school history lessons?
Well, that was the "dream" or whatever you want to call it.
I remember sitting in the diggers' hut (as a dig volunteer, 1986)and someone (an older digger) saying that funding from the government was phasing out and everything would be paid for, by the developer.
I remember saying: "But the developer will not want to pay for a big dig - they will only want the minimum".
So straight away, ARCHAEOLOGY is not a democracy, in the sense that all archaeologists in the UK cannot vote on what the National Policy for the "profession" is? Not that they ever could, of course?
Does the IFA or any other body truly act as a "indirect democracy organisation" in that it is representing all UK archaeologists, in regards to influencing government policy? This "debate" continues, regardless of your view, on this point.
What if, the Government, desparate to kick-start the Building Industry, relaxes nearly all archaeology planning reulations, to aid the industry further (my particular horror scenario, that I dwell on too much, perhaps)?
Connected to the paragraph above, what if the IFA complains to the Government about this scenario and the government, in turn replies: "The economty is in dire straights. Homes and Industries are important. History and Museums are a luxury items that we cannot invest in any further, right now. We have made our decision. You IFA people have no political rights / legislation to fight us, anyway". There would be nothing any archaeologist could do, if the government decided that; none of us would have a democratic / influencing vote on that - except vote against that government at the next general election? But in the long run, that would make no difference.
Another huge factor is, ARCHAEOLOGY IS PERMANENTLY DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF. At least in the sense of units, tenderring against each other, for jobs each month. You might be able to get them to "vote" for an agreed minimum standard of digging and report writing but remember UNDECUTTING has been the name of the game for a while and will get worse, if the recession drags out?
If the heads of units are desparate to (job-wise) survive, are they likely to "vote" for increases in standards or workers conditions, when such things would further drive-up their overheads?
Needless to say, contracts are getting fewer and shorter and the out-of-work digger does not get a "vote" on who will take them on, for how long, or for what wages. The digger never did.
Sure, units some times have staff meetings. These are NOT to give everyone a say on all aspects of company policy. They are to get everyone to suggest better work methods within their jobs but nothing more than that. (If diggers could vote on everything in such meetings, would they vote themselves redundant - even if it was obvious there was little work, vote that they themselves must improve, or vote themselves a wage freeze for the next year - to help the company?)
If two employees at a unit have an argument, will they both be fairly / democratically be judged by their peers and bosses? Answer: ONLY IF THE TWO IN DISPUTE ARE OF EQUAL RANK. The lower rank person (ultimately) will always be outranked / disbelieved by those of higher rank. The true question is then "will a grudge be held against the lower rank complainer?" because if so, the excuse of redundancy will eventullay be used as the means to get rid of the lower rank complainer. And the lower rank person never gets a "vote" on this. (This paragraph is based on true events - many times over).
In regards to the paragraph above, membership of PROSPECT will only help you if your dismissal is a sacking (i.e. something that can definitely be seen as "disputable"). To nullify the effects of a digger's union membership / support, all the employer has to do, is declare the digger "redundant" - be that in a genuine round of redundancies that are about to occurr, or one "manufacured" for the purpose of getting rid of a digger.
What conclusions, can I offer?
ONE:
Archaeology is a profession permanently divided against itself (They should have nationalised it in the 80s - made it a branch of the civil service, not privatised it?) Whilst archaeology remains divided / competing against itself, everyone is not truly going to vote for better standards in absolutely everything. They (unit bosses) will vote for a few (academic side of) things - to pretend to show-willing but not on everything.
TWO:
Archaeology is at the mercy of the government (or is that government indifference?) and the Building Industry. If the building industry manages to get "lower tender prices" for archaeology work from now on, they will stay lower.
THREE:
It still has not been established nor "nationally accepted, in view of the UK population and government" that any one archaeology "body" represents the Archaeology profession in this country and can say YES or NO to government / industry and ENFORCE its archaeological decisions. Only curators in county planning departments can do this?
FOUR:
"The lot" of the digger, with or without IFA / PROSPECT membership will only improve, according to what unit it joins - that are (A)the "better treatment" units to work for and (B) which units gets the longer contracts. The digger cannot "vote" on which units these will be. He has to travel / work around the country and find this out by experience.
FIVE:
I think a lot of the "older" diggers endure all of the above, out of memory of "the good old days" (1970s - 1980s ?) The spirit of thought, that said archaeology was about going into a field, digging down and finding ancient things, that then improve our knowledge. I would like to "keep thinking this" as in essence, that is what archaeology should be about but the politics, insecure work conditions, divided profession and lack of will, on the government to show improved comittment, funding and legislation, cast a shadow upon "the idyllic archaeological attitude" I have presented at the start of this paragraph.
SIX:
I would like to offer positive ideas to solve what I have written above but I honestly cannot. What I have written above is TRUE from my perspective but whether others share my views I have no idea. If the majority do not, I would say "well, it is ONLY a post on a forum board what difference can it make to you or anyone else, whether you agree or not?"
My "what difference does it make" attitude is brought about because I cannot see how a change / difference can be brought about.
A change of government policy (to the supportive) would greatly help but I cannot envisage that happening.
The IFA would have a greater legal effect if "a benevolent government alowed them to have more effect" but it is not going to happen in a Recession?
Jobs for unemployed diggers will only be brought about by units winning contracts, nothing else. The unit bosses ultimately control diggers wages and conditions. If the IFA were to complain, the unit merely leaves the IFA and continues to tender / practice as usual.
As usual, I say, "it is not WHAT you know but WHO you know that counts". Find the units, supervisors and diggers you like working with (which also incorporates working out which units pay the best wages)and stick with them (in a work and social sense)as much as you can.