4th April 2010, 09:09 PM
Apologies...have just realised how far I have wandered from the thrust of the thread.....
To shoe-horn myself back into this I would argue that the recent round of redundancies across the industry has had the effect of pruning some of the most experienced, skilled and motivated field archaeologists from the tree. This of course will have consequences for standards and the "mentoring" of greener staff but will also curtail any units ability to take on projects that require a ground-base of self-sufficient staff. Taking the IFA`s latest statements on job losses into account and in particular-the fact that most losses to the industry were from the "invasive field work" sector, I would hope that the recent improvements in pay and conditions would be enough to retain vital assets within the profession and further...entice them back from the comfort and fortune of managing Asda?
To shoe-horn myself back into this I would argue that the recent round of redundancies across the industry has had the effect of pruning some of the most experienced, skilled and motivated field archaeologists from the tree. This of course will have consequences for standards and the "mentoring" of greener staff but will also curtail any units ability to take on projects that require a ground-base of self-sufficient staff. Taking the IFA`s latest statements on job losses into account and in particular-the fact that most losses to the industry were from the "invasive field work" sector, I would hope that the recent improvements in pay and conditions would be enough to retain vital assets within the profession and further...entice them back from the comfort and fortune of managing Asda?