IfA Council Statement on Archaeological Salaries

[ken_whittaker]

Not too sure I would regard the concessions the IFA have offered ROs, seemingly made in the face of threats to its RO scheme, as a principled stand. Quite the opposite, this is further evidence of RO interests coming ahead of those of the wider membership. The statement stands as a sad milestone in the erosion of membership interest and the democratic process. Kevin touches on the key points, but I fear the situation is worse still:

o IfA endorses a pay freeze, which is likely to expand the already disgraceful wage differential identified in the IFA benchmarking study;

o Increasing the differential and reducing the timescale for correction almost certainly undermines the prospect of achieving a progressive 13% increases in salary minima by 2013. The weakness of the IFA position on this issue is evident in it?s acceptance of RO commitments that are aspirational and not binding. No doubt when the time comes the familiar business case will be cited, ie fear of competition on price will be used to justify a refusal to move on this issue, as has previously occurred during every stage of the economic cycle, whether benign or otherwise. Bear in mind the IFA benchmarking study reflect the situation on the back of more than a decade of sustained growth. Throughout this period the issue of low pay has been debated. This evidence suggests pay differentials are eroded even during period of economic growth, yet the IFA still retains its faith in pay correction rising phoenix-like on any future economic improvement. The IFA needs to ask itself why this has failed to deliver in the past. The obvious answer is that most archaeological employers, many ROs included, are committed to the central business proposition of squeezing cost to gain market advantage, with no regard to the underlying market economics and only limited investment in quality, as defined in a commercial sense;

o IFA prioritises the imposition of barriers to entry (apparently ahead of action on pay differential), which will discriminate against members whose employers are not ROs, but also props up RO?s operating low cost business models that are evidently neither robust or sustainable and now seemingly dependent of restrictive market barriers. The effectiveness of such barriers is likely to be limited; however it presents the prospect of ?institutionalising? underlying business weaknesses, consigning members to long-term pay pressure.

The most depressing aspect of the IFA statement is the perception that holding costs, effectively a pay cut, will improve the situation for RO employers. It clearly will not. The current problem is that there is not enough work out there to support the current supply-side. Dropping cost might give an individual organisations a short term advantage, but it will not generate any additional demand, it simply fuels further cost pressure. Work will simply move around according to who offers the lowest price, RO or not. In that sense the IFA action has exacerbated the pay crisis.

Where now for the members who had looked to the IFA for leadership. It might be worth taking a leaf out of the book of the ROs who have been so effective in advancing their interests at the expense of the wider membership. The IFA is far more financially dependent on its members than it is on the RO scheme, perhaps it should be reminded of this. In terms of change, much depends on employers, and whilst recessions are not welcome, they do perhaps offer an opportunity to adjust business models. There are a wide range in operation, even within the historic environment sector, many offering a responsible and mature basis for business development that could prove far more sustainable.

[GnomeKing]

"whilst recessions are not welcome, they do perhaps offer an opportunity to adjust business models. There are a wide range in operation, even within the historic environment sector, many offering a responsible and mature basis for business development that could prove far more sustainable." - i hope so.......

[kevin wooldridge]

I posted my original mail on this subject on the IfA Facebook group site and received the following reply from Kathryn...

Kathryn Whittington replied

?Thanks for your feedback. I am currently collating all responses to pass on to Council. As with all matters relating to IfA work, members can make their views known either to individual members of Council or to Council as a whole via the office.

As is the case in all democratic membership organisations, Council are elected representatives of the membership, and have responsibility for making decisions about the direction and work of the Institute?.

[kevin wooldridge]

To which I have replied (again through the IfA Facebook group)

'Kathryn,

I think that most members of the IfA will support the councils stand over this matter. However, there has clearly been an attempt here by some IfA members, who appear to be less scrupulous about the etiquette of democracy, to engineer a putsch to impose their view on the majority of IfA members.

As I said in my original reply there was opportunity for any member disgruntled at the IfA policy on wage minima to raise this matter through a motion or motions at the AGM in September and allow the wider membership to debate and vote on the matter. The fact that the individuals chose not to do so suggests that democracy was not top of their agenda

Gerry Waits declares in his statement on this matter that representations made on this matter were accompanied by threats!! Again this is outrageous. It certainly does not appear to me to accord with democratic practice. IfA council should name the names of these people and consider instigating disciplinary action as it clearly in breach of the IfA Code of Conduct.

If this debate is to be reported to Council and consideration made of the views of members on this matter can I request the following.

1) IfA council call an Extraordinary General Meeting to discuss this affair and matters thus arising

2) IfA council prepare proposals to be debated at that EGM clearly stating IfA policy on

i) wage minima,
ii) the IfA campaign to raise wage minima to that of comparable graduate professions,
iii) the future role of RAOs within the organisation and
iv) the IfA policy towards restricting archaeological practice to RAOs or Chartered Members

I will also post a copy of this mail on the BAJRfed site to allow wider discussion of the points'

[diggingthedirt]

Hi Ken ? great post ? and Kevin?s too regarding the erosion of membership interests in the face of commercial pressure. There are a few things I?m unclear with and I?m hoping you can expand.

You write that ?The current problem is that there is not enough work out there to support the current supply-side? ? but is this not also a problem with how our work is defined in the eyes of our clients? The majority of clients are focussed on time and cost and have no interest in the quality of the final product so long as it meets their statutory obligations. This is exacerbated because:

?most archaeological employers, many ROs included, are committed to the central business proposition of squeezing cost to gain market advantage, with no regard to the underlying market economics and only limited investment in quality, as defined in a commercial sense?

My question is really concerned with your second bullet point - the IFA?s aspirations to become the gateway to market.

The effectiveness of such barriers is likely to be limited; however it presents the prospect of ?institutionalising? underlying business weaknesses, consigning members to long-term pay pressure.

I have always been led to believe that a barrier to entry is a step towards solving both the quality issue and the pay issue, and am interested to hear why you don?t think this will be the case. If the IFA impose a barrier to entry on the market place, and limit this to a chartered/ROA membership, they can also enforce equitable pay scales for their membership. And by monitoring the quality of archaeological work, businesses ?squeezing cost to gain market advantage? will surely have to lift their game. Rather than the IFA address these problems, you suggest that the market can generate its own creative solutions:

In terms of change, much depends on employers, and whilst recessions are not welcome, they do perhaps offer an opportunity to adjust business models. There are a wide range in operation, even within the historic environment sector, many offering a responsible and mature basis for business development that could prove far more sustainable.

Are you saying that this is an opportunity for change, and the IFA is standing in the way of this by shoring up a fatally flawed system? What possible model could provide ?responsible and mature basis for business development? when faced with the basic reality that we have a client who doesn?t care what he?s buying as long as its cheap and entry level staff who don?t care how little they earn as long as it covers their cost?

[GnomeKing]

diggingthedirt may be too fatalistic...

"What possible model could provide ?responsible and mature basis for business development? when faced with the basic reality that we have a client who doesn?t care what he?s buying as long as its cheap and entry level staff who don?t care how little they earn as long as it covers their cost?"(diggingthedirt)

That model would originate from those who are niether clients nor newbies - ie those who are Responisble and Mature within the proffesion.

Clients DO care about quality, but it has to be presented to them - if they dont see it they wont value it - the tendering procces can result in the apparent devaluing and comoditisation of archaeology, therefore the value placed on it is tarnished, and real social value lost.

entry level staff do/should/will care about the quality of experience they recieve ...

[chiz]

Well said Kevin, I'd like to add my signature to that letter. In fact an open letter from IfA members (and non members) might be a good idea?

By the way, the democratically elected council that is spoken of, guess how many votes there were for this years candidates?

109!

I would strongly urge all members of the IfA to write to council as a collective and individually to make their voice heard and call for an EGM. This undemocratic, premeditated attempt at a coup, backed up by 'threats', presumably to pull out of the RO scheme, is not acceptable within any organisation. As Kevin has said, the place to propose and debate any changes of this magnitude is the AGM, given that this was deliberately ignored, an EGM is the appropriate place.
Council and membership agreed on the benchmarking scheme, and signed up to implementing a 13% increase in minima for the next three years, the events of last week were a premeditated attack on fair pay for archaeologists.

Whose Ifa is it? Use your voice.

[BAJR Host]

what is being said here is perhaps proof of what this forum is designed for. remember that without it there would have been nowhere to announce or debate this. as kevin, chiz and others pont out, this can only be dealt with if people stop shrugging of responsibility for their future. if you are a corporate grade ifa member then it is your duty to stand for the future of archaeology. I am more than willing to help in whatever way is appropriate. this is not an ifa bash.. this perhaps highlights what the ifa could become.

I know bajrs limits - often be called a one man dictatorship - however, I have been constant in my belief, open in my actions and honest. so for what its worth and leaving out my personal feelings I would offer the opportunities of communication that bajr holds to aid this support of an ifa committed to supporting fieldstaff. I can't as yet agree with other aspects of control given the current circumstances, but if you want an ifa that represents you, then trust and affirmative action is required. over to you

[kevin wooldridge]

Thanks David. And Chiz. I agree that all IfA members have to make their feelings known to IfA council about this matter. They deserve our support for sticking to their guns so far, despite the fact that many must be under great personal pressure. Kathryn has agreed to collate responses made on the IFA Facebook group and I hope she will also take account of views raised in this forum/fora.

[brian_aldridge]

by the way, the democratically elected council that is spoken of, guess how many votes there were for this years candidates?

109!

I would strongly urge all members of the IFA to write to council as a collective and individually to make their voice heard and call for an EGM.

It is hardly the fault of IFA's Council that 109 people voted at the last AGM. All their members were sent Council papers and voting forms (which were to be returned by post before the AGM, so not being able to go is not an excuse for not voting). These were also put on their website and reminders for people to send them in were posted too and people were also reminded through the various social networking media. Even here in Borsetshire we got our voting forms and paperwork!

If people don't vote when it is made this easy for them, what else can you expect the IfA to do?

what is being said here is perhaps proof of what this forum is designed for. remember that without it there would have been nowhere to announce or debate this.

I don't agree with this. This is IfA business, and if you have an issue with it there are lots of ways to communicate with the IfA. You can write to Kathryn (who sometimes posts on here) or any of the Council members (also including some who post on BAJR), or indeed to the Chief Executive. It is perhaps understandable that the IfA has more time for the views of their members than for those who are not, especially those who chose not to engage in dialogue but instead to criticise them on an internet forum!

They've already said on their Facebook forum that they are gathering responses from members to be sent to Council - who here has actually contacted them, rather than just whinging on here?

this can only be dealt with if people stop shrugging of responsibility for their future.

This is very true, and part of that is engaging in the democratic machinery of the IfA, and commenting through the correct channels. If you don't do either, then you can't expect your voice to be listened to, regardless of where you put it!