16th January 2011, 09:05 PM
Doug, excellent video. Just got around to watching it. It is interesting about the rising gap between crew chief and lowest wage earner. I think that might be more depressing than the inflation bit because it goes to show how undervalued the field tech. is now and is becoming. I wouldn't be surprised if temp workers are the future with more experienced, higher paid chiefs keeping an eye.
I see your point about a potential interest in construction/contractors. It might come down to exactly what type of development company is in question. I suppose a company doing historic restoration might be more interested in supporting the archaeologist (for higher profits, historic property value increase, Native American curse on the property value a-la Poltergeist, etc) than a company putting in pipes. I know people who work for a few medium sized construction firms that gets contracted mostly for municipal installations and upmarket properties (private marinas, golf courses, etc) and much to my disgust they do what they can to avoid calling in the archaeologists because it slows down their allotted development time. They call them in when it is pretty much unavoidable, if the find is so obviously intrusive that there is nothing they can do, or if the find is on public property. Sketchy stuff definitely goes on regularly and I am certain it is not just the companies I have in mind. Where I come from, construction hates archaeology when it hurts someone's wallet. Take this with the fact that the construction working class is in America tends to be highly Republican and anti-government. Archaeologists are nothing more than red-tape and wasted money to them. This is why the pitch needs to be different when archaeologists engage with these businesses (and their workers) a little more...especially if there is potential for archaeologists to benefit from Labor Laws. I don't know what the solution is though.
I see your point about a potential interest in construction/contractors. It might come down to exactly what type of development company is in question. I suppose a company doing historic restoration might be more interested in supporting the archaeologist (for higher profits, historic property value increase, Native American curse on the property value a-la Poltergeist, etc) than a company putting in pipes. I know people who work for a few medium sized construction firms that gets contracted mostly for municipal installations and upmarket properties (private marinas, golf courses, etc) and much to my disgust they do what they can to avoid calling in the archaeologists because it slows down their allotted development time. They call them in when it is pretty much unavoidable, if the find is so obviously intrusive that there is nothing they can do, or if the find is on public property. Sketchy stuff definitely goes on regularly and I am certain it is not just the companies I have in mind. Where I come from, construction hates archaeology when it hurts someone's wallet. Take this with the fact that the construction working class is in America tends to be highly Republican and anti-government. Archaeologists are nothing more than red-tape and wasted money to them. This is why the pitch needs to be different when archaeologists engage with these businesses (and their workers) a little more...especially if there is potential for archaeologists to benefit from Labor Laws. I don't know what the solution is though.
