Hardy Breed

[Dinosaur]

....a tent, however, while admittedly far from ideal, is cheap, provides shelter, a modicum of warmth, gets you out of the wind and rain, and can be put up anywhere.....or is that too old-fashioned? - but don't get me wrong, not promoting the idea, just :face-stir:, not used one as site accom since the 80s although it seemed to work fine then

[kevin wooldridge]

I take your point Kevin, but the fact that other contractors on site have these facilities would suggest that providing them is 'reasonably practical'. .

Of course, but as the HSE guidance says there could be other factors and one they highlight is cost. It seems this whole provision is impossible to implement if an employer can just turn round and say 'I would provide facilities, but it is too expensive!!'. That said it shouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility for an archaeological contractor to tell the client 'We can lower our costs if we can share existing onsite facilities'....

Conspiracy theorists of course might ask if the archaeological contractor in this instance is charging the developer for the cost of the facilities, but pocketing the moolah as pure profit by not providing the facilities for their staff. I don't suppose that ever happens in the real world though...!!

[Marcus Brody]

Conspiracy theorists of course might ask if the archaeological contractor in this instance is charging the developer for the cost of the facilities, but pocketing the moolah as pure profit by not providing the facilities for their staff. I don't suppose that ever happens in the real world though...!!

It's probably more likely that the contractor's tender did not include a charge for accommodation, on the basis that if they included this and someone else didn't, it could prevent them from winning the job. However, that sort of race for the bottom is ultimately self-defeating, as everybody else then has to engage in similar cost-cutting measures to compete.

I take your point Kevin, but the fact that other contractors on site have these facilities would suggest that providing them is 'reasonably practical'.

It may be that it's physically practical to get the facilities on site, but may not be practical in terms of time. If the builders are going to be there for 8 months or something, then the site establishment time and costs may be considered worthwhile, but if the archaeologists are only there for the first week, then the contractor could argue that such facilities are not justified.

I'm certainly not condoning the lack of facilities, however. When working outside in winter, there's a definite need for somewhere to get out of the cold and wet.

[differentcolourmud]

bit of a non story - the facilities are there to use.

I don't get this fixation with site huts, whenever we do hire one no bugger uses it - particularly since smoking bans came in. The thing about site huts is they don't have inbuilt stereos, don't have air con, sometimes no heating and you can't nip down the chip shop/garage in it so invariably everybody ends up in van or cars. The seats are comfier, have cup holders and I can rest the paper on the steering wheel. perfect.

[Dinosaur]

Good point - thinking about it, even in the arctic depths of last December most of the workforce actually spent most of their teabreaks huddled in the lee of the cabin having a fag and complaining that the couple of people inside had the heating turned up too far...kept the bog melted though, I suppose. have done a few jobs over the years where site accom wasn't practical for various reasons, and they all worked ok, even if the crosswords had to be saved for dry days. I believe one of the Raunds sites in the 80s had a golfing brolly as a site hut?

[Oxbeast]

This is why it was so hard to get managers to follow risk assessments (and HSE advice, employment law, etc) on site, they were all more interested in telling stories of their glory days when they dug with tea trays and spoons and sheltered in a paper bag. Or whatever.

[Dinosaur]

But it was more fun! And the world always had a rosy tint......pay's a helluva lot better now though :face-approve:

[Ken Denham]

I've been asked to shut up about this subject as folk are frightened that they may be accused of informing me on the situation. Apparently, and suddenly, the site facilities are now available to the team, and allways were.I've been requested to shut up because folk have mortgages to pay etc.

[angi]

I'm not over-fussed about cabins myself as long as the van isn't too crammed and it's a pain in the backside to get them on site, but most toilet hire companies only do two-week minimum hire these days which makes it less likely that we can get one. If anyone knows of a national company or little local ones that actually do one week hire, let me know!

[alisdair]

Aye well said Oxbeast, more power to your elbow. Can anyone answer me, why if it is an absolute minimum that construction staff have to be provided with site accom that includes hot running water the ability to dry work clothes, cooking facilities, a changing room so that at the end of the shift work clothing can be exchanged for 'civvies', toilet facilities that accurately reflect the gender make of staff, that such facilities are not standard for Archaeologists? I am willing to accept that during the evaluation phase of any dig, as has been noted above, that the transitory nature and lack of team members means that the HSE are deliberately ambiguous about statutory requirements, however when it comes to excavation why other than the deliberate down costing (cut throat world out there, must make profit, and looking after our staff is secondary to our profit margins, because we can't accept that actually we are a profession, and lets face it there is a yearly crop of fresh 'cannonon fodder' to be abused) should we be treated than anyone else? Rant over. If Archaeologists want to be treated like the professionals they claim to be then it's time to start acting like professionals!