BAJR Federation

[1man1desk]

Posted by Dirty Dave:

quote:We have read posts that are not pro-IFA or pro-PROSPECT, I have yet to see anything negative said about BAJR, is that because people have more trust in BAJR?
I think there is deffinately a role for BAJR to play which needn't detract from the groups mentioned

I agree entirely.

As you may have gathered, I am pro-IFA, and also strongly pro-BAJR. I am entirely neutral on Prospect, as I have no experience of them.

I think there is an important and useful role for BAJR as a provider of services and information and as a discussion forum, all things that it already does very well. It could also form a potentially powerful focus for lobbying, a route that it has already started to go down. I am a great admirer of what Mr Hosty has achieved in creating BAJR and growing it into what it is now.

However, the description given in the opening post on this thread really does sound like an alternative IfA with a bit of Union thrown in, and I think it would be a bad mistake to go down that line. It would completely change the nature and purpose of the organisation, endangering all that has been achieved, while polarising the archaeological community even more than is already the case. I know that isn't what is intended, but I think it would be the consequence.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[kevin wooldridge]

OK I have had some time to put together a few thoughts....

Why is BAJR Fed a good idea? Because there are archaeologists out there who for all sorts of reasons have difficulties with organisations such as CBA, IFA, Prospect, FAME. But who feel that BAJR is sympathetic to their ideals, easier to access and appears in touch with their views and interests in archaeology as a profession. This is in addition to the groups (many identified by David in his introduction) that have traditionally (for various reasons) been overlooked by the 'establishment'.

There are something in the region of 7500 persons working in UK archaeology of whom about a third are affilliate to, or members of, the IFA. A smaller number (I would estimate less than 1000) are members of a trade union representing archaeologists. If BAJR Fed attempts to give a voice to the majority of working archaeologists, the large number of archaeology students and a host of amateurs missed by the established groups, surely that has to be a good thing. I would like it that BAJR Fed promotes a message something along the lines of 'It's not us and them, it's us and us'.


How can BAJR Fed work? I would like to think that BAJR Fed can work by highlighting the good and bad things in UK archaeology; act as a clearing house for comment on the state of UK archaeology (within the well established BAJR guidelines); keep archaeologists informed of goings on, probably ahead of the time it takes more established groups to do so; fairly criticise established organisations when criticism is due; allow individuals to pursue BAJR ideals in their own workplace and through their membership of established organisations; and hopefully do so at the lowest cost needed to run an efficient network.

I think that through the umbrella of BAJR Fed it would be possible for individuals or groupings to address their own personal concerns within the industry, be it a British Women Archaeologists group, a group of sole traders, gay or lesbian archaeologists, UK archaeologists working abroad, detectorists etc etc. And maybe we could update and adapt BAJR Guides to cover many or more of the topics BAJR Fed members are interested in.

I am not sure that BAJR Fed can operate as a trade union and directly negotiate with employers, although I see no reason why BAJR cannot continue the current practice as I understand it of offering advice to advertisers, regarding wage rates, terms and onditions etc. Likewise I hope that BAJR Fed can ensure it avoids be accused of forming a cartel (I am sure a definitive statement regarding the activities of groups affilitated to BAJR Fed can ensure this does not happen).


Can it be financially viable? Personally I would be willing to match my IFA contributions as an annual donation to the running of BAJR Fed. I am not over bothered if other people give as much as they can afford or as little as they feel worthwhile. I don't want a magazine(Past Horizons online will do for me), I don't want a membership card, just as long as the website keeps running, but I would like the BAJR 'message' to continue to be promoted throughout UK archaeology. Oh and instead of a regular annual conference could we not just meet up, as and when we happen to meet up.

[BAJR Host]

Damn good post there...

The need is to take my original thoughts and to hone them into something that the majority can agree with (otherwise known as democratic process) and that meets the realistic requiremnts of those that wish to join.. I like very much the phrase.. NOT thema nd us.. but us & us. It is only going to be through some realisation that cooperation and openness is not an implied erosion of another group, but a strengthening of all of us.

There is much to think about, much to alter and much to turn into a firm proposal.. after which I would expect a meeting... but the case is made.. the support is obvious, its not a case of if... but how.

I perhaps should clarify the unionised aspect.. (as BAJR will not be a union - after all there is already one.. even if representation seems to be patchy) if people want union representation .. they will have to be unionised... to be a short term contract worker (ie a digger or similar) it can be difficult (but not impossible) - and if you want the Union rights, you will have to be in a union... as BAJR will not be one.

Part of the process will be establishing expectations... what is possible... why is it needed - the how comes later.. you can't create a fully fledged organisation without regard for what the members of the organisation want... and the organisation can't have that process without members... this is an initial consultation... the concept can be formed, the organisation formed, the members join and then... decide on the complete form of the federation.

Even if it is the federation of small businesses/individuals/groups and students/that are in someway involved in the legal frameworks that are current in UK archaeology (but thats..

FoSBIGaSTaiSIitLFtaCiUKarch which perhaps does not roll off the toungue.. :face-huh:

"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton

[Oxbeast]

John Walford, when I joined Prospect, I noticed that in the small print you can notify them in writing that you do not want your subs to be pooled with the political fund. They don't exactly tell you straight out on any of the recruitment stuff, but your money doesn't have to go in the block grant to the labour party.

[kevin wooldridge]

I think I can clarify the point that John Walford raises.

Prospect is non party-political. It is not a member union of the Labour party and does not donate to the Labour party or to any other political party.

However, since the mid 1980s certain activiites of trade unions have been deemed by various acts of parliament to be 'political' (even if non-party related) and for a union to undertake such activities they have to have a 'political fund'established to pay for this type of campaigning. Every union member in the UK has a choice to opt in or opt out of contributing to their unions political fund.

But I have to say what a crap excuse for not joining a union i.e I don't want them to fight for my rights!!

[BAJR Host]

There are many comments about representation by Prospect - perhaps PROSPECT would like to comment?

"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton

[chiz]

For the record, the following is written as a recently joined member of the IFA and the Digger’s Forum, and a long term member of Prospect, but not particularly active in any of those, I don’t think I’ve any axes to grind, apart from the usual ones on pay...I'd consider myself a digger, but in the past have been a project officer.
I’ve been thinking about all of this, and from David’s outline the first impression is: great idea, lets all have a real discussion about representation and what we can all do to improve things, second impression is that on close reading I don’t see a great deal of difference with much of the IFA except in the tone, and an increased emphasis on training and communication. Now that may underline what I feel is a rather major point in this: it’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it (that’s what gets results). The IFA is, like it or not, not very good at communicating with the majority of site workers, whereas BAJR forums are very good at giving people a voice where they feel respected. The IFA costs money, BAJR is free. The site workers who have had a bad deal for years, feel disenfranchised and don’t trust the IFA in general because they don’t see it as relevant to them and because they aren’t communicated with or to. Many site diggers don’t even trust the union because they haven’t had direct experience of the improvements a unionised workplace can make, and there haven’t been any big advances on pay at a time when cost of living was rising so fast. So a large percentage of the archaeological workforce is hacked off, and to be honest, we’re currently all a bit scared about our jobs –if we have one still, I don’t. There are long term issues over pay, conditions, training and career structure that ‘we diggers’ don’t hear a lot of movement on but are really vital to a continuing profession. The IFA needs to improve its communication on this front, where has there been any dissemination of whatever discussions are going, whatever hopes there are for coming out of this with what little gains we have intact? We need a group who will lobby on behalf of those unrepresented groups, but who are they?

I do believe that there are groups who are under-represented at present: some of this is due to cost, some due to individual’s choice, some to apathy, lack of awareness or the fact that they are so small in number as to make a specific group pointless. A lot in some sectors like site staff is down to disenfranchisement. Some groups that are included in the proposal are already represented, or could easily achieve a representative group within existing organisations, for example self-employed/specialist/freelance groups within the IFA, or a ‘small is beautiful contractor’ group within SCAUM/FAME. Students could form a group within the IFA and lobby for better training and education etc, or a separate (maybe affiliated) Association of Archaeological Students and Researchers. The framework does exist for motivated groups to make their specific voices heard, especially given the fact that the IFA allows non-members to join their Groups for a small fee. Other ‘groups’ have formed their own bodies, like the British Women Archaeologists group –which costs £20 a year.
I think it would be hard for a single Federation covering all David’s mentioned groups to be sustainable, it would surely pull in too many different directions? How to reconcile the views and aspirations of a sole trader running a unit with 50 staff, with a consultant, with a student , with a digger? A single member from each group to go to ‘council’ may not be practicable as there may be far more students/temporary staff than sole traders, but they each get one member on council –easily solved problem, but how do you make it representative?

I don’t think duplicating the role of the IFA is worthwhile, and it would end up costing money (as said, the BWA is £20 a year and BAJR Fed is hoping to do a lot more than them, although probably with a far greater membership). The IFA do carry out a lot of meaningful roles for the profession, and very necessary roles at that, but they aren’t the things that ‘we diggers’ want all the attention on, like pay, conditions, career and training. That’s why ‘we diggers’ see the IFA as often pointless and irrelevant. The Digger’s Forum is trying to change things from the inside, but is hamstrung by a lack of the promised webpage, and the same inability to communicate.

Looking at what each group does best leads me to suspect that a group duplicating the IFA would not take us anywhere new, we’re too far down the road. The very acceptance of the IFA’s standards implies acceptance of the decisions of the IFA in such matters. The crux point is, what are the strengths of BAJR? Play to those. An open discussion point, a media for communicating ideas, a jobs and information resource, and a campaigning group that argues for fair and transparent pay and conditions.
I think a BAJR group could have a real role to lobby effectively on behalf of the site workers, students and other unrepresented groups, pointing out flaws, badgering the IFA, SCAUM/FAME, employers, universities, curators, in a constructive fashion. Acting as a resource, forum, discussion point etc. Basically doing what it does now, but with a strong mandate and in alliance with other concerned groups.

Why does BAJR need a mandate? Well at the moment BAJR is one person, David Connolly. Yes he talks to others, seeks advice, gives advice, but from whom? We all apparently trust him and believe he shares our opinions to a greater or lesser extent, but he has no express mandate for action other than the willing or grudging acceptance by other groups/units that he ‘represents’ site workers, the great unwashed. That’s why he’s put this proposal out there. The very fact that he gets invited to talk to the governing groups kind of implies that they want someone to talk to? I reckon giving BAJR a second level of membership (the first being having a log-on) could allow BAJR to be truly representative -the views expressed on these forums may be representative of the views of some diggers, but they aren’t necessarily representative of the majority of diggers. So there needs to be some simple mechanism to achieve this, perhaps a series of e-polls on issues, but where every member is emailed and asked to vote, rather than the paltry turnout on recent hot topics (28 votes on the Crisis? Poll for example).
I’m interested in seeing where this develops, and what the opinions of those who have direct experience of setting up and running groups are. I'd like to think that any resulting group didn't polarise the industry any further but would be a positive force for good, as David intends.
So good one Dave for putting the proposal out there, lets get some more feedback.

[1man1desk]

Posted by bob:

quote:Looking at what each group does best leads me to suspect that a group duplicating the IFA would not take us anywhere new, we’re too far down the road. The very acceptance of the IFA’s standards implies acceptance of the decisions of the IFA in such matters. The crux point is, what are the strengths of BAJR? Play to those. An open discussion point, a media for communicating ideas, a jobs and information resource, and a campaigning group that argues for fair and transparent pay and conditions.
I think a BAJR group could have a real role ... basically doing what it does now, but with a strong mandate and in alliance with other concerned groups.

I couldn't agree more about the role of BAJR.

A 'mandate' would certainly strengthen BAJR's hand as a lobby group, but we need to be careful about what we mean by the word and what it implies for the nature of BAJR. It could be taken to mean that BAJR is run by an elected individual (or group, like the Council suggested by Mr Hosty). Elections have to be credible, and they cost a lot of money to run; BAJR would cease to be free.

Once BAJR is run by an elected Council, David would lose personal control. Instead of the idiosyncratic creation of an inspired individual, BAJR would become an 'institution', with a formal membership and subscriptions to pay. It would represent its members, and could never claim anything else. Its character would change, possibly to the point where it loses its current genuine grass-roots appeal, and therefore its reason to exist.

Alternatively, mandates could be sought for lobbying on a single-issue basis through a poll of members. Again, polls would have to be carried out in a credible way that can be shown to prevent multiple-voting etc.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

I very muched enjoyed and agreed bobs thoughtful post... (I would comment only that suggesting that representing diverse people is a problem... is that not what groups like the IfA and PROSPECT not do?) That aside.. the concept of an independant lobby group.. one that can have representation and mandate.. is looking the way to go...

I kept stressing that this should not be an IfA or PROSPECT replacement.. and it seems that through the power of debate and discussion that a clearer picture of what and how is emerging.

As to it being 'BAJR' itself... that is also a tricky one... and I would perhaps prefer a BAJR supported group... one that is independant of, but fully supported by BAJR (ie me!) providing the logistics and info sharing that it would be about.. Playing to strengths. is quite right. Communication and Trust - use these.. and build on them. and work WITH... not AGAINST. I was absloutely in agreement with the phrase not them and us but us and us.

So a Federation - one that stands for those that need a unified and strong voice. :face-huh: - not a union.... not a professional organisation ... but one for the 'little guy' the digger the sole trader the independant specialsit, the student etc...

"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton

[BAJR Host]

Perhaps this article from Digger 20 (march 2002) may let people see what this is about... amazing vote numbers... and here we are... with not much to show for it.... no wonder people don't engage... NOTHING EVER HAPPENS! With a mandate and a federation ... this does not have to be the case... people might have to agree... but they will have to listen.

ie... think on about the April payscales! Here's my prediction... er... Benchmarking was all well and good... but er... economic condictions... blah balh, downturn... blah blah... lower inflation.. etc..... ie.... Dead Duck.


REad on.

92% say IFA minimum not enough

In a poll conducted on the BAJR website a staggering 92% of people demanded £250 or more per week as a reasonable wage for diggers. David Connolly, who runs the website, asked,

'When will the IFA raise the minimum wage level from the £215
that is currently in place? Just how long does it take to change the minimum pay rate? Surely RAOs [archaeological organisations registered with the IFA] could be informed of the change with a single email.'

Over 600 people answered the question 'What do you think a reasonable weekly digger's wage should be?'

3% said it should be £215,

29% said it should be £250 and

63% said it should be 'more than £250'.

Twenty-nine people (5%) said diggers should be paid nothing and should do the job for love.

David has asked that they 'get in contact with me as I would like to hire
them right away!'

The average wage in the UK is £380 per week. - Think on!!!!



"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton