Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Oh, yes... that would be the high wall at the back of the site that you can't actually see over without climing onto something.
Please Mattock, I talked to the specilaist company who actually removed the coffins, I talked to the site staff, I talked to the contractors...There was little else I can do if everything you percieved was wrong, turned out not to be.
Concerns about welfare on sites is quite proper and right... but in this case... and with all the evidence there was nothing wrong. It may have looked to you like it was... but thats what it was.. it only looked. I am right in thinking you did not actually work on the site? And this may explain your confusion about it.. but let this one go... there are plenty of cases where welfare is lacking.
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
Mattockhead-greetings.I do understand your concerns fully and have found myself in similar positions as have undoubtedly, most of the UK field staff.Welfare and safety issues (if taken seriously) can be sorted sometimes on site by having a word in the shell-like of a line manager.I`ve found that the best way to avoid conflict of opinion is simply to ensure that all staff are put through a comprehensive induction and sign a phased risk assessment prior to work.Tiz a rare thing unfortunately.When there is one (large developer premises) this usually takes the form of "watch this video about ladders and fire", the teas over there etc.Other sub-contractors are issued with risk assesments for their own little worlds and time after time-ours is missing. We just don`t seem to have got there just yet.Some months ago, I suggested that (after raising issues with line managers) field staff should carry disposable cameras.We are in the unenviable position of being asked to bear the burden of "proof" for what we perceive to be transgressions of codes of practise.I think what I am trying to say is that, believe it or not, we are on your side but, unless we can provide the appropriate body with adequate evidence....
I have moaned long and hard about optional and non-policed standards.After many a rant it turns out that in the current climate, the workers "at the coal face" are deemed responsible for policing the standards of their line managers and above.I cant tell you how much that inserts a bug....however, if thats what it takes, lets do it through their channels.Mr Hosty has publically explained the actions he took in relation to the case in question.I think we can all honestly admit that on occasion, the reality on the ground can be very different from the image projected in the paperwork.If the reality on the ground isn`t questioned and then recorded at the time-field workers are in danger of not being heard. Leaving the active policing of institute standards to front line staff on tenuous short-term temporary contracts is not on. I dont intend to defend any side in this discussion, merely to point out that the infrastructure for complaint is in place and does work.I did`nt think I would ever say that! Tiz the sad truth, standards are apparantly down to us.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Sad buttrue in many cases Troll... sad but true...
However... the more people and Units who agree to abide by specific rules... then the better... WIth other transgresions which are clear breaches of H&S or Employment Law.. its easier...
ie... if you do not have 'access to' toilet facilities then that is a Breach... whether or not you are in the IFA or Not...
But as ever... evidence is always required. Good strong evidence that illustrates the complaint.
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
In your original complaint you were saying you were a new graduate in archaeology so may have misunderstood the onsite acivities ... and I have now checked and even sent you a photograph of the proper work with proper PPE being carried out by specialists....the site hoarding was also shown to be screened from all the public roads. The HSE were happy, the contractors were happy, the council was happy, the staff were happy, the Home Office were happy, the Police were happy... hell.... even I was happy...
I am sure you truely believe that there were breaches... but unless all the above were hiding a secret... Sometimes... things just ain't what they seem.
I would also suggest that if the staff had access to toilets (shared with the contractors- which I have done as a Unit director on occassion myself - as it makes sense) they would also have access to their washing facilities, unless you are saying the demolition contractor did not have washing facilities either.
Please try and see my position... I am not the 'guardian' of archaeology - I don't even ride a white horse.. but I do check up on complaints, or pass them to the relevant person. If the checks (which I have to carry out in my own time) show that nothing is wrong what more can be done. Sometimes things are wrong, but can be sorted quickly, or in more serious cases I can facilitate a higher level investigation (as has happened on a few occassions) In his particular case there was only your word against everyone else..... sorry if thats not good enough for you... but what do you want me to say? [:0]
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Mattockhead,
I am particularly concerned that you think the moderators on BAJR operate a closed shop. As I understand it you observed these action ? you were not actually working on the site.
I would address some of the points you raise as follows (without knowing the detail of this case:
1. Welfare facilities.
Males and Females sharing toilet facilities. It is perfectly acceptable for toilets to be shared between contractors and archaeologists. It would be stupid not to. It is also acceptable for there not to be separate facilities for females provided that:
each convenience is in a separate room in which the door can be secured on the inside. SCAUM manual page 5.2
You said that ?Ladies WERE expected to use the same facility as male colleagues and contractors!!! ARE we not worth more than this????
You may not like sharing toilets etc with ?ladies? or building contractors but it is the norm. I do not understand why you think that archaeologist deserve better than this.
2. Home Office Licence.
I think all the laws/regulations relating to burials have to be seen in context especially as they are under review. As I have already said there is an absurdity in the notion that all burials must be excavated away from the public view given the frequency in which this operation is filmed and broadcast or photographed and published in newspapers. Similarly para 59 of the CofE/EH guidelines states that: ?Many people are interested in seeing the archaeological remains excavated and this should not be discouraged. ?.cemetery excavations should be screened if they would be visible to the casual passers by.
The common/standard Home office Licence condition is
?the ground from which the remains are interred shall be screened from the public gaze while the work of removal is taking place.?
I have yet to see a condition that requires the exhumation to take place in complete privacy. There appears to be a wall blocking the view to a degree this may or may not have been adequate.
The St Pancras example you quote is not a good one ? there was widespread criticism of what went on this site.
The Law concerning burials is far from black and white. It is very complex and arcane. I am assuming that the burials are in fact Christian and from a pre 1850 cemetery ie a Churchyard. In such circumstances the home office licence is only part of the requirements.
In the last two years there have been some quite major differences of opinion about what is and is not acceptable between the various parties. In the case of the conditions associated with home office licences they issue a generic catch all licence and the conditions may not apply in every case. The Home office regulation cover the dis-interment of all human remains and in many respects are designed for very recent burials rather than archaeological burials. This distinction is now being made clearer.
In terms of your comment:
?All in all, it doesn't give much hope to those wishing to reform the profession by whistle blowing to the IFA/BAJR,as NOTHING WILL BE DOWN (closed shop?.
Things can only be done if there a been a clear breach of a regulation and there is evidence that breach occurred. As things stand in my view the matter has been thoroughly investigated and the results of that investigation made public. I would suggest that this is real progress on the situation just 12 months ago.
Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle
1. Welfare facilities.
Males and Females sharing toilet facilities. It is perfectly acceptable for toilets to be shared between contractors and archaeologists. It would be stupid not to. It is also acceptable for there not to be separate facilities for females provided that:
each convenience is in a separate room in which the door can be secured on the inside. SCAUM manual page 5.2
You may not like sharing toilets etc with ?ladies? or building contractors but it is the norm. I do not understand why you think that archaeologist deserve better than this.
The situation regarding the provision of welfare facilities is slightly more complicated than 'It is perfectly acceptable for toilets to be shared between contractors and archaeologists'.
The law does say that men and women can share toilet facilities providing that they are lockable from the inside. But it also says (in the Approved Code of Conduct that accompanies the Act) that in the case of facilities used by women that there must be a method of disposal of sanitary wear etc. This would seem to exclude most Portaloo type installations which in my experience rarely include wastebins.
The Approved Code of Conduct also states that there should be an adequate number of toilets. 1 to 6 staff requires 1 toilet. 6-25 staff requires 2 toilets. However the calculation for the number of toilets is calculated separately for men and women. So that on a site with 3 men and 2 women, 2 toilets would be required i.e 1-3 men equals one toilet, 1-2 women equals one toilet. In such instances there seems to be no problem in designating one toilet for men and one for women.
There is also the problem on a lot of sites where the site hut is used as tool store, office, changing room and eating facility. To have any combination of these (other than possibly tool store and office) is excluded under the act. Again in my experience, the provision of separate changing facilities for men and women is rare on archaeological sites.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
From the start of this week we had no toilet facilites for 3 days, there were over 20 people on the site.
Supervisor seem not to give s**t literraly.
May god go with you in all the dark places you must walk.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Let me know - offlist.... where this is, who it was and if it has been sorted, and what the excuse was... and also where you had to 'go'
info@bajr.org
after all I do like a Monday with attitude.
Did anyone ask or make a point about this lack of toilet?
Another day another WSI?
