From Real Job
Quote:quote:At present the IFA rates seem to 'set' the wage for nearly all companies (RAOs and non-RAOs). Why don't non-RAOs undercut that rate at present? Why would they be more likely to if the rate was set higher?
In some cases, the non-RAOs concerned are local authority units who are necessarily bound by local authority pay rates.
I am led to believe by previous posts on this thread that some non-RAOs
do undercut the IFA rates.
I could not be certain why some non-RAOs that are also non-local authority units pay at or above the IFA rates, but there are a number of possible factors in these decisions:
1. the managers concerned may be IFA members as individuals, and want to apply IFA standards;
2. irrespective of IFA status, the managers concerned may have their own ethical standards and do not want to pay poverty wages;
3. the managers concerned are influenced by a perception of what is the 'going rate';
4. they may feel that they could not attract or retain sufficient numbers or quality of staff if they undercut the IFA rates.
They may feel that they can afford to pay these rates because they will not be at too large a competitive disadvantage - which might not apply if the rates go up too fast.
Don't get me wrong - I am not arguing that pay in archaeology is ok now, and I would be keen to see it increase. What I am saying is that unilateral action by the IFA to raise the minima too quickly may be ineffective, or even counter-productive. What is needed is incremental action, undertaken through a consensus of industry leaders, and addressing not only the actual rates but the factors that make low pay sustainable (from a manager's point of view). These factors include (
inter alia):
- the link to local authority pay scales;
- grading within those scales;
- the oversupply of archaeology graduates.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished