IFA RO only as approved contractors

[trowelfodder]

And how many units have been stripped of RO status over the years? Wheres the evidence that you have teeth - tell us who you have taken action against when and why?

[Wax]

But if loss of RO status means no work... oh look the IFA just got teeth! :face-approve:[/QUOTE]

Would it not help the IFA in it's recruitment drive if those of use who doubt it's ability to regulate RO's saw it actively withdraw RO status from some of the "naughty boys"

I am with BAJR there are many who do very good work without RO status what on earth is in it for them? It is up to curators to monitor work in their county. Once you have a reputation for good work RO status is irrelevant. What are the legalities on forced membership of an unchartered unaccredited organisation? I does not seem clear and I suspect it would not stand up to a legal challenge despite what the IFA 's lawyers might tell them.

I am not completely anti IFA and have on several occasions got the paper work together for joining but ultimately I cannot see what is in it for me apart for some cheap rates at conferences. I have good reputation for my work and that is the most important thing to maintain which I do by following all and any guidelines I can get my hands on including the IFA, EH, BAJR and the CBA. The most important people to keep happy are the curators and my employers who are not the IFA. I have personal pride in my work as do most archaeologists (and I would include UNIT of one in this). Membership or non membership of an organisation is not relevant to this personal standard.

[trowelfodder]

Hear hear! Any news on a statements from units yet hosty?

[vulpes]

Let's be clear trowelfodder, I am not the IFA. And you're missing the point entirely. This move has the potential to give the RO scheme the credibility and status you say it lacks. You can argue the toss all day, but if this move is successful it's application will spread. And... that will be that. Oh... and then there's the looming possibility of chartered status too, of course. Tidy, and a job well done :face-approve:

[Drunky]

IFA having teeth, well done to them its taken years and is based on no evideance, so as long as every curator agrees and people actually/ contractors care about the archaeology, then it might be worth something in 10 or more years

[trowelfodder]

I disagree with you Vulpes, this move does not in any way give the RO scheme any credibility whatsoever. If anything the fact that it is being slipped in under the radar means it appears even more of an old boys network!

I dont disagree with the idea of chartered status - in fact i would welcome it - but my point is that the IFA does not have the legitimacy to do this. Join us, a self appointed, self regulating group or dont work..... hardly seems like a democratic move!

[GnomeKing]

I am sorry, but i just don't feel up to Centralisation any more...all i can forsee is the same big units setting the agenda by sheer force, everbody else cutting each otehrs throats in the spaces left....no progresion at all....

i would like to see Quality (perhaps even Experience) as assets with commercial value/demand....if this Whole-Archaeology-Thing is going to continue as a commercial enterprise, then we need to start putting Money Value on Standards/Results/Research....

( eg In a 'proper' market system copyright might help ensure that Quality and Experience are equitably valued)

I don't know about a solution - but i am not happy about a professional body dominated by big commercial groups/interests, when it is they that should be under the most scrutiny! Not until i see some of the shoddy practice I already know about being dealt with!

It is really very simple.

That is how to demonstrate the value of the IFA - currently, anything else just seems like coercion or bureaucratic take-over to me.:face-crying:

[trowelfodder]

In this system how could any new units be set up? How could they get the references they need to become ROs if they are unable to get work?

[vulpes]

I have personal pride in my work as do most archaeologists (and I would include UNIT of one in this).

I don't doubt that you do. And i wasn't having a dig at Unit of 1, but was merely repeating his oft made point that currently anyone can call themselves an archaeologist. And therefore how meaningless your statistic was. A situation which may conceivably change in the future. Additionally, I'm not going to waste my time trying to persuade agnostics such as yourself of the benefits of joining the IFA. I couldn't care less about that really.

What are the legalities on forced membership of an unchartered unaccredited organisation?

No one is going to be forcing anyone. It's just that the rules of the game (as Kevin pointed out) may change. As dubya would say: 'Bring it on'

[Wax]

if the IFA cannot effectively police RO's now why should I believe they will be any better just because they have forced every one to join? All it will mean is that every one good and bad has letters after their name. The threat of not being able to work in a county is only any good if some one actually gets their status removed. And even with chartered profession there is not much to stop some one employing a non chartered company or individual if they really want to as long as the work comes up to an acceptable quality.

The IFA has to lead by example

The statistics come from profiling the profession 2008- 2009 which may well be made up but not by me