IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT

[BAJR]

G1 : Training Position) £15,054.00 (£289.00 pw)
G2 : (ie Basic Site Assistant) £16,018.73 (£308.05 pw)

so G1s dont fill in context sheets then?

I saw the word trainee... and when you read what that is... it is a person with no experience and requires training. so I don't know where the graduate thing comes in?

PLus I notice you won't answer the question I asked you. now I have answered twice... it would be polite to do the same

So... what is you least amount you feel should be paid for a context card to be filled in. ??

The 'Skills Passport' was an ugly-arsed idea 15 years ago, and still is today

Strange you should ask... as it is back on it's feet again with a large injection of help, funding opportunities and backing. It will allow people to know their skills and know where they need to go, it will help employers know their workforce and visa versa allow employees to know their worth.
Trust is lovely, however. a piece of paper coming in that says... you can do this this and this... that is something to get teeth into.

I am intrigued about the hostility to the Skills Passport... as it sounds like you have seen it? or perhaps we are at cross purposes. and you are talking about something else?

These are find fighting talk sentiments, but what is the hard reality and way forward that you espouse. ??

[Unitof1]

How about £6.19 per context. What would you charge?

You could work out the cost of a context by adding up all the money charged over time say for example a year and divide by the number of contexts recorded in that year. I say a year because I would be trying to make some comparison to a salary but you would probably have to do more than a year or have a very big sample of context types to get a realistic figure from different diggers. I am a bit of a lumper so for example if I call something a soil I get out of separating it into topsoil and subsoil, and others might drag out five different horizons.

I linked to the graduate thing to show that the reality of their pay was based on market forces and that the actual pay that some industries say that graduates might be getting might not be realistic.

The fact is that the paradigm “how much should you charge to fill in a context sheet” is not easily transferable into the paradigm of a salary paid over time simply because some contexts take longer to process and some are more valuable than others. I quite often get asked how much the one grotty piece of pot that I have found in a three day watching brief is worth. Is the answer three times my day rate, or is it the time it took to see it and put it in a bag and process it, probably about five minutes of my day rate or is it what you can get for it on ebay.

BUT vitally more importantly I could add to my rates all the time I am not working and this is the thing with context based archaeology is that terms of salary do not relate to most sites as they are very short lived and even shorter lived the more efficiently you process them. The system that you are so doggedly trying to hold to is some salary based structure which can only apply if you concentrate the contexts of others from a wide area and devise a structure in which to process those contexts over time.

And a problem with comparing systems is finding like for like terms. So does your trainee fill in context sheets. If they do then in my system they are an archaeologist and what you pay them is what I am competing against. In your salary based system the trainee is actually being trained to process the contexts of others as well and therefore and I am not joking not only are they being paid to excavate contexts they are being paid to learn how to process other peoples contexts so you could argues that the cost of the contexts that they produce is less than what they are paid.

Actually I might be a splitter

[BAJR]

SO you would go for a quantity based system.

You are more than welcome to do that. Is that what you charge your clients?

It seems that you are suggesting you will work for 6.19 if you find nothing more than topsoil and natural. Or does that not work?

In reality, although you would rather not accept the fact, you work within the 'system' you charge clients, and you certainly don't charge 6.19 per contect. you do however have a day rate, and a cost and expenses. one that I would hazard a guess is what you consider you are worth.

To obfuscate and rail against a system you operate within... is intriguing, seeing as your alternative is unworkable, and may result in a loss of pay.

It is clear that you do not believe in minima... - though does that mean there is no price you would not work for? even £6.19

To argue the toss, one also have to have a realistic alternative, otherwise you are merely postulating and pontificating for the sake.

Over to you with what you would see as a fair system...

[Unitof1]

not sure what a quantity based system isnt?

Seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that commercial field archaeology has a much over looked evaluation based structure. You saying that the evaluation system does not try to quantify costs?

[Dinosaur]

It seems that you are suggesting you will work for 6.19 if you find nothing more than topsoil and natural. Or does that not work?

You've not seen some of the site records I've been asked to write-up recently, amazing how many numbers can be thrown at the two layers....

[BAJR]

You've not seen some of the site records I've been asked to write-up recently, amazing how many numbers can be thrown at the two layers....

Oh I bet I can Lol!! god bless them...

Seems to me that you are ignoring the fact that commercial field archaeology has a much over looked evaluation based structure. You saying that the evaluation system does not try to quantify costs?

Though it does seem that you are unable to actually say what the sensible system you would employ is. Seems to me you are trying not to answer any direct question as in reality it is too difficult. :face-approve:

[Martin Locock]

I would agree that tendering on cost for archaeological work is probably the worst way to manage an unquantified resource. Michael Heaton has argued that an 'open book' approach where rates are agreed and then the payment is based on work done is much healthier, and actually works out cheaper (since there is no need to build in a contingency in case complex archaeology turns up).

[GnomeKing]

BAJR - you are right - an alternative proposal is badly needed.

Rekills passport - i suppose deep down i am in favor because i am rather keen to pass on what was taught to me

(how though, in a practical manner, [SIZE=1]would i back-date all those skills?)[/SIZE]

just not sure of the implementation, or indeed the make-up of body implementing it (sorry) - even then, at present, CVs and other pieces of paper mean very little to me until i actually engage with a persons work - for any sensible 'manager' this will always be the case...(thus it may not in-its-self be a particularly effective measure for increasing technical standards in the profession).

Maybe: I don't really want fresh-kneed graduates brandishing pieces of paper at me and demanding they do this that or the other, rather than the dull back-breaking stuff...is there a certificate for 'grafting' ?

Maybe: i am slightly concerned that if Big ROs (with their 'management hierarchies') set the agenda, and also have a majority share of delivery, it will be fairly easy for the group as a whole to simply certificate whatever practices it currently has (which are not all bad).
>>>>>>>This is almost indistinguishable from ROs effectively self-certifying themselves, and whatever practices they can CURRENTLY get away with...and a rarely deserved mutual 'self-pat-on-the-back' for Executives/Directors/etc.

An alternative : well ok ... let me think a bit...still, i [SIZE=1]don't see how stopping the criticism helps[/SIZE]...

[Unitof1]

from the boom year 2008 http://www.archaeology.demon.co.uk/ABC%202008.doc

(1) Teach Property Development Economics, Contract Law and Professional Law to archaeologists intending to enter, or already in, the ‘profession’. This is fundamental. Most technical universities run part time courses with these modules: Just do it.

(2) Establish an APC-based training regime aimed at equipping archaeologists with the professional and technical skills needed to run their own businesses.

(3) Discard all forms of wage control and encourage self-employment and sub-contracting, especially for Site Operations, Processing and Specialist services. The definition of ‘self employment’ is critical here and I am aware of anecdotal evidence that this contract form is being abused by at least three archaeological employers.

Together, these would double the average income of commercial archaeologists within 5 years.

Anybody who maintains a salary view of wage restraint is holding the system back. Stop encouraging people to join as trainees. They have to join as self employed. The skill is solely in being self employed. The current battle is about how the self employed ....deploy themselves.

[BAJR]

BAJR - you are right - an alternative proposal is badly needed.

Rekills passport - i suppose deep down i am in favor because i am rather keen to pass on what was taught to me

(how though, in a practical manner, [SIZE=1]would i back-date all those skills?)[/SIZE]

You have to start somewhere... or not at all. the skills passport - and I am still not sure if this is the one I am working on - and how you saw it? - starts at Uni./vocational. it is a starter.

An alternative : well ok ... let me think a bit...still, i [SIZE=1]don't see how stopping the criticism helps[/SIZE]...

I don't mind critisism. it is the only way to move things along. and far from stopping it, I would love to hear it. the need however is to say... I criticise because xxxxx and to rectify that I would yyyyy

rather than... this is hal;f arsed... though I won't explain why and I have not thought about anything other than that.

Critique away.



AS you see..... Uo1 can critique but not answer even basic questions...

This is fun for a while but it is easy to say what is rotten in the state of Denmark, but harder to actually come up with concrete possibilities.

ie
Anybody who maintains a salary view of wage restraint is holding the system back.
Statement of opinion but no alternative viewpoint.
Stop encouraging people to join as trainees.
Statement of opinion, but not actually backed up with any facts or why this would be bad / what would a better solution be.
They have to join as self employed.
Grandiose statement with no real meaning whatsoever.
The skill is solely in being self employed.
Repeat grand statement as if that somehow makes first time more meaningful.
The current battle is about how the self employed
Is it really. that is news to people. another Grandiose statement that is pure myopic opinion.
deploy themselves
WTF?


So there we have it. In Uo1 land

The solution to the crisis is for everyone to become self employed.... well glad that's sorted. Wonder why other people have not worked that one out? Oh... thats right... it's pure keech


So if we could get past the daft evasion and general negatives... What actually do you have to contribute to a positive discussion or is it better to critique ??? ? :face-approve:


I seriously do hope to hear some ideas.