Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Post-Med Potterer,
The experience EH, HS and CADW have with strategic initiatives and frameworks on a national level is what makes them ideal to implement an all-inclusive package for the benefit of all archaeologists. The IFA, and I do recognize that it has its good points, has shown over 22 years that it isn't willing to take the lead as a governing body. Two thirds of British archaeologists, for a variety of reasons, decline to apply for membership of the IFA, this reluctance to join illustrates why the IFA will not be accepted by many as a representative governing body. Some of the most senior members of the IFA are the people who set the pay and conditions within their own organisations, the very conditions that have to be changed. Is there not a clear conflict of interest inherent in asking people in charge of commercial contracting companies to take on a pastoral role within the archaeological community. EH, HS and CADW already have pastoral responsibilities for the national archaeological resource, a chartered body administered by them would appear entirely in keeping with their remit.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Hello everyone, I'm a new boy here so please be gentle with me. I'm also an "outsider" - I am not a professional archaeologist, I have a proper job at present so would like to offer an outside view (although having been an amateur I am foolish enough to be starting in the 2nd year of a degree in archaeology in September).
First, I wouldn't get too excited about pay scales and governing bodies. Other professions don't have pay scales, you're paid according to supply and demand and how good you are (or can convince people you are). The professions themselves (eg architecture, which is what I know about) are no longer allowed to publish mandatory fee scales as they used to, they have to compete (fee bid) for work. A pay scale, if actually legal, would surely inhibit this process.
The very concept of fixed pay scales worries me a bit anyway. This is a very Local Authority idea and frankly the real world is not terribly interested in it. Minimum pay rates are a subtly different concept, but how would they be enforced? OK the IFA could require member organisations to adhere to them. So, when labour is cheaply available, how do you get organisations to join the IFA? Further, a minimum pay rate rapidly becomes the standard.
Similarly the idea of "grading" everyone (I can imagine the converstaion at parties, "hi, I'm a grade 2 Taurean...") is very LA and very cumbersome, and doesn't really exist in other professions. I suppose an informal sort of progression is evolving, slave/digger/supervisor/PO etc, which is roughly similar to architecture and more or less reflects what is actually done.
The problem begins with the fact that there are too many applicants for each vacancy (I don't expect to work when/if I get my degree, by the way, although I would love to). A viscous circle is formed as the fees charged by the units are too low, also depressing wages. The cycle could perhaps be broken - we have a captive client base, the developer HAS to employ someone. The costs will be recouped - construction coats will rise to compensate.
Well, a bit of a disjointed ramble for my first go, but there you go!
Hmm, ritual, I think.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Well done, invisible man, for injecting a dose of reality! Local Authorities are increasingly far-removed from the real world, and should not be taken as a model for anything, especially how to organise a profession. I have found that people who have worked for any length of time in a local authority unit have a certain attitude - work only from 09.00 to 17.00 (or earlier on Fridays), must have certain number/length of teabreaks, cannot do anything remotely on their own initiative etc. I admit that this is an over-generalisation, but contains some truth.
In a free market, the idea of a fixed pay scale is utter nonsense. Yes there should be minimums.
As invisible man points out, we do have a captive client base. However, until everyone agrees to raise their prices and wages, then nothing will happen. Instead, there is a need for
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
But the point of a free market is that there is no imposed minimum wage. Therefore, there would be nothing to stop a unit paying ?100 per week or less, provided they could get someone to work for that rate. And if one unit could get staff to work for that rate, other units would have to follow suit, in order to be competitive, driving wages down.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
And vice versa. If staff are sought after then one unit might offer ?500 a week, and to compete other units would have to follow suit. The problem is that staff are not sought after, jobs are - although I did hear last year that some units were struggling to get good staff, that is, with some experience and practical training. Which brings us back to the old Catch 22 situation... you need a job to get the experience which you need to get a job...
Minimum pay scales are very tricky. I wholeheartedly agree with the cobcept of national minima, which should be reasonable and applicable to all - surely any civilised society should adopt such values. Scales set by a professional body are great in theory, but I wonder if they would be contrary to monopoly and competition legislation. Also, it would require a grading system with all the drawbacks that have been discussed here.
So, are we training too many archaeologists? Well, maybe, but isn't the question what is the purpose of education - to train people for industry, or to enrich their lives - education for its own sake? As I said, I intend going to uni at the ripe old age of 48 because I love archaeology. I know my chances of employment at 50 can best be described as between zero and nil. But what the hell, you're only middle aged once and the nation needs minicab drivers!
I know from the training excavation I am involved in that many students and new grads have little or no practical experience. Perhaps we could do with post degree training of some sort, in the various fields - commercial diggery, consultancy, planning and so on, as well as the specialisations, if I may make the distinction. But who funds it? Ideally traineeships for want of a better word, perhaps?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
I think everyone agrees that ARCH pay is pretty basic. Second that we are in a fairly unique line of work. Industry minimums are better than nothing even if they may not be the best long term arrangement. Unfortunately any kind of improvement will only come around with regulating the industry(profesionalising??, thoughts on this). The only way to properly access experience is by independent examination. Lets face it that after a year you can still potentially have extremely limited experience. This could then be used to look at pay scales against a recognized qualification system. By exams, I mean basic or advanced field skills, for instance site planning, surveying, photography, beer appreciation, pulling power etc.
This may also be completely unreasonable and impractical
OK you can now shoot me down in flames.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Hang on a sec ...
'Local Authorities are increasingly far-removed from the real world, and should not be taken as a model for anything, especially how to organise a profession'
Please dont give me that crap, unlike all the cutthroat private units a Council unit has to meet all sorts of corporate standards, as a public service and as an archaeolgical contractor. They also have to provide far better rights to employees, in accordance with other public sector departments.
Despite this public field units generally have to be self funding or the council will close them down without thinking twice. My unit can keep in business, maintaining a service that can be far more involved with the general public, despite cowboy units coming in with devastatingly low bids cos they treat their diggers like vermin.
Sounds like a good way to organise a profession to me.
and no, we don't just work 9 til 5, if we have too we'll do the overtime no problem. and whats wrong with having tea breaks? you ever tried getting a machine driver to work through his break? just doesnt happen.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Destroyer (and others)
Sorry about my previous posting, it started out as a bit of a generalised rant, and due my own incompetence it was sent to the list without being edited or even finished. So my apologies.
I do stand by my original point that within Local Authorities [u]generally</u> (and I don't mean just archaeology departments) there [u]can be</u> an certain attitude amongst certain staff that is (to those of us in the private sector) somewhat old-fashioned - a job for life, final salary pension, regular wage-rises without corresponding rises in productivity etc. This is not a 'politics of envy' type of response to the situation - rather an observation over many years that such cushioned working environments [u]can</u> lead to a lot of 'dead wood' in an organisation.
As to Local Authority archaeology units, yes, on one level they are 'self-funding' but in many cases they do not pay business rates, rents on buildings, telephone and internet charges, etc. and have the use of a number of other benefits (underwritten pension schemes, an abundance of health and safety officers etc) which other purely private-sector businesses do not have.
Also, in some instances (happily fewer nowadays) Local Authority units are often able to pick up work which may not have gone out to tender in the usual way. I am stopping short of accusations of 'backhanders' as such, but I do know personally of projects where this kind of thing has happened.
However, I digress. A National Minimum Wage is acceptable - indeed essential - for any civilised society (as the invisible manpoints out). However fixed wage rates for any profession are in fact illegal. This country operates as a free market capitalist economy, and, whether you like it or not, that is the reality.
In most markets (including the market for archaeological services) the two most important factors for consumers are price and quality. So, yes, we all know about 'cowboy' units who compete on price - and, in many cases, because the requirement for archaeological work is enforced on an unwilling small or medium scale development, the lowest price wins (also with local authorities, incidentally, who often mis-understand the notion of best value in construction projects and equate it with lowest price, but that's another debate for another thread). However there are many other units in the private sector that are trying to compete on quality. Now quality comes in many forms, and this can mean the ACADEMIC quality of the archaeological research, the PROFESSIONAL quality of the relationship with clients, and the quality of staff. But as any business in the private sector is aware, good quality staff need to be paid well, nurtured and retained. If you pay poor wages, and offer poor conditions, then staff turnover will be high and out of the window goes accumulated knowledge, consistency of product and so-on.
It does therefore seem strange that, almost uniquely in the professional world, the best paid archaeologists are in the public or academic sectors. However many of us running private sector units try to treat our staff with the respect they deserve - I for one do not like to be accused of treating my staff like vermin, or of running a 'cowboy' business. Yes we are a small unit, and no we don't offer pensions. We offer each employee a three month contract initially, and 3/5 of our staff are on 'permanent' contracts at present (the others are on six month rolling contracts).
We pay our staff above the BAJR minimum levels, we provide them with regular training and appraisals, we engage with the community on all our sites, we have a comprehensive health, safety and welfare policy (which is enforced). We strive to undertake work to the highest academic and professional standards, and most of the time we succeed. We also have copious amounts of tea and cake, occasionally even champagne at team meetings. And I am sure we are not alone in doing this in the private sector. Oh, and I forgot, we also MAKE A PROFIT
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
I would add that my point about Local Authorities was a general one and I was referring to all fields and professions within that sector. and not picking on council units.
I am pleased, but not surprised, to learn that archaeology is the profession in that sector that is the exception to the rule. I have great faith in the profession, you see.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Of course it is the exception that proves the rule!
In view of my previous analysis (which admittedly had something of the tone of an editorial from The Economist), I would like to speculate further...
Firstly, will archaeology will eventually mature into the kind of structure which we see in other construction-related professions. Will we see a situation of greater polarisation between so-called Quality Units and the so-called Cowboys?
Secondly, is there likely to be an increase in the division of labour between 'consultants' and 'contractors'? In practice many units do both at present, and some larger ones (such as Oxford and Wessex) will no doubt continue to do so. However many smaller units may end up as purely 'consultants' which subcontract archaeological labour from 'contracting' organisations. These may do project management on smaller jobs, but will effectively provide digging/buildings/whatever teams for larger projects.
Or is this already happening?
Is it desirable for archaeology? - and I don't just mean the 'profession' I mean the rather hazy notion of 'archaeological enquiry' as a whole.
|
