Wage Levels ?? where to set them?

[BAJR Host]

Do you agree with the Grades and LEvels set by BAJR... IF not why not.. ot do you see it as a step in the right direction??

[4HB]

I think that the grades that have been established are fair enough. My personal big concern is regarding wages - not a shock really. With the increase in minimum wage again in October to ?4.85 the lower entery level archaeologist, ie trainee, is soon set to be a near minimum wage position. I find that extremely scarey given most 'trainees' I've come across are graduates.

[BoltonSquanderer]

4HB, as the trainee positions will be be filled by people with no site experience or site skills then ?200 pw and free on-site training doesn't sound like such a bad deal.

[4HB]

I'm just concerned that as the minimum wage rises the wages of lower level diggers may become closer and closer to being just slightly above minimum wage.
Other professions give free in-house training for graduates and yet they offer renumeration far in excess of the levels currently being acheived by most archaeologists including Project Officers. A quick flick through The Guardian Jobs will confirm this.

[smash it to bits]

aup am new here .... aup mr Ainsworth...howz tricks in manchester with wilm and john going............any way back to the topic .........the longer you work in field archaeology the more you should get paid



top site

[the invisible man]

A qualified agreement from me. I would add the proviso that you should improve with experience!

Other professions vary, and it depends on the wealth within that profession. In architecture, newly qualified staff learn on the job as there is no other way, and pay varies both with the boom/bust cycle of the construction industry and the ability of the individual.

I suspect that units tenders have to be so low and finely pitched that there is no fat left to employ less productive trainees. The parallel in architecture is the difficulty in getting technicians (eg me). Offices always used to employ a school leaver to do the gophering, while learning the basics and going on day release. After a few years you have a home grown useful qualified technician. Now nobody can afford it as the mandatory fee scale has been abolished. (Also of course not many kids want to do the gophering any more)

[Monkey]

The biggest flaw in the archaeology pay scale as it stands is the level of the starting salary. A salary of under 12,000 for a trainee is an insult for someone who's been to university. A person who did an apprentership rather than going to university, by the time the student has left University would expect to be on 16,000. The whole idea that a fresh graduate should be on such a low salary straight from university, after collecting student loans and various debts is just what I stated earlier, an insult. With the average student debt after leaving university fast approaching 20,000, repayments of student loans now started at earnings of over 10,000, rising house prices, steep rises in rent of even shared houses and large increases in council tax to expect any graduate to start for under 14,000 is unreasonable. The way the term trainee is banded about by units suggests that what graduates gained at university counts for nothing and doesn't count as relevant skills. Units in fact in general always seem to be in a rush to pay the least money possible. This statement is based on being in the profession for over four years.

[Boris the Cat]

Well, Monkey, just because someone's been to University doesn't make them any good. No-one has a right to any salary just cos they have some letters after their name. I know a number of field archaeologists with no qualifications that are infintely better diggers than new graduates. New graduates remember may have only done 3-6 weeks training digs - usually run by some bearded academic whose may have spend a few summers working in Winchester in the 1970s, but whose only subsequent experience is, er, running student training digs.

Not equipping people for the real world.

12,000 for someone with no experience is actually quite a good wage, if they do six months at 12,000 and have LEARNT something along the way then progression upwards is quite likely.

[BoltonSquanderer]

quote:Originally posted by smash it to bits

aup am new here .... aup mr Ainsworth...howz tricks in manchester with wilm and john going

~Apologies for going off topic.

smash it to bits, I haven't a clue who you are - feel free to email me for a natter.

[Monkey]

'Well, Monkey, just because someone's been to University doesn't make them any good.'

True but the national average starting salery for graduate with training involved is 18,000, not 12,000.

'I know a number of field archaeologists with no qualifications that are infintely better diggers than new graduates.'

No arguments there (skills gained outside of archaeology and academia can be very valid) but to say that graduate experience and knowledge gained at university should be rewarded with a salery that hardley covers debts gained at University and rent is an insult. The fact is most diggers spend their first five years as professionals having to live like they did as students. Its ok for a while but having no money, not able even to think about getting a morgage and able to do things like go on holiday, is no fun. (How many archaeologists can afford start a family before their 30's)


' New graduates remember may have only done 3-6 weeks training digs - usually run by some bearded academic whose may have spend a few summers working in Winchester in the 1970s, but whose only subsequent experience is, er, running student training digs.

Not equipping people for the real world.'

True of some but not all. Your also only counting digging experience, for archaeology you need a lot of background knowledge, which is best gained at University. Also my field work experience before leaving Universiy was closer to six months, on excavations with supervisors who work currently at contract archaeology units. I have also found that there is a lot to be said for University research excavations, as the time constraints of contract archaeology, far to often leads to bad archaeology methods and questionable health and safety.

'12,000 for someone with no experience is actually quite a good wage, if they do six months at 12,000 and have LEARNT something along the way then progression upwards is quite likely.'

Good wage don't make me laugh. It should be a good salary of 15,000+, after the 6 month experience is gained. Most training salaries at the moment are closer to 11,000 and after 6 months experience and up to 3-5 years of experience 12,500. That frankly is pants. Add in the lack of job security, (I got laid off 3 times in the space of one month at one unit)then its all a big joke. Also their you go again with the no experience statement. That is an insult to any hard working graduate, who just wants to be able to live on there income clear there debts and not add any more.

If you want good archaeologists, (I know far to many good archaeologists who left over the poor pay, lack of stability and few chances of promotion) then the salary have to be competitive with other professions trainee salaries for graduates.

Training is important but salaries need to be set for graduate training. Not at apprentice levels, for someone straight out of school. This is at the crux of the point view i'm putting forward.

Put simply a graduate can not be expected to live off 12,000. The starting salary I suggested of 14,000, is still below the national average for anyone at graduate level.