Tuition fees and the future of fieldwork

[roywhiting]

[quote]Originally posted by mercenary

I would fit in your category as a mature digger as I entered the profession at 28. What I really object to is the 50 something ex policemen or teachers that are independently wealthy (relative to me) who accept the low wages and temporary contracts because they see it as a fun hobby rather than their bread and butter.

FYI I have seen plenty of these people in the last ten years , so it is not a non-starter. Not only do they take away a job from a new graduate, but much more damagingly they reinforce in the minds of the aforementioned managers that crap wages and short term contracts are still an acceptable way to operate in the 21st Century. Overall a blow to professionalization in the industry'

We'll have to agree to disagree there mercenary. Such people exist but not in the numbers to affect the way that field unit managers cost up jobs. They do not constitute the reason why field archaeologists are low paid and why they continue to be low-paid. The reasons for low pay existing in the profession are far more wide-reaching than a very small proportion of the digging population being over 50 and willing to put up with the wages.

Troll - diggers are not specialists. That would mean every aspect of fieldwork is a specialism. Why can't we just accept that the job is a valuable one without having to use the 'specialist' tag. You devalue the term by applying it to every field operative.

[creetymus]

I think you are right about the wages. I left the profession due to my inability to provide for my future family!

[Tile man]

I've put up my thoughts of validation etc. on another thread in the IFA section as it is a bit off topic.
I would have thought that the number of graduates getting jobs at the moment is the same as ever - i.e. filling up the number of jobs available. I certainly havn't heard of any shortfalls.
In terms of union fees - mine were about 8p a month when unwaged which I could just about afford!
The first proper commercial job I got in 1990 required a minimum 2 years excavation experience, so restricting access to the profession wouldn't necessarily increase wages.
What would increase wages is everyone actively aggittating etc for higher wages, rather than waiting for someone else to do it for them out of the kindness of their hearts!

[mercenary]

quote:We'll have to agree to disagree there mercenary. Such people exist but not in the numbers to affect the way that field unit managers cost up jobs. They do not constitute the reason why field archaeologists are low paid and why they continue to be low-paid. The reasons for low pay existing in the profession are far more wide-reaching than a very small proportion of the digging population being over 50 and willing to put up with the wages.

We will have to disagree. You are right that the numbers are few, but it produces a disproportionate effect in the units that employ such "part timers". It allows units to continue old fashoined policies like short contracts, no notice periods, rubbish wages etc, if it has one or two "part timers" to take up the slack. Now I would have absolutely no problems at all with these individuals if they refused to accept these conditions and fought hard at getting treated as professionals like the rest of us. The ones I have known, don't, they don't need to.

I don't think wages are low because of these people at all, but attempts to improve things are hampered somewhat while some individuals will accept bad employment practices.

As for the ageism accusation, you couldn't be more wrong Invisible. Amusingly, I am probably of an age to be the recipient of ageism now.
I'm not an employer so couldn't put into practice any ageist beliefs even if I had them. I don't.

I would be equally scathing of young people who were willing to take a low salary, and work part time, and generally undermine attempts to professionalize the industry, just because they saw it as a hobby and didn't really need the money. unsurprisingly I've not met any young people like this.

PS Roy,

I didn't mean to target you personally with my final comment.

[kevin wooldridge]

Oh Mr Bear, you have outed me!! Yes indeed I own up to a singular obsession with Rutland Radio. (I believe I'm still in with a chance of winning the Valentines meal for 2 at Choi's Chinese Restaurant, downtown Uppingham).

As for Mr Gumbo, your obsession with Arrow Rock Radio clearly demonstrates the mentality of a 50 year old trapped in the body of a much younger.....well, just trapped!

[BAJR Host]

http://www.arrow.nl/

rock on you crazeeee mother

[xx(]

Another day another WSI?

[the invisible man]

Merc, you specifically described "50 something ex-policemen and teachers". I might add that I am not 50 something (yet) and nor am I a policeman or a teacher.

However, the point is that wages in any field are at a given level because someone will do it for that rate: it is the going rate, as they say. If someone will do it for nothing, that's life. Personally, my gut feeling is that a skilled field archaeologist with about 3 year's experience is "worth" about 400 a week, maybe 500, taking a "world" view. But, as you can get them for under 300, who is going to pay more? Regrettably I can suggest no easy (or even difficult) answer.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[mercenary]

I agree, but I for one would feel guilty if I was in any way harming the chance of a career in archaeology for a new grad, simply to have a fun hobby that paid a bit. Part time second career archaeologists should note this effect.

I think that many Units are able to resist the attractions of this flexible and low paid workforce, but I won't hazard a guess why. In my experience only the units least able to manage their work levels make use of part timers.

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by mercenary In my experience only the units least able to manage their work levels make use of part timers.

My experience is the absolute opposite. I know of a number of large units, with impeccable reputations, who rather than lose experienced staff, will arrange for variations in working hours to suit the individual, or allow home working to fit with family committments. Which is actually the law of the land nowadays....

An employer that refuses to allow flexibility in working hours for staff who have worked for the appropriate qualifying period, particularly if it is to suit family arrangements, could find themself at the wrong end of an industrial tribunal.

[mercenary]

Kevin, I think we might be talking about different species of archaeologists here. You are referring to experienced staff, while I am talking about those experienced in life, but relatively new to the profession. Perhaps my label "part timers" is not very usefull.