IFA Conference

[Real Job]

The comparison is usually made with architects and civil engineers and the like - correct me if I'm wrong, but the professional intitutes associasted with those professions [u]do not</u> have to deal with the problem of a large sector of the workforce that is on appalingly low wages. That s the difference.

And if they did, don't you think they might make it a priority to do something about that situation and seek to represent the interests of that section of the workforce? They certainly wouldn't sit back contentedly with the status quo and then expect their low paid colleagues to rush excitedly to their door as the IFA seems to do.

The IFA according to its own charter should represent the interests of all archaeologists: why doesn't it?

[BAJR Host]

Lots of loverly news from the conference... but as I am nursing a whiskey head, its early and I have two more talks today... I will just tease you with.....

Discussions about wages and conditions across the board are favourable and could be in place next year... Prospect's Dave Allen declared a truce with BAJR (did not know there was a war!) and so with the IFA, BAJR and PROSPECT all working together...


oh... ma heid

Another day another WSI?

[1man1desk]

Series of quotes from Real Job:

quote:unlike many other professions, archaeology is made up of several disparate groups with different interests

I work with civil engineers on a daily basis, and I can assure you they are a more disparate group than archaeologists. They tend to see us as a very narrow specialist group.

quote:conference will be dominated by consultants, academics and people from the 'business' side of field archaeology and we can hardly expect them to have the best interests of field staff at heart.

Every time I have been to the conference (not for several years, admittedly) it has been dominated by people from field units, plus a strong EH contingent. There used to be a lot of soul-searching about how hard it was to get academics and curators to take an interest in either the IFA or its conference.

quote:The IFA needs to make itself truly representative of the profession. Which means (in addition to its current work):
-Higher pay minimums
-Lower joining fees for field staff
-Lower conference fee for field staff
-And, if its serious about becoming more representative, some sort of outreach scheme enabling non-memebers to come to the conference cheaply..

If you have been paying attention, you will find that the IFA has taken action on the first three of these points within the last few months (if you substitute 'low paid' for 'field'). On the last point, I think the IFA should make itself more representative by attracting more people to join, not by subsidising non-members out of the subscriptions paid by members.

quote:The comparison is usually made with architects and civil engineers and the like - correct me if I'm wrong, but the professional intitutes associasted with those professions do not have to deal with the problem of a large sector of the workforce that is on appalingly low wages. That s the difference.

Civil engineers have recently taken big steps forward, but used to be a low-paid profession in the main. The change has been due to market forces, nothing to do with action by their various professional bodies, which are more management-dominated than the IFA. I should know - a director of my company is a recent President of the Institute of Civil Engineers.
Architects are relatively well-paid (several in my family) once qualified, but have to do 6/7 years training, including work experience that is hard to get and is very low paid. Once qualified, their typical early-career workload includes overseeing contractors as well as design work. So, by the time they are fully qualified, you should probably compare them to an archaeologist with 2 degrees and working as a supervisor or project manager - not with a new graduate archaeologist with, typically, 6 weeks site experience.

quote:And if they did, don't you think they might make it a priority to do something about that situation and seek to represent the interests of that section of the workforce? They certainly wouldn't sit back contentedly with the status quo and then expect their low paid colleagues to rush excitedly to their door as the IFA seems to do.

As mentioned above, the engineers' and architects' professional institutions are much less representative of their grass-roots than the IFA is. People mainly join these institutions because it is an absolute requirement if you want to work in the relevant professions, not just to join but to progress from grade to grade (which is much harder and more expensive for the individual than it is in the IFA).

quote:The IFA according to its own charter should represent the interests of all archaeologists: why doesn't it?

It tries hard to do so - but some of you won't let it.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[the invisible man]

Succicntly and accrately put as ever, 1man. Just one quibble - it is not actually mandatory to join the RIBA to practise as or call yopurself an Architect, although most do. There is a seperate registration body.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[deepdigger]

This whole thing smacks of 1980's thatcherism, no poll, tax no vote, no ifa conference, no voice!!

deep

[1man1desk]

Deep,

Are you saying that you should have a vote and a voice in the IFA without joining?

The IFA is not a government body. Its only significant source of funding is subscriptions. Representation and responsibility work both ways; if you want an organisation to represent you, then you need to join it and support it (as an organisation, not necessarily the incumbent administration and its policies).

You draw a parallel with 1980s Thatcherism and the poll tax. However, I assume that you support the principle that there should be a government and that citizens should pay taxes to pay for it, even if you disagree with the specific policies and taxes applied at a particular time by a particular government. A much fairer parallel would be to compare IFA subscriptions with income tax, because they are graduated according to the ability to pay.

The big difference is, we have no choice as to whether to be members of the nation and pay taxes; but we can choose whether or not to be members of the IFA and pay our subscriptions. It does seem a bit unfair on the IFA, though, if we choose not to be members but still demand a voice in its decision-making.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Real Job]

quote:The Institute of Field Archaeologists is the professional organisation for all archaeologists and others involved in protecting and understanding the historic environment. It acts in support of its members, works to improve pay and conditions, represents the interests of archaeology and archaeologists to government, policy makers and industry, keeps you up to date on developments in archaeological practice, sets standards and issues guidelines, promotes and organises training, improves individual career prospects, provides a wide range of membership services, and through its Registered Archaeological Organisation scheme improves employment practices and raises standards of work.

From 'About the IFA'

quote:promote an active professional organisation...
to establish these guidelines and standards by promoting membership of the Institute to all those practising field archaeology

From the IFAs mission statement

The IFA clearly should want to represent the interests of field staff according to its own statements. Its not really the case of us not letting it - it has to prove itself willing to do it:

PAY: At the moment the IFA says that an experienced archaeologist should be paid at least ?266 a week. This is not enough. At the very least the IFA should say that no experienced archaeologist should be paid less than ?300 pw. That would prove that the IFA really was "working to improve pay and conditions" (incidentally, a pledge that shows that the IFA believes that it is possible and proper to intervene in the free market, regardless of what some of its supporters might believe).

CONTRACTS: At least 33% of archaeologists work on short term contracts. Short term contracts are demoralising, disruptive (both to life and career), often mean periods of unemployment and often prevent settling down, let alone getting a mortgage.
No other comparable profession (architects, town planners, civil engineers etc)has anything like a comparable rate of short termism. What is the IFA doing about this? Has it even bothered to look into the subject with a view to possible solutions?

REPRESENTATION: It is difficult to estimate the proportion of archaeologists employed in commercial fieldwork, the lowest paid and thos most likely to suffer short term contracts. However 30% of archaeologists work in contracting units and 18% in local govt, so the figure is likely to be a bit less than 48%. How many of the field staff (rather than their managers) will turn up to the conference? I suspect very few, which means that the IFA needs to work out how to attract us.

[Tile man]

Hi,
Without going over the structure of the IFA again, I should point out that the AGM is the formal meeting when the membership are asked to vote on relevent issues ( and proxy voting is enabled for those members who can't make it), as well as vote in council members as appropiate.

The special interest groups (such as the diggers forum) are a very useful way of making the voices of different sectors of the profession heard - there are 3 members of the DF commitee elected onto IFA council at present articulating just those concerns. So join the diggers forum to make their voice even louder....

such as at the diggers forum/ prospect conference on 3rd June, and of course the BAJR conference....

[troll]

Whilst I`m sure we wish the Diggers Forum well.....We have`nt heard a peep from them here since their inception.Many have tried the "join and change things from within" route and failed.What have the various forums achieved?

Why should the IFA and its members be interested in subsidising non-members? Simply because the IFA write standards about a nationally owned public resource.It`s bad enough that they are answerable to no-one but themselves-the icing on the cake comes when they are successful in denying the majority of heritage professionals an opinion.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[BAJR Host]

After the Digger Forum at the conference I for one am very very hopeful...

Without saying too much at this momment... The IFA and the DIggers group asked about BAJR raising pay across the board next year... I saif I could but it would require backing from the IFA.... they agree.. but they would want me to help get people into the IFA... I agree and ask Prospect to negotiate both a pay rise to sensible levels, and additional benefits like movable pensions that move with the archaeologist from job to job, the IFA are also making available, NVQs and vocational CPD driven training... so asit goes it was thanks to the DIgger Forum that everyone agreed not just what should happen, but what will happen by APril 2007

Higher Wages
Set Structure to Career Grades
Pension rights (compulsory for all)
Holiday Rights (compulsory for all)
Sickness benefits (compulsory for all)
over and above the pro rata salary.
NVQs in practical skills which are tied to the skills required to do the job.
potential movable pension

Not bad for 3 hours work!

I decided to suck it and see... what I saw were people trying to kmake a difference, and as such will continue to support until such times as I feel that they are not.... which I feel is not the case. I really believe that BAJR IFA PROSPECT see that together we can actually do it, each using their strengths to move the mountains.

I is born again.... but I still keep my powder dry and one eye open!



Another day another WSI?