Performance Related Bonuses

[Dave-Bonner]

Interesting.....very interesting!

Centralisation of standards and benefits etc anyone?....not wishing to kick off another "IFA this, Prospect that!" situation just at the moment.

It would obviously require a massive amount of discussion and cooperation to make feasable and then implement. Its definately [u]A</u> way forward in some instances.

Surely it can work within the current RAO set-up - at the very least RAO's can subscribe to a process where they honour pay gradings and benefits (where available) specific to the individual, rather than simple baseline pay rates - or is that entering into a reoccurring debate - it rings a bell.

Gizza job!!!!! ....please!!!!!

[gumbo]

What d'ya mean gizza job, youve got one at the mo!

Bloody stooodent


G

[Dave-Bonner]

I've already had this conversation with Troll! Although, I could do with a job that doesn't involve peat, water and mountains....anyone!!!!! [HELP]

Gizza job!!!!! ....please!!!!!

[the invisible man]

IMHO performance related pay is a Bad Thing, in general. It doesn't really work in any profession outside sales. Some contracts will be inherently more profitable than others, so you get unrest from people not allocated to those contracts. It's all very well saying that quality must remain the same (or better) but it just won't, it's a fact of life. Apply it to an industry based on short term fixed contract labour and you have a recipe for disaster.

What I can see working, and works well in other fields, is a bonus awarded on a regular basis as a crude profit share scheme. The firm does well over a year or 6 month period, and a bonus is awarded to ALL staff. It is debatable whether such a bonus should be flat rate or pro-rata: in the past I have argued stoutly for the former in defence of lower paid colleagues (secretarial staff etc).



We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[ladyjen]

perhaps the bonus could be pro rata according to length of time working for the company (rather than the amount earnt)?


"a pound of shelled peanuts was handsome pay by any apes standards" Pratchett 1998

[historic building]

My first full-time, permanent employer was run along collective lines with all staff sharing in the collective sucess of the company, including those employed in the short term. Since I left they seem to have gone from strength to strength (I do not know whether there is a pattern here).

[drpeterwardle]

The one thing I am sure that would not work is a "mad post hole digging competition". I have an open mind about all of this and hence why I am discussing it on BAJR.

In the early days of commercial archaeology there were some share holder schemes which did not work very well. In fact this is also one thing I would rule for my own business.

I think Troll points about management are valid.

David Bonner asked:

"Are you not talking about by-passing traditional capitalist techniques of money-makeing." Funnily enough I dont think I am. I see business as simple.

A commissions B to do something. B employs people C to do the contract. If the amount A pays B is greater the cost of C + overheads the result is a profit.

Peter

[Dave-Bonner]

Sorry, was thinking in a slightly narrow box there. I see your point. Agreed. Apologies for any flippancy or cynicism in the previous posts.

I think what I was getting at was more to do with how this relates to the existing world of arch units with the business set-ups they have at present (and if I wasn't then, there's the question now)?

A slight leap, I know, but just trying to get a handle on this and its application.

Gizza job!!!!! ....please!!!!!

[Cautionary Tale]

Missed out on the start of this thread, but a v interesting one. As Dr Wardle has said, a contracting unit should already have made a judgement about how long the site should take to excavate. If the digging team is more effecicient, then (assuming the cost was fixed) there is a readily available hypothetical sum which theorectically could be shared among those responsible for the cost saving. It could be that the contract to the unit itself could incorporate some sort of bonus for early satisfactory conclusion of the archaeological works (clients occasionally paying out interest payments etc on the land, so faster completion = cost saving). I'm not saying it would be easy to incorporate, just floating an idea.

Of the Clan Sutton

[1man1desk]

This is an interesting topic - sorry for joining late.

Personally, I think that there ought to be viable ways of applying performance-related pay to archaeology, if that is what you want to do. It is a labour-intensive industry, and PRP is all about improving the efficiency of your labour force through financial incentives. It could be applied at any (or all) of three levels, all mentioned in previous posts:

• payments to individuals for good performance
• payments shared amongst whole project teams for achievements on an individual project
• payments shared amongst all unit staff for achievements over a whole year

Whatever approach you take, it is important to define in advance what the nature of the achievements to be rewarded is and the basis on which the payments will be allocated. If it is to be done, I would favour the project-team approach, for the following reasons:

• it is easier to define the required achievements
• payment would come sooner
• it is more equitable - especially for low-paid site staff

Years ago, I did something similar myself on an informal basis when I was directing excavations, by distributing a cash bonus to site staff at the end of the fieldwork. That was in the old 'volunteer' days, though, and the money came from a fund that was used to distribute cash subsistence payments to staff. It might be hard to do under present conditions.

All that said, though, I am not sure that PRP is the best way to motivate your staff. Improving working conditions, equipment and non-pay benefits (pensions, holidays, job security etc) would probably be a better approach to motivation.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished