Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
20th January 2007, 08:11 PM
Edited by Peter Wardle until Davids views the original and decides if it can be posted. See Comment below.
I have heard on the archaeological grapevine that there is an undisclosed agreement between two RAOs working on the south Wales pipeline. Cambrian Archaeological Projects and Cotswold Archaeology have agreed a policy of not poaching staff off each other - if you work for or have recently been employed by one of these companies the other will not employ you. They do not however publicise this!
This would not be such a serious issue if both companies had the same level of jobs grades on offer or if the wages were the same - but they are not. Staff who started with Cotswold Archaeology before the Cambrian Archaeological Projects job was advertised are therefore being discriminated against.
And I hope that this serve as a warning for others looking for work - be carefull which company you choose as in some cases it may be worth holding out! :face-huh:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
20th January 2007, 08:18 PM
I can see the point of the agreement from ********** point of view: thay are already employing plenty of staff. But what are ********* getting out of this?
Surely this will just make it harder to fill their vacancies with experienced staff. There are just not that many people who are going to be willing to go to west Wales and work in the winter.
Why would you try to attract people with significantly higher wages, but then dismiss a whole load of diggers out of hand. And why should ******* give a monkey's about doing ******** any favours? All's fair in love and war.
Edited by Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
20th January 2007, 08:28 PM
It also does seem an ethical grey area - surely this agreement should have been publicised at the times when the adverts were posted?
It appears to me to fit back into a number of recent threads posted on the forum - that diggers should be informed of issues that affect them before they suffer the consequences of issues they had no idea existed!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
20th January 2007, 08:32 PM
What are the legal implications of this situation - bothcompanies are RAOs so doesnt the ifa have a policy on discrimination?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
20th January 2007, 09:22 PM
Until david makes a ruling on if this can continue can we refrain from naming names or even posting.
If you wish to post something like this email David first. This is particularly so when the infomation is based upon rumour.
Dr Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
20th January 2007, 10:15 PM
Well I have to confess I had heard about this.. which piqued my interest... I did discuss it with individuals at the time and feel that (like them) this is better out thatn in.. after all it does not make sense for one... though it might for another..
I feel that although this might get me an email on Monday.. I would like to hear why... ? after all.... what this should do is push up wages... and although not illegal.. is a dashed unsporting. After all... people (who have not entered into binding contracts) should be able to choose who they work for...
may a bidding war for the staff begin.. of course the tenders will have been at certain prices... so to raise them now would entail a cut in income... so I can half see...
At the moment I ain't slept for 2 days.. I am caring after a mother who is increasingly frail... so... while my mind is fuddled... lets hear what this means... and consider why the revese does not happen... Anyone ever heard the... oh.... stay here... I have a job..... 2 weeks later and 3 jobs sail past... suddenly... the phone rings... Ah... sorry... we did not win the tender... you ain't got a job after all.. I hope you did not wait for us..??
Etc
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
21st January 2007, 01:01 PM
Peter-absolutely right, we should refrain from using unit names on Davids website.However-the "refrain from...even posting" bit is contrary to the AUP and free speech.Once again- RAOs are involved so I feel that frank and open discourse is in order,even if that involves endless slanging matches with institute apologists.So long as we work to the AUP , we should bring as much of this behaviour into the open as possible-to remain silent suggests that we condone the behaviour and are somehow loyal to those who behave in such ways.Silence will do nothing but ensure the continuence of all that is crud in archaeology.:face-huh:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
21st January 2007, 02:00 PM
Troll,
what I said was
"Until david makes a ruling on if this can continue can we refrain from naming names or even posting."
I did not say there was to be no discussion which is why I did not lock the topic.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
21st January 2007, 02:13 PM
Sir-its bad enough that we are forced to function in an environment where the business interests of corporate entities are protected by pseudo-laws stifling criticism of either blatantly illegal/highly questionable practises.Having fallen into this trap myself on many occasions on this forum-I have stopped using names and or places and will continue to work within the domain owners AUP.To suggest that posting should stop altogether is completely unacceptable and goes against the well established (and respected) role of the BAJR forum-i.e, to question, provide a space for those questions and attempt to move forward by identifying solutions.If we follow your suggestion-no posting at all- we may as well all just give up and join the self-appreciation society so we can all take part in excuse production.:face-huh:As an aside-in the context of a web forum, how does one discuss without posting?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
21st January 2007, 02:29 PM
Think ther may be a misunderstanding here.. and it is diverting topic...
When we discuss on the forum companies and issues... I would like to be informed beforehand.. so that I am ready for it.. rther than getting an email from a Unit.. without knowing what is going on...
I do... I am happy for this to be here... and it is...
Peter was just ensuring...as a good moderator..
Thanks all.
BAJR is here to discuss thorny issues.. and debate solutions or questions... I just have to protect myself from .. er.... situations... :face-huh:
Carry on typing... - all I want is informed first if a possible problem with the AUP might arise,,
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
