Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
16th March 2007, 05:17 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by voice of reasonLooking at it in a hard-nosed and unemotional way, one of our biggest problems is the sheer number and diversity of providers, all fighting competitively. Take some out, merge others and prices can rise by the absence of competition.
I just knew that I shouldn't have bought my Dad that economics book for Christmas!
The problem with VoMD's reasoning is in the practice. The last time that UK archaeological companies enjoyed a monopoly, (in the period 1974-1991 when many archaeological units had a geographic monopoly), archaeological wages did not increase by any great shakes.
Infact, if anyone were to argue that the problems and malaise in present day archaeological pay, were a direct result of the 1974-1991 monopoly, they wouldn't hear any dissent from me.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
16th March 2007, 05:32 PM
Sorry, fair point, 1M1D, sorry. Had one of my irascible moments there. [:I]
The thing is, the industry intermittently goes through good times and bad times, and if this is one of the good times, how are we going to take advantage of that?
Now would be a good time to be self-employed, but we've previously discussed the insecurity of that during lean times (dubious legality notwithstanding). VoR is right that an unfettered free market will probably lead to poor working conditions (as well as a likely accompanying decline in standards: 'hamburgerisation'). What we need is a diverse market of smallish organisations, big enough to take care of their workforces but not so big as to become monolithic. Contra VoR's view, I'd say it is the lack of diversity in what companies offer, and not their numbers, that is the problem. Archaeology needs more niche marketing.
That doesn't help now though. I suppose the appropriate response to the question I posed in my first paragraph is that we shall reap what we sow, so we should be careful what we ask of our paymasters.
'Oh, I'm bound to go where there ain't no snow,
Where the rain don't fall and the wind don't blow,
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.'
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
16th March 2007, 06:05 PM
Free dental treatment. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Dr Pete, you is a funny man. Last time I saw free dental treatment was back in '89!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2004
16th March 2007, 07:29 PM
This is perhaps turning into another thread but:
Kevin - I agree that we are stuck with many things as hangovers from the 1970s to early 90s which are the root cause of the structural faults in British commercial archaeology.
The units from then were thrown headlong into a commercial world from a quasi-academic, grant-driven world; they were not market-created monopolies. there was nowhere near the same amount of money around then and I don't think many ever thought they would be the multi-million businesses they have become. Our ultimate problem is that we sold ourselves too cheap in the early days.
On the other point, as well as consolidation of providers, what we probably need is more clear market stratification, with small, medium and large companies operating at different levels, as in the construction world. However at present there is much crossover between all, which drives prices down. This stratification is starting to happen by default, especially as clients have become more savvy about ensuring delivery, sometimes but increasingly as concerned about resourcing to hit deadlines as much as price. There is room for niche companies in that market but the vast majority of commercial work is very bogstandard in the techniques necessary.
And....we need to get rid of Council-based contractors if we want to push prices up. They do seem to distort local markets downwards.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
16th March 2007, 07:35 PM
Quote:quote:What (in a perfect world - or in reality) would you do? Would you raise wages? Would you stay as is? would you hope the IFA will lead the way? or SCAUM? - Now it ain't so easy  )
Well, despite my 'Dr Evil' role as a consultant, I do think that field archaeologists are under-paid and under-valued. I would like to see wages going up.
The IFA, unfortunately, is not powerful enough to offer more than moral leadership. SCAUM could do more, but would have to be very careful to avoid the legal implications of appearing to be a price-fixing cartel. PROSPECT appears to be ineffective.
There is a lot of potential in market forces - if we don't pay enough, we won't be able to find the staff. Unfortunately, in this area we are generally our own worst enemies - no one goes into archaeology to get rich, we go into it because we love it, and rather than give up or go elsewhere most of us will accept low pay.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
17th March 2007, 01:15 AM
A market force is only effective in a profession such as ours when it is properly regulated. What we do as archaeologists is not easy to verify as, say, a house once it is built. It is therefore very hard for any archaeological officer to verify consistent application of standards across the very large areas in which they are expected to 'police' on what are, more often than not, limited resources. This is of course compounded by a lack of real enforcement powers to deal with any offenders, as well as a lack of precedent for action in these cases.
This has the added effect of distorting normal practice in tender review, where a very cheap tender can be questioned and often disregarded as unrealistic if it is too far below an average as there is little to indicate to clients whether a price is realistic or not. After all they will not necessarily know good or bad practice, only that their planning condition has been discharged as the value of a unit's service (to the developer, obviously not to us) is the discharge of a condition not the quality of the archaeological work. I am obviously well aware that many consultants do advise their clients appropriately regarding pricing level (although many do not) and that the vast majority of county archaeologists work very hard indeed to hold units to their standards. And of course there are client's out there who care (very rare) or projects which rely on the results of the archaeological investigation (regeneration projects capitalising on heritage assets - not common enough to make an significant and constant impact on the market).
It only takes a very small percentage to pull the market value down, after all, it isn't simply that a unit in an area charges little and pays its archaeologists poorly. As many companies operate over a large area, it also means that other companies near that radius of operation do not have to offer that much more to entice people away. This magnifies the effect.
VoR's point about council backed units is valid as well as they will not be subject to the same cash flow issues as an 'independent' unit, meaning that they will find it easier to finance projects over a longer cycle, while also benefiting from the council's infrastructure for human resources and administration.
I would like to see more resources given to county archaeologists, a requirement for consistently earlier consideration of heritage in planning, clearer guidelines for enforcement and clearer research frameworks to make the requirements more transparent. This would allow units to better quantify the scope of the work they are tendering for and know that there will be repercussions should the entire project not be completed to the required specification. Only then will archaeologists, and by extension units, be rewarded for being more experienced and quicker at their job. I doubt that any amount of promises and pay agreements will ever have the desired effect until the archaeological market is properly regulated.....not that I object to any attempts to improve things in the meanwhile by the way!!!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
17th March 2007, 11:26 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by hurting-back
VoR's point about council backed units is valid as well as they will not be subject to the same cash flow issues as an 'independent' unit, meaning that they will find it easier to finance projects over a longer cycle, while also benefiting from the council's infrastructure for human resources and administration.
I should point out that isn't necessarily the case though, in case people are under the impression that all Local Authority based units have a safety net positioned underneath them in case of any financial difficulties. My unit went through a rather difficult time financially a few years back and I believe it has now been made very clear to the management that we are pretty much on our own as far as financial support goes.
Although the councils infrastructure is an advantage is in some ways, it can be extremely restrictive in others. I could give a long list of examples, but the basic problem is that our admin departments cannot seem to deal very well with the sections that work in the private sector.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
17th March 2007, 01:06 PM
It is one of the biggest problems I haev to deal with
Pay in
Local Govt Units
University Units
Independant Units
Trusts and Charity
One Man Bands
Consultant
etc....
Each has drawbacks and benefits... one could argue a Charity has an advantage in tax break, that one man bands have benefits in capital costs.. that LGAs have Council backing, that Universities have research resources on tap.. etc etc....
The trouble is... we are in that situation now.. and we don't seem to have a clear direction of what actually to do... which is a bit shocking as we have known this for years... we also wrestle with what archaeology actualy does.. what does it provide.. ask that question and we start to look at the ground shuffle and mumble something vague about "heritage.. er value of knowledge.. er.. cough.. ah.. sorry thats my bus over there.. bye..........."
We have to understand and present a reason for existence AND a clear 5 year plan for where we as a combined disciple... until then we are just whispering in the wind!
CHARTERED STATUS... how many times must I cry for it!!
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
17th March 2007, 04:19 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host We have to understand and present a reason for existence AND a clear 5 year plan for where we as a combined disciple... until then we are just whispering in the wind!
Well whispering wasn't quite what I thought we were doing in the wind, but at least it gets past the urine censor!!
The IFA initiative in commisioning consultants to look at pay in other professions will help in providing a benchmark against which archaeological pay can be compared.
Once the consultants report back (and surely it must be any day soon for such a cut and dry case), the great test of collective archaeological will will come with the timetable for implementing the increases necessary to bring archaeological pay up to the level of other professions. My betting is a 10 year rather than 5 year programme (only because we are already so far behind that anything less than 10 years to implement across the board increases will severely test the patience of our sponsors).
My guess for a ballpark figure to bring us into line with average graduate salaried posts would be something like inflation plus 5% for 10 years.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
17th March 2007, 05:12 PM
I look forward to this too... It was a pity that Prospect were unable to do it last eyar and glad that the IFA took over... I haev been informed that the consultants would be made aware of the BAJR grading system - something we do seem to be used to.. and does provide a starting gauge.. but... hey... anything... anything would be a move forward..
I calculated a 5% rise over 5 years for the g1-3 level (and I agree a 5% over inflation for the other grades.)
the question is... what do we provide in hard evidence that we are worth any more than we are getting just now...?
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
|
