Movement on the living wage?

[hurting-back]

Some very good points, however:

quote:Originally posted by historic building
If you want to improve standards as a means to increasing the professionalism of the archaeological world and this then impacting upon pay then the IFA really is the only game in town. The RAO scheme, and organisations being removed from it enables curators to be able to say ‘organisation X is not up to the job because they cannot maintain their RAO registration’.

I can see where you are coming from and while I have nothing against the RAO scheme, I do think it presents some issues when tauted as the way to improve wages. Namely that I do not think that the IFA has, or will have in the near (or distant) future, the resources to monitor the RAOs for this to be a sole mechanism for ensuring the consistent application of standards, after all there are hardly any people actually working at the IFA, and they are very busy as it is!

However, there are curators in every county (well...almost) whose job is to ensure that work is done to an agreed standard, which is usually based on IFA guidelines anyway. This is why the collective action of curators will always have a much larger impact on the market than what the IFA does.

And no vulpes, I do not think I am overplaying this at all, on a large excavation, when one can estimate the number of features and their type (through a thorough evaluative phase of works), assuming that you can get away with a 5% sample of the ditches instead of the 10% usually stated in briefs can take tens of thousands off a quote. And yet when I was running sites I had curators come to site, look around and ask if we were done that week, even though we were not even half way through doing what their brief required!! It was not because this person wasn't any good, or didn't care, it was because they couldn't spare more than 45 mins to view a large site with lots going on in it. When you are that tight on time you can't see everything! Yet these actions directly affect the level of resources allocated in tenders, as contractors use past performance figures to cost new work, hence affecting the prices.

I am not, by the way saying that the current situation is the fault of curators, I am saying that their actions and interpretations have very significant effects on the market as in doing their job, they are the only real 'market regulator' we have. Therefore, if they were given more resources and by extension more time to accurately determine the scope of works and monitor them, it would undoubtedly have an effect on the market.

don't panic!

[historic building]

(bit pissed, just back from the pub)

The IFA are totally independent from the enforcement teams in the various councils I cover. I can use a judgment they have made, and explain it to a developer or planner independently of whether the council in question support it or are willing to support me. It is a benchmark I can use in support of my work as a curator which cannot be argued with by developers or planners who want an easier life - IT IS DOWN TO THE PLANNER WHETHER SOMETHING IS ENFORCED, IT IS NOT DOWN TO THE CURATORIAL ARCHAEOLOGIST. The IFA gives us a stronger argument to make to the planner. I can repeat myself as often as you chose, probably about once more, curators only advise; planners may have many more reasons than archaeology for making a decision. Making this decision may also include discharging an archaeological condition against the advice of a curator.

God I would love the power to regulate a market however I am an archaeologist I do not work in market management.

[BAJR Host]

Say it loud say it proud... I ADVISE.

I am learning to request conditions be placed on a development

I am learning I can't discharge an archaeological condition, I can advise that to my knowledge the work done on a development by an archaeological contractor is adequate and they can take off the condition that THEY put on that I ADVISED them too.

Planners have the power.. but we should be more integrated into that team perhaps

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[hurting-back]

quote:Originally posted by historic building

(bit pissed, just back from the pub)

The IFA are totally independent from the enforcement teams in the various councils I cover. I can use a judgment they have made, and explain it to a developer or planner independently of whether the council in question support it or are willing to support me. It is a benchmark I can use in support of my work as a curator which cannot be argued with by developers or planners who want an easier life - IT IS DOWN TO THE PLANNER WHETHER SOMETHING IS ENFORCED, IT IS NOT DOWN TO THE CURATORIAL ARCHAEOLOGIST. The IFA gives us a stronger argument to make to the planner. I can repeat myself as often as you chose, probably about once more, curators only advise; planners may have many more reasons than archaeology for making a decision. Making this decision may also include discharging an archaeological condition against the advice of a curator.

God I would love the power to regulate a market however I am an archaeologist I do not work in market management.

Thank you, but I actually know what curators do and do not do, my job is to negotiate contracts and costs for archaeological work and I am well aware of the issues involved.

So to clarify - when you advise that a condition should be placed on a development proposal and a planner acts on this, is this where your job stops?? Because if it is then you can go on to say that it's nothing to do with you.....but it obviously does not stop there. Once your condition is accepted it is for you to produce a brief (scope of works) describing the work required and to monitor the stages of work.....if this is not done as a means of enforcing the appropriate implementation of projects than why on earth is it done at all?? Sure, only planners have legal enforcement powers, but curators can give contractors a hard time on site and demand that things are done as they want. As a matter of fact, many do actually do this very effectively without having to invoke legal powers. The problem is that most do not have the time to dedicate to doing this.

Also, I do not recall implying that the IFA has no role in this, and as a paying member I recognise the role they do play in providing benchmarks.

So to conclude:

1. I never implied that curators should be doing more than they are, but I did say that more enforcement powers and better resources would allow them to, and....

2. as there are curators monitoring all commercial work (usually), an increase in powers and/or better integration with planning departments would have the biggest impact on the market.

3. The reason I pick out curators is because they are the only agents who monitor archaeological work on a project by project basis, which is why their actions have the broadest and most immediate impact.

4. We are all operating in a free market which is regulated by sometimes indirect mechanisms; I am not saying that curators consciously regulate the market, I am saying that by monitoring work and ensuring quality on a project by project basis curators are collectively (through this function) acting as regulators whether they think they are or not.

I have tried to explain how curatorial decisions and pricing levels are connected without being too specific with circumstances, so if this is still hard to see then I am sorry. Therefore all I can say is that they are definitely connected and if you think I am wrong or exaggerating, well.....I can live with that.

don't panic!

[historic building]

I do not think we are talking at cross purposes at all. A bit above I listed the points where curators can directly influence standards - for which we seem to agree. My point is that it tends to be with the same organisations that one has the same arguments e.g. trying not to dig adequate samples of linear features, trying to reduce recording detail etc. You go on site and argue these points out beating the archaeologists around the head with their WSI etc and it may well be the case that they have to spend longer on site and delay the development timetable. Obviously, depending upon the unit's agreement with their client, this may cost the unit more or increase their bill.

If one is able to get the planning authority to bring in the enforcement team this sends a direct message to the developer about their choice of archaeologist and will put the fear of god in them. If their condition may not be discharged then sales or use of the property, or their development programme may be delayed and this will directly cost the developer money. Enforcement action can also be quoted to anyone choosing to use that unit. This may also put the unit directly at risk of having their bills paid.

In my view this is a more significant influence on standards than having the same argument with the same people on site concerning site practice, not to say that this is not important. RAO registration means that I can call up the IFA, copy letters to them etc so bad practice is kept on file and influence the continued registration of the organisation. If they are removed, or unsuccessfully apply, I can quote this to any developer who chooses to use them.

[hurting-back]

hmmmm....upon reading your response I can see that we do not actually disagree as I shall briefly discuss below (with parenthetical cross referencing!):

I agree that IF more enforcement powers where made available (see point 1. above) and were used in conjunction with the RAO scheme as you describe it would undoubtedly have the biggest and most beneficial effect on the market. The reason this would happen is because hardworking curators like your good self would be doing this across the country (see points 2. and 3.) and therefore acting as market regulators (see point 4. and my posting previous to that).

Therefore the impact you describe is one undertaken by curators within a framework of guidelines (IFA) and legislature (gov't...we hope), but as you have said it is the curator who is the active party, which is why I ascribe such importance to their actions and their effect on the market. As you yourself said, if you can pester units into better compliance now, which does affect costs (in my job I tender for work across the country and can often see the effects on the market price levels being correlated to the local curatorial attitude and their level of resourcing), then imagine the effect if all curators could regularly invoke the powers of enforcement in the way you described....which is precisely the point I was trying to make; thank you for putting it so well.

don't panic!

[vulpes]

This still has no firm connection with wages. If curators were able to ferociously monitor fieldwork projects and always have solid backup from planning enforcement we would no doubt see a general improvement in quality of work which would discourage unrealistic tenders - leading to rising costs. But bad payers are still bad payers and they will still win contracts on the basis of being the cheapest. Perhaps this could even hold pay down in some organisations as they seek to make savings to win contracts. Not a nice idea but it could happen. While it is true that better resourced curators could improve standards, our influence over pay is indirect and is being exaggerated here. Rising standards and rising tender costs do not necessarily equal rising pay. This is not to denigrate IFA standards which are extremely important. As has already been stated the RAO and BAJR pay levels are the way forward, alongside the work of the unions. Our influence as curators on pay levels of external private companies is minimal.

[hurting-back]

I am sorry but have to disagree :face-confused: on several counts:

Firstly, as you stated yourself, 'ferocious' curation would discourage unrealistic tenders. Unrealistic tenders have a downward pull on prices and distort the market over a significant area. So to answer your query: "Perhaps this could even hold pay down in some organisations as they seek to make savings to win contracts."; I hate to break this to you, but this already happens all the time which is why we are in the situation we are in now, because companies always have to compete with the cheapest to win. I would rather compete with someone who I know will be held to the same level of work vigorously and that they won the job fair and square (based on good staff, efficiency, business structure or whatever) so everyone is on a level playing field.

More importantly, one of the reasons archaeological work is poorly rewarded is because there is no economic benefit to having a top notch firm undertake work of the highest standard over having a rubbish one make a hash of things as, unless someone says otherwise (....you know, curators), either will discharge their condition. What you are doing by raising standards through more vigorous enforcement is providing a reason for clients to care how well the job is done, therefore increasing the value of quality work ('well, company A is cheaper, but the last time the council gave us a hard time when they did the job on the cheap and it ended up costing us more...when we used company B we paid a bit more but we didn't have to worry......').

Now you may say 'well so what, bad payers are still bad payers...' but the point you are missing is that there are bad payers and bad firms in every profession....it is normal. It obviously doesn't mean all professions are badly paid; the difference is that in other types of work most clients see value in quality work, whereas in the archaeological market the value of the work (economically) is measured by how effectively obstructions to planning consent are overcome which is why where we would see a badly run site with a poor report, they would see a good job so long as they get to build their houses, roads or whatever with minimum hassle.

If the work had a more solid economic value, then it is worth while having better staff training and retaining your staff as it would matter how well you did the job; after all curators (in our hypothetical world) will have plenty of time to look over everything you've done and if you don't comply then your client will pay with enforcement action from the council meaning they will make you do it properly, or they won't pay you anything (as you won't have completed the work without discharging the condition, violating the terms of your contract). And if I know developers they will make you do it for the original quote, eating into your gross profit.

This is why telling RAOs to pay people £X more will not improve things so long as companies are allowed to successfully bid for work and discharge conditions without full compliance. After all if every one paid the same (which they already broadly do), company A can still undercut company B if they know they can get away with doing less work (the basis on which undercutting happens now anyways). Increasing individual pay will not change this, and the result will be to punish those that play fair. So you see, pay award schemes cannot prevent this type of undercutting; someone has to ensure that company A is doing every bit of work that company B was expecting to do given the contents of the brief.

This is why the role of the curator and their ability to enforce standards is so important; their actions determine the economic value of archaeological work, whether or not they realise, or indeed like it. Don't get me wrong, I fully support the efforts of BAJR, the IFA and others, but the pay agreements will not solve this alone; if the few are allowed to get away with doing less, the market value of projects goes down and RAOs gross profit, and therefore their ability to increase pay is limited, which would stall further pay increases based on feasibility. I assure you, I am not exaggerating.

don't panic!

[1man1desk]

Much of this debate appears to have moved way off-topic - it's not so much about 'movement on the living wage', and much more about what curators can and can't do or should and shouldn't do in monitoring standards.

Monitoring and enforcing standards of archaeological work won't have a direct effect on wages, and that is not the reason it is (or should be done). For instance, to use one of the examples previously quoted, if you make sure that the unit doesn't skimp on the required sample of the ditches, that means they may need more staff on site (or the same staff for longer), but does not create any pressure to pay more.

Checking the quality rather than the quantity of work, for instance by inspecting written and drawn records, might help more on the wages front, because there you are dealing with the quality rather than quantity of the staff on site. However, that would require even more time from the curatorial monitors. It would also take them into arguments based on opinion, rather than objectively-measurable quantities.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

Posted by Trowelfodder:

quote:the onus should be on the units to be chartered and have a ridigly enforced code of conduct and standards....

It would also mean that a minimum wage would be mandatory and enforcable and set at a reasonable level as there would be no danger of an unregistered company/volunteer group undercutting on the tenders.

In other proffessions such as engineering and law there is an entry level for new starters and a career path with progression through to different levels rather than about 80% of the workforce from digger through to PO all clumped toghether within a 5grand pay bracket. There could be progression! Experience could count for something and everytime you moved units you wouldnt have to fall back down to the bottom of the pile!

Sorry for going back a while in the debate, but I have been away for a couple of weeks.

In all chartered institutes, it is individuals rather than companies that get chartered. You are right that there is progression through various grades, as there is in the IFA, but 'chartered' status is usually the end of that progression, not the start of it - the equivalent, by comparison with the IFA, of MIFA rather than PIFA. That is why experience counts - you move up the grades as you get more experienced, eventually reaching the holy grail of 'Chartered Archaeologist'.

'Standards' as defined and (sometimes) enforced by professional institutes rarely have anything to do with wages, and certainly don't usually enforce a minimum wage. They normally focus on the quality of professional work and advice.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished