IFA Archaeological salaries benchmarking report

[kevin wooldridge]

The IFA Archaeological Salaries Benchmarking Report has been released and is available to download at

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...report.doc


For the first time a definitive study shows how far archaeological salaries lag behind 'comparable' posts.

The report concludes:

Though one option would be to implement a programme of staged, above inflationary increases to the minimum salaries until a target salary is reached, the factors affecting archaeologists? pay are complex and any move to increase current IFA minima can only be made following extensive consultation with, and detailed consideration of the impact on, IFA Registered Archaeological Organisations and others. Consideration must also be given to the extent to which any improvements can be effected without significant progress towards barriers to entry to professional archaeological practice.

To this end, IFA is now seeking opinions on the best way forward. The IFA would welcome suggestions on other options but is committed to making minimum salaries more realistic. Doing nothing is not an option.

Let battle commence....

[BAJR Host]

quote: Doing nothing is not an option.

Have repaginated it.. to fix the formatting (nothing more)

and uploaded a copy here
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2867407/Benchm...eport-2008


remember this folks... this is not about what if... it is about how..

And please also consider the APPAG submission (needed urgently)

It is good to see this independant and more scientific report mirror the BAJR review back in 2006...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1196092/Pay-Co...ation-2006

I knew this was coming, but thought I would be forewarned (being on of the people on the working group) - Thanks Kevin for leting BAJRites know about this.

The concept is basic.. the implementation is hard...

The idea would be a year on year increase to bring about a gradual movement of pay to more reasonable levels.. however this must not impact in such a way as to actually cause companies to struggle... that is counter productive... so how can it take place as a non confrontational and consensus manner... reccomendations must be agreed by all...(but steer clear of cartelism) otherwise one company could keep wages lower than others and take the work...

Tricky!

:face-huh:

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

[kevin wooldridge]

I haven't had a chance yet to take in all of the report (and maybe there is something in the small print I would find fault with), but first impressions suggest it has hit the target with its findings, although implementation seems to be a more distant process....

Some initial thoughts.

The mode figures for comparable salaries suggest that the minima for IFA grade PIFA should be about 17000 pa, AIFA 22000 pa and MIFA 28000. THis would equate to local government grades 4, 6 and PO1. The starnge 'deja vu' moment about those figures is that the Manning report on archaeological salaries commissioned by the the Museum of London in 1982, arrived at the exact same local government grades. So 25 years on we realise that all along we have had a pre-exisiting comaprison exercise the industry has not taken advantage of.

My contention has always been that regrading is a more important issue in archaeological wages than pay alone and hope that this report will aid local authority managers who support the need for regrading of archaeological posts. As both IFA and BAJR use the local authority model to underpin their wage minima, non local authority wages should also increase as a result of successful regrading.

I wonder if also the benchmarking document shouldn't form the basis for the BAJR submission to the APPAG working party. It says most things I want to be heard....