IfA campaign to require archaeological work to be undertaken by ROs

[YellowPete]

the employers can define the define branding proceedures and liabilities

algao are in the position to know what the local region is lacking in understanding and data coverage, in relation to local gov policies

as for an emphasis in accrediation towards chartering, that is in a significant number of CoE and Euro material as the general direction they wish to take the cultural heritage sector as a whole.

employees being able to independently attain 'chartering' from their employers would enable the existence of non chartered organisations or training field schools to exist and compete on the basis of cv's and resumes

employers then become involved in wanting to push and build up the skills of the staff so as to provide a basis for competion, whilst managing liabilities on different scales and significance.

significance can be attributed along side the scientific and educational expansion of the archaeological record withinuniversities that can provide facilities to fame and employers based upon their mutual interests.

the ifa can provide benchmarking and criterial costing frameworks for skills and employment contracts where clarity is required by specialist in the potential issues arising from various employment contract forms and durations.

this would breath life into the curcuit once again, whilst also providing low level entry opportunities with real guidance requirements due to potential liabilities for orhganisations.

people could add to the valuation of their own skills by debating the benchmarking and liability of their work within different groups and sub-forums.

different accrediting organisations will be integral to enabling a broader skill base and international credibility to a chartered body, in conjunction with different educational establishments being involved in tackling their own educational requirements within training schools and upon post-ex and scientific provisions to the archaeological record as well as in providing advice.

this all sounds very perfect, but in the end nothing is or will be but it would be a start.

the only real question will be what is a system like that worth?

and more importantly....do we WANT it?

:face-huh:

[GnomeKing]

honestly YellowPete, I dont know what IT is - tried i have, diligently,your post,therein, alas without succses, the nature to find, of that what it is, that IT.

oh look...i forgot what i wanted to say nowxx(

[Unitof1]

He said

"i refer you to bob1s earlier post"

so stop trying to be cleaver

[YellowPete]

the ifa is in a position where it is compromised on its own agenda, but the local authorities are the ones who will decide.

if they go for the accrediation and chartered agenda, its due to wider gov and international goals.

so the real question is why should a county authority type, stand up to the international and national gov's, for a group of organisations that wish neither to work towards a concerted destination, based on equally compromised roles in order to achieve something?

what that goal would bring to the fore, the questions of what is that goal, and do we want it?

what will the employment repercussions be and what will be the financial benifits on such an acheivement?

however we are then left with an increasingly overbaring issue for the future, where if we go through another recession what would be the crierion by which we would accept a cuthroat approach to the integrity of the heritage data being collated and stored for the nation and the future of public interest.

if we take the money and run (with an ifa yes vote), do we sell off the future stability of the industry for a real time consolidation?

whereas if don't commit to a realistic goal then why shouldn't we have an accrediation policy imposed upon us. thus removing any positive compromising additions to any future adapations.

if roa's are on the board and they dominate the board, then yes there will be significant issues, where the board would be a series of organisations embralling the rest of the industry into a brand war within a closed room.

if there is no acceditation, then there is no financial return worth the time of identifying a standard across the board, or within local regions, so then you are left with being at the mercy of developmental policies and local authority types having standing up to them, and directly risking their jobs... again for a group of organisations which are unwilling to compromise on an acheivement.

so the real issue comes down to the local authority types deciding.

whether its the local or national gov we affect, depending on our ability to agree on the industries chosen approach to how we are going to combine a public and inclusive resource with industiral revenues from the broader industry's commercialisation.



so if this is a rock and a hard place.....

do we take the money and sell the body of evidence.....

or....

do we stuff the money and wait for the storm shutter heave-ho?



admittedly smaller organisations can survive longer after kenyanism funding dries out

but in order to build an industry, which can mange and evolve from its current situation requires larger organisations to drive home the changes.


so really, we are left with 'IT':

i can make it bugger the work and .........
or
we need something and i'm brickin it.......(just like everyone else)


clever don't cover it

whats paying your mortgage?

:face-plain:


its a right laughin camraderee

[YellowPete]

having looked for this staement i can't find it on the official website pages

[BAJR Host]

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ne...toryid=453

it is in this

though the IfA have now clarified it with this

http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ne...toryid=458

IfA posted a statement on its minimum salary recommendations on 10 November on the website at http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ti...x.php?id=1. The statement has engendered some limited discussion, and there appear to be a few misunderstandings that could usefully be clarified.

The IfA does not set archaeological wages and has not voted to freeze all archaeological salaries for 2010/11. IfA Council have agreed that in view of the extraordinarily challenging economic environment, there should be no increase in the IfA recommended minima for 2010-11; this does not mean that any organisation or IfA member employing staff cannot pay above the recommended minima.

To build on the IfA recommended minima (which is a requirement for ROs) and in order to achieve long term improvements in pay and conditions Council agreed that

• focus should be on promoting ‘reasonable’ pay bands well above the IfA minima
• the 2007 pay bands ranged from 13% to 53% above the present minima, and these figures should be updated
• those IfA members employing staff and Registered Organisations that do not presently remunerate in these bands would be expected to work towards them, with the encouragement and support of the Institute
• the Registered Organisations committee should take a tougher line on organisations applying for registration to demonstrate good HR practices, including the existence of training plans, staff development reviews incorporating support of CPD, assistance with professional membership fees, the provision of appropriate types and amounts of leave, and contributions towards pensions
• excellence in employment practice should be recognised within the architecture of the scheme
• this demanding task will be taken forward as a matter of urgency by the elected Executive committee, supported by the Chair of the Registered Organisations committee and a representative of the Diggers’ Forum, whose members are amongst those worst affected by poor pay and job security, and whose opportunities to drive forward improvements has been severely limited.

The discussion of salary minima in the Council meeting on 5 November was a regular IfA Council agenda item – as it has been since 2005 – and was not prompted by any particular part of the Institute’s membership, but Council had benefitted from some submissions before the meeting. The discussion was direct and forceful but was civilized throughout – this is exactly what Councilors have been elected to do.

It is important to note that Councilors are elected as individuals and vote according to their conscience and for the benefit of the Institute.

If you have any queries about the above or the full statement about IfA and archaeological salaries you can contact us directly by emailing kathryn.whittington@archaeologists.net

[BAJR Host]

I do appreciate this clarification. however..

At its meeting on 5 November Council 2009 considered submissions from several
Responsible Post-holders of Registered Organisations concerning IfA-recommended
minimum salaries. Most drew attention to the difficult economic times: some argued that
compliance with the IfA-recommended minima should remain a requirement of Registration;
more argued that the requirement should be removed. Other members without
responsibilities for Registered Organisations, aware of this item on Council?s agenda, had
also made representations.

However.. like BAJR the IfA do not set pay ... only provide a 3 level (or in BAJR case a more sophisticated 12 level grading) minima. So the pay freeze is inaccurate. However, it will be interesting to see what happens... in April.. who will go up? or will there be no move? effectively a freeze. Only time will tell.

WE cannot forget

Council has tried to steer a principled yet pragmatic course through one of the most
potentially divisive and damaging debates within the Institute for 20 years. Emotions have
run high and threats have been made. The way forward chosen by Council will not satisfy all
the demands made of it, but no-one can reasonably argue that no accommodation has been
made for their needs.

THe council acted like a democratic body.. so should be praised.

I will look forward to helping the IfA carry out the concept of good HR practices, including the existence of training plans, staff development reviews incorporating support of CPD, assistance with professional membership fees, the provision of appropriate types and amounts of leave, and contributions towards pensions etc.... I support that and always have for many years.


Let us not forget that that benchmarking survey had shown that in 2007 these bands spanned the
range from 13% to 53% above the present minima, and these figures should be updated!

I am not sure what the comment about 'limited discussion means... is that here? In which case.. what are you IfA members doing? EGM or not bothered?

[YellowPete]

i asked what the egm is on and no one got back to me with an answer for that.

limited to 20yrs you mean.........er no, were not quite done yet

whats the egm agenda?

[YellowPete]

all i know is they said somethin

so we go................

[Warren]

Very difficult following this thread as an outsider (archaeologist working in a different country). Trying to understand the gist of YellowPete's comments earlier:

employers then become involved in wanting to push and build up the skills of the staff so as to provide a basis for competion,

Question, in a non-idealist view, what would drive the competition for increased skills? I don't think it would be a case of efficiency as it is more efficient to do a quick and bad job. I don't see how a developer client is interested in skills as long as the job gets done as cheaply as possible, so having more qualified staff isn't going to win contracts. So what's in it for the employer? (Accepting my own cynicism).

I believe that there has to eventually be enforced legal standards in some way, something that is a long way down the road (perhaps the same as H&S legislation was 50 years ago).

However the fact that there is debate about these issues is promising, and it is encumbent on the IfA to promote standards and hold its members to account. That's not the same as policing the marketplace unless it can stand by its judiciary procedure.

I don't believe it is the IfA's place to be judge and jury, I believe that it should, however, be called in as an expert witness.