Pay and Conditions

[BAJR Host]

Good or bad? Good I hope!

[Ken]

Good, I hope. Have gone over to the dark side and will be working (indirectly) on behalf of the HSE.
I'm going to try and set up a community archaeology project in the area I live in, do some research work I dropped many years ago and hoprfully start to enjoy archaeology again.

[BAJR Host]

Nice one! You can help in looking at these short 'standards for Community Archaeologt' that can perhaps be built on by the IfA

[Ken]

Give me some pointers and I'll have a look at it if you want. I've never been a shrinking violet on BAJR when saying what I think, under my own name, and now I have even less to lose "saying how it is".

[Davidh]

Blimey.

This is embarrassingly awful as I have read enough on the first page to make me quite concerned. I haven't got through the second page of comments yet...

I have been in the construction industry for over twenty years in a specialised area. I am one of three partners in a small firm that is probably the oldest in Wales in what we do.

How on earth do I try and convey how tenders are looked at, and then delivered, on a fixed priced basis when what you people are being asked to do is basically an exploration exercise? It doesn't add up at all. It's an impossible thing to do. It is beyond belief that a science is pressured into producing results because of costs.

I honestly don't see how tenders can be given when you have no idea what is going to be found. This then has a great impact on the general work force. It isn't right.

You people have no purposeful Union? If not you need one quite quickly. If you do then I would suggest that you start pressurising them into action. From the comments on the first page it reminds me of the construction industry in the early eighties. It was a complete mess and even now we still revert back to terrible practices due to the foremen being educated in those times.

Archaeology has to get a firm grip on this now. Taboo subjects have to be addressed with vigourous application. Put people on the spot, don't take any shit at all, never take no for an answer if the answer goes against a tabooish subject.

Short, horrible, uncomfortable questions make people in charge squirm with embarrassment, especially if the science is to be compromised. Its a finite resource after all so drum that home.

Use the IFA with your rights as a workforce.

If any of the above is that far out then please excuse me, I'm a newbie.

[zaqwe123]

On the subject of the archaeology work force today

You people have no purposeful Union?

I agree with this completely. I was recently on a watching brief (where the company were charging the client for a supervisor but paying me site assistant) and I got into a discussion with the digger driver, who laughed when he heard my pay. He works for a large infrastructural company in the North East and he gets (with over time) about ?32,000 per year. He said it seemed he was better off never going to college, which maybe he was. But he also made an interesting point when we got talking about Unionisation. He made the point that if unfiar work practices took place on a Unionised construction site in the North-East, builders in the south would be kicking up stink, and possibly going on wildcat strikes (and vice versa if there were problems down south). People might remember just such an incident in the energy industry earlier in the year when an Italian owned company employed Portuguese workers at below British rates.
Can we honestly say that if we heard about exploitation in a company other than our own we would do more than just laugh about it in the site hut? Are we too insular looking and selfish?

Regarding pay cuts, our office manager accidently left out a wages memo last spring which showed that our three managers got (or rather gave themselves) a 15% payrise when we were all told that we needed to be more economic. If anything needs to be cut perhaps the specialists need to rethink their position??? I've seen large chunks of a project budget go to environmental analysis which produces vague reports which seems to do little more than confirm what we found out in the field. (apologies to all the Environmental people :0 )

[MuckRaker]

I feel that many of these arguments, while valid, avoid the issue at the core of pay/condition problems: the process of competitive tender. This misguided attempt to introduce market forces to archaeology was always bound to fail. In order for market forces to be effective, there need to exist three preconditions:
a) a demand for the product (in this case archaeology, a demand which has been enshrined in planning law)
b) a range of suppliers (in order for competition to take place)
c) a discerning consumer/customer
Unfortunately, while the reforms of the last two decades have taken care of a) and b), there is no discerning customer for our services. Developers attach no importance WHATSOEVER to the quality of the archaeological work they pay for.
In other industries, if a poor service is provided, customers can and will switch to a supplier who better meets their needs. If Sony began shipping a TV set that failed to function, customers would not buy it, and would turn to a supplier that sold a functioning set. The discerning customer would balance the cost of the different products against the quality of the product they received.
A developer DOES NOT NEED ARCHAEOLOGY! The work we do is of benefit to the nation, not the developer. The developer is simply being asked to pay for it. Of course this has, and will continue to, drive down pay and conditions, as companies vie with each other in a relentless dive to the bottom of both pay scales and professional standards. There is no cost/quality trade-off made. Just cost. As long as competitive tender remains in place, there will be no improvement. None. Ever. Market forces DO NOT WORK WITHOUT A DISCERNING CONSUMER. The only grounds upon which commercial archaeological contractors genuinely 'compete' any more is who can put in the lowest bid.

[BAJR Host]

The only grounds upon which commercial archaeological contractors genuinely 'compete' any more is who can put in the lowest bid.

Although this is not strictly true... it is fairly true. bring in consultants who care more about getting the job done right first time, than the 40 quid that could be saved by hiring archaeo-cowboys inc.

[oldgirl]

Although this is not strictly true... it is fairly true. bring in consultants who care more about getting the job done right first time, than the 40 quid that could be saved by hiring archaeo-cowboys inc.

Gissa job. }

But seriously - as I said before (not sure if it was this thread or another) I look for people to get it right the first time, I also give points for methodologies that approach the archaeology as it is, rather than 'we always do it that way'.

I take your point Muckraker, and it's well made. But, interestingly, if much a larger percentage of the commercial archaeology being undertaken at present is for large, government based organisations, rather than for entirley commercial ones, maybe the cost driver will become slightly less? Everyone's budgets in government are being squeezed, but then it's a question of doing what's effective and necessary, and actually thinking about the archaeology, rather than time pressured, knee jerk reactions.

Does that make me a discerning customer......?

[Unitof1]

Mucky

is it competitive tendering or the process of competitive tendering which is wrong in your world?

Currently working out if there is anything correct with :Market forces DO NOT WORK WITHOUT A DISCERNING CONSUMER. So far drawn a blank. I am happy if half the time I over charge them.

Is there a chance that what you think archaeology is, isnt worth as much as you think it is? Around my way I would say about 80% of the archaeology is ploughed over every year and nobody bats an eyelid. Could it be that you have been mainly on sites where the Discerning Consumer was right royaly overcharged and you took itt to be the norm. Be interesting to see what they paid for.