Pay and Conditions

[jeremiah]

I'm sorry if some of my comments were seen as being unhelpful or perhaps even defeatist; they were meant to be realistic and bluntly honest, the latter two characteristics being sorely needed in this profession - unfortunately, the first two are omnipresent.

For what it's worth (and, for some of you, that won't be very much), I strongly expect any attempt to substantially raise wages will founder in the face of opposition from commercial unit managers. I don't mean to be defeatist or mischeivous, but I am just stating what I believe to be empirically true. When labour was at a premium in certain areas, wages to attract new employees barely matched inflation. Archaeologists who act as employers will simply state now that times are bad, and with increases in taxes, NI contributions and little or no need to attract new employees, wages will not rise. We've seen this bargaining position outlined once or twice in BAJR recently. Then there's the apparent skullduggery occurring in the IfA Council with at least one RO attempting to cut wages. Whilst this was defeated, with many plaudits going to Council, we don't know why it was rejected; other ROs might not have wanted one of their number to gain an advantage over them. And finally, nobody at the top appears to feel any shame about paying these wages. Most archaeological employers pay their field staff a wage which appears to qualify them for Working Tax Credits, a government indicator of chronically low wages. Quite why the wider tax-paying public should have to subsidise an industry which gains its revenue from the construction trade (hardly short of a bob or two) is beyond me and I suspect would baffle the general public, even before one takes account of the skillset of those paid at such a pitifully low level.

About unionisation: most of the larger units do have union membership and representation. In my personal experience, as being (a small) part of unionisation within a sizeable unit, whilst some very modest benefits did appear initially, these quickly tailed off. Pay negotiations, in particular, became tortuous and obfuscatory, a situation which also occurred in at least one other major unit. In short, the benefits of unionisation which bear upon pay seem to me to be limited.

People who want to transform this situation must be applauded and I genuinely wish them all the best. The fact that many of you wish to do it from "from below" is great. But I really do think you have to be prepared to walk from the profession in order to get people to take you seriously; strikes are too short-term and won't work. I don't think that the consensus exists amongst units to raise pay by realistic levels (at least to take people out of those Tax Credit thresholds and really by more). I would, however, love to be proved wrong and wake up with egg on my face in, say, a year's time!!!!

[Unitof1]

have to ask why this has never been done before? Are archaeologists so laid back that it was never thought of as important?

they are not archaeologists, that?s the problem

[trowelfodder]

In my experience it is not that archaeologists are too laid back to join a union I would say that it is one of the two following reasons:

The first is simply fear - there is a bizarre belief amongst some archaeologists, particularly those in the earliest stages of thier career that they should be gratefull to a company for employing them. No matter what this company does to them they keep their heads down for fear of being singled out as a trouble maker.

An example of this was when I worked on a huge pipeline job in Wales a fw years ago. There must have been close on a hundrd archaeologists working for two companies on this job and i thought it would be the ideal time to seriously think about about unionising a large proportion of the workforce. I aranged for a union rep to come to wales and talk to everyone outside work and we sorted travel out toget people to and from this meeting. In the end only ten even turned up to listen to talk with the majority thinking that it would get them into trouble if the company found out. If when you lay it out on a plate and all they have to do is turn up then what can you do?

The second is the most irritating - its the defeatist notion which aflicts so much of british commercial archaeology. They wont join as they dont believe that the union can do anything contnuing the vicious circle that without members then it is difficult to act but as they dont act then members are not attracted!!

Utill archaeologists snap themselves out of the mindset that many are in then unfortunately very little progress will be made.

BAJR is a fantastic organisation and has done a lot to help me in the past (and even gotten me into a wee bit of trouble) but we cannot rely on it to sort out our problems. At the moment theres plenty of talk but how can we expect David to stand up for us but when he turns round for supprt all scuttle back into the shadows and hide!! !

[chiz]

I'm afraid I have to agree with trowelfodder2 on most points having seen the same things, too may times. Archaeologists seem to want it all without putting anything in. Bleating that they can't afford a couple of quid a week, complaining about the union, about everyone, except themselves.

Having worked in unionised, and non-unionised units I have seen the differences a union make in a quiet way on a day to day basis. Joining a union is not just about getting a decent pay rise, and anyone who thinks that is the be all and end all of a union is naive. Unions provide a mechanism for all the members to stand together and protect each other against unreasonable actions by the employer. If you are an individual and have a problem at work you are totally reliant on your employer -and they could well be the problem. With a union you have a network of other members -and professional back-up- to help and support you. Yes it extends to pay, but just as importantly it covers site conditions, health and safety concerns, extra equipment if you have a disability, workstation assessements, getting all your legal allowances for flexi-working if you have kids, getting decent CPD opportunities, dealing with discrimination, legal advice on workplace matters, a whole host of issues that are otherwise left to the Boss or HR. If you trust them to decide then fine. But I'd rather have a seat on the table through my union. If the shit hits the fan then the union will back you up. It can't stop you getting sacked, but it will do its best to make the process fair and transparent, and can often reduce the numbers getting the chop. I've seen first hand what a union can and will do to support a member in trouble, and it makes a big difference. Even when you lose.

And who is this union? It is me, it is you, its the person sitting next to you in the sitehut, or writing the desk top in the office. The union (whichever you choose) is its members and is only as strong as its members make it. The union is not something 'over there', that can be called on when times are tough, and ignored or slated when things are ok. It is us. It is staffed by volunteer reps, voted for by members -yes there is a professional staff in head office, but the real work is done day in day out by members. And they need your support. So when you blame the union for being weak, what did you do to make it stronger?

There are quite a few people out there who are struggling to get pay increased and conditions improved, here, in the Ifa, even heads of ROs. Unfortunately it often seems that they are generally unsupported by the mass of archaeologists. The reason why IfA pay minima were not scrapped a few weeks ago is because the three members of the Digger's Forum on Council (with other support) stood firm and argued against it. These people deserve your support, they don't get paid, they don't even get thanked most of the time, and it doesn't exactly help your career prospects to stand up and be counted like that. You have been given the opportunity to make a difference, and for many of you, you avoided the decision.

Archaeologists need to get a grip on themselves and recognise that they are failing themselves and their profession. Don't blame everyone else, look to what you can do. Join a Union, support Diggers' Forum, support David, put your time (and a little bit of money) where you mouth is.

[Unitof1]

Dear daydreamers
I am a self employed archaeologist. It has always been a bit of a jaw dropper for me that anybody could imagine that there was some secure unionised work place in archaeology. I compete for work on price, a price set by the market which you presumably are all in and affect.

Its seems to me that to achieve a secure unionised work place you would require either a monopoly (public or private) or such a commercial advantage that you would be the automatic first choice (legislation). We kinda have got these with eh and charity trusts. They kinda have got some unions in them and have done so for a long time. Why I think they don’t work is that management grade starts at one step off the bottom rung and the bottom rung is digging. But digging is not continuous. It is an unreliable food source and it kinda needs to be mapped if anybody intends to rely on it for sustenance. As a start I thought that this might help you

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/c...2180-4c7e-

[Steven]

Hi All

Quote "I cannot think of any industry that would expect such high levels of education and training and expect to get away with paying so little."


Nature conservation officer: Salary and conditions
Typical starting salaries may range from ?12,000 to ?14,000,

Range of typical salaries at senior level/with experience (e.g. after 10-15 years in the role): ?17,000 - ?29,000.

Working hours typically include unsocial hours, such as evening meetings and early starts. It may be necessary to work some weekends and public holidays.
At entry level in particular, the work can be rough and extremely demanding, often outdoors in all weathers.

The balance between field work and office-based work varies considerably, with more administration, statistical analysis and report writing associated with senior positions.

[Ken]

Hmmm, seem to remember a while ago, in another BAJR universe, I suggested that field archaeologists should think seriously along the lines of creating a union specifically to represent their aspirations. I had a few hanging from my jugular for a while after that, could it be "the worm is turning"?

[BAJR Host]

Hmmm, seem to remember a while ago, in another BAJR universe, I suggested that field archaeologists should think seriously along the lines of creating a union specifically to represent their aspirations. I had a few hanging from my jugular for a while after that, could it be "the worm is turning"?

Perhaps then it is time... OR to get PROSPECT to have a dedicated archaeology person... putting all their attention onto issues.

[trowelfodder]

How do we going about achieving either of these things?

[BAJR Host]

one is by empowering the DF to have a mandate... the other ... by first asking PROSPECT the question of the amount of time spent on archaeology issues.