MOLA come out saying YES to Pay Minima linked to IfA Registration

[BAJR]

MOLA support for IfA Registration Scheme and pay minima as critical in working to improve the perceived value of archaeology


Read Museum of London Archaeology's letter to the Insitute for Archaeologists outlining our position (PDF 520kb, opens in new window)

Starts:

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG]

Following the statement published by the IfA on 10 November 2009 we are writing with
regard to the IfA's position on archaeological pay minima. As a Registered Organisation
and one of the largest employers in the UK of archaeological staff, we feel it is
appropriate for Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA) to make clear its support for the
IfA position.

Like other archaeological organisations, MOLA faces a challenging period whilst the
national economy is stabilised. In the face of adverse trading conditions we have already
been compelled with regret to reduce staff numbers, and in a fiercely competitive market
cannot guarantee that we will not have to again. As a commercial operation we are
committed to taking the measures necessary to ensure our sustainable future and
success.

continues...

The IfA's stated mission is to '"advance the practice of archaeology ... by promoting
professional standards and ethics for conserving, managing, understanding and
promoting enjoyment of heritage"; we recognise that by its agenda the IfA sets out to
raise the perceived value of archaeology within the construction industry, and the value
of heritage within the wider UK economy. If the IfA were to abandon pay minima, even in
such adverse market conditions, we would be sending a signal that the archaeology
profession does not value its own profession, and this would certainly leave our staff and
us asking what is the value of IfA membership.
This is not to say that there is not scope for urgent and considered debate on what the
IfA should be measuring, what lessons other sectors may offer - for example on pay
brackets and how the IfA can best support its Registered Organisations and individual
corporate members alike. MOM agrees that the current definition of 'pay minima',
although it includes pay, pension provision, sick leave and working hours, may rest on
too narrow a set of criteria. MOLA would be pleased to work with the IfA to develop the
criteria for measuring employment reward.
In conclusion, MOLA supports the IfA's position that the existing pay minima should
continue to be a requirement of the Registered Organisation scheme while consideration
is given to potential improvements in what is measured, and we certainly support the RO
scheme itself.

Read the whole letter and discuss... well done MOLA! :face-approve:

[Unitof1]

peace in our times

[chiz]

Good to see a major employer and RO go public with its position (and a bonus that I feel it is the right one!).

I look forward to reading the positions of other units and ROs on this issue...

[troll]

:face-approveitto. At least one RO is bold enough to be loud.Congratulations MOLA.
One issue that strikes me as a profound mistake (not entirely in with the spirit of the post...) is the IFA stated aim of raising the value of archaeology in the construction industry and the wider commercial environment. What happened to raising the value of archaeology in the hearts and minds of the public? Are we saying here that archaeology only has value in the sphere of construction and commerce? Back on topic...... it goes without saying that a minimum wage and all the bells and whistles of employment previously denied to archaeologists is a hugely welcome development. That said, I believe that there are other players to thank before platitudes are exclusively offered to one organisation alone. I too support the concept of RO`s but with the caveat that they are monitored and policed in a pro-active way to avoid a situation similar to that where white-van man regardless of the many federation stickers plastered on the vehicle is just a white-van man unfettered by effective peer-review.
With advances in wage minimums and health/safety/welfare provision, could we finally be seeing the beginnings of the perception of archaeology as a profession? Whatever next!?

[Unitof1]

“In the face of adverse trading conditions we have already been compelled with regret to reduce staff numbers…cannot guarantee that we will not have to again…As a commercial operation…measures necessary to ensure our sustainable future and success. “

So their wage bands did not save them?

“commercial operation”

you mean

Museum of London was incorporated by Act of Parliament in 1965 and is governed by the Museum of London Act 1986. It is an exempt charity as defined by Schedule 2 of the Charities Act 1993.

Exempt charities are entitled to claim:

relief from income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax;
exemption from inheritance tax; and
relief from business or non-domestic rates.

Come on boys and girls IFA ROs MOLA its all clap.

Why it there this letter, where has it come from? Should it not have been written by the trustees of the Museum? Didn’t they ignore a strike not so long ago.

[RedEarth]

He may have a point... I was just looking at the Charities Commission website, at the accounts of one large organisation (an RAO) that I know recently made a lot of people redundant and yet there was something about an 'operational surplus' of several hundred thousand pounds.


On another slightly unrelated point, is all this current support for the IfA and pay minima going to do anything to improve conditions? I still hear plenty of tales of people working 12 hour days (including a 2 hour commute either side) or longer for only 8 hours pay for example, surely this comes in somewhere, and yet some of the RAOs are responsible for such treatment of their staff. Sure, everyone is used to it, but it shouldn't be allowed.

[BAJR]

All the more reason to support the initiative to unionise the profession

[Sith]

I still hear plenty of tales of people working 12 hour days (including a 2 hour commute either side) or longer for only 8 hours pay for example, surely this comes in somewhere, and yet some of the RAOs are responsible for such treatment of their staff. Sure, everyone is used to it, but it shouldn't be allowed.

How can that possibly have seemed a better idea than renting somewhere near the site?

[Oxbeast]

@Sith,
its likely to be that if the company rented somewhere near the site, they wouldn't make profit on that job if it wasn't costed for in their tender. Or do you mean that the field staff should have rented somewhere nearer the site?

What would be ne

[RedEarth]

Oxbeast - nail hit on head. This has been brought up before but it seems to be a more common occurrance than it perhaps was a couple of years ago - job advertised, no accommodation. How do you think they are winning them so far from 'home'? The creation of more and more regional 'offices' is simply being used as a means of winning work by not including accommodation and hoping enough short-term people in the area will be available. Alternatively, they rent somewhere at the their own expense or travel a great distance at their own expense, hasn't this been discussed ad infinitum elsewhere? Is there an echo in here? The point in this context is that will such damaging practices be covered in IfA pay minima considerations? Are they already? It's no good having a minimum pay rate unless the conditions are comparable.

Unit's point was still a good one - charities are not purely commercial organisations, so why do some of them act like Tesco and treat their staff so poorly? If there was a group of directors and shareholders waiting to cream off the profits then it might make some sense.