Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
12th January 2010, 05:51 PM
Quote:It all depends on whether its the site or the unit offices are your base for contract purposes.....
That's it in one...
it is not too hard... and of course you could employ staff at your unit office and then send them to this site... :face-huh:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
14th January 2010, 11:23 AM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:Well it may sound unfair but if it's the job I am thinking of then it's the Revenue that are setting the rules.
It all depends on whether its the site or the unit offices are your base for contract purposes.....
Hi Kevin, in my understanding that is correct, in that if you are employed for a specific site then that is your place of employment, and any accomodation/subs etc will therefore be a taxeable perk.
However if you remember when we were working up in Cumbria (our place of work as it was a fixed contract) we were given travel up at the start and finish of the site, plus daily travel to and from site. We were also given accomodation which was mostly paid for by our employer, although we paid a very small amount a week towards the cost. This had all been sorted with HMRC.
So it is clearly possible to provide these 'perks', albeit at a small cost to the employee, in compliance with the HMRC rules.
Both units on the site in question appear to have hired staff specifically for that site, both have their main offices a long way from the site (several counties away). One unit actually has a local office in the county of the site though, so surely that should be the 'base' for the site? and therefore travel to and from should be given from that office as hapens from their home base? One question I would ask is if a site is going to be stated as the place of employment, then are all facilities available there that would be available at head office? Are staff at that site treated the same as staff based at the head office?
An underlying issue is that accomodation, subs and travel have been an accepted part of the archaeologist's package for at least the last twenty years, and the sudden removal of these aspects of our overall package by certain employers appears to be a major variation to an accepted practice. Should this not therefore be recompensed in the paid aspects of the package (in the same way as if a unit stopped offering pension subs or sick pay as per IfA rules?).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
14th January 2010, 01:10 PM
You are right Chiz......The accomodation supplied by English Heritage for our project last year was a taxable perk, but EH agreed to pick up the tax liability less of course our small contribution. My understanding is that this is a long standing arrangement they have agreed with HMRC.
The example set by EH could of course be followed by any other archaeological employer in the UK and I am surprised that more have not taken the opportunity to negotiate an arrangement with HMRC....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
14th January 2010, 01:20 PM
Quote:The example set by EH could of course be followed by any other archaeological employer in the UK and I am surprised that more have not taken the opportunity to negotiate an arrangement with HMRC....
If the exact method of this arrangement was made public... and could then be passed on to every company... this would be a start... who should do it?
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
14th January 2010, 01:39 PM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:The example set by EH could of course be followed by any other archaeological employer in the UK and I am surprised that more have not taken the opportunity to negotiate an arrangement with HMRC....
yep, to blame it simply on the Revenue rules is not the whole story and appears to be being used as a bit of a smokescreen/red herring
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
14th January 2010, 02:39 PM
Maybe someone from EH could post the exact details of how they have gone about setting up the tax on accom system as it would be hugely benifical for units to know too
I know that they can be demonised in all this but it is massively complicated and as there is a solution which seems to work very well lets hear the details
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2010
21st February 2010, 07:59 PM
Amongst all these posts I can't find any discussion on the aspect of site working conditions. While the pay is poor, and none of us gains the respect graduates are shown in other fields most of us aren't in this job for the money. What upsets me is the poor conditions we are expected to work in.
Since working within archaeology I have experienced sites where staff work in the rain, trudging across slippery fields with arms full of sharp tools. Sites that have not been adequately checked for asbestos. Sites where portocabins were lifted over the heads of archaeologists on the ground. Sites that were either freezing or too hot with no sun block or water offered.
In fact, health and safety has only become our enemy, with each site having it's own quirky rules about PPE and netlon.
Does anybody know who we contact if we don't feel safe? Is there anything to protect the archaeologist on the ground? Competitive tendering doesn't just slice away at our pay but also limits the time we have on site, pushing us into dangerous conditions to meet deadlines. The fact is that recording archaeology is a legal requirement and must be treated with respect by contractors.
The phrase "shovel monkey" is often tossed around jokingly to describe the life of a lowly site assistant, but at the end of the day we are actually human, with families who would be very distressed if anything happened to us.
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
21st February 2010, 10:57 PM
YEs there is...
1) if it is Health and Safety... the HSE...
http://www.hse.gov.uk/
2) You could talk to the local Curator
3) if it is an RO... then the IfA
4) of course you can always always have a chat with me... my numbers are available on the main BAJR site
http://www.bajr.org/contact.asp
I always reply
you have a chat and I can often help
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
22nd February 2010, 02:39 PM
Cinnamon Wrote:..none of us gains the respect graduates are shown in other fields..
Although I don't disagree that pay and conditions are poor, there are in fact very few graduate positions where you will find any more respect or even pay than you'll get in archaeology. Highly paid, entry level graduate jobs are largely mythical and always have been, unless you're a trainee merchant banker teacher, or rozzer. Ask any engineer and they'll tell you that although they have a better career structure and prospects later on, they are still badly paid cannon fodder at the start.
Cinnamon Wrote:Does anybody know who we contact if we don't feel safe?
If any of the above happen on one of my sites you can call me and I'll kick someone's ars*, unless you think it's realy dangerous, in which case, move to a safer place and call 0845 345 0055 (the HSE enquiries number) and tell them what's going on. I've reported insane capers on scaffolding and dodgy asbestos practices in that way.
Remember that EVERYONE ON SITE (i.e. the Employees) has a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to t
[SIZE=2]ake reasonable care of your own and other people?s health and safety.
[/SIZE]
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
A tremor in the Force. The last time I felt it was in the presence of Tony Robinson.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
22nd February 2010, 06:14 PM
[QUOTE=Cinnamon;54661} While the pay is poor, and none of us gains the respect graduates are shown in other fields most of us aren't in this job for the money. What upsets me is the poor conditions we are expected to work in.
[/QUOTE]
How right you are - and this goes beyond the H&S fundementals.
"The phrase "shovel monkey" is often tossed around jokingly" - - this occurs as a result of a disconect between groups who are percieved to have an authorative positions on a project and those who do not.
Instead of evolving through a mutual engagement of differing knowledge and capabilites, these percieved groupings are often impossed, are often inefficient, and often cause friction. This situation stiffles development, research and archaeological potential.
There is no selective pressure for 'authorative' groups to perpetuate development, research and archaeological potential - rather, deadlines, budget and packaging are key selective arenas.
Other graduate jobs in cultural/scientific/research proffesions may have similar status/pay/(non-OHS related)conditions to archaeologists (shovel monkey or not). However the nature of commercial archaeology, 'truth' validation, the actual work, and the relative position of authority and non-authority groups is not always comparable.
Firstly there is a much higher ratio of 'technicians' to 'researchers'.....
Secondly, excavtion work can not be considered (in the final anlysis) as comparable to, for example scientific or engineering technical work in labs - batch/production line approaches may be usefull, but in the end excavtion relies on sensativity to natural data sets. Ecologists perhapes present a good comparator - but note the technician:research ratio......even then there are other key diffrences....
Thirdly, on real archaeological sites there often multiple aspects of research and knowledge that are of relevance - at least if they are previeved of as such at the time....
Fourth, the natutre of archaeological 'truth' means that, other than gross errors, facts are weighed not always judged - is there 'enough' information?, have we sufficient 'data' for our narrative?, have we met our minimal requirments? The value of one set of data (or one 'authorative' preception about what data 'needs' to be collected) is rarely weighed against others.
Thus, chances to develop method, knowledge and understanding are restricted - consequently, the working conditions will reamin poor for a person who has accepted low pay and other limitations for a job that seemed to offer precisley those chances.
