Bar to self-employment.

[Jack]

Now I would be a little impressed if as an archaeologist you had said... 'To put all the power in the hands of a single body is a recipe for disaster..........look at the Greek city state, the Roman senate or the tyrant Caesar' ..... but that tired old cliche lifted straight from from the rant pages of the Daily Mail.....nah!!

True , am posting in between writing a report though................maybe I should have quoted animal farm.....but I take the critism, I was being lazy.

[Dinosaur]

Approved Contractors Lists are common fact of life for Tree Surgeons and can be found on many district council wbsites...

Wouldn't it clear the air, and indeed help many potential clients, if Council Archaeological Contractor Lists were also put on-line as a matter of course? I can't ever remember coming across one and I spend a lot of time wading through the complexities of council websites (ok, lost, but that sounded better) :face-huh:

[RedEarth]

Hi
Approved Contractors Lists are common fact of life for Tree Surgeons and can be found on many district council wbsites. As for the IFA deciding lists, isn't it better that an officer acting on behalf of elected officials (elected by local pople) produces a list rather than an unaccounatble organisation? After all if somebody had a problem with a local list they can write to the elected member to comlain, but if they were not a member of the IFA they would have no recourse.

Local planning authorities are indepandant governing bodies, ran by elected memebrs on behalf of local people, so in terms of accountability, local knowledge and understanding of local economics I would argue that LPAs have a legitimate right to produce a list if they believe it to be in the best interest of local people (and by extension local people's archaeological heritage).

Far from being a bar to self-employment, local lists could be the way smaller films are offered smaller projects within their local area. If you think about it leaving it up to the yellow pages route means whoever has the largest advertising budget gets the most jobs!

Interesting about the tree surgeons, does approved mean those lists are similar to those for archaeologists? Do issues regarding things that have protection (tree, rare species) mean that relevant lists are more strict?

I'm not entirely sure under what circumstances anyone would bother to complain to their democratically elected representative. Most likely that they have had to pay for an archaeologist in the first place. Archaeologists are more likely to want to complain but might feel unable to do so for fear of upsetting curators they have to deal with on a regular basis. A list compiled by the IFA could just as easily be commented on, perhaps more easily in such circumstances.

Are the various lists compiled with all the concerns about local knowledge, economics and people that you mention? They do potentially act as a bar to smaller firms and the self-employed in the ways outlined at the beginning of this thread - a basic advert in the Yellow Pages actually costs nothing!

[Dinosaur]

....Are the various lists compiled with all the concerns about local knowledge, economics and people that you mention?....

Has any county ever actually published the criteria under which it includes/excludes archaeological contractors on its list? Or would that be laying themselves open to litigation?

I know there are SMR/curatorial types posting on here, any informed comments?

[Jack]

Hi
.......As for the IFA deciding lists, isn't it better that an officer acting on behalf of elected officials (elected by local pople) produces a list rather than an unaccounatble organisation? After all if somebody had a problem with a local list they can write to the elected member to comlain, but if they were not a member of the IFA they would have no recourse.....

I agree. At least there is some recourse for appeal. }
Also its them that monitor and agree/advise on the methodologies, significance of results and have the power to police archaeological mitigation works (sort of), so have the on-the-site information on who's doing a good or bad job.
What has the IFA done to prevent the destruction of archaeology by disreputable archaeological companies? (not coming from a strong position to argue though....so actually asking if they have?)

Although Dinosaur is correct it would help if the lists were accessable over the internet.

[BAJR]

well ther you have it... its back to the standards maintained by teh council again.. with the threat of litigation for lost work etc.. based on the say so of the council adviser.

With the IfA you would have to be an RO and open yourself up to scrutiny... with BAJR the criteria is based on ok till I find out different. (that said, only two or three groups have actually found themselves in that position) recourse is always open to private dialogue.... I am always open... always available to talk to... its really up to the company to decide whether it wants to talk.. or whether it feels somehow wronged and won't talk, imbuing its version of events to staff.. a victim of unfairness and woe. For me.. its usually simple... did the company meet these simple criteria YES or NO

in keeping with the IfA Codes and Conducts that BAJR not only recommends as a standard, but upholds as a supporter of the IfA. If you have a problem with either a company that advertises (they are in breach of H&S or Pay Levels or Employment Entitlements) then please get in touch and we can try to negotiate an amicable solution.

[RedEarth]

I was thinking perhaps something along the lines of this scheme for electricians might work - http://www.niceic.com

Those registered with the scheme are accredited and so their work does not need the same level of checking by Building regs (as far as I understand it). This is presumably self regulating in some way but I assume is accepted by Building Regs because it saves them a lot of trouble and cost.

Imagine a similar scheme for archaeologists - the county points developers in the direction of a list of similarly 'accredited' archaeologists - lets call them RAOs (Reliable Archaeological Organisations), they are considered likely to present no problems for the curator so cutting down on their workload and costs of monitoring, and allowing them to check more throughly those who they are less sure of. Of course, this would mean that the accreditation system was accepted by all, affordable, and transparent. A possibility? Since sorting out anything in archaeology is like herding cats I doubt it, plus I'm sure there a any number of people waiting to point out problems with this idea! If it works in another industry surely it's not that difficult.

[trainedchimp]

easier when people can agree what good quality work actually means...

(is there an smiley for grabs tin hat and dives into the nearest trench?)

[BAJR]

I would guess if the IfA stagger in here af the big part.. er sorry conference they would say... thats what the RO scheme is supposed to be...

cue... joining you in the trench... and asking to share tin hat...

after all.. what is good? and what is a good RO?

[Dinosaur]

The main problem with the RO scheme at the moment is that there's actually no real incentive to join it? The company I work for would have absolutely no probs passing the membership criteria but has just frankly never seen the point, especially with all the agro involved, same reason why no one around here sees the point in joining IFA, have you seen the state of the membership process? - frankly everyone's got better things to do with their time (like maybe some archaeology?). Some sort of (neutral) quality control would definitely be a good idea, however, if only for the rather selfish reason of thinning out the commercial competition, good news for the 'quality' operators }