gosh...isn't it getting better all the time.....not

[Dinosaur]

Joys of an anonymous website, can't make a personal attack on you since I don't know who you are, just on what you say. Tricky one since we're only getting one side of the story here....but I've heard plenty of similar tales over the years and there's always another side....your original post gives enough details that someone else from that site must recognise it, any takers?

[Dinosaur]

....your original post gives enough details that someone else from that site must recognise it, any takers?...

Ho hum, had expected people to post on here, not....aren't mobile phones wonderful things, must remember to turn my work one off when not at work....

A slightly annoyed supervisor from your last job (but it seems not one of the one's you're complaining about) can clarify things slightly on the ones you are complaining about. If I've got this right, when the job you're complaining about first started the contractor started digging holes at random all over the job without any obvious plan (I know that hassle well!), but, and this is a big but, without providing any of the vehicles to the archaeologists which were meant to be part of the contract, and also refusing to pay for them to hire any in. The only feasible response, apart from missing whole swathes of archaeology (you've already made it clear that you care enough about the job to be horrified by that concept - credit where it's due), was to find people who were deemed sufficently responsible and capable and (listen carefully here) had their own transport, and make them up as extra supervisors. If you were there, had more experience than them, and had a car, it sounds like you'd have gone to the top of the list, since apparently they'd have made-up more people if there'd been any more fitting the criteria. Apparently those made up were not regular diggers with that company, so accusations of favouritism don't wash either. Am led to believe they've worked out quite well (not people I know so taking someone else's word for that), and have been propelled up the career ladder nicely since it'll look good on their CVs, particularly since it sounds like a dreadful site to be trying to do archaeology on.

Hope that's cleared that one up, as I say, there's usually more than one side to a story....

[brazier]

Can't see any problems with rewarding drivers. Essential, really. Same for loads of jobs. Think, unless you are lucky (?) enough to work in the big cties where public transport can help out, you do need to drive. I'm sure there are indifferent archaeologists who are drivers, I'm equally sure there are indifferent ones who aren't drivers. Whether they are promoted or not depends on whether they ask, and for what reasons they are worthy of promotion (people do change/adapt), and whether they are committed to doing the job (probably the most important). The choice, keep your freedom relatively intact following what you consider to be a vocation, and act as an educator/enabler (the old skilled all-round "digger" role - the generalist), but lack security of tenure, and become inevitably concerned about getting anywhere - or just go for it, get driving, and specialise, and take on a supervisory role and aim for management within your first five years (where do you see yourself in five years time). It's a personal choice, and it's good, since everyone falls into their roles naturally (not being too Panglossian here I hope!). The only trouble is that there is a cultural blindness to the worth of both parties - most professions acknowledge the essential symbiosis, and reward it accordingly (it isn't such a personal issue who does what if you understand my drift). Archaeology's full of scepticism to the point of divisiveness...not a bad thing, but the engine stalls. More people skills needed! And maybe there are people who don't have them - but good god if we think we are special in that respect just take a look around you will you at other jobs - plenty of difficult characters there. We have it good really (well not so bad). But we do need to professionalise properly, like the civil engineers or surveyors. Then the issues of personal gripes will fade, since CPD will be the norm, and though we might lose that "edge" that makes archaeology different to most jobs and an interesting career to follow - we'll at least have more security, more representation, and basically a normal job you can recommend to people for not just the interest but also the "package" for the want of a better, less corporate term. I know....dream on.....

[destroyingangel]

Just to clarify something... it is possible to get a decent (for want of a better term) job in archaeology without being able to drive. Yes, your options are more limited and (unfortnately) you will often be overlooked or passed by (doesn't matter how fantastic you are at actual archaeology) by people who can get themselves (and others) from A to B. But through perserverance, timing, luck and maybe being able to offer something (or things) that balances out the driving deficit... it is possible to get these jobs. For me (I don't drive) I've had to just grin and bear it when I see jobs that I can (should) go for, but then see the magic "drivers licence essential" and so have to say to my self "nah, no point in applying". But it is my cross to bear... and sometimes I just say "f**k it, I lose out more if I don't apply. Given the nature of the job, maybe, just maybe the driving thing isn't that essential afterall". So I apply, and sometimes I get the job... but on the whole I have to just plain deal with the rejections I get along the way.

One thing that does strike me is that getting a job in archaeology (at the moment) is s series of jumping through ever decreasing (size) hoops set at different heights... a filtering proces. Degree (jump), experience (jump), masters (jump), able to use a total station (errr... jump), ability to use GIS (yay, jump), health and safety card (erm... jump, tight squeeze), drivers licence (oh dear), ability to speak fluent welsh (really?), willing to relocate to Saudi Arabia (err... I'd rather not). Just seems an endless procession of things that filter out the employable to the not so employable... and it doesn't really matter how bloody good an archaeologist you actually are or how much you care about it. We are not salmon, but it seems as though we behave like them.

Furthermore, as for driving... yes, it is a real plus-point if you can (how else do you get to that pointless watching brief in the middle of nowhere?). But there are many reasons why particularly good (excellent) archaeologists can't or won't drive. Yes, there is the cost... just learning costs an arm and a leg these days, as does the test. Also, just how does a newbie 'digger' afford a car, the tax, the MOT, the insurance, the petrol/diesel? But there are other reasons... a disability that prevents driving or (as in my case) an inability to drive because of some deep seated fear of driving brough about by a past accident (errr... it's not the driving I fear, it the fear of driving into another car and mangling myself and my passengers). And, in this fluffy-green age, some people would actually like to use public transport a bit more and save the chuffin environment. If you live in extreme isolation (say Northwest Scotland) then I suppose a car is necessary... but on the whole, surely we should be trying to limit car use. We are not all Jeremy f'in Clarkson.

[Jack]

Its always the same, turn away from your computer for a day or so and the forum fills up! Not had time to read through all of this but....

It is a shame that cars are essential in many aspects of life, especially work. However, for monitoring and watching briefs they are (except for London maybe, but how do you get the archive, tools, finds and environmental samples etc to and from site?). Often small companies can't afford the overheads that accompny buying and running (into the ground!) a fleet of vehicles to do this. So a workable option is to pay mileage for staff to use theirs.

In my experience, having a car does not guarentee progression up the supervisor ladder, I know many diggers who have cars, some merely ferry the rest of the staff to and from site and never progress any further.
However, if in a pinch a PO or manager gives a digger with a car a quick covering job monitoring a machine and they perform well, they are often given more oppertunities. Doing watching briefs, dealing with descision making, working well with the construction team and clients form the basis of the skills needed to be a good supervisor in the commercial world. This is just a fact. Bizzarely, being vastly experienced in archaeology theory isn't as important as you'd think......as long as you know your own limits and have experienced diggers and managers to rely on, (and you do rely on them that is!). Archaeology to me seems a job best learnt on the job.
Running a rescue excavation under commercial conditions is a very difficult juggling act if your serious about saving the important archaeology present on site. Having a good relationship with the ground crew and client is essential.
What we do is to rescue an important sample of the archaeology. What is important is defined by a consideration of the regional resource assessment reports , regional research frameworks, EH guidelines etc. etc. Its a calculation of the impact and loss of information over the cost. Yes cost must come into the calculation, so some arcaheology is destroyed and lost.....however lots is (should) be recorded.
As a digger I never understood this. It was only when I saw the larger picture that it made sense.

Recording every stakehole in detail or doing a greater percentage of a boring 18th century field boundary could mean that there is insufficent time or funds to dig and record that RB tower furnace. You HAVE to prioritise.

...er oops. That turned into a bit of a mini-rant.

[Oxbeast]

interesting posts brazier and jack. I'd add that there could be a fairness issue in driving. If you have some supervisors who can;t drive and some who can, then the ones who get borehole watching over three counties might be a bit narked when the ones who can;t drive get nice little sites to run, just because they've got a digger to do the driving for them. Like Jack says, you've got to be able to work independently, and at least you can share the jobs out fairly.

Public transport is a nightmare in most counties, outside the big cities at least, its not just NW Scotland where there are sod all buses. Add to this the problem of starting when teh main contractor starts, at 8am or so, and suddenly a car becomes necessary. I learned to drive a few years ago, and kept having to give up when away jobs came up. The tests cost a fortune as I had to take a unpaid day off. It paid for itself as soon as I got one job more than I otherwise would have done.

[Dinosaur]

Just to clarify something... it is possible to get a decent (for want of a better term) job in archaeology without being able to drive...

Actually you're right, there's a supervisor here (for the last 20 years) who seems to manage quite well by public transport, although there has to be quite a lot of job-shuffling to put him places with a bus service at 7am! Otherwise he has be on jobs with a workforce able to supply transport, and when he's not out on site he also has the small problem of a c.75 mile each-way trip to the office although that can be achieved by 2 buses, a train and some walking, 3+ hours each way (funnily enough he mostly writes stuff up at home....), more stamina than I've got left! [actually, he's older than me....:face-crying:]

However, that's a special case (old, loyal, original employee), I'm not sure how much management in how many units would be so accommodating to new 'junior' staff, they're more likely to move straight onto the next job candidate who has got wheels and therefore is less 'bother' to employ. Sad but true. I know some people who just can't drive, I can't play the guitar so I'm not gonna be judgemental about that! (also a fair number that I'd be happier if they didn't, but that's another issue).

[Dirty Boy]

In my experience, having a car does not guarentee progression up the supervisor ladder, I know many diggers who have cars, some merely ferry the rest of the staff to and from site and never progress any further.
However, if in a pinch a PO or manager gives a digger with a car a quick covering job monitoring a machine and they perform well, they are often given more oppertunities. Doing watching briefs, dealing with descision making, working well with the construction team and clients form the basis of the skills needed to be a good supervisor in the commercial world.

Very true. I often find that as long as you get a good crop of excavators on site, the archaeology tends to "dig itself" and I spend most of my time dealing with logistics, trying to juggle the client and archaeology priorities, and keeping staff on site reasonably happy so that they can produce good work.

Inside London, cars are a bit pointless, which I know from working there. I'd think at least having a driving license would be worthwhile.
No-one should be forced to drive, but with public transport the way it is and most jobs taking place in the a**e end of nowhere, having a car is pretty much necessary. Unfortunate as it is, you may be the best archaeologist in the world, but if you can't get to the site your skills can't be used.


On the flip side - if you don't have a car - please don't expect me to be used as the site packhorse. I've invested time and money into learning to drive and maintaining my wreck of a vehicle. Ringing me at 8 on a Sunday night out of the blue and expecting me to pick you up from the station without any notice? Get a sodding taxi! !

[Jack]

GnomeKing,

....I suspect that the individuals on whose posts you are commenting hold senior positions and unwittingly hold these views, or wittingly...

No need!

Can't speak for other companies, but the reason I hold a (relatively) senior position is through being pushed, groomed (oo er) and pushing myself (as I was self-employed). I don't think the company I now have a contract with initially had clearly set out career development paths.........they do now though ( a product of ISO and of a real intention of making things better). However, I get the impression that as much of the staff of many companies are temporary, its difficult to develop them if they don't stick around! (no ones fault really).

[Dinosaur]

Difficult (and indeed commercially pointless) to even go down that path with staff on short contracts (which sadly seems in reality to include a lot of 'long' contracts these days, sign up for minimum of 6 months, get laid off after 1 1/2.....). Just training up people for the competitors....of course, if everyone did it (fat chance!) it would all even out.....