DIGGERS CHARTER DEBATE

[trowelfodder]

As an often tired supervisor/PO have to say that when asked for my opinion on staff I wouldnt class whether some was an "agitator" or not featured anywhere on the stay/go radar. Keep the staff who are best at thier jobs!

But then guess ive been classed as an agitator......and been pretty much employed all the time for almost 8years. Yes ive had big run ins with managers, yes ive left companies on not the best of terms but ive not yet sold out. It is everyones responsibilty to try and achieve change and often taking concerns higher up can improve our lot.

Do what you've got to do and keep positive.

[BAJR]

(if you're being employed on a site-specific contract) so no continuity anyway

moot point whih has been tested... its another way of getting round employment law, rather than adhering to the priciple... if you move from one site specific job to another site specific job with the same company, then after a while you could claim continuity of employemnt of course there are other criteria which come in as well... employment law is murky and grey... and I tend to like to know what I get into... any grey areas... or on the edge contracts hat look veryy legal... I wonder hwy it ain't straight foward... and many clauses that make me responisble... I want to know why.

Now I take it that nobody has any problems wih the charter? :face-topic:

[Jack]

Even I don't have any problems with the charter in principle, and I really hope unionisation does change things for the better........................but I have my doubts

[Dinosaur]

It's a bit vague as it stands, needs something a bit more specific before anyone can eulogise it or start trying to kick it to bits, so I've certainly got no probs with it in its current form (we can all save up the 'in depth' discussions for further down the line, and get all the points properly sharpened). Anyone else got any probs?

[BAJR]

Thats sounding fine... the geenral outline is (as you noticed) just that... as to be too specific would create too much of a constraint. Look like the june meeting will take these principles and work on them to finer tuned level... then one final consultation... and thats it. The question on whether it worksor not... well thats in teh hands of the people who want change... if people are happy the way things are... then thats the way it will stay. Can't say we did not try.

[kevin wooldridge]

On the technical question of union recognition. An employer is obliged to recognise a trade union when a majority of employees request the union is recognised. There are exceptional circumstances where an employer might recognise (or even request) a trade union without being urged by the employees, but in nearly 30 years as an archaeologist and over 35 years as a trade unionist I have only heard of this happening once. So it is unlikely that Jack's 19-1 scenario could happen....

On the question of whether union negotiated benefits apply to non-union members. Yes they do. If they didn't then both the union and the employer could be open to charges of running a 'closed shop' which is proscribed under section 137(a) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52). But in reverse if an employer recognises a trade union for negotiation purposes including redundancy arrangements, disciplinary codes etc etc, non-union members could find themselves covered by agreements in which they have no personal say.

Do trade unions bother to represent single members in workplaces where the majority of workers don't belong to a union? Yes they do. There are several famous cases where unions have carried on representing single-figure memberships after trade unionists have been sacked or membership of that union proscribed, notably in the construction industries and local and national government.

The unstated historical philosophy of the trade union movement is that we stand on the shoulders of giants. Many of what we consider the basic rights, freedoms and benefits in UK society have been won as a result of trade union action and often great personal sacrifice by trade unionists and trade unionist families. Of course this does not accord with the version of history paraded by the concerted efforts of Murdoch media and the Daily Mail and the so-called legacy of the Thatcher years; where it is claimed the trade union movement has only ever stood for selfish personal self-enrichment at a significant cost to the scared trembling much put-upon masses....

.....but I guess that was before we discovered what bankers and the Lib-Dems were up to!!

[BAJR]

A quick note from the wilds. Apart from a big thanks to Kevin for yet another eloquent and informative post.

Unison have agreed to having an interest in being involved, and pending further talks may be part of the next round of discussions in joining the unions and creating a cross union working party for archaeology. And they said it could not be done :face-kiss:

[Ken Denham]

Don't think supervisors count as management? Think it's fairly normal for site supervisors to be consulted as to who they'd like to keep/get rid of, or do office-bound management use a crystal ball where you come from?

Agitators are usually people who are agitating? (rather than getting on with the job they signed up for in the first place - if you didn't like the conditions you shouldn't have signed the bit of paper....) :face-stir:

So you don't think that people who are working in a professional environment should have the right to question how the job is being done if it doesn't measure up to their professional expectations?

[Dinosaur]

So you don't think that people who are working in a professional environment should have the right to question how the job is being done if it doesn't measure up to their professional expectations?

When a slightly higher proportion of diggers start operating in a slightly more professional manner they're more likely to get taken more seriously - there are an awful lot of diggers out there who frankly can't do the job to an adequate standard (starting with using a shovel), apparently have no idea of even the basics of archaeology (judging by the c**p they manage to write in semi-English on context sheets), apparently exist on another planet, etc etc. In my book people get respect and listened to once they actually start turning in some decent work, not cos they shout loudest (and the ones wingeing are, in my experience, usually doing it instead of getting on with the job).....:face-stir:

[Tired]

I actually agree with Dinosaur to an extent here - there are a surprising number of diggers who don't seem to know how to do the job properly and the faults he lists are something we've all seen on site I'm sure. However I disagree with the apparent suggestion that this gives units the right to ignore and dismiss the criticisms of field staff and view them on the whole as a bunch of retards. The reason for most of the bad diggers is that they've never been shown how to do it right, they've come out of university and fallen straight into projects where the speed of work was the priority rather than the successful gathering of information. When units give the elbow to staff who raise objections to failings in professional standards or a lack of professional integrity then it simply sends the message to inexperienced staff that professionalism is a career hindrance and we're left with more and more commercial jobs being carried out with high degrees of incompetence and lack of professional pride in the work undertaken.

Labelling anyone who speaks out against a lack of professionalism as a whinger who isn't getting any work done seems like a way to avoid addressing the problem of poor standards in the workplace.