Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
Following discussion at IfA Council and elsewhere on the future of IfA minimum salary recommendations, Council tasked a working group consisting of representatives of Council, IfA?s Working Practices and Registered Organisations Committees, Diggers Forum and Responsible Post Holders to investigate the potential to develop recommendations for remuneration packages including ?reasonable? starting salary ranges for the different IfA grades of membership. The salary benchmarking report was also updated.
IfA is now seeking member views on this matter. Kate Geary has prepared a consultation letter - http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...100610.pdf
Please do download and read this and send Kate your views.
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ne...toryid=502
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
Perhaps some figures may get you thinking
[SIZE=3]Reasonable starting salary ranges
[/SIZE][SIZE=3]‘Reasonable’ starting salary ranges were ascertained by taking a range from the minimum
to the maximum comparator salaries and removing the top and bottom 25%. This would give
the following ‘reasonable’ ranges:
PIfA level responsibilities ?18,090 - ?19,646.
AIfA level responsibilities ?24,631 - ?28,210
MIfA level responsibilities ?30,563 - ?36,854.
[/SIZE][SIZE=3]Consultation
[/SIZE][SIZE=3]IfA is seeking your views on the following questions:
1. Do you feel it would be useful for IfA to publish guidance on reasonable starting salary ranges for the three grades of IfA membership, in line with other professional bodies?
2. Do you think the removal of the upper and lower quartiles of the comparator salary ranges is the right way of determining recommended starting salaries for
archaeological posts?
3. Are there other readily available comparison data IfA should consider?
4. What benefits should be recommended to accompany these packages, and at what level (eg employer pension contributions, leave allowances, training and CPD
support, sickness pay)?
Current BAJR grades:
G1 : Training Position) ?14,462.33 (?278.11 pw)
G2 : (ie Basic Site Assistant) ?15,396.71 (?296.09 pw)
G3 : (ie Site Assistant 2 or Technical 1 ?16,433.59 (?316.04 pw)
G 3/4 : (ie Senior Site Assistant or Technical 1 or Junior Supervisor ) ?17,180.22 (?330.39 pw)
G4 : (ie Technical 2 or Supervisor )?17,933.33 (?344.87 pw)
G 4/5 : (ie Senior Technical / Supervisor / Junior Project Officer ) ?19,284.18 (?370.84pw)
G 5 : (ie Specialist 1, or Project Officer SMR Asst. ?20,504.48
G 5/6 : (ie Senior Specialist, SMR post and Project Officer or Junior Manager) ?23,221.29
G 6 : (ie Specialist 2, Senior SMR Post or Project Manager)?25,754.68
G 7 : (ie Directorial and Senior Management) ?33,183.29+
[/SIZE]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
I haven't commented to the IfA yet, mainly because I am not quite sure what they are asking....but I guess I will eventually.
One of the things I wil say (deliberately ignoring the obtuseness of all 4 posed questions) is that if the IFA were to recommend a single statement of salary advice to their RAO it would be that the minimum starting salary for a corporate IFA member (ie PIFA, AIFA, MIFA) should be the ?18090 pa and that this should increase beyond inflation until parity with comparable professions is reached. I know that would please a lot of PIFA members but also many AIFA and MIFA members as well (who would be happy to receive that salary compared to what they get now). I think the higher levels of pay within an organisation will sort themself out providing the minimum level of pay for a corporate member is set at a reasonable level. It would also I guess make the situation much easier for advertisers to BAJR as well - In advising the payment of a minimum 'corporate' salary I would scrap the IfA levels on other pay grades (which after all are largely superfluous - do you get paid that salary as a result of your IfA membership level or as a result of the work you do?) - remembering that many IfA members quite often undertake work below their level of 'IfA competence' for both strategic and personal reasons....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
How many/what proportion of organisations are paying those levels now? All sounds around the going rate anyway....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
Errrmmm...no. Try several grand above normal rates - PIFA is still site assistant level yes?
I agree with Kevin - the statements seem quite obtuse and I'm still thinking of what to reply with.
I would hope the message to RAO's would be - pay your staff the minimums suggested here! Especially with extra VAT on the way!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2009
who would have thought that on a day when france get humiliated at the world cup, dinosaur would still provide the biggest laugh of the day? i can only assume that his tongue was firmly planted in cheek as that was being typed... if not then no, in this quiet little corner of the country we get a couple of pennies under ?3000 less than the minimum pifa quoted above
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2006
BAJR Wrote:Perhaps some figures may get you thinking
[SIZE=3]Reasonable starting salary ranges
[/SIZE][SIZE=3]‘Reasonable’ starting salary ranges were ascertained by taking a range from the minimum
to the maximum comparator salaries and removing the top and bottom 25%. This would give
the following ‘reasonable’ ranges:
PIfA level responsibilities ?18,090 - ?19,646.
AIfA level responsibilities ?24,631 - ?28,210
MIfA level responsibilities ?30,563 - ?36,854.
[/SIZE][SIZE=3]Consultation
[/SIZE][SIZE=3]IfA is seeking your views on the following questions:
1. Do you feel it would be useful for IfA to publish guidance on reasonable starting salary ranges for the three grades of IfA membership, in line with other professional bodies?
2. Do you think the removal of the upper and lower quartiles of the comparator salary ranges is the right way of determining recommended starting salaries for
archaeological posts?
3. Are there other readily available comparison data IfA should consider?
4. What benefits should be recommended to accompany these packages, and at what level (eg employer pension contributions, leave allowances, training and CPD
support, sickness pay)?
Current BAJR grades:
G1 : Training Position) ?14,462.33 (?278.11 pw)
G2 : (ie Basic Site Assistant) ?15,396.71 (?296.09 pw)
G3 : (ie Site Assistant 2 or Technical 1 ?16,433.59 (?316.04 pw)
G 3/4 : (ie Senior Site Assistant or Technical 1 or Junior Supervisor ) ?17,180.22 (?330.39 pw)
G4 : (ie Technical 2 or Supervisor )?17,933.33 (?344.87 pw)
G 4/5 : (ie Senior Technical / Supervisor / Junior Project Officer ) ?19,284.18 (?370.84pw)
G 5 : (ie Specialist 1, or Project Officer SMR Asst. ?20,504.48
G 5/6 : (ie Senior Specialist, SMR post and Project Officer or Junior Manager) ?23,221.29
G 6 : (ie Specialist 2, Senior SMR Post or Project Manager)?25,754.68
G 7 : (ie Directorial and Senior Management) ?33,183.29+
[/SIZE]
All I can say is................in my dreams............. I'm on ?8000 less than the Aifa recommended MINIMUM ! and have Aifa and Mifa level responsibilities. I can't see what use this will do for the majority of us.except spend our hard earned IfA subs on something that has and will never benefit the majority of field work staff.................:face-confused:
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2010
Ok, so maybe we're overpaying people? All the current BAJR G-rates up to 5 are very similar to what this firm's paying, partly because the pay's to some (slight) extent geared to follow BAJR rates (Dirty Boy forgot to mention what his salary is?), goes slightly wrong from G 5/6 up, but not by much. The IFA-suggested rates are just pie-in-the-sky, any firm paying those is just going to go bust in short order (although I'd be delighted to take the 7 or 8 grand payrise, albeit briefly....) :face-stir:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Dinosaur, these rates are substantially above the current going rates, maybe you should read the job adverts on this site to keep in touch with the profession. http://www.bajr.org/Employment/UKEmploym...sp?ID=8312
As for the IfA stuff, I confess to not having the time to have read the documents yet. They seem t be inviting critiscism of their methodology, which is fine. I would hope that they would read the existing benchmarkings, using NOS and JGS.
And the final question, perhaps too much detail? I would keep a comittment to CPD, and leave the rest to employers.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2009
I think that considering the position the country is currently in apparently (choose your own favorite form of statistical anaylisis at this point) then the IFA should be congradulated for this!
|
