Thinking for the Future...

[Unitof1]

day rate v. price

[gwyl]

& by the hour?

you can surely do better than that, tho?

[moreno]

“I think that the IfA offers better potential for career development in archaeology; we need to have some method of indicating a person's skill-set, and at a higher level in the IfA a return to Areas of Expertise would also - as has been mentioned on another thread - cover people such as illustrators become MIfA or whatever grade appropriate. It also has the benefit of defining MIfAs in terms of what they are and are not competent to carry out; their very own skills passport, if you will.”


Many would agree with the need for having a standard in which to measure one’s skill set. Frankly I was amazed at what is expected of certain staff on some projects. To anyone bothering to pay attention, it was quite obvious why these things happen. Convenience, lack of staff choice, the limits of individual skill sets and breadth of experience, holding or not holding a full driving license, these were all contributing factors to assigning individuals tasks well outside their skill set. In some cases individuals in a position of responsibility were incapable, unable, unwilling or lacked the support or resources to address site issues. In many cases, one may clearly chase these issues further up the management ladder. Please forgive the analogy, but a chain is only as strong as its weakest links. Please, no Anne Robinson puns. There appears to be a need to address and assess the skills of not just dig staff, but supervisors, project officers, project managers etc.

I do believe we need to be careful not to appear using a band aid approach by pigeonholing and squeezing individuals into convenient categories. I appreciate the IFA has a committee that reviews prospective membership applications. I would give more serious consideration to joining the IFA if I felt there was more transparency in this process. I would want to know what criteria, relevant experience, and professional background in archaeology the individuals on the relevant committee hold to merit appraising applicants? I am not comfortable with a motive of simply increasing membership numbers or the current perception of the IFA (right, wrong or indifferent).



“The Digger's Charter is clearly a useful exercise within the profession but is separate and, i suspect, largely of little consequence to the construction industry. aspects of it - such as skills passport - are however capable of being integrated into a CPD - which of course the IEMA, as the IfA, require of individual members - but any CPD-exercise is going to require the cooperation of employers, the various bodies such as BAJR, IfA, CBA (etc) representing or providing a voice for archaeologists. At the moment any benchmarking exercise for field-staff is doomed by everyone pulling in various directions with a result that consensus, which is there, doesn't come to enough action.”


Interesting, so the construction industry is performing an indirect service? We know on some schemes people are required to hold certain qualifications (CSCS, EUS, etc.). Looking back, this is something that should have originated through our profession, not something we inherited! Yes, yes, before the less than helpful comments begin, I’m well aware of the costs, personnel, expenses etc that would arise in organising our profession. Surely this is where the IFA comes into its own? Yes it does require the cooperation by employers. In some cases it is obvious this is sadly lacking. At the moment we are all concerned with putting food on the table, paying our bills, and staying employed by any means possible. In the short term, great! What happens in the long term? It might sound trite, but it will require sacrifices and rolling up our sleeves.


“The Digger's Charter and the Digger's Forum Campaign for a Living Wage are both striving to effect some change but when only half-a-dozen people turned up to the DF meeting last month one wonders whether there is any point to it.”

Up until I heard the words numbers and membership, I liked what I was hearing. Yes, apathy is a major hurdle, but it’s not insurmountable. It’s easy to complain, it’s the British way! It’s much harder to stick your neck over the parapet, role up your sleeves, slog it out, and effect changes. Many of the posts I’ve read attest to why it’s difficult. Besides, I’m STILL waiting for the minutes…seems no one is immune.

[Unitof1]

is archaeology really that difficult?

[deadlylampshade]

Are these the minutes you're looking for??

http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?3634-Unions-and-the-Diggers-Charter

And no; archaeology isn;t difficult at all, but people like to pretend it is and over complicate every aspect from choosing a section to publishing a report...

[moreno]

Aye, archaeology isn't difficult. It's convincing members of our profession to pursue a common cause that is.

Thanks Deadly, but no, I have a copy of those I was after the minutes following the recent meeting (DF) in London that Gwyl was referring to.

[deadlylampshade]

Oops...sorry:I

[Dinosaur]

If we don't know how to do something around here, either someone else does or the management sends someone on a course - isn't that the way everyone else does it?

[Unitof1]

i bet that wouldnt be an archaeology course

[Ranging-Rod]

If we don't know how to do something around here, either someone else does or the management sends someone on a course - isn't that the way everyone else does it?

Don't be silly!