IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment

[BAJR]

http://www.archaeologists.net/codes/ifa

IfA Policy Statement on self-employment and the use of self-employed sub-contractors

IfA recognises that its members and Registered Organisations use a range of different business models and employment types. IfA does not have a remit to dictate how its members should carry out their business. However it does have a role in ensuring that members and Registered Organisations work to recognised standards and in a manner which does not contravene the IfA Code of conduct or IfA Standards and guidance. Specifically, self-employed status may in some circumstances raise ethical issues of good practice, within the remit of IfA. This policy statement clarifies the IfA position.

Self-employment provides an appropriate model for many IfA members, particularly those working as individual specialists. However, being self-employed brings with it responsibilities that those working for an employer do not have.

An example of where self-employment might be considered by IfA to conflict with ethical practice would be when self-employed workers are used as a way of cutting costs by avoiding the employers? obligation to provide benefits such as paid leave, sick pay, provision of personal protective equipment etc. Engaging self-employed workers for this purpose is considered to be a contravention of Principle 5 of the IfA Code of conduct. For members and Registered Organisations this could lead to investigation under IfA disciplinary or complaints procedures as appropriate.

http://www.archaeologists.net/codes/ifa

scroll down to Policy


You can also read BAJRs Guide here
Employed or Self-Employed in Archaeology :: April 2005

[Unitof1]

Its not any good is it?

ify seem to have invented something called a self-employed "worker" who seems to be employed by an employer to cut costs. This isnt a policy on self employment its a policy on employers employing.

[SIZE=3]An example of where self-employment might be considered by IfA to conflict with ethical practice would be when self-employed workers are used as a way of cutting costs by avoiding the employers? obligation to provide benefits such as paid leave, sick pay, provision of personal protective equipment etc.
[/SIZE]

And when they dare call anybody a self employed archaeologist they have to take it back straight away

[SIZE=3]In contrast, there are circumstances where it will be entirely appropriate to engage self-employed archaeologists. An obvious example would be a self-employed finds specialist sub-contracted to a principal contractor as part of a wider project.
[/SIZE]

They dont understand what an archaeologist is do they. And this is why they have to stuff their membership with specialists post ex scroungers who in this case suddenly become ?sub-contractors?.

[Martin Locock]

I am glad that there is now a clear statement aimed at removing the abuse by some employers of 'self employed' diggers whose status is unclear.

It seems to me that *some people* spend half the time complaining that the IfA doesn't take any action and the other half complaining when it does.

[BAJR]

So now, the IfA and BAJR have very clear policy on Self Employed abuse. - (sounds wrong) the next thing to do is ensure it is enforced.

[Unitof1]

No thats what it sounds and reads like...

and the next thing to do is enforce it.

A statement on self employment of an archaeologist should be about their indipendance as recognised by the ifa. It should be how they should inter-react with other archaeologists or archaeological organisations and how they would be supported by an organisation representing them.

[Martin Locock]

Unit, I don't understand your last point - what sort of statement were you hoping for?

[BAJR]

Careful Martin, you are walking into a dark place!!

[Wax]

Is there any IFA policy on organisations taking on employees one short contract after another with a very short break in between to avoid taking on full time staff? Yes I know short term contracts are the norm but enforced breaks to ensure people are not employed on longer contracts and so not liable to all the benefits of full time employees are not un common. I bet there are lots of diggers who's contracts never go beyond 12 months and not because there is no work.

[kevin wooldridge]

Is there any IFA policy on organisations who take on employees one short contract after another with a very short break in between to avoid taking on full time staff?

There doesnt have to be an IFA policy on this matter because there is a law and the IFA says in its rules that all members will follow the law with regard to employment rights.

The Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002...http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/...ion/8/made

[Wax]

Thanks for the link Kevin, I know that continuing rolling contracts build up and accrue the same rights as permeant employees. It is the contracts where the employer deliberately ensures there is a break between them so that they do not roll on from each other that I am not sure of. My understanding was that this is against the spirit of the law but not technically illegal. I will have a good read of the link.