IFA RO only as approved contractors

[RedEarth]

Yes, but the difference between that individual and someone who's similarly lacking in field skills but who happens to be a member of the IfA is that in the brave new world of IfA-only fieldwork the latter would still be allowed to work, simply because they've paid for membership of a club and somehow managed to convince that club that they know what they're doing. No-one's said that all IfA members are useless (well, vulpes implied it, but I assume it was a joke), but similarly, no-one's disputed the assertion that there are some members who seem to have progressed to a membership grade that isn't matched by their level of competency. Yes, you can argue that someone who's been digging for 15 years should have had a better grasp of the basics, but they weren't laying claim to a degree of competency that they didn't possess. Conversely, if someone has attained a grade of MIfA, it's not unreasonable to expect them to have a certain basic level of competency - after all, isn't the point of the membership grades to indicate the skills supposedly attained by the individual?

Surely this indicates the flaw in using such a blunt instrument to determine who can and can't undertake work - simply being in the IfA doesn't mean that the person is capable of undertaking work to a particular level, and doesn't even guarantee that swift disciplinary action will follow substandard work, so really, the only result of requiring that any work is undertaken by IfA members or RAOs would be to force non-members to join if they want to work.

Surely the difference between someone who is rubbish and not in the IfA and some who is rubbish and is is that the latter could at least in theory be kicked out for not being any good. You can't kick someone out if they are not already in.

[Marcus Brody]

I know that field skills aren't essential to all roles in archaeology, but the argument has been made that only IfA members or RAOs should be allowed to undertake fieldwork because that's the only way to ensure that the archaeological resource will be treated properly, and I'm simply saying that this isn't the case. As has been pointed out, it's not unheard-of to meet individual IfA members that may not be particularly good in the field, and similarly, poor work isn't the sole preserve of non-RAOs, but the fact is that if membership is to be used as a means of access to work, it does bring a certain expectation of competency. And it's all very well saying 'complain', but as has been pointed out, there's very little confidence in the IfA disciplinary process, not only because there's a lack of visible sanction, but also because there's a perception that it's complicated and time-consuming.

I suspect I'm not going to change anyone's mind on this subject - people who agree with me probably still will, people who don't probably won't be convinced - so I think I'm going to withdraw from this topic now. It doesn't really seem likely that it's going to be resolve anything, and it seems to be going round in circles

[vulpes]

the argument has been made that only IfA members or RAOs should be allowed to undertake fieldwork because that's the only way to ensure that the archaeological resource will be treated properly

Really? Where? I think the arguments in favour of the RO system that have been made are a bit more subtle than - RO = good, non RO = bad. Similarly IFA membership. It's largely about accountabiliity.

I think I'm going to withdraw from this topic now

Me too, see you at the next IFA conference

[chiz]

Before you (and I) withdraw from this topic, can I just point out that there is a visible sanction on those found in serious breach of the principles/code of conduct etc -their names are published in The Archaeologist. I would totally agree though that the disciplinary procedure can take too long, in my limited experience this can be because of non-co-operation or threat of litigation, and it is a complicated/careful process because there are important issues at stake. I'm not defending the IfA for the sake of it, and I agree with many of your points, I'm just trying to make it a better organisation for Diggers. Whether that's by speeding up the disciplinary process, by getting through changes allowing groups like DF to take on anonymous complaints, by getting a decent minima increase this year and for the next few years, or by getting them to be more vocal about taking on the threats to heritage. I argue that the IfA needs to tighten up the expected standard of work, the pay and conditions, the RO inspections and the disciplinary process whatever happens, but especially if they want to progress towards chartership.

Now, to concentrate on getting a decent and sustained increase in the minima....

[kevin wooldridge]

It's true. You have to promise to never again use a trowel if you join the IFA at any corporate grade. That's right isn't it Kevin, Sadie, Chiz, BAJR host et al.

Trowel? Thats some kind of non-digital, semi-robotic, interpersonal, soil interface device right.....urghhhhh. Wouldn't be seen near such a thing!!

[Dinosaur]

But you don't necessarily have to know how to section a posthole to be a good manager, or illustrator, finds specialist or surveyor.

I think if this example is going to keep getting used I should perhaps point out what I didn't clarify when I first used it - the MIFA in question was only committing this clearly unfamiliar activity becasue he was reputedly teaching someone else to do it, gawd help us :0

[P Prentice]

That may be the case, but the very definition of a union is an organization of workers that have banded together for the purpose of getting better working conditions or pay, whereas the IfA is always going to suffer for the perception that it's dominated by management. I don't say that this perception is correct, and I know that those in favour of the IfA will say that the way to change this is for everyone to join so that the workers outnumber the management, but when it comes to arguing with the boss for better pay and conditions, I'd rather put my trust in a union than with an organisation that will at the very least have divided loyalties as a result of representing both staff and management.

given there are more archaeologists that are not managers than than archaeologists that are - can you see where i might go with this ???

[Marcus Brody]

given there are more archaeologists that are not managers than than archaeologists that are - can you see where i might go with this ???

I think I addressed this point when I said 'I know that those in favour of the IfA will say that the way to change this is for everyone to join so that the workers outnumber the management', which is actually included as part of the section you quoted! (I know I said I was withdrawing from this thread, but this post is simply to answer a specific point raised by P Prentice, not a wholesale return to the topic).

[Dinosaur]

Managers are, in the natural order of things, (hopefully) the people with the greatest aptitude towards managing things - you wouldn't see me dead anywhere near any post with 'manager' in the title for instance, I'd be c**p at it - and I suspect that this principle follows through into IFA, so that those 'managing' IFA will always tend to be employed as managers in their daytime job. I've noticed over the years that 'manager mentality' never switches off in some people (however drunk, and however much everyone else at the party is trying to have a good time), conversely anyone who prefers to spend their time out in the mud earning half as much (or less) clearly doesn't have it and is unlikely ever to get to the point of having much say in IFA, however much their good intentions :face-stir:

[kevin wooldridge]

. I've noticed over the years that 'manager mentality' never switches off in some people (however drunk, and however much everyone else at the party is trying to have a good time)

Another 'opinion' about the IfA being touted as a fact.... The IFA is 'managed' if you want to use that word, by an elected council which is broadly representative of the profession. I have just checked the 20 current members of IfA council and I know for a fact that at lkeast half are currently actively employed in positions that involve field work, probably Dinosaur not unlike your own. At least 2 others, I have had the pleasure to work for in the past and can vouch for their proficiency as 'dirt' archaeologists. So having killed off that myth what is left...oh here we go. You wouldn't want to meet any of them at a party!!.....Some of the best parties I have ever attended have been organised/arranged/peopled by folk currently on the IFA council ....