IFA RO only as approved contractors

[Dinosaur]

Already seem to be working here to ISOs 9001, 14001 and 18001 and a load of other construction and environmental industry certifications, judging by all the framed certs out in the foyer, and no one's died or gone bust yet, in fact it all seems to smooth things considerably with clients (ie they're more likely to give work to subcontractors operating to standards they actually understand, by and large they couldn't give a monkeys about all that archaeology stuff) - what's wrong with getting a proper independent archaeological certification scheme run by a reliable and independent body (which probably rules out all existing archaeological organisations)

[trowelfodder]

I agree with Dinosaur - I am not against regulation and would welcome a chartered status for archaeologists but I strongly beleive that the IFA is not the right organisation to administer this. There is a conflict of interest here as they rely on membership fees to run and so striking organisations off for poor conduct is not in the interest of the organisation.

But an independant body - thats something I would get behind,

But and is a big but any move in this direction needs to be open and transparent and consult as widely within the industry as possible.

[Ferris]

If you think there is substandard or unethical work then complain. Simple as that. You can even now do it anonymously.

Really? I considered making a complaint about an RO recently and was sent a form which required me to fill out all my details and sign as well as being told that the form would be passed on to the respondent. What is the point in an organisation intended to set professional standards if the person wishing to make a complaint is unwilling to do so for fear of being blacklisted?

[chiz]

Hi there, just to clarify the point on anonymous complaints. It’s a bit of a yes and no situation...

If you are referring to the article in the DF newsletter, then as it clearly states, the DF (or any other SIG) can make a complaint on your behalf and keep your name out of the system. As we say in the article this means you can contact us and give us solid evidence. We guarantee your anonymity from that point. If the evidence is good enough then we can take forward a case based on that evidence. We won’t mention your names to anyone without your consent. Ever. If the case will fall apart without your evidence then we will let it fail rather than name a whistleblower.

Take a case where someone is working as self-employed for a unit headed by a MIfA, but they are payed well below an equivalent PIfA rate for the job. DF get tipped off, get shown sufficient proof to satisfy ourselves that there is a case to answer, and put in a complaint as the DF, not naming the originator. It is our names on the complaint. The originator doesn't need to be named as the IfA investigating officer can simply demand to know what the day rates are from the MIfA. If it gets to the point where we need the evidence and it would expose the originator then we regrettably walk away. The names never get given to anyone else.

Of course its easier if we have more evidence, and people are prepared to stand by their complaints, but as diggers we all realise that isn’t always possible. That will mean some complaints won't be possible under this system, but we're trying to make a start.

So it’s a case of yes, and no.


We have recieved a number of verbal complaints relating to one unit regarding their pay, but after looking into it they aren't an RO and their top brass aren't in the IfA so we can't do anything at all about it.


Get in touch?


Chiz

[zephyr]

I'm sick of this RO thing, one curator informed me I could not practice as a sole trader as I was not an RO and that it was English Heritage Law! What....! Is it not a restriction of trade to stop non RO companies trading? Let us not forget that archaeologists working in this country need not be qualified, registered or indeed experienced to legally practice archaeology in th UK.

Does anyone know if it's possible to be banned from a county/district because draft reports submited needed editing?

[P Prentice]

i think that curator was right - let us not forget indeed

[Marcus Brody]

I'm sick of this RO thing, one curator informed me I could not practice as a sole trader as I was not an RO and that it was English Heritage Law! What....!

This is just nonsense, and it's worrying that a curator would have such a poor understanding of the planning system and the role and limitations of what English Heritage can and cannot do. Ask him/her to provide the relevant legal statutes that state this to be the case, and if they can't, but still persist in their position, go above their head.

Is it not a restriction of trade to stop non RO companies trading? Let us not forget that archaeologists working in this country need not be qualified, registered or indeed experienced to legally practice archaeology in th UK.

Certainly seems like restraint of trade to me, particularly given the reason stated. Even if a particular curator was unwilling to allow you to undertake commercial work in the area they cover, that wouldn't prevent you from setting up as a sole trader and working elsewhere. I don't know anything about you, so it may be possible that the curator doesn't think that you've got sufficient experience to be able to work unsupervised on commercial sites, and is trying to find a reason to justify that decision. Even so, they can't stop you setting up as a sole trader, but they would be able to say to any developer who said that they were planning to use you for a development site that they didn't think you were experienced enough to do the job. But that decision would need to be based on evidence, rather than simply because you're not a member of a particular club.

Does anyone know if it's possible to be banned from a county/district because draft reports submited needed editing?

Wouldn't have thought so, I've never heard of it happening. I've certainly heard of reports being rejected because they were factually inaccurate or so poorly written as to be incomprehensible, but the only requirement in those cases would be for the report to be sorted and resubmitted. I suppose if this happened with every report submitted by a particular company, and the curator had to spend loads of time correcting these errors, they might get fairly pissed off with the people concerned, though!

[Marcus Brody]

i think that curator was right - let us not forget indeed

You may well feel that the curator was right on a philosophical level, but they're nevertheless acting outside the limits of their current remit and responsibilities - it's not for the curator to say who can and can't set up as a sole trader. While they may be able to decide whether a particular sole trader can work on commercial sites in their area, this would need to be based on evidence of the individual's lack of suitable experience or because they had a track record of unsatisfactory fieldwork, rather than because they weren't an RO

[Martin Locock]

It would be helpful of Zephyr could tell BAJR which curator this was: his earlier plea for examples of a ban on non-ROs did not appear to bear any fruit.

However, I would query the phrase 'draft reports submitted needing editing'. A report submitted by a contractor should be authoritative, accurate and fit for purpose. On occasion there may be errors and omissions that are spotted by others, but the responsibility for the text is yours, and to call a version you have released a 'draft' is misleading.

[BAJR]

agreed.. though i suspect i am already aware of the report. i often send draft reports... once they have been approved they become full reports. no i don't try to pass off draft as unfinished... rather awaiting approval

i expect comment but not more editing than 20 mins top. i also have written comment to a company to give fair warning.

what would be required regarding the ro comment.... written evidence.

i have heard from some... but it seems that there is a worry .

look forward to it.