Kevin's Christmas Challenge: Pick your Wage!!

[P Prentice]

looks shit for anyone starting out but might just keep so old lags out the poor house - derisory

[kevin wooldridge]

looks shit for anyone starting out but might just keep so old lags out the poor house - derisory

There are plenty of people who have to live on the national minimum wage!! My thinking was that at present it is very difficult for entrants into archaeology to get any kind of start at all and therefore a minimum wage entry grade would in effect be an 'apprenticeship' into the industry and at a pay level that couldn't be 'undercut' in terms of competitive practice or 'overlooked' in terms of arguing that it is was too high in achieving its desired result - staff with minimum training, but training that was particularly profession specific.

It did also occur to me that having a starting grade in archaeology equivalent to the NMW would leave no-one in any doubt as to what employment prospects in archaeology were likely to be when they began studying the subject ... I wouldn't care to say at what stage anyone graduated upwards from NMW to higher pay levels, but I assume it has some relation to acquired skills and/or responsibility. So after 5 years experience graduating to ?25,000 pa wouldn't necessarily be based solely on achieving a level of 'management' responsibility, but a factoring of field and management experience suited to both the individual and the organisation in which they worked. And even that is still a long way below the average 'national' income.....

[Oxbeast]

There are plenty of people who have to live on the national minimum wage!!

Very few graduate jobs though...

a pay level that couldn't be 'undercut' in terms of competitive practice or 'overlooked' in terms of arguing that it is was too high in achieving its desired result - staff with minimum training, but training that was particularly profession specific.

What, this is your 'fantasy' for the profession? Its not really very fantastic.

In the real world, salaries are generally determined by levels of responsibility, rather than time served. This is how the BAJR and IfA payscales are determined. If you want to give site assistants a massive pay cut to teach them a lesson about how shit the industry is, than eveyone will get that pay cut. Maybe if you've got a few years experience you might get another five or ten quid a week extra. No one is going to pay an old lag 25 grand just to dig if all the new graduates on site are doing it for 12 grand.

[Kel]

In the real world, salaries are generally determined by levels of responsibility

Not really. I used to be responsible for a budget of ?2 million per month when I earned ?16k pa. Never had that big a financial responsibility again, even on a wage more than three times that, ten years later. At which point I managed no staff or budgets at all and didn't seem to have any more responsibility than providing senior management with someone to swear at and threaten to sack in a crisis.

I'd suggest that in the real world, salaries are determined by how badly an employer wants or needs the skills that you have. To which archaeology sadly conforms along with IT, banking, plumbing, bricklaying etc.

[Oxbeast]

At which point I managed no staff or budgets at all and didn't seem to have any more responsibility than providing senior management with someone to swear at and threaten to sack in a crisis.

Kel, my point is that the senior management were being paid/paying themselves more than you, whatever the starting point of the scale might be. They sound like a right bunch of charmers though. Maybe they should have given you a massive pay cut to teach you a valuable lesson about how difficult the industry is and how rough things can be.

[kevin wooldridge]

I personally suspect that there are many graduates in very many subjects who are at this moment in time surviving on the NMW and less....

We have visited before the question of whether students having completed an undergraduate, or even a post-graduate degree, are 'trained' enough to go straight into archaeological fieldwork (especially in the commercial sector). That might still be a discussion with legs, but at the moment it's slightly irrelevant because very few fresh archaeology graduates of my acquaintance are getting any kind of start at all in archaeology. And as I have said before on this forum I think that is to the shame of the profession as a whole and something that is going to come back and bite us hard in years to come. My point about the fantasy entry grade is really that it should be taken for what it suggests, an entry level into a profession providing training and experience that will reward those who see the 'apprenticeship' through with a minimum salary of ?25,000 after 5 years. I don't think that overtaxes the current resources of archaeology, merely redistributes it a little:face-stir:

To the best of my knowledge BAJR and IfA have always supported the principal of a 'training' grade provided it genuinely provides training within a structured programme. I happen to think that properly structured training of this kind (be it through company apprenticeships, training schemes or bursary schemes) helps unblock entry into the profession for fresh graduates. Of course I am not personally suggesting the current IfA or BAJR minima should be reduced. I was making the point of the NMW compared to a middle range salary after 5 years, to contrast the extremes that exist in UK archaeology at present. I know full well that there are few working archaeologists on the NMW, but there are also very few working archaeologists with 5 years experience who are earning ?25,000. I'd hoped that most people would pick up on that contrast.

My fantasy wage level wasn't intended as a snub to 'umble site assistants or an encouragement of 'time servers' just to stick it out for future 'riches' - infact if anything it is underpinned by the expectation that the first 5 years of any archaeological career would be geared to gaining experience and training best suited to a career in archaeology rather than just exploiting the muscle, energy and enthusiasm of the young. From what I hear from the trenches right now, sure people want work (they want wages!!), but very few are that short sighted, that they don't see their career progression beyond site assistant being pretty much blighted. unless they are able to gain skills that will widen their career aspirations, as well as making them more attractive as an employee or in a specialist role. Thats nothing to do with the commercial viability of companies, but all to do with the genuine career aspirations of employees and colleagues....which of course many archaeologists are beholden to respect, embodied as it is in the IfA Code of Conduct Principle 5 '....member shall recognise the aspirations of employees, colleagues and helpers with regard to all matters relating to employment, including career development...' , but also an aspiration that I recognise is often ignored.

That's all...

[P Prentice]

maybe you should have concentrated on skills achieved rather than time served

[chiz]

The problem is, Kevin, that at present most archaeologists just don't stay in theprofession for 5 years so there is no point in what you suggest. Most leave because they can't hack the weather, the poor pay, or just aren't cut out for it. I'd like to think some also leave because they are also no good at the job. There's also just not enough jobs for more experienced staff. You'd have to completely restructure the whole profession to make your suggestion work, and defeat the laws of supply and demand. Or create a way of insisting on proper acreditation and standards that meant you had to use skilled workers. At present new starters are paid low wages, you want to make them worse with no credible solution. Its Robin Hood in reverse. And you haven't even factored in tuition fees.

I don't want to get into special pleading for archaeologists, but National Minimum wage is not a sustainable wage for the profession, let alone for its most junior members. NMW would undermine any advances made in terms and conditions over the last twenty odd years (I grew up as a subsistence volunteer on ?42 a week), and would instantly compound the problems of deskilling and disengagement currently at large in the profession. Employers would instantly just hire fresh starters on NMW and then bin 90% of them as soon as they got vaguely skilled. Hang on, that sounds a bit familiar? That's what happens now, except the new starters get around ?15K*, not minimum wage. Your suggestion does nothing to alter the problem for site assistants, it just gives supervisors a pay rise. At the very least you could have argued for a Living Wage for those starting out in archaeology!

It is issues of supply and demand and the 'experience pyramid' of the profession that need to be countered. We need to get away from the current lowest common denominator system of deskilled workers who are really just underpaid labourers. We need to create a profession that values everyone, we need to stop the drop in standards in archaeologists, we need to insist that people need to do their job properly. We need parallel progression of those that don't want to take on responsibility, but are skilled and use those skills.

Yes it needs proper, structured training at a training wage (ets say ?15,800) for maybe a year, then progression to a basic pay of about ?18,000 for semi-skilled site assistants, with increments for increased skills allowing them to earn as much as supervisors, or more for very skilled professionals. There needs to be a big jump (due to the legal responsibilities) from the basic Digger to those at real supervisor level, so maybe ?22K for supervisors, and ?28K for PO, managers and SPOs move up a bit to ?35K. that's starting wages,not taking into account increments and experience. All backed up by full pay for travel and overtime.

There would need to be proper checks on people skills and a 'supportive intolerance' of poor work -from individuals as well as employers. If you weren't good enough, you'd be asked to leave. Actually, we need all that now. I wonder why it doesn't happen, maybe employers are embarrassed to demand anything above basic competance at the wages they offer?

Just my personal view you understand

Chiz

*I know, there are some who pay worse than this.

[Kel]

Kel, my point is that the senior management were being paid/paying themselves more than you, whatever the starting point of the scale might be.

Er... yes? Can you point to any industry where senior management aren't paid more than the staff who report to them? Being in IT at the time, many of the people being paid more than me, were younger than me and had less experience. Their skills were more in demand than mine at the time. It's not an injustice.

Maybe they should have given you a massive pay cut to teach you a valuable lesson about how difficult the industry is and how rough things can be.

They made me redundant a couple of times, does a 100% pay cut count? It reflected the state of the industry at the time. Times were tough, contracts were being lost and work was drying up. Things were commensurately tough for those who sought to work within it and some of us went to the wall - sometimes a couple of hundred at a time.

Points being, whilst archaeology is poorly-paid, it isn't any kind of special case. The same or similar practices occur all over many types of industry. Real World stuff indeed.

[kevin wooldridge]

Chiz I did say that I didn't intend to undermine the current IfA and BAJR minima, my point of choosing the minimum wage in my fantasy was to point out a contrast between inexperienced and skilled staff. Otherwise I totally agree with you...