Diggers' Forum report on away work and travel is out

[Dirty Boy]

No, it shouldn't mean travel time isn't paid, but i'd expect the driver to get paid a fair bit more. And sadly i'd have more chance of finding the lost treasure of the sierra madre than another driver on site!

Compare the units.com sounds interesting, but I wonder if just putting recommendations for extra info in job adverts on bajr and the ifa jobs bulletin would work better and grab more attention immediatley from job applicants. How will you get the info for the site database, and ho would you keep it up to date? I've also found that what a unit can pay out in terms of ovetime etc. often varies from job to job based on how bloody awkward the client is, so maybe the info in each job advert would be more effective?

[P Prentice]

Compare the units.com sounds interesting ......

I've also found that what a unit can pay out in terms of ovetime etc. often varies from job to job based on how bloody awkward the client is

i think you have demonstrated the value of the first statement as the second shows you have worked for crap managers

[chiz]

Some employers compensate drivers by paying all their travel time, with passengers only get paid after the first half hour to hour of travel. This seems to work ok, but personally I'd like to see all employees getting paid their work-related travel beyond their standard commute (and yes, defining this is difficult, but many employers seem to have managed it ok).

The recommendations for transparency on adverts would probably be the easier to bring about (BAJR has already indicated it will look at them), and would allow applicants to see what is being paid and for what, rather than a headline wage with no indication of anything else. This will hopefully be simple, easy to implement and police, and effective in giving Diggers what they need. That is the first acheivable goal, then we are looking at creating an 'app' that allows you to punch in the T&C of a potential employer and see what you would be really paid. We created a spreadsheet for this to create the employee scenarios for the report, potentially we could do this with additional variables for costs such as fuel and travel costs. It is astounding what a difference proper travel pay and subs make, this calculator would let you compare and contrast different employers and make an informed decision. There are of course lots of non-financial factors in comparing employers, but knowing the true fiscal value of the employment will enable all this to be weighed up from a more informed position.

The issue with maintaining and updating a full-on comparison website is a real one, if it was an 'official' site then the employers could do this, moderated by third party checks! We thought we'd put it out there as an option and see what people thought. The main thing is that both potential and existing employees know exactly what they are getting paid for, and what they aren't -and how that compares to other employers.

Surely overtime is paid at set rates and within set parameters at your company? Do they drop your basic wage if they have an awkward client too? Seems odd to me, but then I will never be surprised again at the 'business' of archaeology.

[Marcus Brody]

And sadly i'd have more chance of finding the lost treasure of the sierra madre than another driver on site!

Something that's puzzled me for several years is the large number of non-driving archaeologists, which seems to me to represent a higher proportion than you'd find in the general population. I know learning to drive is expensive, and short-term contracts and working away may mean that you're not in any given area long enough to complete a course of lessons and sit a test, but it can potentially make the difference in deciding who gets kept on at the end of a contract - if you've got two people of roughly equal ability, you'll probably hold onto the one who can get him- or herself out to the small-scale one person watching brief, rather than the one who'd need to be driven out there by someone else.

However, that's a different issue from people who can drive, but who refuse to be used as an unpaid taxi service to ferry other people and equipment to and from sites. I've got absolutely no problem with people saying 'no' to this kind of thing, unless the company is prepared to stump up a bit of extra money. After all, not only are they taking on the extra responsibility of having everyone's lives in their hands, they're also effectively working from the moment they start driving, while everyone else is asleep in the back.

[Dinosaur]

Something that's puzzled me for several years is the large number of non-driving archaeologists, which seems to me to represent a higher proportion than you'd find in the general population. I know learning to drive is expensive, and short-term contracts and working away may mean that you're not in any given area long enough to complete a course of lessons and sit a test, but it can potentially make the difference in deciding who gets kept on at the end of a contract - if you've got two people of roughly equal ability, you'll probably hold onto the one who can get him- or herself out to the small-scale one person watching brief, rather than the one who'd need to be driven out there by someone else.

Have had a good rant on here before about this, it's been noticeable and much discussed for years that a ridiculously small percentage of diggers seem to have learnt to drive - it regularly results in significant operational difficulties around here if there are a lot of small jobs on, and means that often we've had to give work to people purely because they could drive rather than that they were the best people for the job. On the 'taxi-driver' front, these days I generally just don't offer people lifts if I can avoid it, after a quarter century + of taxiing, I'd have thought occasional bursts of gratitude (or possibly the odd tenner towards the petrol) would be in order, an awful lot of people seem to think they have a god-given right to transportation by those who've actually bothered to get off their a**es, save up and pass a test. And, errr, in this day and age isn't passing your test just part of growing up?

[kevin wooldridge]

Have had a good rant on here before about this, it's been noticeable and much discussed for years that a ridiculously small percentage of diggers seem to have learnt to drive - it regularly results in significant operational difficulties around here if there are a lot of small jobs on, and means that often we've had to give work to people purely because they could drive rather than that they were the best people for the job.

As there is a 'ridiculously small percentage of diggers who have learnt to drive', I wonder why archaeological employers don't treat this as a training requirement and pay staff who are willing to learn, something towards the cost of lessons. Seems to me it would be a sound investment...

[BAJR]

Surely overtime is paid at set rates and within set parameters at your company? Do they drop your basic wage if they have an awkward client too? Seems odd to me, but then I will never be surprised again at the 'business' of archaeology.

Um indeed. with you there Chiz.

and watch out for the spanking new Advert system in April

New rates... new criteria.

[P Prentice]

As there is a 'ridiculously small percentage of diggers who have learnt to drive', I wonder why archaeological employers don't treat this as a training requirement and pay staff who are willing to learn, something towards the cost of lessons. Seems to me it would be a sound investment...

agreeing with dinosaur on this - and i wont employ anybody anymore if they cant drive!!

[Dirty Boy]

Fook me lads, you try and make some constructive comments and you get jumped on. Remind me not to bother next time!

No, i've never worked for less than my bloody contracted overtime rate, as that would be exploitative and really fecking stupid, and would provoke a massive feck off from me. Simples. In fact my last job the overtime offered was well and above my contracted rate.

The point i was trying to make through a rum fuelled haze is that often staff are hired for specific projects, with contracts written specifically for that job, so unit terms and conditions may not be a constant. This happened for units i worked at as a digger back in the distant and rum hazed past ( i likes rum). It therefore may be difficult to keep a database relevant and up to date, so maybe the info should be tied in specific jobs in adverts. This obviously is less use to jobs that may not be advertised and staffed tgrough word of mouth. Also, as it was only 9? Units that replied to the survey how would a useful database be compiled.

I was interested as i've a background in computing and have developed databases for firms both inside and outside of archaeology and often see people run off a cliff designing stuff like this without setting out the basics, and wanted to prompt to see if these were being considered.

[Dirty Boy]

As there is a 'ridiculously small percentage of diggers who have learnt to drive', I wonder why archaeological employers don't treat this as a training requirement and pay staff who are willing to learn, something towards the cost of lessons. Seems to me it would be a sound investment...

I would imagine that most staff are on projects that are less than 6 months in length, and most archaeology firms probably don't have a spare few grand to pay for lessons for staff that will soon be gone depending on the order books. And outside of the big smoke, driving is regarded as more of a life skil. I certainly couldn't manage without a car in the happy countryside