IFA Minimum Salaries: a consultation

[BAJR Host]

arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

Hosty,shouldn't this question about a shoogly peg be on the poll board?then we can take a vote-I think its B.:face-approve:

[BAJR Host]

<sob> and its all my fault!
Apologies

:face-topic:


1. Whether the link between IFA minimum salaries and local government pay scales should broken

2. Whether any increase to the minimum salaries should be based on the minimum shortfall (i,e 13%)

3. If so, over what sort of timescale?

4. Should there be a review mechanism for minimum salary recommendations, and if so, what factors should it take account of and how should it work?

5. Should the process be linked to progress on barriers to entry to professional practice and, if so, how?

6. What other mechanisms should IFA use?


"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[BAJR Host]

I will be away in Jordan, however, I will collate a response we are all happy with.. (ah.. the sweet smell of compromise and democracy) around the 20th September...

I think we are fairly certain about 1, 3 and poss. 4. however

Can we have some thoughts about 2. 5 and (er... 6. other than JIS)

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[RedEarth]

quote:

I think we are fairly certain about 1, 3 and poss. 4. however

Can we have some thoughts about 2. 5 and (er... 6. other than JIS)

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

Of course improving conditions (point 2 I suppose) in various areas would help improved pay in its own right - in particular the practice of some organisations (which certainly has gone on and undoubtedly still does) of effectively expecting masses of overtime on top of a full weeks work. Being expected to travel 2 hours to site, do a full day and then travel 2 hours back is not unheard of - an extra 4 hours per day = 20 hours per week. So the wages are effecively being cut just because of that. Not to mention the difficulties this makes in comparing prices. I don't know if RAOs are in some way penalisable (if that's evan a word) for such things, but others won't be.

As for other mechanisms that the IFA can use (point 6) as I said before, I'm not sure the RAO system really works. It either comes across as 'buying honours' or means that organisations that are already probably trying to do the right thing open themselves up to scrutiny while those that arn't arn't. The IFA should be able to investigate complaints against anyone.

[Oxbeast]

I would like to see standardisation in terms of travel time, and more equality across the board generally. Someone I know was recently workign for a company that asked her to turn out to the office for 7am. This meant getting up at just gone 5, and driving in. A two hour drive to site, and the pay starts from 9am. I think that if the office is in your contract as your normal place of work, and they ask you to turn up at 7, that is when they pay should start. It is somewhat dispiriting to do a 12 hour day for 7.5 hour's pay. I would also like to see units letting you choose when to take your holiday when on a short contract, rather than rationing it out at one day a month or something.

The RAO system is only going to work if units feel a benefit from it; which can usually be quantified as being more professional and hopefully getting more work/returning clients. The IFA could only investigate complaints aginst everyone if archaeologists were required to be chartered, which I for one would support in principle. I think that was point 5.

On point 2. I would say yes. I think that making up salaries by the minimum shortfall should be the aim.

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast

I would like to see standardisation in terms of travel time, and more equality across the board generally. Someone I know was recently workign for a company that asked her to turn out to the office for 7am. This meant getting up at just gone 5, and driving in. A two hour drive to site, and the pay starts from 9am. I think that if the office is in your contract as your normal place of work, and they ask you to turn up at 7, that is when they pay should start. It is somewhat dispiriting to do a 12 hour day for 7.5 hour's pay.

It also means that clients don't really know what they are getting - if an 8 hour day really means a 12 hour day how are they supposed to compare. As for different organisations costing against each other it is a joke. As for staff, I can't believe people put up with it. Someone is going to get killed on account of having done an extra 4 hours a day for several days on the trot, there must be some H&S regulations against it.

As I said, making up the short-fall in pay would be a lot easier and could justifiably be more gradual if conditions such as these were improved.

I've said before and I'll say it again - why can't the IFA investigate complaints against any organisation or individual? Even just keeping them on file would surely be worthwhile. Only investigating members and RAOs largely pointless as they are the ones who are most likely to behave. It's a bit like the police randomly arresting law-abiding citizens and ignoring known criminals - as if that would ever happen!

[Oxbeast]

"why can't the IFA investigate complaints against any organisation or individual?"

Because if they give someone a bollocking and get ignored, it would only serve to make them look even weaker. Witness the attempted bollocking that the west is now attempting to lay on the Russians...

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast

"why can't the IFA investigate complaints against any organisation or individual?"

Because if they give someone a bollocking and get ignored, it would only serve to make them look even weaker. Witness the attempted bollocking that the west is now attempting to lay on the Russians...

Hmmm, I'm not sure the comparison really stands up - how many archaeological units have nuclear weapons? Anyone going to admit to that?

I would say that if the IFA thought it had justification to bollock someone or some organisation that wasn't a member of the IFA then that organisation would look pretty bad. Whether it ignored the IFA or not is irrelevant, the point would be made, much as the point is made when people talk about 'action' against Russia. Whether or no the action taken is effective Russia is not coming out of it with many friends (I can't believe I have managed to string out that comparison for such a long sentance!!)

[BAJR Host]

Currently just expressed my feeling to a company - and explained calmly why they are to be removed from the BAJR list of contractors, why they can't advertise any more, and what it will take to be able to.

They can if they wish comply... in this case... pay people a rate above or on the minimum - and ensure people are properly insured.

I would prefer that they did, but it is their choice .. However, I will never knowingly let BAJR be hypocritical - if these are the rules.. and they are pretty simple.. then these are the rules.

Robust - but fair. I of course would allow them to advertise again, with no hard feelings if they sorted that problem (and yes I would check) - I feel like a watchdog sometimes.. one that nobody pays .. so truely has no axes to grind, and no worries at offending anyone. :face-huh:

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers