2013 BAJR Grades

[BAJR]

say no to pay cuts dressed as pension contributions and like me vote for no 6
PIfA responsibilities ?16,343
AIfA responsibilities ?19,035
MIfA responsibilities ?24,607

This seems to be close to what BAJR seems to be heading for,.... though more to discuss. As you rightly say... the pension thing is a bit of a herring in Red.

[BAJR]

This was sent to me by Paul Belford. :::


In view of recent events, your readers might find my recent blog post of interest...

http://paulbelford.blogspot.co.uk/2012/1...d-ifa.html
[URL="http://paulbelford.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/salaries-and-ifa.html"]
[/URL]
I suspect my thinking will be at odds with most of your contributors, but I am quite happy for you to share the link with them - just to put an alternative view out there for discussion.


Actually I discuss two points - the first, that the IfA shouldn't be in the business of setting pay - may have more agreement than the second, which is that they shouldn't put it up this year.


all the best
Paul


:face-huh:

[chiz]

Cross-posted from your FB page:
Saw that earlier. Not a very good argument in my opinion. Sorry for the length of the following, but it seems apposite to post it here now, it will appear in full in the forthcoming Diggers’ Forum (http://www.facebook.com/DiggersForum) newsletter. The opinions are my own....:

Firstly that as a professional institute the IfA has no role in setting wages? Well, in my opinion low wages are the partial cause and symptom of lowered professional standards across the industry and are therefore directly in the IfA's sphere of interest as a professional body involved in setting professional standards. Secondly low wages directly or indirectly affect nearly all members of the IfA, and as the IfA should represent the interests of its members it should therefore intervene until acceptable wage levels are reached. This is required in order to allow the fulfilment of member’s professional aspirations and development, a situation that low pay (and the associated low standards) effectively prevents.

The argument that ROs/employers cannot afford an increase is also a fallacy: most ROs already pay BAJR rates which are still above IfA minima. This is the first year that the IfA minima will have impacted on wages (is this a good thing?), ROs have signed up to the increases, they knew about them, and should have planned for them. Why should those that have planned for their responsibilities be at a disadvantage to those that gambled on no increase?

Should the employee’s wages be kept low so that employers can survive? In my opinionagain, no. It is not the IfA’s remit to protect failed business models, or to sacrifice its members so that organisations survive. The same amount of actual work will need doing, some argue that there are already too many companies for the amount of work out there. There are apparently mechanisms for increasing pay for local authority employees (according to Prospect), and in my view the whole profession shouldn’t be held back by the few remaining local authority employers, however good they are.

Responsible Post Holders of ROs were asked to give their views to the working party, most didn’t bother. Of those that did engage some called for no increase, whilst others called for increases. Its not as simple as employers versus employees. There are many employers who want increased wages for staff. Archaeology can’t function with ?30K Diggers, but a reasonable wage is possible and would improve standards and careers.

Finally there is always the old chestnut that ‘cowboy’ units are undercutting the ‘respectable’ units and driving down prices. The DF challenged FAME to provide evidence for this but FAME could not furnish any evidence. How many one man bands put in for Crossrail or T5? In my experience it is established units, mostly ROs, who are driving down prices, often bidding at a price which will lose money if anything is found. Where are these units that pay less than IfA minima? The DF have repeatedly asked Diggers to let us know so we can try and put in complaints, so far apart from repeated tip offs about one unit that is totally outside the IfA, we have had no verifiable evidence.

And finally, and perhaps not so popular here, why should the effective wage levels be set by an advertising company (BAJR!) which is effectively one man, rather than a democratically elected professional institute?

[BAJR]

And finally, and perhaps not so popular here, why should the effective wage levels be set by an advertising company (BAJR!) which is effectively one man, rather than a democratically elected professional institute?

I am glad you asked that... and would love to know the answer too !

I guess it is because I do.

I would dearly love to see PROSPECT and FAME step up to the mark... but they do seem a bit reluctant to do it. so until then... who ya gonna call :face-huh:

ps... you say advertising company as if that is a swear word.. lol!

THis is an advertising company that turns down adverts, that negotiates and discusses, that is open about the rates and the requirements... and has a whole lot more like advertising companies to developers - providing links to every course in the UK - being the place where people can come and discuss - and it does not matter who you are or if you what your point of view is. and ... well.. BAJR has never deviated from the original course set 13 years back ...

Now where is my sherry

[Digger]

Even the Government (and the opposition), CBI et al have pointed out that the current economic situation is the 'new norm' till about 2018. So the IFA stances on pay freeze (not doing anything), or inflation only (not doing anything) seems to be a bit of a lost cause for improving archaeological pay, if they wish to differ to 'better times'. Do people really want to wait 6 years, just to get back onto the debate let alone actually being at the start of trying to raise pay. No offence to Paul, but the stance on 'IFA should not be setting pay' is irrelevant. They do at this present time and that is what the debate is about! If you dont like it then stay out of the pay scale rate debate as you have a bias. I suspect that most Council units pay bands straddle the proposed minima so shouldn't be too much of a shock.

[BAJR]

The argument that ROs/employers cannot afford an increase is also a fallacy: most ROs already pay BAJR rates which are still above IfA minima. This is the first year that the IfA minima will have impacted on wages (is this a good thing?), ROs have signed up to the increases, they knew about them, and should have planned for them. Why should those that have planned for their responsibilities be at a disadvantage to those that gambled on no increase?

Absolutely...

as a professional institute the IfA has no role in setting wages? Well, in my opinion low wages are the partial cause and symptom of lowered professional standards across the industry and are therefore directly in the IfA's sphere of interest as a professional body involved in setting professional standards.

Here i would agree that it is the sphere of influence, but not the duty to set them.

Archaeology can’t function with ?30K Diggers, but a reasonable wage is possible and would improve standards and careers.

That is an important point to push home. a fair wage.. and sustainable one

Finally there is always the old chestnut that ‘cowboy’ units are undercutting the ‘respectable’ units and driving down prices. The DF challenged FAME to provide evidence for this but FAME could not furnish any evidence.

absolutely again... I am sick of this misconception that if somehow the small time archaeologists were pushed out, then everything would be fine. it smacks of blame without proof. and as archaeologists that is interpretation without evidence.!

So please read chiz's piece - and remember .. remember .. Join Diggers Forum and create a critical force.

[monty]

mostly ROs, who are driving down prices, often bidding at a price which will lose money if anything is found

A very common practice ....becoming widespread of late...................................xx(

[Dinosaur]

...there is always the old chestnut that ‘cowboy’ units are undercutting the ‘respectable’ units and driving down prices...In my experience it is established units, mostly ROs, who are driving down prices, often bidding at a price which will lose money if anything is found

That's not undercutting? Putting in an unrealistic tender in order to secure the contract by whatever means is undercutting! !

[Dinosaur]

....does that mean the ROs are the cowboys? }

[BAJR]

Lets not forget those paying staff at sub BAJR sub IfA rates . ROs can be pulled up... the non-RO can't

I just had an email from a digger bemoaning a non RO who pays fieldstaff lower than BAJR rates in order to win the fieldwork. strangely I had heard about the same company from a project Manager who complained about the how it was difficult to compete with them, given they had to pay higher rates.

Cowboys wear many hats. and some of them wear no hats at all. :face-huh: