2013 BAJR Grades

[trowelfodder]

It's an interesting one and something I have wondered myself. My self employed work has almost all been paid at a level way above the day rate suggested by BAJR and has been negotiated up over the past two and a half years (and like you I pay my taxes and have full insurance).

When doing our own commercial projects if we need extra staff for a project we operate a little like a collective and no extra money is made on the day-rate of those who work for us - everyone from diggers to specialists are charged at or near cost and they pocket the cash. This works for us as we can pay a fair wage without the ongoing financial commitment of paying additional salaries. I am not sure how this translates to larger units with large overheads but surely it has to be in everyone's interest to stop slashing and slashing at costs. If there is a baseline for staffing costs which no-one goes below then differences in tenders must come from somewhere else - hopefully Planning will ensure corners are not cut in standards by not signing off on poor work.

If we are going to raise wages it has to be industry wide - there are some "bad eggs" out there who don't pay what they should and/or rely on newbies & the desperate to work for them but we can't let them dictate the pay structure. The threat from these units whether real or imagined can only be countered by people refusing to work for them and they will continue to operate outside the system until this happens. Take some responsibility for yourselves and take a long hard think about how your actions will impact on you down the line. You need money/opportunity now - I understand this but do you want to be trapped in this situation forever? This will be a vicious circle (cycle?) until we as a profession say no

And as for directors raking off profits I am not sure how true this is - and as most are on a salary then an increase is an increase for everyone. I do however think we should be looking at ways to redistribute the pay grades - as in there is a lot of bunching at the lower end of the pay range with little reward for time served and little to show for the extra responsibilities of supervisors and project officers (but maybe that's a discussion for another thread).

[monty]

When doing our own commercial projects if we need extra staff for a project we operate a little like a collective and no extra money is made on the day-rate of those who work for us - everyone from diggers to specialists are charged at or near cost and they pocket the cash. This works for us as we can pay a fair wage without the ongoing financial commitment of paying additional salaries.).

At last a unit who pays the staff what they earn for them...if only this was widespread we would not all be permanently living hand to mouth.......

[Bodger51]

There is a company competitive collective and there is comparatively a staffing competitive collective.


Internalised implies a selective control criterion

Whilst a homogenous opportunity for competitivity


Thus you are left with competition, but what is the performance expectation for measuring a delivered product.

As this proceeds, there will be the opportunity for performance pay, but this cusp will relate entirely upon promotional criterion with supportive policy conditions.



Now there is a difference between conditionality, pay and conditions, and pay.

This is where the IfA exists.


The pay and conditions function is indeed outside of the remit of involvement of pay and conditions, whilst is does have isolated desk duties to:

1). Pay

2). Conditionality


The difference here between pay and conditions is based upon the precept that collective 'unions' retain this role
N.B. That the Prospect Union represents more scientific analysis workers than the say 2000 or 3000 workers.


Whilst conditionality is based upon the support of a proposed structural reform and how the mobility and privatised commerciality works as a competitive element.


As such there is a vast difference between conditioning and conditionality on the grounds of protesting and the manner of protest which is an acceptable form of making a point.

I strongly dissagree that throwing petrol bombs into a bank and killing 3 people as any protest, in that it sets a basis for conditioning what is acceptable behaviour.

Likewise the continued use of petrol bombs does not have any role in the determination of what is defined as 'working conditionality' as this would imply that there are threats.

Threats of violence are not in my estimation a degree of professionalism, which could, should or will ever be considered as a reasonable when it comes to identifying how much people are willing to work under.


Because that would imply that the use of fear and absolute discretion is something that becomes a fundamental aspect of determining pay and conditions.

At this point we are then presented with collective protest and positive, affirmative action for any work place (not of any, upon any or in any).

[monty]

I was only saying .........

[trowelfodder]

Maybe collective was the wrong word - but am afraid that if I change it I won't understand that reply either!!!

I think a :face-topic: is needed!

In defense of companies which do not pay what they charge for staff I imagine that there is a much higher running cost than we have. A home office with minimal additional costs will find it easier to pay more than a company with salaried staff, a large office, company vehicles etc. Although we also don't have the ability to do do large projects which would gain the highest profits.........

But it does feed back into my earlier point about staff on short term contracts with breaks in employment being in effect self funding and if they are being brought in then there must be work surplus to the workforce in permanent employ. But supply and demand - no incentive to pay more if there are workers prepared to work for less - unless there was an industry benchmark ................

And lets stop exploiting volunteers etc to do entry level jobs - lets give this generation of graduates a chance and as part of the pay deal properly hammer out a commitment to stamp out unpaid work as the only way to gain experience to get jobs. We prob have more than enough community officers so maybe is time for CBA and others to fund straight forward diggers positions to give that all important 6 months work. I for one would pay into a fund to do this or in ten years time we wont have enough skills left within the proffession

[BAJR]

In defense of companies which do not pay what they charge for staff I imagine that there is a much higher running cost than we have. A home office with minimal additional costs will find it easier to pay more than a company with salaried staff, a large office, company vehicles etc. Although we also don't have the ability to do do large projects which would gain the highest profits.........

That is something that must be remembered.

And where I am heading is a suggestion that

1) there is a rise of 1.7% rise to minimum rates at lower end. a freeze above G4
2) a firm dated commitment to both a rise well above the previous rates. between 5-8%
3) a telescoping of grades to allow a larger spread of grades.
4) AND a commitment to skill based pay rates - no more general pay for site staff. you are paid your worth.


This allows the companies to stabilise - it allows PROSPECT to step up to the mark... and allows people to consider their positions...

IT also requires fieldstaff to refuse to work for contractors who pay sub minima rates as they will always be able to undercut, and thus drive down prices,

A commitment by all to work together. and a timescale to do it. One that is not negotiable.. no more... "time is not right"

:face-topic:

[Dinosaur]

On the topic of 'overheads', you've got to overcharge enough to pay all those staff you've carelessly taken on on long contracts when the work isn't rolling in? Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of outfits over the years who've made that mistake, nearly gone under and had to sack everyone...bad business plan in a boom/bust profession like ours :face-stir:

[Unitof1]

pay who evers rates, it is all bol.....ks

set up a team, pay who evers rate, dig a hole and then try and find someone to pay for your/our product.

I see tumble weed. We have absolutly no product.

Our business is based on blackmail. Simple and pure.

[BAJR]

Sometime Unit... ne'er a true word

in a way we ( as a profession) have turned from archaeologists who dig archaeology and are interested in archaeology into companies who mitigate the conditions that are placed by an generally uninterested planning service for a resentful client who does not come to us from choice but from coercion.

now what is important is not the archaeology - but the bottom line, the overhead the profit. i am hearing more and more of bottom lines being cut so much that of course the archaeology suffers. remember? the archaeology that we used to dig? The base of the trench that we used to clean? the report that would contain something rather than a "nothing found" sentence that costs the client to tick a box. ?

So what are we worth and why? is this route sustainable? is there a point to the current model. or is it time to reconsider the direction as much as the career.

archaeologists manage to kick each other when they are down so successfully that this is a fight we can't win... unless we stop the madness.

click below to see what i mean... this is British archaeology... 2012 scroll to 2;38 to get to the point

[video=youtube;1u7I0MAGVno]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u7I0MAGVno&t=2m38s[/video]

[trowelfodder]

Our "product" is based on enough value being placed on archaeology and heritage to warrant statutory protection!

But do agree that we are heading down (and have been for a long time) a dangerous road! It is often very difficult to act in the best interests of both the client and the archaeology

On the topic of pay though do you think that 1.7 now and 5-8 later might be more palatable if there were smaller gaps. If 3 is not viable now then why will 8 be any more likely later? We have all seen this before - everything on the never never