Campaign to keep IfA minimum salaries

[monty]

Not to mention the lobbying by consultancies ..........who I will not name as Hosty will remove ....... they are behind the destruction of Developer funded archaeology as we all know......... encouraging the poorest standards and develpoers to seek the lowest cut throat prices

[ecmgardner]

Not difficult to work out which units are behind this......... they are charging 250 a day plus VAT per digger....and paying less than 65 of that to the digger....... I can see this getting through easily..IfA don't give a shit about the real world of diggers.....and never have done xx(

Emotive stuff there. Can you explain a bit more because as far as I understand it the question is about whether it's actually legal to have pay minima... which isn't exactly the IfA's fault unless you truly believe that they sit in a room stroking fluffy white cats and control the judicial system?!

Also begs the question that the IfA are made up of people. You obviously do care and are passionate. Why aren't you involved?

[kevin wooldridge]

I don't think that consultants or employing units can really be blamed ...for the most they have a plan and they intend to stick to it.... However the passivity of archaeological workers over the years has a lot to do with why they have always, and will always continue to get. the pooey end of the stick. Its never too late to dig your heels in and say 'No', but I am less than optimistic that will happen to a a significant degree any time soon. We all have the power to do something to alter the destiny of our profession and subject, but ........

[chiz]

I wasn't going to wade in on this one, but as a member of Council it probably does fall to me to clarify some things. There are issues of confidentiality though, and I am not going to betray anybody's confidences or say anything that would result in fewer DF members on Council than there are already!

The issue revolved around those mentioned by David earlier: that some people think the requirement of ROs to adhere to salary minima is on dodgy ground legally, and that the IfA may be leaving themselves open to legal challenges on the basis of price fixing etc. Other professional bodies do set salaries/prices in other ways, it may be that the IfA just has to be more circumspect about how they do it in future. The legal advice has been sought and will be discussed at the Council meeting on 30th (which is in London by the way, so don't bother protesting in Reading!). The Working Party discussed it last week but I am not going into details here.

The letter was signed by many RPHs, from units all over the country, of all sizes. There were a couple of notable, honourable exceptions, and I hope we can tell you who they are sometime soon, as not all employers are bad guys. Most are though, unfortunately. They have jumped on this 'legal problem' bandwagon in the hope of frightening Council into rejecting the whole concept of minima, to force their own political will upon Council. I find it disgraceful, undemocratic and intimidatory. That's what we are up against, and we have said as much in the last DF newletter.

I can't stop myself adding that if we had more DF members or sympathetic ears on Council we may not be in this mess at all- there are a few now, but maybe not enough to ensure the coup we need on 30th. Please feel free to stand next time,or to volunteer for DF duties- Gwyl (full time SPO job, 4 kids to support, Chiz (self-employed,1 kid to support) and myself (full time SPO job, 2 kids to support) could really do with the help quite frankly.

I just want to second Sadie's comment. And that its all well being appalled and having a go at the IfA, but maybe if those of you who are in the IfA had stood for Council or even just bothered voting for the wide range of candidates who stood for Council, that maybe we'd have had a chance of shaping the IfA for the benefit of the widest membership. And for those who aren't in the IfA you could still help with the Diggers' Forum; we may be tarred in some eyes by being an IfA group, but we speak how we find things.

The situation with the effect of minima on pay is complex (isn't it always), a while back I asked the FAME chair what the figures were for non-RO companies who pay below IfA minima rate, and for what % of the market they had, they couldn't tell me. Perhaps because all the arguments about non-RO units stealing work aren't really based on any real data and are just as anecdotal as the arguments from the other side of the fence? The companies systematically underpricing on tenders are ROs as well as non-ROs (although the smaller size of most ROs means they may actually be pricing at a sustainable level), that's not the issue.

The issue for me is the state of archaeology as a profession, and that it should be a sustainable career from start to finish, for everyone. I want a profession that isn't reliant on a minima, but on doing the work well, and treating archaeologists with respect and paying them according to their skills and rewarding quality work. Pay minima are at present an essential safety net and must be retained, but we do need to sort out a lot more issues in archaeology that have an equal effect on archaeologists in the medium and long term.

[kevin wooldridge]

Can you explain a bit more because as far as I understand it the question is about whether it's actually legal to have pay minima...

Well it is certainly not illegal to have collective agreements that set a wage minima and of course most EU countries have a legislated minimum wage. The attached article sets out the principals. In the case of archaeology there are two 'regulatory' bodies that I see could be involved in the setting of wage minima - the IfA wearing its 'quality at a price' hat, or FAME wearing its 'archaeological employer' hat...and I am guessing that is in consultation with recognised trade unions. Question for the IfA is whether its charter allows it to be involved in negotiations with trade unions and how any collective agreement could be implemented. FAME is much easier as capitalist 'collective' syndicates are a well established blot on the skyline of any workers paradise.....As I said before I don't think there is a legal impediment in what the IfA currently does regarding pay minima, but I do wonder whether RAOs have to take any notice i.e it can only be voluntary. I think if I were wanting to challenge the legality of the IfA advice, that is the angle I'd choose to challenge - whether they have a right to INSIST that RAOs follow their advice, or whether it is purely voluntary....which if it is I guess makes the whole system of wage minima redundant...


http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2005...07101s.htm

[chiz]

Not difficult to work out which units are behind this......... they are charging 250 a day plus VAT per digger....and paying less than 65 of that to the digger....... I can see this getting through easily..IfA don't give a shit about the real world of diggers.....and never have done xx(

Is this company an RO? Is their head in the IfA? If so, email the DF, and the DF can look at the case. Like we did just a week ago, and have done numerous times. Where we see sub-minima pay or bad adverts we do something about it. And individually we may pay the price for this, but we don't let that stop us doing what is right.

If you have evidence then let DF/IfA/BAJR know and we will all see what we can do about it. If you know about a situation as you describe and do nothing about it maybe you are as much to blame as the dodgy employer? Don't just whine, act. Use the mechanisms available to you and do something positive. Don't walk on by.

Edit: Reading back through the thread I see that Monty is probably referring to employees, wheras I was referring to 'freelance' Diggers hired by companies -which is what David was referring to a few posts back. So I misunderstood Monty's post as being about low freelance day rates (below minima in fact) which we can do something about fairly easily (and are doing -right now), rather than low wages (above minima) which we can't do anything about easily. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

But I think my main points still stand.
1 That if there is anyone paying below minima then you should complain, and there are mechanisms for this and you can remain anonymous.
2 That if you don't, then you are essentially colluding with those that are dragging down the profession.

Not aimed specifically at Monty, but on a general point I do agree with ecmgardner (below) that there sometimes seems to be a (wilful?) ignorance of basic business costs that is a barrier to mutual understanding and progress on these issues. I don't think this helps anyone and exacerbates a Them and Us mentality, a feeling that managers leach off of the work of Diggers, its more complex than that, however it feels.

[ecmgardner]

Thanks Kevin! It's that fine line between minimum wage and price fixing.

I also whole-heartedly agree with Chiz as pay minima themselves are more of a symptom of the state of archaeology which cannot currently operate as a meritocracy because margins are tight.

As far as that 250 / 65 ratio goes... off the top of my head 65 to digger, the rest needs to cover tax and NI, employers tax and NI, overheads on site include portaloos, portacabins, liability insurance, cost towards providing PPE, machinery such as diggers and the digger driver, vehicles and mileage paid by company, post-excavation costs (need a component here to actually produce the report and pay for specialists if necessary), pre-excavation work such as the production of a WSI and submission to the county archaeologist, oh having an office in the first place heating it, lighting, business council tax rates... etc etc. Percentage wise not much goes to the digger but it covers the cost of there being a business in the first place to win the job and give the digger a job. Profit margins are not exactly running at £185 per digger per day!

The archaeologist in the field is the most valuable asset to the business, you earn the greatest fee to keep the company running. I don't think enough is made of that, nor do I think that it is explained... without diggers digging the rest of the company falls apart as their work is what is chargeable and covering the cost of archaeology. For the client they are the tangible asset they are charged for- it would be a bit insane to break it down into all the component parts it needs to pay for on a tender. I feel that taking the time to explain this breakdown of cost may help dissolve some of this animosity. We are an intelligent workforce an understanding of how the pricing works may help morale a bit more. The 'them and us' attitude between office and field is not helpful. I remember being asked by someone rather vitriolically why I had abandoned true archaeology and gone to the dark side in the office... well he'd failed to notice I was seven months pregnant so I guess that kind of summed it up for me. It's not treacherous to stop digging.

I can't see how it can ever be constructive to be so negative about a members organisation like the IfA as they are, by definition, only as capable as the people who put their time and energies into getting involved. Disagree? Then the only way to do something about it is to get involved yourself. Lets face it if I wasn't passionate about archaeology I'd be doing some sensible job being paid a sensible salary somewhere. I'm not a member of DF but am in the Graphic Archaeology Group (can't quite bring myself to call it GAG...)

So, trying to move forward and away from IfA bashing. If pay minima and the necessity to impose them are symptoms, what is the cure? Will chartering help this and how?

[ecmgardner]

My husband just told me this when I explained why I've been tapping away on the keyboard like Ginger Rogers on stimulants and I thought I might share to lighten the mood:

An organization is like a tree full of monkeys...

all on different limbs,... at different levels,...

some climbing up.

The monkeys on the top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces.

The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but a**holes.

Now returning to topic.....

[BAJR]

I do believe the IfA ( that is the people who work in the IfA - ) care. they are after all humans. They may not be out in the field.. but they do care. the Council is made up of people who cared enough to vote and campaign and put themselves forward. The companies care in several ways, and the diggers care and the specialists...etc...

The issue is in what they care about... I care about - like chiz. and many others - a sustainable and sensible future for archaeology where you can make a living. Thats not much to ask... where you can grow in a career... where you can enjoy work...

The answer is perhaps a reinvention a regrouping and a new model for archaeological contractual work. What pushes wages up?

Chartered status is ( imho ) a bit of a holy grail... nice idea, but ultimately out of reach... and if you do get it? what then? how will this magically make us important? or relevant? or worthwhile and highly paid... what would the word chartered do to us that would instantly change us from what we are now... to what we could be?

Perhaps we need to set our house in order first... then seek chartered status. a first step? I would approve of licences, -- and the threat of licence removal. no licence... no dig... and stricter and universal control on products. every curator / Planning Archaeologist setting the same standards the same conditions... surely ALGAO can fix the patchwork ..

ps.. when I was charging out diggers it was £70 to digger ( gross ) and £175 to client. but that was a few years back ..

[Martin Locock]

It would be interesting to hear some frank view about whether licensing protected standards in Ireland.