Opening up the market - keeping the safety net

[BAJR]

This is a short post to start the ball rolling - as I don't want to drive this, rather open the debate.


When BAJR brought in the Grades - it was at a time when some structure was required... when a PO in one part of the country was what we may call a supervisor in another.. and visa versa.. where the term archaeologist could mean anything. The grades defined responsibilities - whatever the name and this seems to have worked to an extent. you know that a G4 does this this and this... no matter what you are called...

HOWEVER... perhaps it is time for a change... PERHAPS it is time for a BIG change, to open up to market forces.

What if BAJR ditched linking pay levels with the Grades...? that the grades were purely there to define the level of responsibility ( indeed you could argue to get rid of these too..)

What if the only minima retained was the safety net minima... a level set at ie £16200 that was the minimum an archaeologist could be paid. and trainees got real training which was verified by external examiner (IfA ? the University? ) and could only be taken on as additional too and not in place of.

What if the rest was up to the company - so if the company advertised for a 17k Project Officer... they could if they wanted? but the potential is there that the better the rate, the better the response and the applicant?


So there you have it.... ditch teh pay levels... they have done their job...

Keep teh Safety Net... it is still needed..

Push the training and skills to ensure motivated, skilled workforce, that feels valued and is valued, allowing companies to be proud of what they can offer staff... and rewarded by the best staff...

[Martin Locock]

I think your comment earlier that some posts had been advertised at a standard rate of pay and had no applicants shows that there is scope for employers to raise rates if they have to. Skills passports would help transferability.

[kevin wooldridge]

I think the idea has some merit....not least its simplicity!! I very much like the idea of maintaining a minimum, but above that maybe archaeologists should be grown up enough to put their experience, their qualifications and their sheer bloody mindedness forward as criteria to justify pay levels with their chosen employer. Where would the new minima stand regarding self-employed positions?

[Wax]

I like the linking of grades to a pay rate it gives me a means of assessing what levels of pay should apply to what degree of responsibility. The old saying of if you pay peanuts you get monkeys does not apply in the present economic climate. There are plenty of people out there at the moment who will take higher levels of responsibility at lower pay just to be in work. And some units will take the unqualified who go for that lower rate driving down standards. Keep the grades and rates, it works

[BAJR]

Hmmmm this is good... As Self Employeds can offer thenselves out at what they want... it is hard to ( dare I say it not my problem ) to control. as this is for the SEmps ( cue Uo1 ) they would be mad however to do it for less...

The important thing ois to make SEmps aware of the Rate they would have to charge to match the person working next to them who is employed.


Simplicity sometimes wins the race.

[chiz]

I think you'll regret this when you've thought about it a bit more.

[CARTOON REALITY]

I like the linking of grades to a pay rate it gives me a means of assessing what levels of pay should apply to what degree of responsibility.

Couldn't agree more.
(I'm outside of this debate, self-employed & from a different planet but,) just put a safety net in place and companies will use it as a justification to remove the high wire. Everybody, regardless of experience and responsibilities, will get thrown into that net, you'll have set the base rate for archaeologists - full stop.

[barkingdigger]

While we may debate the actual levels in the Grade system, I cannot see a problem with the existing idea of defined grades of responsibility that can attract better pay. Now, there is an argument for a "parallel" experience-based set of pay levels so that (for example) long-serving diggers can be rewarded for their skills and knowledge at their tasks without having to move up to management grade, but there is no need to drop everyone's pay down to the same shamefully low level that the employers might prefer. It may be tempting to follow where the IFA is (possibly) leading, but you'll feel rather grubby about it in the morning!

[chiz]

David,
its your site and you can post what you want, but some of us are still fighting to keep the minima right up to the wire. We really don't need any distractions and I don't think it makes worried Diggers feel any better seeing someone they trust talking about getting rid of the grades. I know that's not what you're doing, but that's how it seems. Save it til tomorrow -when you've seen what survives the onslaught. I'm busy reading through over 100 heartfelt emails so I know what to say tomorrow, they want to keep minima, and they would want to keep grades.
Respectfully yours

Chiz

[GnomeKing]

I think you'll regret this when you've thought about it a bit more.

I think i possibly might agree with that thought...

I was also thinking:

Maybe the IFA should also just drop pay minima >>>
in fact, why not end all involvement with financial and employment issues in commercial archaeology ? (there are after all many relevant Laws...,and still avenues to explore regarding workplace collective bargaining...)

If it dropped such concerns, the IFA resources could then focus precisely, and exclusively, on Quality, of whatever work was actually being done, however-which-way it had been committed...


This could, just possibly might be, a Great Outcome>>>
i.e. Good companies with well motivated and skilled staff = high standards of technical work = commercial successes (nice eh?)
Bad work might lead to closer monitoring or even direct 'supervision' - but this might also be in form of training and guidance to resolve problems, not necessarily commercial failure...

HOWEVER !!! is this scenario 'too good to be true'?
...i think ... YES.

COMMERCIAL-INTERESTS ALREADY APPEAR TO DOMINATE OVER TECHNICAL-STANDARDS WITHIN THE IFA COUNCIL. AND THE IFA HAS REPEATEDLY FAILED TO 'GRASP-THE-NETTLE' REGARDING THE QUALITY OF WORK ACTUALLY BEING DONE.THEREFORE, THERE CAN BE VERY LITTLE HOPE FOR SUCH A POSITIVE FUTURE, at least not in our life-times anyway.....

possibly the system is just too-badly-messed-up-already to be fixed...maybe not (in the longer view at least).

What seems certain, is that that without a real commitment to police the Quality of commercial work, pay-minima, be them minimal, are the only leash on commercial practices They are also a Raft for some of my fellow human-beings.

SO...Unless the IFA announce a MAJOR game-changer in terms of technical standards, Pay-minima must be kept.


(no idea now that relates to BAJR though)