IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT

[Oxbeast]

@Amanda, thanks for coming on and commenting. I'm glad that the comittment to salary minima has been raised and that the DF is comitting to launch disciplinary procedures for any units that start paying below the minima. If you can get FAME to negotiate t

[Unitof1]

Its pretty simple the ifa is a limited company and it competes against fellow archaeologists for work. Its members are directors, they and the emplyees share in the profits and but this company is part of a larger group -for tax reasons and liability and that group is headed by eh who have realised that they cant be bound by any of the RO criteria and nor should its members who are members.

Currently this so called vote came about because of some legal advive. Would be interesting to see a copy of that advice.

[Unitof1]

The panel usually includes a local planning archaeologist, a member of staff

not an archaeologist in site. Its way beyond a joke.

[chiz]

....However, the non-RO/non-IfA/non-minima units just get their diggers to post on their Facebook walls when they need more diggers.

As they do at present.
We've been trying to get archaeologists to report companies paying below minima for years, we even succeeded in getting the IfA disciplinary code changed so groups like DF could take on 'anonymous' complaints. And we have taken some complaints forward (there's one about to start at the moment, I doubt I will ever work for that company ), but whilst everyone seems to know someone who is getting paid £14K, no-one seems to be able to actually provide any evidence of it -except for companies who appear to be deliberately 100% outside the IfA. So are there companies paying below minima? Probably. Can we find them? Not easily. It doesn't help matters.

That is why I would want any RO to have to (as part of the rules of their scheme) alert the IfA of any change to their wage structure that would take them below minima, in advance. And the audit would then need to approve it in advance. And that any RO that did for some reason pay below minima was identified publicly (as they used to be). If you want to be in a club, you got to abide by the rules.

[Unitof1]

chiz lately there has been quite a lot in the papers that there are millions more in employment than in 2008 yet gdp has dropped. This is right accross the board except for curators gdp which will for ever will go up even if their salaries have been fixed for sometime now (and miraculusly they have still all kept their jobs). What appears to be happening is that people are working for far less, and this predominatly, must be in the private sector, as well as them producing less! Apart from the gdp fiqures for the late 90s and early noughties being fake and based on credit whats probably most inportant right now more than ever is trying to get some gurennteed money for the next year or so. The fact that bloody archaeology is site based and intermitant means thats a blood near impossible thing to do.


I would say thay if you can get £14000 for a years work I would grab it. Your pie was set in a bloody stupid credit bubble which saw house prices triple in a few years and we now live in a stupid fake low interest environment which wont let the housing market collapse and all the zombie companies go to the wall as well (that includes the ifa). Theres a thread on sexual harassment come up on bajr and I would suggest that its partly symtomatic of the despairation for jobs, wage minima were brought into archaeology in the boom years to stop in work archaeologists getting a bit more of the cream. Was there a motion put foreward to lower the minima and how did it go?

[BAJR]

However, the non-RO/non-IfA/non-minima units just get their diggers to post on their Facebook walls when they need more diggers.

Ask yourself... why would they do that? To save advertising? to reach a wide audience? to ... er...

Well I am sure they would have a good answer. that they can find all the people they need via social media... that there is no need to advertise, that of course they would pay above the going rate..

[P Prentice]

I would say thay if you can get £14000 for a years work I would grab it.

unless you have to pay tax on it ukipof1?
having said that, some of us made a tidy sum from our property investment portfolios in the last couple of years thanks to you lot accepting such crap wages

[akforster]

Just an update on the specific questions Gnomeking had about the RO scheme.

When the overskilled/underpaid employee is found, what exactly will the IfA do, if that person has willingly signed an employment contract for that wage?
The inspection at the moment will consider the terms of employment, and if they are found lacking will respond appropriately. If an employee has signed a contract that would not be an acceptable defence from the employer’s perspective - the employee needed a job and signed a contract, it is not their fault their employer may be underpaying them.

From the angle of Council recommendations and what next, this would come under the working party recommendation for Council to instruct “the Registered Organisations committee to use non-compliance with the recommended starting salaries as a trigger for a more detailed audit of the way an applicant or existing organisation ensures that it has appropriately competent staff at its disposal, with immediate effect. The committee has been instructed to look very closely indeed at applications from organisations that do not comply with the recommended minimum salaries: it will be up to applicants for Registration to make a persuasive case that they can recruit, retain, motivate and develop staff with the skills necessary to comply with IfA’s Code of conduct and standards”.

When underskilled/underpaid staff are located, presumably the employer will argue that they are protecting the wages of more experienced staff, and providing valuable 'training' (at reduced wages). Presumably the IfA, with its commitment to CPD, will heartily applaud this, and hand out gold stars.
If jobs which are lower paid are done so within a programme of structured learning (eg a real training programme, or apprenticeship), which the employee will genuinely benefit from, then it could be commended. But it would have to be demonstrated by the employer that the trainee is being trained (eg and training isn't just an excuse for low wages as you say), and that when or if their employment extends beyond the training period, they would be promoted and paid at the right scale for their skills and the role they are doing. This is what the training toolkit is all about (http://www.archaeologists.net/h2b), which we hope will be further developed as more of the HLF funded IfA workplace bursaries are undertaken.

What, I wonder, will the procedure be, if any, when underskilled/ over-paid individuals are located?
This would be flagged as an issue if it was felt that an employee did not have the skills to be doing the job they were doing. As always it is totally dependent on specific circumstances but I suspect this would result in either a recommendation to review the role, or a condition of registration that the employee either received the training they needed to undertake the role (if it was that simple), or that the role was done by someone with the right skills. Failure to meet the condition would mean the RO will not be registered, whereas a recommendation would be reviewed at the next inspection.

[tom wilson]

Maybe we need to start another thread and get some feedback from the Unions.....

I misread that as Unicorns.

Not convinced I got it wrong.

[BAJR]

A pretty comprehensive and honest answer from Amanda.

Refreshing.