IfA Minima Debate - THE RESULT

[Kel]

Back in the 80s a degree and time served were all you needed I seem to recall?

You didn't actually need to be any good then? Ah, the good ol' days... :face-stir:

[Martin Locock]

The new criteria are supposed to reflect successful performance at a given level of responsibility which is a more rational approach than period of work.

[moreno]

The new criteria are supposed to reflect successful performance at a given level of responsibility which is a more rational approach than period of work.

Rational yes, but to whom specifically are carrying out the checks? This isn't a top down exercise. Personally I'd want to know if those doing the checks are more than box tickers.

[Unitof1]

I dont see how there is any higher level of responsibility in archaeology than filling in a context sheet. I would put it higher than writing a report in responsility terms and I still dont see what "being in charge" has to do with any proficiency in archaeology. Its a bit like saying archaeology cant be done unless there is a management hierarchy. Is it that context archaeology has evolved after these "in charge" structures were established?

This thread is based on some supposed threat to diggers pay because the ifa was getting legal presure that having pay banding was illegal,

would it be fairer to say that the ifa having salary bands or not for its grades has nothing to do with the exploitation field archaeologists rights.

[BAJR]

So returning to the thread.

The result is that BAJR has Grades. and they are useful.
People should pay better, but is there scope for it?
The IfA have kept the minima, and they are useful.

Nothing is perfect. and I am interested in Unit's concept. of what they would do.

[Unitof1]

So what is the bajr grade and pay for a person to fill in a context sheet?

[BAJR]

From 16k up to whatever you / anyone will pay

What is your rate of pay for a person to fill in a context sheet? ( does this allow for filling in photo records as well )

[Dinosaur]

People should pay better, but is there scope for it?

Only if some outfits stop undercharging. If they did that then everyone (including them) could charge clients a proper rate and pay the staff (including themselves) better. But how to convince them...

[Unitof1]

http://graduatefog.co.uk/2012/2187/avera...ary-10000/

G1 : Training Position) £15,054.00 (£289.00 pw)
G2 : (ie Basic Site Assistant) £16,018.73 (£308.05 pw)

so G1s dont fill in context sheets then?

[GnomeKing]

yes sir indeedy : 'who is carrying out the checks?!'

this : "I don't see how there is any higher level of responsibility in archaeology than filling in a context sheet"
and this :"Its a bit like saying archaeology cant be done unless there is a management hierarchy."
are also very good points. (although Uo1, military and antiquarianism ?...)

A critical separation of Technical Standards and Management Hierarchies is now necessary for the IFA to move forward.
(a separation of church and state if you like....)

A minimally necessary (but insufficient) step is to make 'archaeological skills/experience' completely separate from 'management experience'....

...[@oxbeast] Precisely because 'Management Grade' is very-much self-evidently NOT a sufficient or necessary guide to technical abilities...and especially not a predictor for commitment to the highest possible standards.

[we might also consider, for example, the large numbers of people who go up and down grades as they work for different companies, or self-employed, or are made redundant etc. ... perhapes KA@LR&IFA did not know or count them?]

The 'Skills Passport' was an ugly-arsed idea 15 years ago, and still is today (how is the roll out going BTW - NOTlol).
What was/is needed is a mentoring system based on trust, e.g. where the 'mentors' are rated on Technical Ability (not management grade)....
The fact is that 99% of 'training' is completely down to what individuals happen to be on site, good or bad - this will remain the case, regardless of any daft 'Passport'.
The skills passport (unfortunately) was and still is a peripheral sop, whilst naked corporatism ('management hierarchies' if you like) has been hammered right intro the heart of the core IFA membership structure.
TIME TO START AGAIN?