New name for the IFA...

[andy.bicket]

What about the pre-historic environment? It never gets a look in, I've got a good mind to complain to someone. As always, it's one rule for them, one rule for everyone else!

Angry of Tunbridge Wells

[BAJR Host]

quote:they already made most of the readily-achieveable improvements that they could in their current set-up.

Currently sipping mint tea in Damascus, so feel a bit like BAJR of Arabia... in more ways than one... it is interesting how BAJR IFA relations have gone over the past ten years... one thing that is always brought up is in relation to the quote above... and mumbling ensues...

Can anybody actually bullet point these improvements? more than 3 would be good.:face-huh:

over two decades.. there must be some real solid improvements that the IFA want to tell the archaeology world about.?

I got rid of the IFA section as although it was there for them to let us know what was happening, it was underused. That and the unfortunate actions, that led to my resignation from both the Council and the IFA itself. You can call it whatever you want, it has to be seen to be representing us as a whole.

Any news on the Tax? Any news on the Freelance issue? Any news on the accomodation? any news at all? Those of us not in the IFA are unlikely to join, unless we look and say... thats something I want to be part of.... Lets not get bogged down in another bash the IFA... but you have to admit... when it comes to benefits.. I am still unclear what they are?

... now... on to take Aqaba my brave soldiers....

"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

[quote]
Can anybody actually bullet point these improvements? more than 3 would be good.:face-huh:

I think the code of conduct argues it all by itself! Let alone the standard and guidance! Just picking on one of two points amongst many others!

Standards
Before IFA, there was no way we could argue that we were a profession and deserved to be treated as professionals. We all have discussed ad infinitum the fact that there are people out there who call themselves archaeologists but who (not to put too fine a point on it) are c**p. Without the standards and guidance, there would be no way that anyone could say 'this piece of work isn't good enough'.

Code of conduct
Specifically states that archaeologists must have respect for other archaeologists and their career aspirations. Someone has been removed from membership in the last few years because of this.

RAOs
It's not perfect, but at least there's an attempt to increase pay and better conditions using this mechanism.

CWPAT
Have produced a number of documents, in partnership with other organisations, which have had/will have a wide ranging impact. The draft guidance on assessment of setting is an example.

Groups
The IFA have supported and assisted their specialist and regional groups (including 'diggers forum')allowing dispersed groups of individuals to get support and develop their working lives.


That's 5 - and I'm just picking on one or two things within each area.

Believe me, I have had major disagreements with things the IFA have done. I didn't join until a very long time after I should have done, often for very much the same reasons quoted elsewhere. However, at least with a set of standards and a code of conduct etc you can have a discussion/argument that has boundaries and framework. You can work to change people's mind within that framework too.

So, if you were expecting 'IFA did this for me' you won't get it, because they are not a trade union! they are a professional body! This means that they are involved with strategic level stuff such as influencing government to agree that archaeology is important and should continue to be included in the planning process (there's another example). Because, let's face it, there really aren't all that many members of the public that given the choice between archaeology and having their bins collected every week would choose the former.

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

Oldgirl, very interesting points you have raised,but you must admit that there is still the perception that anyone who reports either the company they work for or a named individual for mal-practise within the job is still seen as the trouble maker and can find themselves with the bad reputation and as such can find themselves unnoficially blacklisted when it comes to applying for work-so the fear of that stops a lot of people speaking out.
Maybe i'm just an eternal optimist but i'm still not dissollutioned enough to turn my back on archaeology-even though i've just bin laid off!!
Aqaba? hey mister hostie-is it true that Mafeking's been relieved?

[Oxbeast]

Thats what people say, Dave, but where's the evidence? I know several people who've made substantial complaints to the IFA, and they still seem to be able to get jobs. Maybe not with the company that they complained about, but definately jobs. Do you actually know of anyone who was 'unofficially blacklisted' following a complaint to the IFA?

oldgirl, excellent list. However, what is CWPAT? Google gives me nothing here. I though that it was EH that produced guidelines on 'settings' for curatorial bods.

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast

Thats what people say, Dave, but where's the evidence? I know several people who've made substantial complaints to the IFA, and they still seem to be able to get jobs. Maybe not with the company that they complained about, but definately jobs. Do you actually know of anyone who was 'unofficially blacklisted' following a complaint to the IFA?

oldgirl, excellent list. However, what is CWPAT? Google gives me nothing here. I though that it was EH that produced guidelines on 'settings' for curatorial bods.

CWPA (sorry, I think I put the T on in my mind to make cowpat....) Committee on working practices in archaeology.

If you look on the IFA news you'll see:

"The Working Group on the Setting of Cultural Heritage Features has produced a second document, following up on the Group's Draft Report. Setting standards: a call for action explains briefly why setting is a problem and why guidelines are urgently needed."

On the unofficial blacklisting, I know people feel it happens and that is a worry. Personally, I haven't ever been aware of anyone applying to work with me who had whistle blown to IFA. I wouldn't have worried if I had, they stand as good a chance as anyone else! If anything, I want people around who care about archaeology!

(I have had people who have had major fallings out with their ex-employers for other reasons, and they've worked with me with no problems. Other people haven't liked working with me (can't think why.... I never rant on BAJR or anything! [:I] ) but we've parted company amicably.)

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

Oxbeast, I did say it was the "perception of", though like you say where is the proof of this? so the question that should be asked is WHY do some folks believe it-you just have to read what some people say about the IFA on this board to realise that it has a PR problem in getting through to folks that things are changing-if slowly, but then again Rome wasn't built in a day.:face-huh:

[Austin Ainsworth]

quote:Originally posted by Dirty Dave Lincoln

Oxbeast, I did say it was the "perception of", though like you say where is the proof of this? so the question that should be asked is WHY do some folks believe it-you just have to read what some people say about the IFA on this board to realise that it has a PR problem in getting through to folks that things are changing-if slowly, but then again Rome wasn't built in a day.:face-huh:

So why do people believe that? Are those popular (mis)-conceptions true?

Any arguments for or against?

[trowelfodder]

I feel i should chip in here but am just to frustrated by the ifa to say anything constructive. Maybe we could sort them out a new colour scheme or logo to go with the rebranding, maybe something white and fluffy, maybe just a white feather?

[BAJR Host]

It is true what Old Girls says... - However (you knew it was coming)

Standards and Guidance ....

These are not definitive... they are ... Guidance. ei up for interpretation and argument (and I have had such things, where the Guidance is interpreted in different ways) --- unlike this document which is : Dutch Archaeology Quality Standard (https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/dspace/.../1887/9858)

RAOs (as you say... not perfect... and to some RAOs it is just because, rather than a belief...

Groups... yup, we have groups... but we could have groups without the IFA... same goes for publications... etc etc...


CWPA - great... but again, this is not just the IFA... and what has actually been achieved... there are words about
monitoring health and safety issues
OR
long running issue of pay and conditions

But what has actually, physically been achieved... (the long running pay and conditions thing - we are all involved in that)

What I was looking for was hard solid achievements... ie

19xx... created a universally accepted pay structure

199x ... ensured that a clear career progression was in place (with defined roles, duties etc)

200x ... etc etc

This is the sort of meat people want to know... seeing that joining is worth it... for them, the profession and the general heritage industry..

No offense to working parties (hey I was on them too) but soon after a working party finishes... there should be a result.




"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers