Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2013
15th October 2015, 06:24 PM
Met a new member of staff today, someone who has previously been working for an RAO. According to this new member of staff, the RAO was deducting £85 a week from their wages to put them up in a shared caravan whilst working away! Effectively this person has been working for less than the minimum wage! Disgusting!
Come on CiFA, is this the sort of disgraceful behaviour exhibited by other Chartered organisations...I think not! Come on CiFA do you really believe that it is more important to fast track graduates than speaking out strongly against such practices! CiFA you want to be seen as professional then grow up and start acting like one instead of hoping that eventually it will go away because there is a boom now! Come on consultants stop pretending that you value quality and yet you turn a blind eye knowing that the competitive tender is being won by through the deliberate exploitation of the workforce! Come on newly graduated archaeologists, stop accepting to work for such despicable employers!
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
16th October 2015, 09:29 AM
Quote:Come on newly graduated archaeologists, stop accepting to work for such despicable employers!
maybe what you are looking for is a different structure. Lawyers appear to work an associate, junior partner, partner structure which might be of interest. The basic difference is that associates work for salaries and somewhere as a junior they start partaking of equity in the firm and taking profits. The ambition is to become a partner and it appears that there is a certain amount of caravan living and intern exploitation at the associate level. In the main though they are a service industry but my own view is that a major shift for archaeologists is to see archaeology as a product rather than a service but I have beat my head on that shore waiting for the sirens.
Presumably your company employed this person as nobodies fool?
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
16th October 2015, 05:32 PM
Sikelgaita Wrote:Met a new member of staff today, someone who has previously been working for an RAO. According to this new member of staff, the RAO was deducting £85 a week from their wages to put them up in a shared caravan whilst working away! Effectively this person has been working for less than the minimum wage! Disgusting!
Come on CiFA, is this the sort of disgraceful behaviour exhibited by other Chartered organisations...I think not! Come on CiFA do you really believe that it is more important to fast track graduates than speaking out strongly against such practices! CiFA you want to be seen as professional then grow up and start acting like one instead of hoping that eventually it will go away because there is a boom now! Come on consultants stop pretending that you value quality and yet you turn a blind eye knowing that the competitive tender is being won by through the deliberate exploitation of the workforce! Come on newly graduated archaeologists, stop accepting to work for such despicable employers!
has anybody complained to cifa?
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2013
16th October 2015, 06:12 PM
P Prentice Wrote:has anybody complained to cifa?
Well assuming that BAJR advertised jobs are all CiFA compliant then I am guessing that it already passes muster with them.
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2013
17th October 2015, 01:38 PM
Marc Berger Wrote:maybe what you are looking for is a different structure. Lawyers appear to work an associate, junior partner, partner structure which might be of interest. The basic difference is that associates work for salaries and somewhere as a junior they start partaking of equity in the firm and taking profits. The ambition is to become a partner and it appears that there is a certain amount of caravan living and intern exploitation at the associate level.
No what I am looking for is for the CiFA to actually stand up and speak out against exploitation instead of burying it's head in the sand and hoping it will all go away. Whatever position in a legal firm, whether intern or associate the person is legally entitled to be paid the minimum wage if they are deemed a worker or employee.
It is not illegal to deduct accommodation from wages as long as the accommodation meets certain conditions (I am sure this RAO has read the standards required by the Gangmasters Licensing Authority) and the employee has been informed in advance of these costs but is this really what CiFA would consider an appropriate practice for a profession.
Marc Berger Wrote:In the main though they are a service industry but my own view is that a major shift for archaeologists is to see archaeology as a product rather than a service but I have beat my head on that shore waiting for the sirens.
You will get little argument from me in this regard although I believe there is a greater or lesser service component depending on the product being supplied. I believe most archaeological companies understand this and operate on this principle already but will not admit it.
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
17th October 2015, 08:05 PM
Have you or fellow employee put a complaint into Cifa?
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2013
17th October 2015, 08:34 PM
Marc Berger Wrote:Have you or fellow employee put a complaint into Cifa?
No, I doubt the employee would complain, maybe because they are afraid of endangering their career. And for me, as I replied earlier, I have assumed that this practice has been sanctioned by the CiFA as the job was advertised on BAJR and BAJR approved the terms of the employment that was on offer.
Thing is CiFA seems to me to be a bit like FIFA (without the corruption). Surely CiFA must realise that working conditions and sharp employment practices have been going on for years, often led by the RAO's. Everybody keeps pointing out what is wrong but nothing seems to change. These issues have been highlighted by the Diggers Forum, this forum and generally any site hut yet it is as if no one is listening. Those CiFA committee members have probably all sat in site huts and heard the tales yet when it come down to it where is the strong voice of condemnation. It is lost in the self congratulatory back slapping of Chartered status, fast tracking graduates and all the other irrelevent crap that the RAO's would prefer CiFA to talk about.
As you can probably tell this issue has really pissed me off!
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
18th October 2015, 11:52 AM
so what you are saying is that this treatment is result of "employment" structure or is this something intrinsically to do with archaeology. Are you paid enough?
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
18th October 2015, 01:47 PM
Sikelgaita Wrote:No, I doubt the employee would complain, maybe because they are afraid of endangering their career. And for me, as I replied earlier, I have assumed that this practice has been sanctioned by the CiFA as the job was advertised on BAJR and BAJR approved the terms of the employment that was on offer.
This might come as a surprise to some folks but not everyone in archaeology is honest. David plays a pretty constant game of wack-a-mole in which companies say one set of terms then give another i.e. advertise a wage at 17k but then make it based on 40 hours when it should be for 37.5 hours. When David finds out he will ban them from future job postings but has little recourse to fix the previous problems except report them to CIfA if they are a member or RO. CIfA runs in a very similar way ... they need to know and then they can do something about it.
Are you sure that David and CIfA have approved these practices? Could it be a company that takes out 85 in pay might not be the most scrupulous in terms of morals and may not have advertised these practices in a job posting?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2013
18th October 2015, 02:11 PM
Doug Wrote:Are you sure that David and CIfA have approved these practices? Could it be a company that takes out 85 in pay might not be the most scrupulous in terms of morals and may not have advertised these practices in a job posting?
The job advert clearly stated that the company will expect the employee to make a contribution towards accommodation and travel costs when working away. A cost that I would guess all the other archaeological companies who might potentially be tendering for the work would include within their pricing is, in effect, being used as a way of paying staff less than the minimum wage.
And Marc, yes I am paid enough. You do not know anything about me so all I can say is that this is by choice because I am not motivated by money and secondly I am not a freshly graduated student desperate to get a job in archaeology. This does not mean that I do not think that others employed in the same role as me are not underpaid and in no way denies me the right to speak out against exploitation.
