Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Hi Chaps
Are we entirely happy about a venture capital company employing two archaeologist directly rather than employing an archaeological contracting/consultancy. Is anybody aware of a developer employing an archaeologist as staff in any other case. It seems to me that a Miller Argent could end up employing two people with no real experience. I note that the pay scale is for a site assistant or supervisor but the nature of the work appears to be of a more senior position. Personally I'm a little worried about this and if I was the curator for the LPA I would severely concerned unless the archaeologists employed could show high levels of experience way above that implied by the pay scales offered. I would also be asking the question of why doesn't Miller Argent just employ a consultant to deal with all the heritage matters if they are as enamoured with the industrial heritage as they state.
hmmm! :face-huh:
Steven
Steven
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
As a member of a company that employs industrial/buildings archaeologists in Wales, I would prefer to see this work going out to a consultant/contractor.
However, depending on the nature of the work involved (and therefore the level/type of specialist back-up resources required), I see nothing wrong in the developer employing archaeologists directly. If they need two people full-time for two years, then this may be the most efficient way to do it. They would still be subject to monitoring by the curator, just like any contractor.
What does concern me is the level of the appointment. I would have preferred to see one of the posts at a more senior level.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Many government agencies (MoD, Forestry etc)and infrastructure companies (water companies etc)already employ their own archaeologists, either to act as in house consultants or to project manage, so if any compant has sufficient work to justify an appointment I think thats fair enough as long as they are monitored by curators in the same way as every one else. I see no reason why this wouldn't be the case. And remember for excavation and post-excavation purposes they will still have to out source alot of work. However it is a concern for the long term future that such out sourcing could replace units with a series of free lance specialists or technicians (finds, reports, excavation)employed directly by developers/companies. Its an extreme idea but possibly something to be considered. In the mean time I think the only concern might be how the use of internal archaeologists (as being sought after here) may impact on impartiality (curators pat attention) and on what archaeological units are paid for- tenders may get lower if some tasks are completed internally.
I think we must give it a chance but treat with caution:face-huh::face-huh:
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2007
The employment of archaeologists within larger predominantly non-archaeological organisations (so long as standards maintained and level of appointment is appropriate) should be welcomed. It is a sign we are finally becoming a normal/conventional profession where an archaeological post can be integrated into a project team at the best level (ie within the developer).
Contractors/Consultants can look after themselves; if they cannot evidence a benefit to clients greater than internal appointments then they should worry about what they are doing. Not sure how posts within developers would affect impartiality more than any other post anywhere else given that archaeologists should act in a manner that maintains ethical/professional values. If they don't, none of us are paid enough to recover the loss of value in our standing if we cannot be trusted to speak truth.
I think these posts should be welcomed, they are a sign a maturing profession.
The Devil to pay and no pitch hot
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I was expecting some comment on this post... I did talk to them prior to putting it up... for BAJR reasons - I also made it clear that the level of appointment might not achieve the level of candidate they required.. they may come back.. they may not... For one I am happy to see archaeology being integrated into a team.. rather than brought in as an add-on... So it is for that reason the posts went up... its up to people to decide on this one.
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Posted by gonetopot:
Quote:quote:In the mean time I think the only concern might be how the use of internal archaeologists (as being sought after here) may impact on impartiality
Is a unit, which is paid by the developer, and has won the work through competitive tender (and hopes to win more in the future), necessarily more impartial?
11 years ago I joined a company that was mainly made up of civil engineers. In the short term it was difficult, and there was a lot of hostility to the need to do archaeology. Gradually, I (and other environmental types) was able to win over most of the established staff and educate many of the younger ones, to the point where nowadays they are often changing their designs for archaeological/environmental reasons off their own bat.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
