Job Losses in Archaeology

[Paul Belford]

The IfA report, mentioned in a previous thread, has now been published:

IfA Job Losses in Archaeology Report

[drpeterwardle]

Thanks to the IFA. Bleak reading but not as bad as I thought it would be with 345 jobs lost in the last quarter -8.6%. Some companies expended in the last quarter. More job losses are anticipated in the next quarter but two thirds of companies anticipate that they will maintain the same number of people.

I do reject the notion that micro-businesses less than 20 employees have sufferred less job losses because "were less likely to report staff losses, as with so few staff there were fewer jobs that could be lost in the first instance".

Peter

[Kathryn Whittington]

Paul, you beat me to it.

If anybody has any questions about the survey or report they can be directed to Kenneth Aitchison (kenneth.aitchison@archaeologists.net).

[kevin wooldridge]

The IfA/FAME are to be congratulated on a speedy response to the situation and further surveys will no doubt prove useful in charting the depths of the recession.

A few points.

I find the question regarding whether other businesses are likely to fail slightly spurious ('speculation me'onour' as Rumpole might say) and wonder why the IfA/FAME ducked the more obvious question of whether the responents felt their [u]own</u> business would survive.....

Secondly, the survey should ask more specific questions about the persons made redundant. Were they expired contracts or cuts to 'core' functions? Have you been forced to lay-off your husband/wife/kids yet? I think those kind of job losses say a lot more about the nature of the economic downturn, more than mere figures of contracts not renewed? It might also suggest that having got rid of the 'easy' redundees, the next round of forced cuts could be very painful indeed. It could be that anyone who takes heart from 'a mere 8%' as inspiring confidence that the recession is not as bad as it seems, is about to get a very big shock indeed. This must be of concern to a lot of IfA members, whom I would suggest are probably not likely to be in the kind of posts abolished by the first round of redundancies.

Thirdly, persons having been made redundant would have found some other way to survive. Some may have stayed in archaeology as self-employed, some may have got associated jobs, some may have gone to work for non-surveyed archaeological employers. Some may have gone back t college or onto the dole. I don't see how the survey can be really valid unless some of those 345 persons are surveyed as well. I mean the truth is that if they are all struggling along as individuals, but still within archaeology then the number of job losses in the industry is.....er.... zero. I'm sure that it isn't but would like to know the truth.

[drpeterwardle]

Have to say I thought the questions were just right for surveying what has happened and allowed the results to be made available quickly.

Asking business owners if they think archaeological bussinesses will fail is in fact a good question. Nobody will say there business will fail and a question like this tells us that it is on people aggenda.

What was needed by managers is an overall figure on the down turn - quick. The IFA have delivered this.

As to what the figures actually mean that is something very different again.

As to tracking what people who have lost their job are doing in a meaningful way will be difficult if not impossible and would have taken too much time.

Lets us discuss what the figures actually mean and if the government increade in expenditure on infra structure will reverse these job losses.

Peter

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardleLets us discuss what the figures actually mean and if the government increade in expenditure on infra structure will reverse these job losses.

Well OK. What do these figures really mean?

I am guessing that a lot of archaeological firms in a 'normal year' lay-off staff in the last quarter of the year. This year 345 archaeologists were laid off. Is that the 'normal' number (in which case Crisis what Crisis!!) or is this year a particularly bad year. Unfortunately the questionnaire doesn't address this.

Are there 345 archaeologists out there looking for work?. Probably, but is that a normal figure for this time of the year or is this year a particularly bad year. And again shouldn't an attempt be made to track what some of those unemployed are doing (or not doing!!). I don't believe that is as difficult as Peter suggests it might seem. I would imagine that a posting to BAJR Forums inviting unemployed archaeologists to respond directly to the IfA/FAME would easily get 345 responses maybe more (and that may suggest some degree of accuracy or inaccuracy in that magic figure of 345). Again the questionnaire doesn't address these questions.

The IfA have jumped (and I am not criticising their actions) to announce a number of measures to relieve the suffering of IfA members. Because....either this is a particualrly bad year or the IfA has only just realised that a lot of archaeologists get laid off over the winter period. (There you go, who says the IfA are out of touch!!) In which case can we expect these measures to be repeated ad infinitum.

Don't get me wrong I am fully in favour of this survey, but it seems that with a little more thought it could actually be made more accurate and therefore more useful.

[Digger]

I take it FTE means Full Time Employed? If so then this survey would not include circuit workers who finished sites and then were unable to find further employment, and also those on casual contracts who were also finished up when work went sour?

So in reality the number of unemployed archaeologists is far higher than covered under these figures?

[voice of reason]

FTE means full-time equivalents - a standard shorthand formula which means that eg part-time workers working half-time aren't
counted as two employees which would distort the figures.

There is no distinction in the survey as to type of contracts - it is a very simple question - how many did you employ in Aug 07, Oct 08 and Jan 09. Therefore it includes all staff employed at those times.

The survey was designed to get a snapshot as quickly and efficiently (and simply to ensure survey was returned promptly) and work out how contractors were being affected in employment levels. It is a very helpful benchmark which can be revisited. The next survey is likely to be more startling as relatively lengthy redundancy consultation procedures reach an end in some organisations and job losses are implemented.

[BAJR Host]

And a very useful one too...

My quaetion would be what the snapshot was of.

would it be possible to know

a) How many companies replied
b) How many employees it represented
c) what regions were worst/best

this could be done without naming names

the figure of 345 - is that an extrapolation over the whole 5-6000 or is it from the survey?



"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton

[Digger]

Thanks VOR, not being critical, just clarifying.