Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
agenda for bajr conference
3. Public dissemination (good god i need a dictionary) - after all, we can change the pay and make the sites safe, but if no one apart from the Curator reads or indeed knows about the report whats it all for?
profit perhaps?Big GrinThankyou Barnsey-agree wholeheartedly.
This is possibly linked in with your '1' Troll, but I think there does need to be some sort of debate as to the value of IFA recommended wages if A: there aren't (can't be?) enforced, B: they're set so low that nobody can afford to live on them and C: and this depresses me the most, companies which paid more than the minimum wage appeared by the IFA's figures to have lowered their wages to fall in line with the minimum wage during its early period (I am open to challenge on the last point with regard to recent changes as my figures are out of date and the issue is raised to get clarification of recent trends).
Is there a legal type out there who could spread a little light on the issue of if industry can effectively set minimum wages without falling foul of legistlation i'd be curious. I have my doubts along the lines of monopoly law etc, but i'd like to know the specifics.
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Barnesy

I think there does need to be some sort of debate as to the value of IFA recommended wages

I have some figures which may help to flesh out this debate. Based upon BAJR adverts in the last 6 months:

Average wage advertised:

Experienced 'digger': ?277 pw
Supervisor: ?311 pw
Project Officer: ?344 pw

The above figures are based upon all advertisers. If IFA Registered Archaeological Organisations and non-RAOs are compared there is a slight divergence:

Average wage advertised by IFA RAO:

Experienced 'digger': ?277 pw
Supervisor: ?306 pw
Project Officer: ?332 pw

Average wage advertised by non RAO:

Experienced 'digger': ?277 pw
Supervisor: ?316 pw
Project Officer: ?355 pw

Which kind of suggests that non-RAOs pay slightly more than IFA 'approved' bodies.

More telling figures as to the state of the profession are the following:

Percentage of employers advertising posts with salaries below average archaeological wage:

Experienced 'digger': 60%
Supervisor: 75%
Project Officer: 33%


Percentage of RAOs advertising posts with salaries below average archaeological wage:

Experienced 'digger': 63%
Supervisor: 66%
Project Officer: 50%

excellent figures...

though I must ask where the below average arch wage comes from..

However... good start.

Lets keep the Conference Focused and simple..

3 Subjects (which in themselves are huge)

are we looking at 3 Discussions with seperate solution seminars?

Another day another WSI?
[quote) I must ask where the below average arch wage comes from

Apologies, I should have added a note that the 'average wage' was based upon the mean of BAJR advertised posts. I think the point I was trying to make was that a relatively few 'high' paying advertisers sit atop a ziggerat of employers paying considerably less than the average.

My own personal solution to this problem would be that the IFA raise its recommended pay levels for RAOs. I don't think it would be too much to ask of RAOs to pay a minimum of ?277pw to their experienced digging staff, ?311pw to supervisors and ?344pw to PO's. My figures seem to suggest that if RAO's took the lead, non-RAO's could follow and perhaps even exceed these levels.

I also believe that the IFA should set a target for reasonable increases in their recommended levels to create a 'dignity' wage threshold for archaeologists. My suggestion if asked, would be that this should be at least 3.7% a year, enabling the ?300pw minimum 'digging' wage to be achieved by 2007/8 and ?360pw by 2012/13. For supervisors the minimum recommendation would raise to ?330pw by 2007/8 and ?410pw by 2012/13. For POs the minimum would raise to ?370pw by 2007/8 and ?440pw by 2012/13.

This could of course only apply to IFA RAO's and could not be applied across the board. I don't know that it would harm the IFA's image however if it were widely advertised that the IFA endorsed better wages and would not tolerate organisations that paid below the level of an industry defined 'dignity' wage.

Not a clever response I know but-I was earning far more than an experienced "digger" during the 80s as a bin man.
Even later than that, I earnt more in 95 than I did in 99 when a graduated as a digger }Smile. I shall be persuing the legal aspect with a legal type I know shortly, but I do think this will be the main obstacle.
C`mon you lot, will be a very short conference with whats on offer so far.All flavours of heritage types welcome-get involved!Big Grin
I think No. 4 should be a debate on the need to have the IFA (or other) chartered to give it some legal weight. Emphasis in the debate on what the organisation should be.

(I really have worked in the field)

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Conference Videos Doug 66 15,390 14th October 2015, 07:34 PM
Last Post: Doug
  THe BAJR Grand tour BAJR 10 3,633 8th February 2015, 01:05 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Tay and Fife Archaeology Conference Doug 16 4,783 15th November 2014, 01:04 AM
Last Post: Doug
  AJR baiting If scotland floats towards iceland will this be the end of ukip and bajr? Marc Berger 32 8,116 14th October 2014, 11:46 PM
Last Post: Dombant
  ?....How much to be a member of the one and only bajr forum Marc Berger 19 5,174 22nd August 2014, 02:29 PM
Last Post: Marc Berger
  Free conference for teachers - Durham BAJR 1 979 5th June 2014, 06:15 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  new BAJR Rates for 2014/15 BAJR 1 1,127 24th March 2014, 08:38 AM
Last Post: BAJR
  BAJR Guides BAJR 1 835 29th January 2014, 01:04 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Find out about BAJR origins BAJR 4 1,485 20th December 2013, 01:38 PM
Last Post: P Prentice
  BAJR Course finder system. BAJR 4 1,165 20th December 2013, 11:10 AM
Last Post: BAJR

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)