I see that 'archpeople' are now advertising on their site for site assistants and supervisors at below bajr minimum rates. How can this be a good thing? And how as they claim does it 'provide competitive rates of pay and promote archaeology as a profession to be proud of'? The only people getting a good deal out of this arrangement would appear to be the employers and 'archpeople'. Stick with bajr people.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Archpeople also claim to be "members of the IFA".
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
This is outrageous. Could BAJR get in touch with the IFA about this? Surely an organisation that subscribes to the IFA code of practice cannot offer these rates. The £240 a week for site assistants is even below the current Grade 2 minima. Its not just a case of sticking with BAJR these rates SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED, or am I missing something?
G
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
On the 29th March Archpeople stated in an answer to a BAJR forum question
As for wages, obviously there are various levels: level 2 site assitant for example (6 months experience) will receive between ?280 - 290 per week. This will increase with experience as well as general increases in rates etc in line with all other industries.
A question to our Moderator. Bearing in mind a couple of recent examples, is it possible for us to continue this thread and stay within AUP guidelines?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Sorry,
Had to do some work.
My understanding is that the principal Natalie is a member of the IFA. Archpeople are not I think a registered RAO - they make no claim to be one.
The rates advertised for the site assistant I would say are arguably within BAJR guidelines. They are from 240 per week depending upon experience. As they say somebody with no experience can apply arguably they are advertsing for trainee grades and thus the pay is in fact "generous". I for one support the notion that new graduates should be paid to gain experience.
The supervisors job - somebody with 2 years experience - is clearly below the BAJR grade 4 minimum .
As for what action BAJR can take that is something for David to consider when he is back in work if indeed action is appropriate.
The archpeople web site only started working today.
I am happy for the thread to continue provided people are careful what they say. I think there are issues to be considered about the nature of casual employment and so on. Similarly there is the notion about how far the IFA could take disciplinary action in these circumstances or indeed if they are appropriate.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
ND Kershaw is a Student member of the IFA - a grade that according to the IFA rules must be upgraded to a corporate i.e. PIFA etc. within 12 months of graduation or revoked. I don't expect BAJR to take any action here either. I was merely making an observation that an individual / company which claims to be paying competitive rates and making archaeology a profession to be proud of is merely upholding / udermining slightly the status quo. This is NOT a disciplinary issue unless archpeople are operating outside the IFA code of conduct.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
There is a wider question here though.
Say for example the archaeological project in this instance is being run by an RAO and Archpeople are just supplying the labour. The RAO might say "well we're within the IFA guidelines because we don't actually [u]directly</u> employ these people" and Archpeople would say "well we're not actually an RAO so we can pay what we like providing it's equal to or above the minimum wage".
At the end of the day though it is [u]not such a great deal </u>for the staff involved. (I have tried to choose those words carefully so as to not cause offence!!)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I have now spoken to Natalie. As far as I am concerned this discussion will be better continued in a few weeks when certain gliches on the website have been ironed out and she is in a position to discuss this with us.
Natalie thanks me for bringing this to her attention
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Point taken Dr Pete, although I suspect you are being a bit generous here.
A general question as I cant be bothered to trawl through the regs. Are the wage standards IFA by-laws (couldnt see whether they were but I suspect not) or are they just guidelines?
I also take Kevin's point and am concerned about organisations potentially exploiting loopholes.
The basic point however is that surely surely we should not be arguing over technicalities here. If an employment service is offering wages lower than IFA recommended minima (at whatever grade) it is a bad thing!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
Sorry Dr Pete i wouldnt have posted my last one if our messages hadnt crossed. G
