5th July 2010, 07:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 5th July 2010, 07:44 PM by deadlylampshade.)
Sounds a very positive step. Is the Charter in full to be discussed in a general sense of acceptance or are parts of it to be agreed and developed?
Sorry...coming into this very late I know but perhaps it is timely to resurrect this debate in advance of the meeting. Having read these posts carefully and the previous ones suggested, I can't help feeling that the term "union" is clouding the perception of the important and , from what I can gather, essential requirements the Charter is laying down.
I have nothing against Unions before anyone leaps to their defence (not required!) but unfortunately the events leading up to the 1992 Act taints the memories of people too young to fully comprehend what happened and there is, rightly or wrongly, stigma attached to the term "union" - one would almost say it is a term which is verboten in the Private Sector but perhaps more "embraced" in the Public Sector.
Where is the money for archaeology sourced? (other than "Heritage" funding) Is it more Public or more Private? Whatever the answer to that question is depends on the perception of the term union one is then trying to deal with.
Perception management is a very strong tool and should not be ignored. It is not fraud; it is not "spin". It is the proactive management of a concept. I think that if the perception of what the Charter is about can be grounded in the meeting, there will be a very firm foundation for the advancement of a representative, collective and all embracing body endorsed to answer the needs of archaeologists at all levels of their careers in whichever part of the industry they work.
The endorsement comes from everyone signing up to it.
<<gets off soap box and heads for the bar>>
Sorry...coming into this very late I know but perhaps it is timely to resurrect this debate in advance of the meeting. Having read these posts carefully and the previous ones suggested, I can't help feeling that the term "union" is clouding the perception of the important and , from what I can gather, essential requirements the Charter is laying down.
I have nothing against Unions before anyone leaps to their defence (not required!) but unfortunately the events leading up to the 1992 Act taints the memories of people too young to fully comprehend what happened and there is, rightly or wrongly, stigma attached to the term "union" - one would almost say it is a term which is verboten in the Private Sector but perhaps more "embraced" in the Public Sector.
Where is the money for archaeology sourced? (other than "Heritage" funding) Is it more Public or more Private? Whatever the answer to that question is depends on the perception of the term union one is then trying to deal with.
Perception management is a very strong tool and should not be ignored. It is not fraud; it is not "spin". It is the proactive management of a concept. I think that if the perception of what the Charter is about can be grounded in the meeting, there will be a very firm foundation for the advancement of a representative, collective and all embracing body endorsed to answer the needs of archaeologists at all levels of their careers in whichever part of the industry they work.
The endorsement comes from everyone signing up to it.
<<gets off soap box and heads for the bar>>
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
