7th April 2007, 09:20 AM
Well, gee, I've joined this debating hall, so I'm going to join in some debates...
Let's discuss some concepts:
underpaid = paid less than others for similar work. So, in an archaeological excavator is underpaid only if being paid less than the mean average for that job (per country).
paid well = highly subjective - I am well paid from my perspective, yet directly equivalent positions (by which I mean word for word job description, responsibilities, skills, etc. bar any reference to archaeology or heritage) pay 25-50% more. So, I am badly paid from that perspective. But I am paid what the organisation can afford, and earn considerably more than diggers. So pick a perspective.
bad pay = also relative to perception. Yes, graduates from universities can go straight into £30k+ jobs. Less than 100/year exist, competing against not just UK grads but world grads. So not a good measuring stick. In 04/05, average household income ~ was around £27k p.a., including any benefits payable (e.g. child support). Because of the skew to these figures caused by the excessively well paid, a household income of £30k is inside the top 40%. So two diggers at supervisor level, living together, are pushing into that top 40% bracket. Badly paid?
Actually what is interesting is to note that archaeology has the lowest differential pay of any sector I know of. Take schools - entry point of ~10k, a good head can earn ~£100k, a factor of 10. Archaeology manages what, 3? 4? Rules out union action as an effective tactic!
Simple answer to the problem - archaeology is a low margin sector. It is that way for many reasons: because it is highly fragmented, because the buyers have huge power, because archaeology is a vocation, because the curators and planning departments won't set and stick to standards in pre-qualification. Maybe other reasons (archaeology just don't communicate well, for example). Fix some of these and margins will increase, and along with them salaries. Despite rumours of fatcat directors and other senior management just wanting to take the cream, in almost all cases they are (a) also us and (b) would be happy with an equivalent percentage rise. The IFA is probably the best angle.
What will prevent any improvement is a focus on a "them and us" scenario - it isn't true and belongs to the 1970s. "We" all work in archaeology and (company by company) "we" all work for the same organisation.
Just, as always, MNSHO.
Chris
------
Strictly my views, which occasionally may also be those of my employer!
------
Let's discuss some concepts:
underpaid = paid less than others for similar work. So, in an archaeological excavator is underpaid only if being paid less than the mean average for that job (per country).
paid well = highly subjective - I am well paid from my perspective, yet directly equivalent positions (by which I mean word for word job description, responsibilities, skills, etc. bar any reference to archaeology or heritage) pay 25-50% more. So, I am badly paid from that perspective. But I am paid what the organisation can afford, and earn considerably more than diggers. So pick a perspective.
bad pay = also relative to perception. Yes, graduates from universities can go straight into £30k+ jobs. Less than 100/year exist, competing against not just UK grads but world grads. So not a good measuring stick. In 04/05, average household income ~ was around £27k p.a., including any benefits payable (e.g. child support). Because of the skew to these figures caused by the excessively well paid, a household income of £30k is inside the top 40%. So two diggers at supervisor level, living together, are pushing into that top 40% bracket. Badly paid?
Actually what is interesting is to note that archaeology has the lowest differential pay of any sector I know of. Take schools - entry point of ~10k, a good head can earn ~£100k, a factor of 10. Archaeology manages what, 3? 4? Rules out union action as an effective tactic!
Simple answer to the problem - archaeology is a low margin sector. It is that way for many reasons: because it is highly fragmented, because the buyers have huge power, because archaeology is a vocation, because the curators and planning departments won't set and stick to standards in pre-qualification. Maybe other reasons (archaeology just don't communicate well, for example). Fix some of these and margins will increase, and along with them salaries. Despite rumours of fatcat directors and other senior management just wanting to take the cream, in almost all cases they are (a) also us and (b) would be happy with an equivalent percentage rise. The IFA is probably the best angle.
What will prevent any improvement is a focus on a "them and us" scenario - it isn't true and belongs to the 1970s. "We" all work in archaeology and (company by company) "we" all work for the same organisation.
Just, as always, MNSHO.
Chris
------
Strictly my views, which occasionally may also be those of my employer!
------