17th April 2007, 01:49 AM
I am sorry but have to disagree :face-confused: on several counts:
Firstly, as you stated yourself, 'ferocious' curation would discourage unrealistic tenders. Unrealistic tenders have a downward pull on prices and distort the market over a significant area. So to answer your query: "Perhaps this could even hold pay down in some organisations as they seek to make savings to win contracts."; I hate to break this to you, but this already happens all the time which is why we are in the situation we are in now, because companies always have to compete with the cheapest to win. I would rather compete with someone who I know will be held to the same level of work vigorously and that they won the job fair and square (based on good staff, efficiency, business structure or whatever) so everyone is on a level playing field.
More importantly, one of the reasons archaeological work is poorly rewarded is because there is no economic benefit to having a top notch firm undertake work of the highest standard over having a rubbish one make a hash of things as, unless someone says otherwise (....you know, curators), either will discharge their condition. What you are doing by raising standards through more vigorous enforcement is providing a reason for clients to care how well the job is done, therefore increasing the value of quality work ('well, company A is cheaper, but the last time the council gave us a hard time when they did the job on the cheap and it ended up costing us more...when we used company B we paid a bit more but we didn't have to worry......').
Now you may say 'well so what, bad payers are still bad payers...' but the point you are missing is that there are bad payers and bad firms in every profession....it is normal. It obviously doesn't mean all professions are badly paid; the difference is that in other types of work most clients see value in quality work, whereas in the archaeological market the value of the work (economically) is measured by how effectively obstructions to planning consent are overcome which is why where we would see a badly run site with a poor report, they would see a good job so long as they get to build their houses, roads or whatever with minimum hassle.
If the work had a more solid economic value, then it is worth while having better staff training and retaining your staff as it would matter how well you did the job; after all curators (in our hypothetical world) will have plenty of time to look over everything you've done and if you don't comply then your client will pay with enforcement action from the council meaning they will make you do it properly, or they won't pay you anything (as you won't have completed the work without discharging the condition, violating the terms of your contract). And if I know developers they will make you do it for the original quote, eating into your gross profit.
This is why telling RAOs to pay people £X more will not improve things so long as companies are allowed to successfully bid for work and discharge conditions without full compliance. After all if every one paid the same (which they already broadly do), company A can still undercut company B if they know they can get away with doing less work (the basis on which undercutting happens now anyways). Increasing individual pay will not change this, and the result will be to punish those that play fair. So you see, pay award schemes cannot prevent this type of undercutting; someone has to ensure that company A is doing every bit of work that company B was expecting to do given the contents of the brief.
This is why the role of the curator and their ability to enforce standards is so important; their actions determine the economic value of archaeological work, whether or not they realise, or indeed like it. Don't get me wrong, I fully support the efforts of BAJR, the IFA and others, but the pay agreements will not solve this alone; if the few are allowed to get away with doing less, the market value of projects goes down and RAOs gross profit, and therefore their ability to increase pay is limited, which would stall further pay increases based on feasibility. I assure you, I am not exaggerating.
don't panic!
Firstly, as you stated yourself, 'ferocious' curation would discourage unrealistic tenders. Unrealistic tenders have a downward pull on prices and distort the market over a significant area. So to answer your query: "Perhaps this could even hold pay down in some organisations as they seek to make savings to win contracts."; I hate to break this to you, but this already happens all the time which is why we are in the situation we are in now, because companies always have to compete with the cheapest to win. I would rather compete with someone who I know will be held to the same level of work vigorously and that they won the job fair and square (based on good staff, efficiency, business structure or whatever) so everyone is on a level playing field.
More importantly, one of the reasons archaeological work is poorly rewarded is because there is no economic benefit to having a top notch firm undertake work of the highest standard over having a rubbish one make a hash of things as, unless someone says otherwise (....you know, curators), either will discharge their condition. What you are doing by raising standards through more vigorous enforcement is providing a reason for clients to care how well the job is done, therefore increasing the value of quality work ('well, company A is cheaper, but the last time the council gave us a hard time when they did the job on the cheap and it ended up costing us more...when we used company B we paid a bit more but we didn't have to worry......').
Now you may say 'well so what, bad payers are still bad payers...' but the point you are missing is that there are bad payers and bad firms in every profession....it is normal. It obviously doesn't mean all professions are badly paid; the difference is that in other types of work most clients see value in quality work, whereas in the archaeological market the value of the work (economically) is measured by how effectively obstructions to planning consent are overcome which is why where we would see a badly run site with a poor report, they would see a good job so long as they get to build their houses, roads or whatever with minimum hassle.
If the work had a more solid economic value, then it is worth while having better staff training and retaining your staff as it would matter how well you did the job; after all curators (in our hypothetical world) will have plenty of time to look over everything you've done and if you don't comply then your client will pay with enforcement action from the council meaning they will make you do it properly, or they won't pay you anything (as you won't have completed the work without discharging the condition, violating the terms of your contract). And if I know developers they will make you do it for the original quote, eating into your gross profit.
This is why telling RAOs to pay people £X more will not improve things so long as companies are allowed to successfully bid for work and discharge conditions without full compliance. After all if every one paid the same (which they already broadly do), company A can still undercut company B if they know they can get away with doing less work (the basis on which undercutting happens now anyways). Increasing individual pay will not change this, and the result will be to punish those that play fair. So you see, pay award schemes cannot prevent this type of undercutting; someone has to ensure that company A is doing every bit of work that company B was expecting to do given the contents of the brief.
This is why the role of the curator and their ability to enforce standards is so important; their actions determine the economic value of archaeological work, whether or not they realise, or indeed like it. Don't get me wrong, I fully support the efforts of BAJR, the IFA and others, but the pay agreements will not solve this alone; if the few are allowed to get away with doing less, the market value of projects goes down and RAOs gross profit, and therefore their ability to increase pay is limited, which would stall further pay increases based on feasibility. I assure you, I am not exaggerating.
don't panic!