18th April 2007, 02:46 PM
The reason standards is a bigger issue in archaeology is because it is harder to quantify whether an excavation is done to a high standard than it is to see whether a building has been built to a high standard. In the latter case, you would look for a good architect with a strong record and probably pay a bit extra (in large developments in any case) to know that your building is well designed as you have an economic interest in having the building built to a high standard. As I have already explained, in archaeology the only economic interest for the client (except in very rare circumstances) is in the discharge of a planning condition; how well it is done cannot usually be ascertained by the paying client, and nor does it need to be in their eyes as they are looking to build something and the archaeological work is a distraction from this rather than a goal in of itself. The only agents who give a value to the quality of archaeological work are curators (explained in detail above).
So, as everyone (I hope) understands, clients will pay more for something if they perceive they are getting a better service or product for it. For instance, in the case of services, better reliability is something which can be worth paying more for. For a company undertaking the work, the more value that is placed (economically) on quality work, the more it is worth retaining staff who work very well and to a high standard. A common way to prevent staff leaving is to entice them to stay with pay rises, benefits etc.... In short, it would make it economically viable to offer higher pay to people who work very well.
Sure, telling RAOs to pay more helps a bit, as do the efforts of BAJR and the IFA, but if significantly higher pay is not economically viable because there is no economic reason to value work of a higher quality it will not happen; companies will negotiate any rises downwards to survive. It is obvious that standards of work and wages are linked, particularly in the service industry in which we work; if people make a company more money due to efficient and high quality work, they will be rewarded in order to retain them, however if quality is not high on the agenda economically, there is no reason to reward high quality work as it makes the company no extra profit.
don't panic!
So, as everyone (I hope) understands, clients will pay more for something if they perceive they are getting a better service or product for it. For instance, in the case of services, better reliability is something which can be worth paying more for. For a company undertaking the work, the more value that is placed (economically) on quality work, the more it is worth retaining staff who work very well and to a high standard. A common way to prevent staff leaving is to entice them to stay with pay rises, benefits etc.... In short, it would make it economically viable to offer higher pay to people who work very well.
Sure, telling RAOs to pay more helps a bit, as do the efforts of BAJR and the IFA, but if significantly higher pay is not economically viable because there is no economic reason to value work of a higher quality it will not happen; companies will negotiate any rises downwards to survive. It is obvious that standards of work and wages are linked, particularly in the service industry in which we work; if people make a company more money due to efficient and high quality work, they will be rewarded in order to retain them, however if quality is not high on the agenda economically, there is no reason to reward high quality work as it makes the company no extra profit.
don't panic!