24th February 2008, 01:01 PM
Hi everyone,
I had an interesting debate yesterday about, surprise, surprise, how to improve pay and conditions. I know there are several curators here and I'd like to ask your opinion. The main query was, as the IFA (and BAJR) stipulate pay minima and govern professional standards, why is there not a strict stipulation on archaeological planning conditions that all work must be carried out by an IFA RAO? Thus empowering the IFA to police the profession (and giving a real penalty to organisations struck off the list for whatever reason).
One of the reasons put forward for not doing this was the 'closed shop' argument, which was countered by examples of similar bodies governing other professions such as the General Medical Council, The Law Society etc.
It seemed too simple a solution - there has to be a fatal flaw in this argument, but not having curatorial experience I can't see it. Can you enlighten me?
DISCLAIMER: This is NOT criticism, I would simply like to further my understanding of the issue.
I had an interesting debate yesterday about, surprise, surprise, how to improve pay and conditions. I know there are several curators here and I'd like to ask your opinion. The main query was, as the IFA (and BAJR) stipulate pay minima and govern professional standards, why is there not a strict stipulation on archaeological planning conditions that all work must be carried out by an IFA RAO? Thus empowering the IFA to police the profession (and giving a real penalty to organisations struck off the list for whatever reason).
One of the reasons put forward for not doing this was the 'closed shop' argument, which was countered by examples of similar bodies governing other professions such as the General Medical Council, The Law Society etc.
It seemed too simple a solution - there has to be a fatal flaw in this argument, but not having curatorial experience I can't see it. Can you enlighten me?
DISCLAIMER: This is NOT criticism, I would simply like to further my understanding of the issue.