Pan Europen survey of the profession.

slowburner

'Discovering the Archaeologists of Ireland 2012-2014'.

A project to obtain a picture of the archaeological profession, as it stands today.
Nineteen countries are participating, including Ireland.
http://discovering-archaeologists.eu

RDM_83 again

Considering the state of the profession in Ireland and the role of certain important members of the IAI in exacerbating the situation I'd hope they pass on the full information from the Working Group responses to the researchers or that the researchers themselves have an awareness of the organisation they are dealing with

Aelfric

FYI, the IAI was the organisation which first instigated this study back in 2007, when I was still a Board member. It followed on from a pair of consultation documents produced in 2002, which looked at the projected future need for archaeologists on the island of Ireland, and also developed a profile of the profession. Both of these documents, and more, can be found here:

http://www.iai.ie/index.php/publications/reports.html

Following publication of the first Discovering the Archaeologists of Ireland (DISCO) report in 2008, we were liaising closely with the IfA (UK) on matters regarding training needs and CPD, etc., and they took our DISCO format and applied it to the UK. This was eventually broadened out across Europe, thanks to the EAA.

Be careful about criticising the IAI or its constituent members, Board or otherwise, without knowing the true facts. Since 2008, commercial archaeology in Ireland, and indeed elsewhere across Europe, has suffered severely due to the overall decline in development applications and infrastructure projects. Although things are slowly creeping back, it will be a long time before we see the level of work, or wages for that matter, that we had pre-GFC. I for one don't think it will ever get back to those 2006-8 levels, and wouldn't like to see archaeology as busy as that again, as I think it was unsustainable. Look at the amount of stuff that's unpublished from the 2000-2008 and you'll see what I mean. It was production-line archaeology - great for the diggers, but not so great for us licence holders, where we had just enough time (if we were lucky) to finish our reports and get out onto the next job. When were we to have the time to publish. Our spare time? And don't talk to me about funding (largely non-existent).

So you can whine all you want, about companies taking you for a ride, treating you poorly, paying you poorly. I guarantee they've all been through the same, or worse, at some point. It's unfortunately part of the ritual of being a field archaeologist, rather than an academic or a specialist.

Nor is it easy to run a company in a world of (greatly-increased) competetive tendering, where tendering opportunities are few and far between, and sole-traders can and do undercut the remaining established companies. Those who have survived the GFC have had to diversify, to find new markets. Look at IAC for instance. They opened an office in SE England. Not because they were so rich off the back of poorly-paid diggers, but because they recognised the potential and went for it. Has the gamble paid off? I don't know. Rubicon (ex-Headland Ireland), have opened up an office in Edinburgh, right under the noses of their former parent company, and another two or three commercial archaeology firms. Again, not because they are so flush with cash, but because there's so little work in Ireland that they need to expand their horizons if they are to survive.

Every year, since I started in archaeology in 1991, there have been complaints about wages, about conditions, about hours, about companies, about individual site directors...it's endless. And, having now worked in Ireland, the UK and more recently, Australia, I can tell you that it's universal. Archaeologists complain, no matter where they are, and the complaints are the same.

But, as I said earlier, it's a field archaeologists' rite of passage. It's a cutthroat world, and only the strong survive. It was 8 years before I made it to Supervisor - I had diggers working under me who thought they had a right to do it in 2. They were wrong. There were exceptions, of course, but mainly they didn't have a broad enough experience to lead a small team, and/or deputise for a director in their absence.

What I'm trying to say is, stick with it, if it's what you really want to do. It is a tough gig, and often unrewarding, but then you get the occasional time where you excavate something really cool, and all of the crap leading up to that moment just fades away. Those moments are why, after more than 20 years of 'crap', I still want to be an archaeologist when I grow up!

RDM_83 again

I haven't been working long in the field alright and I know that conditions or pay were never amazing.

But can you not see something wrong in the fact that senior members of the IAI think its acceptable to attempt to employee their staff on illegal or at best semi-legal contracts so they can pay below the minimum wage (the self-employed thing which has since been stopped thankfully due to the intervention of the Revenue!), obviously business owners have to protect their company and maintain profits but doing stuff like that indicates the value they place on field workers and I some how doubt that the people your talking about

Aelfric wrote: »

I guarantee they've all been through the same, or worse, at some point

How much has the IAI membership decreased since the recession, I think its in the order of 10-20%, in the profession as a whole the numbers are down 80%, its pretty clear which grouping the IAI represents.

You mention that the Celtic Tiger archaeology didn't allow time for publication, have you seen some of the length of tenders that have been approved by respectable consultant archaeologists (working for federations etc) and the museum, how can you even produce a worthwhile report when the timescales for the excavation are a quarter of the boom time lengths.
Additionally there's still the same problem about report writing, yes there's time but where's the money?

In terms of sole traders undercutting the more established companies, as I mentioned I haven't worked in the field long but most people I have talked to actually think that the smaller companies offer better pay and conditions than some of the bigger ones (well its impossible to legally offer worse ) and in terms of the recording of sites I have heard some horror stories from some of the larger companies.

Out of curiosity have you worked in Ireland in the last year or two? Because at the minute I can not see how the trends are sustainable for both the companies and the field staff themselves, tenders are shorter and likely to be fixed price with vicious undercutting to the point that its hard too see how any profit is being turned on some of them (and this isn't just the view of myself as a ditch digger!).
The conditions for field workers are unsustainable, its fine talking about the fact that boom time diggers complained about the wages and conditions too but they weren't likely to be financially better off being on the dole particularly if you take into account travel and accommodation costs. The numbers have dropped too such a level that there's only around 140-180 in Ireland which ironically is the only reason I hold out some hope for an improvement.

This may sound like just a long complaint but its motivated by the fact that I would actually like to keep working in archaeology and everyone I have worked with has been great and the companies I've worked for have probably treated the staff as well as they could have within their limited means, but I think criticism of the IAI at the minute is valid particularly since this race to the bottom seems to be led by one company in particular.

PS

robp

Aelfric wrote: »

Every year, since I started in archaeology in 1991, there have been complaints about wages, about conditions, about hours, about companies, about individual site directors...it's endless. And, having now worked in Ireland, the UK and more recently, Australia, I can tell you that it's universal. Archaeologists complain, no matter where they are, and the complaints are the same.

But, as I said earlier, it's a field archaeologists' rite of passage. It's a cutthroat world, and only the strong survive. It was 8 years before I made it to Supervisor - I had diggers working under me who thought they had a right to do it in 2. They were wrong. There were exceptions, of course, but mainly they didn't have a broad enough experience to lead a small team, and/or deputise for a director in their absence.

What I'm trying to say is, stick with it, if it's what you really want to do. It is a tough gig, and often unrewarding, but then you get the occasional time where you excavate something really cool, and all of the crap leading up to that moment just fades away. Those moments are why, after more than 20 years of 'crap', I still want to be an archaeologist when I grow up!

True but this does not mean these poor conditions are acceptable. Field archaeology is contract based and will always have a huge lack of security but a graduate profession should not be at minimum wage. I appreciate that the upper echelons of Irish field archaeology do not desire this situation and are struggling themselves but one really must recognise the situation is injust.

How much has the IAI membership decreased since the recession, I think its in the order of 10-20%, in the profession as a whole the numbers are down 80%, its pretty clear which grouping the IAI represents.

As regards the supposed lack of field assistant representation in the IAI, its almost certainly true but this could change overnight if field assistants just put their money where their mouth is and joined.

Aelfric

I haven't worked in Ireland since 2008, no, but I have kept an ear to the ground, so to speak. I know people who run the few remaining companies, and I know freelance licensed archs., as well as a smattering of diggers, many of whom have drifted off into 'proper' jobs.

Asking people to be self-employed, and then only paying a rate equivalent to minimum wage is deplorable, and I'm not surprised Revenue stamped it out. At least it levelled the playing field again. In fact, as an employer, you cannot dictate the rate at which sub-consultants work, otherwise they are employees.

No, if everyone sticks to their principles, puts their collective feet down, and says "No, we're not working for that," then the companies will be forced to increase pay. But, it needs everyone to collectively agree what the minimum rate is that they are willing to work for. Nothing can be done about the short contracts though, as this is being determined early on in the tender process.

The new system seems to be a bit of a minefield, and I wouldn't relish trying to set up under those conditions. Fortunately, I don't have to.

If you want a bit more stability, try going abroad, if you're able. The UK has been less affected by the slowdown, and while the pay was always lower than the Irish equivalent, your money goes further. Australia is experiencing a period of economic uncertainty, and so the mining boom has levelled off, meaning that there are fewer opportunities for archaeologists. I hear Canada is still pretty lively. Either way, it's great to get experience outside of your comfort zone, and looks good on your CV later on. Investing now in your future will pay off if you want to stay in archaeology for the long haul.

But remember. You have a choice when it comes to work. If you're happy to work for crap pay and bad conditions, then ultimately you've only yourself to blame. If you don't like the situation, fix it. If more diggers joined the IAI (or the IfA), then it wouldn't be just a directors club (which is an accusation levelled since its inception in 2001!). Any organisation is only as good as the sum of its parts. If it's all Directors in the IAI, which I know it's not, then of course they'll get preferential treatment, because the constitution says that it exists for the benefit of its members.

I've said before, and I'll say again, Union membership is folly. If you want to change the IAI, and make it more relevant to 'the little people' (i.e. those without whom an archaeological site couldn't operate), then you have to join the IAI in enough numbers as to become the representative majority.

To quote directly from the IAI website:

"Membership is critical to the Institute to ensure as wide a representation as possible. It is only through an engaged membership that the functions and aims of the IAI can be fulfilled and the profession can evolve.

The IAI represents all sectors of the archaeological profession. That is why we call on all professional archaeologists to join together and work with IAI in reaching goals that we all have a stake in."

According to the most recent newsletter (Summer 2013), membership stands at 304, but only 12% were Student or Graduate members, as opposed to 81% Full members. So if you were running the IAI, who would you mostly cater to?

When I was on the Board, I tried a number of things to increse membership of the 'junior' grades. Some intitiatives were shot down by some more narrow-minded, long-in-the-tooth members, and others were just unsuccessful due to a general disinterest among the masses. The biggest complaint seemed to be (and probably still is) "There isn't any benefit to me" or "what would I get out of it?" Well, you get out of it what you put in to it.

Lobby the IAI for a Practitioner grade, at €50 per annum, like what the IfA have. It's illogical to keep forcing people to make the jump from €40 to €100 after 3 years at Graduate level. I can pretty much guarantee that there would be a significant increase in membership if this was introduced. But, it didn't happen back when I first suggested it, because of a few sticks-in-the-mud dinosaurs, who couldn't see past their own egos.

The new groups setting up to represent the under-represented will fail because they are just ideals. It won't mean anything to anyone who matters. If 100 diggers can get together under an umbrella to shout spite at the IAI, then those 100, and their friends, can petition the IAI to make it relevant to them by making a Practitioner grade available, with full voting rights.

Do it. I urge (dare...) you.

slowburner

I can't see the way the the IAI is going as a bad thing. If indeed it is genuinely going towards broader representation. I believe it is and one thing is for sure - broader representation certainly won't happen if people treat the body with suspicion and stand off.

If we were to take an overview of the profession in its brief history it could be perceived as going through three distinct phases:

1. The Clique Phase: a small group of well educated, well connected and sometimes brilliant authorities.
2. The Post Clique phase: when the authority of the clique diminished and archaeology established a wider pool of experience, particularly in the universities - C.J.Haughey achieved much in this regard (Dúchas etc.)
3. The Commercial Era/Celtic Tiger: well, we all know how that went.
4. Post Celtic Tiger: obviously, where the profession will go is pure conjecture but there are, in my humble, signs that archaeology could arrive at a more solid footing then in the period leading up to phase 3.

There is a strong argument that pay should reflect education. Education is an investment after all.
The money is quite simply not there at the moment - there are very few fat cats licking the cream, certainly in private companies.
(Does anyone have any information on how many companies are still trading by the way, or how many have gone to the wall?)
Everyone from the ground up is struggling - much the same as almost every other profession really.
Pay will never match phase 3 again but is up to the profession's members to ensure that there is some recognition of the value of the work and to support each other in achieving a reasonable rate of pay and decent conditions.
One of the bugbears of archaeology has been the failure to publish - this is not a Celtic Tiger phenomenon, it existed long before that and we would do well to remember Liam Price's admonition that 'excavation without reporting, is simple destruction' (or words to that effect).
The best chance of achieving this is with the IAI - at this time. The alternative is to remain outside the process or set up splinter groups and that gets nobody nowhere fast.

Gee Bag

Hi Aelfric,

You probably already know much of what's in this post, I'm just putting this up for general discussion and for me to have moan rather than anything else.

Aelfric wrote: »

Asking people to be self-employed, and then only paying a rate equivalent to minimum wage is deplorable, and I'm not surprised Revenue stamped it out. At least it levelled the playing field again. In fact, as an employer, you cannot dictate the rate at which sub-consultants work, otherwise they are employees.

I think other posters are referring to a certain company which was making site staff become self employed and were paying less than the minimum wage, €300/week for site assistants!

I thought this was just a rumour at first, but I've heard it from (very experienced) friends who were offered work at this rate.

No, if everyone sticks to their principles, puts their collective feet down, and says "No, we're not working for that," then the companies will be forced to increase pay. But, it needs everyone to collectively agree what the minimum rate is that they are willing to work for.

But remember. You have a choice when it comes to work. If you're happy to work for crap pay and bad conditions, then ultimately you've only yourself to blame. If you don't like the situation, fix it.

The problem with this is that registered employers agreements (REAs) have been found to be illegal in Ireland....
[PHP]http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/industrial_relations_and_trade_unions/employment_regulation_orders_and_registered_employment_agreements.html[/PHP]

Because of the above there is no longer any real method to force employers within an industry to pay a certain rate.

The transitory nature of site work and the frequent turnover of people in the profession has always led to many seeing their career in archaeology as being temporary.

Professional archaeology in Ireland has never had any real collective bargaining by employees. Large companies are always going to find enough staff, be they graduates looking for experience or experienced people who are desperate for work.

Some of the large companies are without a doubt better than others, but at the minute they are all forced to submit tenders at bare minimum levels in order to keep work coming in.

I've said before, and I'll say again, Union membership is folly. If you want to change the IAI, and make it more relevant to 'the little people' (i.e. those without whom an archaeological site couldn't operate), then you have to join the IAI in enough numbers as to become the representative majority.

Unfortunatley, I have to agree with this. I have no idea if there is still an archaeological section in SIPTU. Back in the early 2000s there was a drive to get archaeologists to join the Union, but it was hamstrung by the fact that so few people actually joined up.

Field archaeologists definitley need to join the IAI in greater numbers in order to make their voice heard. The IAI currently a working group on pay and conditions, but to be honest, I don't hold out much hope that it will lead to any real change.

It's hard for companies to find experienced site staff at present as so many have found alternative employment or have simply given up as they are not prepared to move to ballybollocks for 5 weeks to work for crap pay. I know quite a few people who have turned down work as they want a clean break from archaeology so they can just move on and have some stability in life.

To be perfectly honest, the only way I can see pay increasing is if the law of supply and demand kick in if/when the economy picks up. By this stage Irish archaeology will have lost nearly all of a generation of highly experienced and efficent field workers.

RDM_83 again

slowburner wrote: »

I can't see the way the the IAI is going as a bad thing. If indeed it is genuinely going towards broader representation. I believe it is and one thing is for sure - broader representation certainly won't happen if people treat the body with suspicion and stand off.

Well according to some people I have talked to the motivation isn't due to any desire for an increased field worker participation but rather due to some external sources of funding non longer being available so they are more reliant on membership dues though this may be people just being cynical.

The Pay and Conditions working group is a positive, but it remains to be seen what will happen with the results and if anything can be achieved by it.
The field worker survey part of it was missing some important questions such as "are you a permanent company employee" (though I may be misremembering this), I think the number of questions was limited to ten while the other surveys for companies and specialist were more detailed (I am sure somebody can confirm this but I heard it was 25 questions for the company survey).
Note I'm not saying that the members of the working group aren't motivated to make positive changes but rather doubting their ability to do so within the IAI

Aelfric wrote: »

But remember. You have a choice when it comes to work. If you're happy to work for crap pay and bad conditions, then ultimately you've only yourself to blame. If you don't like the situation, fix it.

True but in the short term its not that feasible, if you turn up to the Social Welfare Office and tell them you turned down work because the conditions are too bad you won't get far or you can leave the profession (in my limited experience you get work by hearing about jobs at work and being willing to take up work instantly).

Gee Bag has mentioned first that JLC's are now illegal which creates another barrier.

Gee Bag wrote: »

I think other posters are referring to a certain company which was making site staff become self employed and were paying less than the minimum wage, €300/week for site assistants!

I thought this was just a rumour at first, but I've heard it from (very experienced) friends who were offered work at this rate.

Whats boards.ie policy are we allowed to mention the company and who its owner is and his other roles considering its pretty relevant to the discussion both in relation to the IAI, pay and conditions and the current situation with tenders or is it entering dodgy legal territory.

slowburner wrote: »

There is a strong argument that pay should reflect education. Education is an investment after all.
The money is quite simply not there at the moment - there are very few fat cats licking the cream, certainly in private companies.
(Does anyone have any information on how many companies are still trading by the way, or how many have gone to the wall?)
Everyone from the ground up is struggling - much the same as almost every other profession really.

True but hasn't there been an attitude to field staff that precedes the crash even involving things that would have been of fairly minimal cost. What annoys me personally is that certain individuals will present themselves as caring deeply about the actual archaeology but "wearing a different hat" will sign of on things that are deeply harmful to the actual archaeology (and I would not be a crusty protester type).

Aelfric wrote: »

I've said before, and I'll say again, Union membership is folly. If you want to change the IAI, and make it more relevant to 'the little people' (i.e. those without whom an archaeological site couldn't operate), then you have to join the IAI in enough numbers as to become the representative majority.

Can you explain why you think the union route is flawed, there's only a small number of active field workers in the country now and at least Unions have experience with solving problems in relation to conditions even if their ability to act on pay is restricted. Even if half the workforce was unionized an achievable target considering the numbers it would make blacklisting much harder
And even if the IAI became more representative do you think it would change company behaviour especially as you point out the membership of the IAI stands at 300 and there's only maybe 150 field workers left in the country.

I know I sound very negative about field work but perhaps that because I didn't start out in archaeology and am slightly mystified about how such a highly educated workforce has had such a poor run in actually being a profession even though I was aware of the issues before I started out.

PS if any company people are reading this is just a vent

slowburner

{I don't see a problem with naming companies. I would just ask that any mention is supported by fact and evidence. There is no margin here for vindictiveness, or any form of personal vendetta.}

A recommendation has been made concerning this.
Given that evidence cannot be supported adequately, companies should not be named.

Gee Bag

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Well according to some people I have talked to the motivation isn't due to any desire for an increased field worker participation but rather due to some external sources of funding non longer being available so they are more reliant on membership dues though this may be people just being cynical.

The Pay and Conditions working group is a positive, but it remains to be seen what will happen with the results and if anything can be achieved by it.
The field worker survey part of it was missing some important questions such as "are you a permanent company employee" (though I may be misremembering this), I think the number of questions was limited to ten while the other surveys for companies and specialist were more detailed (I am sure somebody can confirm this but I heard it was 25 questions for the company survey).
Note I'm not saying that the members of the working group aren't motivated to make positive changes but rather doubting their ability to do so within the IAI

The IAI would be more than happy for more people to join and give a broader membership base to the organisation. There shouldn't be an us and them attitude. Some of the CPD courses in the last few years have been great. Its up to individuals to join so they can have a say about how their professsion might evolve rather than grumbling about it on site.

Whats boards.ie policy are we allowed to mention the company and who its owner is and his other roles considering its pretty relevant to the discussion both in relation to the IAI, pay and conditions and the current situation with tenders or is it entering dodgy legal territory

It would be for the reason highlighted in bold.

Can you explain why you think the union route is flawed, there's only a small number of active field workers in the country now and at least Unions have experience with solving problems in relation to conditions even if their ability to act on pay is restricted. Even if half the workforce was unionized an achievable target considering the numbers it would make blacklisting much harder

The union route was tried in the early 2000's, and those who lead the drive to unionise made a fantastic effort but very few people made the transition from talking about joining to actually joining. At the time a lot of people were scared to join in case they would be blacklisted, I never understood why people would think this.

The IAI's predeccesor, IAPA had come up with pay rates for archaeologists (in the late 90s I think) but they weren't mandatory and rarely payed.

And even if the IAI became more representative do you think it would change company behaviour especially as you point out the membership of the IAI stands at 300 and there's only maybe 150 field workers left in the country.

The IAI is a representative body for all archaeologists - academic, public sector, companies, fieldworkers and amateurs. They can facilitate discussion but they can't impose pay rates.

Companies have to compete with one another for contracts, in this archaeology is no different to any other commercial work. Archaeology is very labour intensive, the single main factor influencing pricing is labour. If there was an increased cost to clients because of an agreed labour rate the profession could very well be accused of operating a cartel. At the minute that seems to be the main outcome of the court ruling that REAs are not legal.

I know I sound very negative about field work but perhaps that because I didn't start out in archaeology and am slightly mystified about how such a highly educated workforce has had such a poor run in actually being a profession even though I was aware of the issues before I started out.

I think the lack of cohesion among workers is because archaeological field work is a profession where the potential supply of labour hugely outstrips the number of possible sustainable jobs. The transitory nature of the work ( by which I mean the constant moving around to new sites) and the enormous turn over of field workers (by which I mean both the frequency of people entering and leaving the profession) mean it is very hard to organise as a labour force.

To my mind, the only alternative to waiting for the construction industry to pick up would be to sweet talk the state into funding research excavations in order to keep experienced workers in the profession and give graduates the oppurtunity to get site experience.

RDM_83 again

Gee Bag wrote: »

The union route was tried in the early 2000's, and those who lead the drive to unionise made a fantastic effort but very few people made the transition from talking about joining to actually joining. At the time a lot of people were scared to join in case they would be blacklisted, I never understood why people would think this.

I heard of those efforts and I have heard of the blacklisting from a few different people, some people think its a myth others are fairly certain it did happen to some workers. I am not really sure what I believe myself personally though I do know of of at least one case recently (not on a site I worked) where some one became "surplus to requirements". At a guess I don't think it takes much too happen for there to be a big chilling effect, like after I posted last night I wondered if it was too negative and if I was easily personally identifiable.

I think the us vs them attitude exists for a valid reason, if your a temporary field worker you do not have any significant stake in a company or even in the post-exc process of the sites you have worked on.

Look at the Cherrymount Crannog, the initial staff were working for a company that aside from damaging a very important site were in effect harming the fieldworkers too by running on such a short time scale, What happened after the controversy and campaign AFAIK few of the original field staff were retained while there has been no negative consequences for the company initially involved or those that signed off on the plans.

Gee Bag wrote: »

Companies have to compete with one another for contracts, in this archaeology is no different to any other commercial work. Archaeology is very labour intensive, the single main factor influencing pricing is labour. If there was an increased cost to clients because of an agreed labour rate the profession could very well be accused of operating a cartel. At the minute that seems to be the main outcome of the court ruling that REAs are not legal.

Ironically thats actually a good argument for why the IAI route can not effect any meaningful change as the fact that there is such a large representation from the "upper levels" of the company means that the accusation of being a cartel can be easily leveled, a more field worker based grouping or one that involved a union would not face this same obstacle

Gee Bag wrote: »

I think the lack of cohesion among workers is because archaeological field work is a profession where the potential supply of labour hugely outstrips the number of possible sustainable jobs. The transitory nature of the work ( by which I mean the constant moving around to new sites) and the enormous turn over of field workers (by which I mean both the frequency of people entering and leaving the profession) mean it is very hard to organise as a labour force.
.

Yes but historically thats also true for the construction industry and even during the boom I don't think archaeologists wages and conditions approached that of the construction crews on the same sites.

At the minute I am not sure that the industry is that hugely oversupplied and though I think the influence of social media is often overstated its presence is an aid to organization particularly when the numbers are so small.

Gee Bag

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I heard of those efforts and I have heard of the blacklisting from a few different people, some people think its a myth others are fairly certain it did happen to some workers.

What I meant in the original post about blacklisting was the fear of being blacklisted. Having worked with a lot of different companies over the years I'm 100% certain that there is no such thing as an industry wide blacklist. Personally, I don't know of anyone who has been refused employment for reasons other than gross incompetence, laziness or being a complete nutter.

I think the us vs them attitude exists for a valid reason, if your a temporary field worker you do not have any significant stake in a company or even in the post-exc process of the sites you have worked on.

I aappreciate where your coming from here. The way I see it, if you've qualified from third level and your working on site then you should consider joining, even if only to make your voice heard regarding pay. I also think the IAI should open up to people without a qualification but who have sufficent field experience. Some of the best field archaeologist I've worked with have no qualifications but have an apptitude for the work and on the flipside of that some of the worst site workers I've met are very highly qualified.

Ironically thats actually a good argument for why the IAI route can not effect any meaningful change as the fact that there is such a large representation from the "upper levels" of the company means that the accusation of being a cartel can be easily leveled, a more field worker based grouping or one that involved a union would not face this same obstacle

There is nothing the IAI can do to force a minimum wage level.

Archaeological companies don't act in concert with one another, they are competitors, and some have long-standing animosities with one another. Even if all the large companies were to agree a minimum wage level in principle there would always be the danger when it comes to tendering for a big job that someone would be sneaky and base their costs on a wage rate lower than what had been agreed.

The notion that a minimum wage level could be seen as a cartel would have been easier to refute prior to the supreme court judgement about REA's.

Yes but historically thats also true for the construction industry and even during the boom I don't think archaeologists wages and conditions approached that of the construction crews on the same sites.

The construction industry suffered from a severe shortage of skilled labour throughout the boom, hence the high wages.

I'm still going to stick with my original argument that the supply of labour in archaeology far exceeds demand. Up to 2004 wages for archaeologists had been improving as demand for archaeologists increased. After the ten new members joined the EU in 2004 a new supply of labour became available to meet that demand.

At the minute I am not sure that the industry is that hugely oversupplied and though I think the influence of social media is often overstated its presence is an aid to organization particularly when the numbers are so small.

It's certainly not oversupplied at the minute, it's difficult to get experienced staff and the duration of contracts at present is quite short.

As for the social media aspect, you are probably right that it would help as an organisational tool, just as long as people don't become afraid that liking something on facebook won't get them blacklisted!!

robp

Gee Bag wrote: »

What I meant in the original post about blacklisting was the fear of being blacklisted. Having worked with a lot of different companies over the years I'm 100% certain that there is no such thing as an industry wide blacklist. Personally, I don't know of anyone who has been refused employment for reasons other than gross incompetence, laziness or being a complete nutter.

I aappreciate where your coming from here. The way I see it, if you've qualified from third level and your working on site then you should consider joining, even if only to make your voice heard regarding pay. I also think the IAI should open up to people without a qualification but who have sufficent field experience. Some of the best field archaeologist I've worked with have no qualifications but have an apptitude for the work and on the flipside of that some of the worst site workers I've met are very highly qualified.

There is nothing the IAI can do to force a minimum wage level.

Archaeological companies don't act in concert with one another, they are competitors, and some have long-standing animosities with one another. Even if all the large companies were to agree a minimum wage level in principle there would always be the danger when it comes to tendering for a big job that someone would be sneaky and base their costs on a wage rate lower than what had been agreed.

The notion that a minimum wage level could be seen as a cartel would have been easier to refute prior to the supreme court judgement about REA's.


The construction industry suffered from a severe shortage of skilled labour throughout the boom, hence the high wages.

I'm still going to stick with my original argument that the supply of labour in archaeology far exceeds demand. Up to 2004 wages for archaeologists had been improving as demand for archaeologists increased. After the ten new members joined the EU in 2004 a new supply of labour became available to meet that demand.

Over supply or undersupply, I don't think its the only important factor. Undersupply certainly helps boasts wages but the scale of a profession allows collective bargaining and influence. Look at how high Gardai and teachers salaries rose during the boom. Where they ever suffering from difficulty recruiting.

Gee Bag wrote: »

It's certainly not oversupplied at the minute, it's difficult to get experienced staff and the duration of contracts at present is quite short.

Thus in theory we should see salaries rise but that is not how its working.

Gee Bag

robp wrote: »

Over supply or undersupply, I don't think its the only important factor. Undersupply certainly helps boasts wages but the scale of a profession allows collective bargaining and influence. Look at how high Gardai and teachers salaries rose during the boom. Where they ever suffering from difficulty recruiting

.

That's like comparing apples and oranges. Permanent public sector jobs are very different from temporary private sector jobs.

Private sector collective bargaining in Ireland is pretty much non-existent. While workers are free to join a trade union there is no obligation on the employer to recognise the union.

Thus in theory we should see salaries rise but that is not how its working.

There is very little demand for site workers at the moment, there are very few large sites being excavated.

slowburner

I am impartial in this but felt it should be shared here.
http://unitetheunionireland.org/sectors-2/roi-construction-sector/archaeologists-in-ireland/

Cailleachdubh

Aelfric wrote: »

I haven't worked in Ireland since 2008,

I think you'll find it was February 2009...;)