Sorry Ian...I disagree with your suggestions entirely. I don't think they are bad ideas, I just don't think they do anything in the near future for technicians.
In my experience, agency archaeologists have little sense of what technicians are paid and I've never noted any concern on their part. I don't see how paying them more and providing greater benefits will promote their concern for technicians, particularly those in the private sector. In fact, their insistence on large matches for agency grant funds demand large commitment of volunteer labor. I work with volunteers all the time, but assuming work can be done by cadres of volunteers and reports can be completed by students does little to promote professionalism and even suggests a lack of respect for the skills and experience of technicians.

I don't see how RPA status improves the condition of those who do not qualify for that status. Lots of very good work that meets or exceeds published standards and practices relies on the talents and commitments of technicians paid rates that barely exceed those of retail clerks, who also do not make a living age.

I'm not a member of ACRA and can't speak to the association's priorities, but I suspect their membership is limited largely to owners and managers...not technicians...and the raising of rates is a secondary concern, if it rates that highly.

Agencies, RPA, and ACRA have been around awhile: I don't see that they have done anything to improve technician rates, and their lengthy agendas do not put those increases first and foremost. Unfortunately, a strong technician organization devoted to meeting its members' needs probably will not emerge any time soon. So, the change has to come from elsewhere. That would be us.

Jim
 
 
 
James G. Gibb

Gibb Archaeological Consulting

2554 Carrollton Road

Annapolis, Maryland USA ?? 21403

443.482.9593 (Land) 410.693.3847 (Cell)

www.gibbarchaeology.net ? www.porttobacco.blogspot.com
 
On 09/25/13, [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
I repeat my previous suggestions:
Lobby first for properly paid, experienced and qualified, well-supported and
correctly graded archaeological reviewers in Federal Agencies and SHPO's who
will hold everyone's feet to the fire and end the cycle of inadequate work that
gets accepted simply because there are inadequate resources and will to deal
with it.

Lobby to get RPA declared a requirement for Principal Investigators working on
Federal and State reviewed projects, and expect RPA to discipline or expel those
who violate the standards that they have undertaken to uphold.

Support ACRA's efforts to promote ethical behavior in CRM, including the decent
treatment of all employees.

I think we have some institutions here that can make a difference if we use
them.


Ian Burrow





On September 25, 2013 at 8:23 PM Ed Otter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Crm has always been a race to the bottom. Cheapest guy wins the work. Pay
> less. Do minimal work. Cut any corner possible like hiring "consultants" to
> avoid social security, unemployment tax and workers comp. If the people
> bidding for work value our own profession so little we will never be able
> raise our pay rates.
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
>
> Jim <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >Fellow HistArchers:
> >A friend alerted me to DougsArchaeology postings on pay rates.:
> >
> >http://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/how-much-archaeologists-make-usa-2012-fieldlab-tech/
> >
> > http://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/archaeology-job-conditions-us/
> >
> > As I understand it, his numbers derive from posted job listings in 2011 and
> > 2012. While subject to a variety of biases, those numbers approximate what I
> > think most technicians experience: a wide range, but generally in the range
> > of $13 to $15 per hour. California's rates, although possibly a little
> > higher, aren't that far above the newly enacted minimum wage rate of $10
> > (still not close to a living wage).
> >
> >Ethically and practically, we need to change this situation. Hardworking,
> >talented archaeology technicians should earn salaries commensurate with their
> >education and the value that they bring to commercial projects. It is the
> >right thing to do and it will help insure a talented pool of individuals are
> >prepared to meet the demands of the industry.
> >
> >I'm committing to an increase from $150/ 8-hour day (including at least half
> >the travel time for field projects) to $160/day for all projects awarded
> >after December 1, 2013. If I have projects, I expect a raise to $200 per day
> >beginning January 1, 2015. For those already paying technicians at these
> >levels, great...keep pushing them higher. For those who don't, please make
> >the commitment to improve rates in your region. Education is only one measure
> >of the esteem in which we and others hold our field: levels of compensation
> >and a sincere regard for the health and welfare of our assistants, backed by
> >action, are equally important.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >James G. Gibb
> >
> >Gibb Archaeological Consulting
> >
> >2554 Carrollton Road
> >
> >Annapolis, Maryland USA ?? 21403
> >
> >443.482.9593 (Land) 410.693.3847 (Cell)
> >
> >www.gibbarchaeology.net ? www.porttobacco.blogspot.com