On the popularity point, it is sad to see so many talented graduates out
there looking for CRM work.

An observation on the UK/US situations:  It's a weird irony that in the
ultra-capitalist U.S. it is the government sector that still undertakes such
a large part of the CRM work, while in the (to some eyes) "socialist" UK,
the requirements on the private sector, which seem from here to be the
answer to everything, have proved not to be so.  Nothing is perfect I
suppose.

Ian Burrow

-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of PETTS
D.A.
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 11:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Positions Available - Pay

This is a subject that has resonance this side of the pond too, where we
also face the joys of competitive tendering for commercial contract. With
commercial archaeology essentially a sub-contractor of the construction
industry, the financial woes of the recent years has seen a decreasing pool
of work resulting in redundancies and as a consequence an increased pool of
workers chasing jobs with the consequent downward pressure on wages..

It is perhaps this that is at the heart of the problem- archaeology is a
popular profession, there are a lot of people chasing a relatively small
number of jobs; combined with competitive tendering there is no incentive or
need to pay decent salaries.

The Institute for Archaeologists does have pay guidelines- but these are not
compulsory, and there are some practical reasons for companies to adhere to
them (for example, our leading fieldwork jobs site will not include adverts
for positions paying less than these guidelines). 

I agree though that pay and conditions is something that should be regularly
mentioned and tackled. Of course, we all know when we go into archaeology
that we are not going to make millions, but an enthusiasm and love for our
profession should not mean we accept shoddy working conditions and pitiful
salaries. At a wider level, long-term poor salaries is not good for the
profession - it means that there is an on-going talent drain as good workers
leave the profession in their late 20s / early 30s. And on a wider level,
its about us having self-respect as a profession- CRM archaeologists are
professionals, the same as architects, civil engineers, environmental
specialists, planners etc- yet, it is no uncommon to be on sites where the
highest paid person is the behind the wheel of the JCB

David

________________________________________
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of
[log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 13 September 2013 16:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Positions Available - Pay

I am pleased to see this subject being raised.  I suppose, however, somebody
may soon decide it's inappropriate for this site, people will flounce off
the list, and discussion will be terminated.  It's a pattern. I will not
make or respond to ad hominem attacks or other abuse.
Dr. King must be wondering what she did to bring this all down, but it's
touched a nerve.The truth is that archaeology and CRM wages are lousy for
most people,
and particularly for those trying to break into the career.   I'm not
qualified
to comment on academic research grants, but I do know something about CRM.
 Although we would all like to believe that quality of work should be the
main criterion for clients when selecting CRM companies, we all know that
money talks.  This is especially disheartening in the case of those Federal
clients who always make noises about balancing various factors in order to
get "the best value for the Government", but who (as many of us can attest)
very often go low-bid anyway.  Of course this tends to be even more
pronounced in the private sector.  In such an environment employers cannot
set company wages so high as to price themselves out of the market.  If they
want to remain in business, that is.

So what can we do?  One thing CRM companies cannot do is to get together to
fix wages and prices.  That is illegal, and rightly so.  There are however a
couple of other avenues.

One would be to encourage Federal agencies (who essentially can fix wages)
to use Service Contract Act wage determinations as much as possible.  In my
experience these are usually higher than prevailing CRM rates for a given
area, at least for lower pay grades.  This has the effect not only of
putting more money in people's pockets, but also of leveling the
playing-field as far as proposals are concerned, in that level and quality
of effort are able to take a more prominent role in decision-making. A
knock-on effect may be seen through the industry as a result.

The other route is better quality control.  The Federal archaeology program
in the U.S. depends very heavily on State Historic Preservation Offices to
ensure that work meets specific standards.  Federal agencies do not have to
agree to SHPO requirements, but most of them reflexively do.  So we need
really strong, well-resourced, Historic Preservation Offices. They need to
be systematically staffed by highly qualified, experienced, and
realistically paid, CRM professionals who are at professional grades in
their State governments high enough to command political respect.  With
those conditions in place we would, I think, see a greater insistence on
high quality work.

What does high quality work require? Skilled people, effectively managed.
What do skill and effective management command? Higher remuneration.

Please do not take this as a denigration by me of people who currently work
in HPO's. Those in the HPO's I'm familiar with are highly dedicated to what
they do, are horribly overworked, underpaid, sometimes subject to political
pressures, and sometimes, I suspect, find their work frustrating and
under-appreciated.  What I am suggesting is that we look into ways to raise
their profile and authority so that poor quality work, done at cut-throat
costs, is a thing of the past.

Two other things:

If you are qualified to Register as an RPA, please do it.

If your CRM firm isn't in ACRA, please consider joining.


Ian Burrow




On September 13, 2013 at 9:35 AM Daryl Armour <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I wanted to change the subject title so as not to pull Julia King's 
> initial email into the wrong direction. I am not trying to bash anyone 
> here, but these are just my observations and thoughts (shooting from 
> the hip with little coffee). Also, first post on the list,
>
> print( "Hello World!" ):
>
> Its unfortunate, but its an ever more reoccurring trend within CRM. 
> When you think about it, it shouldn't come as a surprise when you hear 
> people speaking out about the uselessness of Anthropology at the 
> public/governmental level (for example Governor Scott). We have been 
> undervaluing people with a BA, and in some cases up to an MA, in our 
> own profession for so long I feel it was only a matter of time before 
> it began to be mirrored in the policy-makers sentiments. I couldn't 
> say I know the cause for this as I have nowhere near the amount of 
> years put into this profession as most on this list. On one level, you 
> have those who paint Archaeology with a romantic brush, on the other 
> hand, one can then look at those within the lower levels of CRM who 
> can barely afford to pay their bills, nor have the opportunity to get a
house or raise a family.
>
> I am not saying that money is everything, and I hate that response to 
> anyone who discusses money and archaeology, of course everyone should 
> do what they find fulfillment out of and that is why all of us are 
> here. But shouldn't you at least expect to have a "normal" life in 
> which you can actually pay your bills and go out to eat once in a 
> while? I can only assume at SOME (not all) academic and private-sector 
> levels, its the big business mantra of "Efficiency! Efficiency! 
> Efficiency! Profit! Profit! Profit!" coming through, mixed with "make the
best out of what you've been given."
>
> There, I said it, please don't blacklist me!
>
> On Sep 13, 2013, at 12:53 AM, Richard Lundin wrote:
>
> > Julie:
> >
> > That is ridiculous! With the new proposed MINIMUM WAGE + benefits + 
> > required employer supplied healthcare they could do better at McDonalds.
> > This is a waste of the time and money getting a BA\BS in 
> > Anthropology\Archaeology. When I am asked how to get into 
> > archaeology, I say DON'T!- UNLESS YOU HAVE AN EXCELLENT MATH AND 
> > SCIENCE BACKGROUND AND CAN GET INTO ARCHAEOSCIENCE (I.E. 
> > ARCHAEOGEOPHYSICS, ARCHAEOCHEMISTRY OR FORENSIC ARCHEOLOGY!
> >
> > My Two Cents!
> >
> > Richard J. Lundin BA, MA, RPA, ISAP, AIPG Consulting Historical 
> > Archaeologist & Archaeogeophysicist
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, King, Julia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear HISTARCHers,
> >>
> >> St. Mary's College of MD is searching for a Project Archaeologist 
> >> and crew
> >> (3) for a major survey focused on documenting Piscataway Indian 
> >> landscapes in Southern Maryland. More information about the 
> >> positions can be found at this link: 
> >> http://www.smcm.edu/hr/employment.html#assist_arch. The positions 
> >> will remain open until filled. The project begins on or about October
15.
> >>
> >> Julie King
> >>