Hi All--

I have tried to resist chiming in on this subject, but foolishly I'm giving
in with the full expectation of being slammed.

First, I fully and completely agree that archaeologists in general are
poorly paid and unappreciated.  Commercial archaeology is a cutthroat
industry rife with low ball bids which directly affect what we pay people.
I also fully agree interns should be paid--the few interns we have had in
25 years have been put on the payroll--admittedly at the bottom of our pay
scale.

But I also think there are some misconceptions out there about how the
business end of cultural resources works.  First, there's the "huge"
overhead rates.  CRM firms are routinely subject to audits by state and
federal agencies which require that every penny that comes into the
business and every penny that goes out must be thoroughly explained and
justified.  In addition, there's the IRS.  Even a small firm like ours
submits at least a 1/2-inch of paper every year, again justifying every
penny in and out.  Overhead rates are set based on the figures provided in
audits and tax reports, therefore they are strictly limited by what can be
justified.  And clients will argue with those rates and demand
reductions--some government agencies specify up front what the overhead
limits are.  Overhead is what pays for:  the space we work in, the
utilities, the equipment, the supplies, liability and workers comp
insurance (huge--both of them), the company match for social security and
medicare, vehicles, any benefits we provide (match for health insurance,
ira or pension plans), but most important and most expensive--all manhours
not spent on project time.  That includes holidays, sick time, personal
time, vacation time, secretarial/accounting services, marketing time, and
we-have-no-work-but-want-to-keep-you-on-the-payroll time.

Second, there's profit.  Again--audited with clients regularly quibbling
over it.  For most firms, profit is calculated at 10% of the project cost.
And no, it does not go directly into owners' pockets.  Profit pays for
employee bonuses (we have given them every year, even when things are
tough), employee training, attendance at conferences and meetings,
charitable contributions (yes, I know they are tax deductible, but they
don't happen if there are no profits), periodic lunches or other food
treats for employees, etc.  In addition, profit only happens when the
project is successfully completed within the contracted budget
amount--often not the case.

Third, there's the matter of owner/management salaries.  Someone said these
salaries are 10X those of workers.  I wish!  Look at the biannual ACRA
salary survey (which includes academics and agencies) to get a more
realistic idea.  We are not paid the type of salaries that engineers and
planners and architects make.  A lot of us in private industry don't even
make what federal and academic archaeologists earn.  And when business is
bad--as it has been many of the past 5 years, we often have severely
reduced salaries, if any--particularly if we own the business.  Our feeling
at our company is that if we have to give up our own salaries to keep the
doors open, then that's what we do.  And I know a lot of other CRM firms
where the upper management has had only partial salaries throughout this
tough economic era.  I've spent a dozen years heavily involved with ACRA,
and I do not know anyone in ACRA who has gotten rich through the CRM
industry.

So why do it?  It does give us the opportunity to be involved in the most
active area of archaeology and occasionally to work on some really cool
projects and do some real research--as well as sometimes save a valuable
resource.  And where else are we going to get an archaeology job?  Or an
architectural history job for that matter.  There are few academic and
agency jobs out there every year.

But the bottom line is that it is not just the field and lab archaeologists
who are underpaid and under appreciated.  It goes all the way through our
field.  Look at Florida's governor--who infamously said we don't need any
more anthropologists (even though his daughter has that degree--or maybe
because?).  And compare the salary of an archaeologist with an MA or Ph.D.
to any engineer, architect or environmental professional.  We're way, way
below them in salary.

I apologize for the rant and the lecture.  Bring on the attacks--I'll just
stop opening my email for a week or two :-).

Lucy Wayne
SouthArc, Inc.

On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Jim <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Tobias:
> I've been running my own archaeological consulting business for about 25
> years.
> Pay rates influence the costs of a project; however, mark up (or
> multiplier, or overhead and profit, or whatever term we use to distinguish
> the direct cost of labor from all of the other costs) has the greatest
> influence. If we charge 200% on salaries...pay labor a certain amount, but
> charge clients twice that amount...we have a price for the project. If we
> think that price is not competitive, the inclination is to keep the
> multiplier but reduce the pay rate. In short, the people who do the work
> get less rather than the employer taking less. Or so goes the calculation.
> In fact, the more we charge for labor, the more we make. The limiting
> factor is the market where competitors will cut rates of labor (but not
> necessarily of overhead and profit) to win contracts. What we need are
> commitments, backed by ethical considerations, to fair wages that insure
> that we pay technicians their value, based on education and skill and
> experience, but also on what they contribute to the financ
>  ial success of a project. I've cited some hourly and annual rates in
> previous postings that do not translate well outside of the USA and that
> require some adjustment in this country to account for regional differences
> in cost of living. So I'll put it this way: the typical rates paid
> technicians in the USA are about 50% higher than a high school graduate
> without any higher education can make in a retail shop or restaurant.
>
> I'm not advocating a socialist approach to the business of
> archaeology--although I'm more than willing to discuss the
> possibility--just fair and ethical treatment of the workers without whom
> there would be no business of archaeology. Treating these folks like
> professionals also raises the stature of the entire field, which will help
> when professional organizations promote legislation and establish higher
> standards of ethics and practice.
>
> In the United States, there is a great deal of resistance--well, open
> hostility--to government interference in private business, the assumption
> being that the invisible hand of the market will make whatever adjustments
> are necessary. If that same hand smacks labor in the face, so be it. In the
> USA, the commitment has to come from the businesses themselves. In a way,
> that's great because the private sector should not move at the glacial pace
> at which government typically works. However, our field's attempts in the
> USA to correct unfairness in offering internships and in paying fair wages
> has matched government in the slow pace in which it has taken up these
> issues and in which it has been correcting them. Let's hope for better in
> Brazil and elsewhere around the world.
>
> 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 09/28/13, Tobias Vilhena<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Carol and Jim!
>
> In BRazil, during the last 15 years, the archaeologists have been trying
> to get the legal recognition of Archaeology as a profession.
>
> Nowadays, IPHAN is the public administration (linked to the Culture
> Ministery) responsible to approve and manage (surveil) any kind of research
> related to archaeology: 'scientific archaeology' or commercial archaeology
> ('contract archaeology', is the term that is currently used here). As a
> public institute IPHAN can not tell how much a work cost, and essentially
> say if a work is well done or not and what you have to do to correct it.
>
> According to the national recommendations to excavate any place you have
> to be an archaeologist. To proove that you have to show if you get a
> Graduation or Master Degree or PHd in Archaeology. Therefore, most of the
> archaeologists (even the technicians) in my country has an acadhemical
> background.
>
>
> Therefore, It depends on the complexity of your excavation to know how
> much will cost your work. And the archaeologists have to negotiate that
> subject directly with the entrepreneurs.Â
>
> In short, as we do not have a federal regulation on that nor a federal
> cost table, frequently is really complicated to the entrepreneurs to
> measure the distance of a good work and its financial cost.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tobias Vilhena
>
>
> ________________________________
>  De: Carol McDavid <[log in to unmask]>
> Para: 'Tobias Vilhena' <[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask]
> Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 27 de Setembro de 2013 15:00
> Assunto: RE: Pay rates
>
>
> I suppose that answers my question!
>
> Tobias, the conversation is about pay rates for field technicians
> (excavators) working for commercial archaeology firms here in the USA. I
> was curious what sort of pay issues might be of concern to people outside
> the US who are also working in commercial archaeology.
>
> Not sure if this was part of your question, but in case it is --- RPA is
> the "Register of Professional Archaeologists" (http://www.rpanet.org/ )
> and ACRA is the "American Cultural Resources Association" (
> http://acra-crm.org/ ).
>
> I answered your query because it was addressed to me, but I am sure that
> other listmembers will be able to put this conversation in a wider global
> context better than I.
>
> Regards,
> Carol
> *****************************
> Carol McDavid, Ph.D.
> Executive Director, Community Archaeology Research Institute, Inc.
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Rice University
> Secretary, Society for Historical Archaeology
> Co-editor, Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage (
> http://www.maneypublishing.com/journals/cah)
> 1638 Branard
> Houston, TX 77006
> www.publicarchaeology.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Tobias Vilhena
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 12:31 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pay rates
>
> Hi Carol !
>
> I'm an archaeologist from Brazil (working at IPHAN) and some parts of this
> conversation are very difficult to understand. It will be very interesting
> if someone could explain about this subject...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Tobias
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> De: Carol McDavid <[log in to unmask]>
> Para: [log in to unmask]
> Enviadas: Quinta-feira, 26 de Setembro de 2013 17:31
> Assunto: Re: Pay rates
>
>
> Well done, Jim, for putting your money where your mouth is! I applaud your
> willingness to commit now to raising your workers' salaries, and to noting
> that part of the problem has to do with the overhead and profit rates
> charged on salaries.
>
> With respect to Ian's comment in an earlier email, which advocated that we:
>
> Â Â Â Â "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."
>
> Perhaps if the latter part of the sentence was more true (and if the
> "standards" included best practices for pay and benefits), the first part
> of the sentence would make some sense. Until then, I will not support the
> idea that everyone has to join RPA to work as a PI. We probably do need
> some sort of vetting process to push overall salaries up (as I noted in an
> earlier comment about how architects and engineers are licensed). But right
> now, RPA is not adequate for that task.
>
> My two pence (speaking of pence…how does this conversation translate to
> overseas contexts?).
>
> Carol
>
> *****************************
> Carol McDavid, Ph.D.
> Executive Director, Community Archaeology Research Institute, Inc.
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Rice University
> Secretary, Society for Historical Archaeology
> Co-editor, Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage (
> http://www.maneypublishing.com/journals/cah)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pay rates
>
> Ed,
> I don't wholly agree. Unfortunately, I can't wholly disagree.
> Like you, I've been at this awhile. Seems to me the real costs are in:
> (1) Number of technician and lower management hours, more than the rate
> for those hours, an investigator estimates will be necessary to meet the
> requirements of a particular phase of work on a particular project;
> (2) The overhead and profit rates charged on salaries;
> (3) The number of upper management hours and rates; and
> (4) The number of upper management hours devoted to tasks related to
> working with agencies and clients...meetings that are unnecessary and
> contribute little or nothing to the efficacy of the study.
>
> I don't pretend to have all the answers, but commitments to paying higher
> rates will benefit all. Reigning in profit and upper management rates that
> are 10X those of the people who actually do the work will help reduce the
> impact of sharp increases in technician rates. Serious efforts at promoting
> career development for technicians and mid-level staff also can be done
> inexpensively and, in the long run, worth more than marginal increases in
> salary and greatly enhance the value of more significant raises.
>
> 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, 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
>



-- 
Vice President
SouthArc, Inc.
3700 NW 91st Street, Suite D300
Gainesville, FL 32606
(352)372-2633, fax (352)378-3931, toll free 1-888-707-2721
www.southarc.com