Ian.  You make very good points.  Before this conversation is cut  off, I 
would like to add that while using wage determinations may be a good  thing, 
I question how often the agencies requiring them pay attention  to whether 
companies actually follow the law in this regard.  While I  cannot speak with 
authority as to whether contractors have,basically, ignored  such 
requirements, I have experience with many, many bids requiring such.   In many cases, 
the winning company's costs were so low that, in my opinion, it  would not 
be possible to properly, or even adequately carry out the work AND  follow 
SCA requirements.  
 
I presume that the Labor Department is responsible for following up on  
whether the SCA is followed, but I do not know how that works, whether there 
are  intermittent audits or they are so busy that not much of anything is done 
 in this regard.  It makes it very difficult, however, for companies  
trying to uphold the law on wage determinations and do good  archaeology, to stay 
in business.  This conversation should spill over into  the latest GSA 
announcement about changing their policies regarding  costs to increase 
"fairness" in their schedule system.  
 
Mike Polk
Sagebrush Consultants  
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 9/13/2013 9:11:20 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

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
>  >>