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:

		"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