Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.
From: Peter Quantock
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 4:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Reply To: Peter Quantock
Subject: Re: Pay rates



"5) Too many students are studying archaeology in university because they
 think it's cool/sexy.  Which may not initially sound like a problem,
but it means we're producing far too many university graduates who are
in turn chasing the same small pool of introductory archaeology jobs,
and are then far too willing to accept a low pay rate if it means they
can find a job in the discipline they love. Introductory archaeology
positions are therefore in the curious position of being filled by
largely middle class individuals wholly prepared to undertake very
non-middle class manual labour at a pay rate often lower than that of
working class construction workers simply because they love
archaeology.  Paradoxically, the very fact that we work in a discipline
that so many people are passionate about therefore has a deflationary
impact on archaeological wages, especially for introductory positions in
 the discipline."

Had anyone told me while studying archaeology as an undergrad that I would be paid so little with no room for advancement without a higher degree, I would have changed my major.  I find it absolutely ridiculous that in order to get paid a decent wage and qualify for any type of advancement (even as a crew chief) that we need to have an advanced degree.  I've worked in the field under crew chiefs and field directors that have that degree but very little experience in the field.  And who do they ask when they don't know what to do? The field tech with more experience making less money.  An advanced degree means more student loans (I don't know any field techs that can pay for a second degree on our salaries!) with the only benefit being maybe a dollar or two extra an hour and still no benefits.  Just because there are so many of us looking for work does not mean we should be paid poorly.


Even though I'm employed for the moment, I look at listservs on a daily basis to see what is out there, where the jobs are, and how much they are paying.   3 weeks of work here and there for $12-$13 an hour is the norm (which is fine if you are fresh out of school with zero experience), $15 as a crew chief if you have a Masters degree.  I've seen the cost proposals that go out and we are billed at an average of 4x that rate! I love my work but it's insulting to all of us who have put in 4-6 years of schooling plus a number of years in the field.  It is hard, backbreaking work to be a field tech and we deserve to be paid accordingly.

Just my two cents on an early morning off before having my coffee! :)


Peter C QuantockMA Candidate
Department of Anthropology
University of Denver



________________________________
 From: Alasdair Brooks <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: Pay rates


All,

I've read the discussion about pay rates with interest, and it's worth noting that this is essentially a global issue.  I've been fortunate enough to work professionally in a mixture of academic, commercial, and museum historical archaeology on four continents (and from this coming Thursday will be adding a Asia to Europe, North America, Australia, and South America), and the observation that archaeologists, especially low-level staff in a developer-funded context, is more or less universal where archaeology is an established part of heritage preservation and development legislation (I add that caveat because to a large extent, this is a First World issue.  In some of the countries where I have contacts, what passes for a professional archaeology community would probably prefer the luxury of having jobs in the first place).

The specific context varies from country to country, as does the relationship between academic and commercial archaeology salaries (for example, I once had a conversation with Pat Garrow where he gently expressed surprise at how much better off UK academic archaeologists were compared to UK commercial archaeologists), but there are some common issues across continents and countries, particularly when it comes to the historical / post-medieval period.  While not specific to periods of economic recession and/or limited growth, as most of us (except perhaps Australians) have been experiencing over the last 5-6 years, several of them are more acute in the latter circumstances.  And I concede in advance that some of the following involves a few oversimplifications in the service of being a little more concise.....

1) Heritage is often seen as a luxury by government institutions, especially in time of recession.  Heritage / archaeology is therefore usually among the first programmes to be cut, or to have its protection legislation scaled back, in the name of economic growth / balancing budgets when there is a recession.

2) While we could all name honourable exceptions (and their existence should be assumed in subsequent references to developers), many developers see archaeology as a costly diversion from the main purpose of development / construction, and few would willingly engage with archaeology unless forced to do so by legislation.

3) As very few developers have senior staff with any real appreciation for archaeological issues, they're naturally inclined to go with the most profitable (for them) lower bids so long as the regulatory requirements are otherwise met.  For many developers, the cost of the statutory heritage requirements is therefore usually more important than the quality of the archaeological team meeting those requirements.

4) The more recent the site, the less likely most developers are to sympathise with the importance of the archaeological component.  This is a particularly acute problem for historical / post-medieval archaeologists.  In the US and South America, an early colonial site will likely be seen as far more intrinsically 'valuable' than a later 19th-century site; in Europe, the prehistoric, Roman, and medieval periods are all seen as far more 'valuable' than post-medieval sites, especially later post-medieval sites.  Australia's in a slightly different position in that so few land-based sites (and virtually none outside of Sydney) predate the 19th century anyway, but even here earlier sites (loosely defined here as Gold Rush and earlier) are generally seen as "sexier" by the broader public; when you can convince said public that the 19th century is worthy of archaeological attention in the first place, that is.

5) Too many students are studying archaeology in university because they think it's cool/sexy.  Which may not initially sound like a problem, but it means we're producing far too many university graduates who are in turn chasing the same small pool of introductory archaeology jobs, and are then far too willing to accept a low pay rate if it means they can find a job in the discipline they love. Introductory archaeology positions are therefore in the curious position of being filled by largely middle class individuals wholly prepared to undertake very non-middle class manual labour at a pay rate often lower than that of working class construction workers simply because they love archaeology.  Paradoxically, the very fact that we work in a discipline that so many people are passionate about therefore has a deflationary impact on archaeological wages, especially for introductory positions in the discipline.

So while arguing for increased pay rates for introductory field and lab positions is all very well - is in fact wholly commendable - I'm not sure it addresses the systematic structural issues that assert a negative impact on archaeological wages across a significant proportion of G-20 nations, and which offer particular challenges for historical / post-medieval archaeology.

Which may not be a particularly cheery thought this Monday lunchtime (I'm at UTC +4), but there you go.

Alasdair Brooks