My feedback refers to several points made by earlier contributors to this discussion.
First off, to the question posed by James, “Is it possible that a well-paid crew, loyal to employers they know put their health, welfare, and future first, perform better and help produce products that are good, fast, and cheap?”. Absolutely! My 35+ years in the field have been roughly divided in half between being a hired crew-member on a project basis and being a (relatively) well-compensated staff member of a governmental or academic archaeological program. There is no doubt that having the sense that your employer values your contributions enough to provide a level of employment and financial security creates a greater loyalty and desire to go the extra mile, and a pride that you are not just a hired hand. While I don’t think that the quality of my fieldwork was any different, my attitude towards the work-and how I passed that along to my crews was certainly enhanced. Did this result in a more efficient and thus a more cost effective crew? Probably, at least marginally. While I certainly understand that the competitive contracting environment makes it hard to offer this to all field hands, I think that moving in that direction would go a long way to creating a more sustainable occupation, and trained archaeologists might be able to remain in the profession. While some basic survey functions can be effectively completed by inexperienced staff, it seems a shame when the knowledge and abilities that a highly experienced field archaeologist acquires are lost to the profession because he/she leaves to make a respectable living.
Regarding the salary question, I don’t know what the answer is, but the salaries Carol talk about for Texas archaeologists sound not tremendously different than I earned in that state 20 years ago. That is my concern – the hourly wage offered to field assistants/crew chiefs hasn’t markedly risen from what I was paid in the mid-1980s. The cost of living has certainly increased – gas alone is 2-3 times what it was then. When a trained, degreed and experienced archaeologist isn’t earning much more what an experienced fast food workers, does, there is something wrong with the system. If a landscaper can dig a ditch and get paid $10/hr. for it, shouldn’t a trained educated archaeologist excavating in levels, recording soils, taking scientific samples, doing detailed mapping, utilizing advanced technology etc. receive higher compensation?
I have friends who run private consulting firms, and I know these are not easy questions to address while winning bids and making a living. As a government archaeologist, I am likewise aware of how carefully expenses are parsed out, both for our own work and for sub-contractors. But, it does seem like a whole bunch of intelligent folks ought to be able to arrive at some sort of equitable solution over time.
Just observations from a life spent on both sides of the discussion.
Dan
DANIEL J. LAUTERBUR
ARCHAEOLOGIST
Environmental Services Section
Bureau of Highway Development
Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:58AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Positions Available - Pay
For what it is worth, I have occasional recourse to a quip when my clients try pressuring me: archaeology is like dentistry; rushing it could prove painful.
That said, I've found most of the postings on this subject to be client-focused. It's a little like writing about generals and generalship without regard for the people who actually fight the battles.
Is it possible that a well-paid crew, loyal to employers they know put their health, welfare, and future first, perform better and help produce products that are good, fast, and cheap? Certainly that has been my experience, but I dare not extrapolate from a sample of one, and an admittedly biased sample at that.
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 09/14/13, Boyer, Jeffrey, DCA<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Many years ago, a colleague and friend taught me the basic equation of contracting: "Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two."
This holds whether one is getting a house built or a site dug in front of the bulldozers. I have to say, with sincere apologies to Chico Escuela, "Archaeology been berry berry good to me," but "berry berry good" has not always included a salary equivalent in value (in my mind) to knowledge and experience. I know very few archaeologists who are not or have not been willing to start at the bottom and work up but we all know we'd like to get paid up as we work up.
What most of us run into over and over and over with private and public sector clients is their apparent desire to get all three and, if not, to get cheap and fast. Looking at it from the client side, as that same colleague and friend showed me, what they need and, therefore, want from us is a document or set of documents confirming that their planning and development process met the relevant, necessary legal requirements. As all CRMers know, or better figure out, our branch of archaeology-as-a-profession is a branch created by laws and regulations, without which client-driven archaeology would not be full of grads and post-grads looking for work. An industry created and maintained by laws and regulations has the feeling of being pretty wobbly and justifiably so given the see-saw fluctuations in public political will. We work, those of us on the client-driven side of archaeology, in an industry required by law and regulation and for our clients the ultimate product are those
legal documents that allow them to proceed with whatever they have planned. In that environment, is it any wonder that the primary requirements for selecting some of us over others of us are cheap and fast? Good is great until it impacts cheap and fast in ways that lead to more expensive and slower.
My son, a born entrepreneur if ever there was one, contends that contractors -- he is one, in an entirely different profession, one that I would think would wax and wane a lot with financial vicissitudes but which actually keeps him not only very busy but doing quite well at it -- must set for themselves and for their clients the difference between cost and value. Admittedly, in his profession, good is the primary goal of most clients but cheap and fast are highly desirable. His challenge, then, is to help his clients see that good is not a matter of cheap or fast or a matter separate from cheap and fast, but a matter of value, that there is considerably more value in the expertise and, therefore, the product of someone who is good, and that value is sacrificed when buried beneath cheap and fast. As he tells me frequently (paraphrasing), "Almost anyone can do what I do. Hardly anyone can do it the way I do it. That's my value in the situation. Are potential clients concerned
with the value of my experience and expertise? If so, then they become clients. If not, then they don't. I'm not interested in having clients who aren't interested in the value of my experience and expertise and can't or won't see that value reflected in how good my work is." His mother and I have been very concerned about what appears to be an elitist business model -- "Can you afford to turn down clients?" we have often asked in fear for the security of his business -- but, we have to admit, it works well for him.
The other side of that model is epitomized by those situations, with which we are all familiar, in which contractors underbid all competition and either 1) produce results that are not good, to their own detriment and that of the rest of us, and end up blackballed (and hopefully go out of business or change their ways) because their work is so shoddy, or 2) go out of business trying to do good, cheap, and fast all at once and ending up taking financially impossible losses on contract fees.
Since one can only select two of the three aspects of contracting, and since, with precious few exceptions, pretty much all of us want to do good work, work that contributes to understanding the human past as well as work that provides our clients with their necessary legal documentation, I suspect that my son is right and we must, ourselves, identify value in our experience, our expertise, and our capability, helping our clients understand that value -- contrary to discount-store advertising -- is not found exclusively in cheap and fast, that they get value when we are allowed to work with them to identify what is good and find appropriate, relevant ways to balance that with cost and speed. After all, who knows more about what is good work than the people who do good work? The client might well identify the scope of work but we can and should identify the value of work: we know what it takes, how long it takes, and how much it should cost to generate a consistently good prod
uct and that is our value. If we don't, then it's time to find another profession.
Jeff
Jeffrey L. Boyer, RPA
Supervisory Archaeologist/Project Director Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico
* The Center for New Mexico Archaeology
* 7 Old Cochiti Road
* Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507
* tel: 505.476.4426
* e-mail: [log in to unmask]
"There comes a time in every rightly-constructed boy's life when he has a raging desire to go somewhere and dig for hidden treasure." -- Mark Twain, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
________________________________________
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of ian Burrow [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 11:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Positions Available - Pay
Jim:
I agree with much of that, and it's certainly true that there can be lot less hassle with private sector jobs if you have a good client relationship. Your last two sentences say it all, of course.
Ian Burrow
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 1:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Positions Available - Pay
Actually, Ian, whether the work is largely funded by the public or private sector depends on where you work and the size of the firm. My dining room operation does almost exclusively private sector work. In most cases I submit a three page technical and cost proposal with a fixed cost, and the client signs and returns it. For small firms, the complexities of government contracting often aren't worth the bother. Private work also affords me greater flexibility in how I do the work and the percentage of time devoted to actually doing the archaeology rather than attending meetings and dealing with audits and complex billing procedures. In the end, I can afford to pay crew more than probably any other company in the region while still making a comfortable living. But I reiterate: no conventional benefits and the rate is still well below what I think these folks are worth. Until other companies in the region raise their rates, I can't significantly raise mine.
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 09/13/13, ian Burrow<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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
> >>
|
