Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 22 May 1997 18:25:21 -0700 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Thanks to John McCarthy for his response re: the archaeological technician
issue.
I'd just like to comment on two of his points:
It is clear that the Dept. of Labor's job description and wage rate
decisions were the result of input from many sources, including other
government agencies. ACRA was hardly the only player and it was not my
intention to single them out.
The first posting does not, I believe, cast this as a "labor vs. management"
issue. My overall interest in opening this discussion is to explore both
the impact of the present standards on the field as a whole, as well as on
the ability of fieldworkers to earn an equitable wage.
I feel, however, that ACRA's lobbying efforts, including the circulation of
a petition to its member-firms attesting to the unskilled nature of the
archaeological technician I position, had an impact on the Dept. of Labor's
decision. This was the gist of Tom Wheaton's original announcement.
John's statement that "firms will pay what they need to to attract good
skilled workers..." is true to a point. However, in terms of free market
economics, firms will pay as little as they have to to attract good skilled
workers. This is commonly perceived as "good business." I realize that
this generalizes actual conditions - I have been in situations where
employers offered far more than was "necessary," and I have also been
seriously underpaid. I think most people have experienced a full range of
employment conditions. I'd like to hear what people see as the possible
effects, from all standpoints, of an established livable wage for fieldworkers?
Finally, I do not want this to become a "flame war" nor do I think that this
is inevitable. It will be in no one's best interest to create a bruhaha.
Hope that's spelled correctly.
Regards,
Paul Reckner
|
|
|