Paul F Reckner wrote:
>
> Following Tom Wheaton's posting of 5/6/97 regarding the Department of
> Labor's decision on job descriptions and wage rates for the new three-tiered
> archaeological technician system, I pursued the appropriate Internet links
> and found some rather disturbing information.
>
> The archaeological technician's union movement is one of the most
> significant issues in the archaeology/CRM field, yet there has been no
> discussion on the HISTARCH list.  I would like this message to serve as the
> impetus for a dialogue/debate on the economics, morality, and long term
> impact of the current Dept. of Labor position, arrived at largely through
> the lobbying efforts of ACRA.
>
> I will also provide URLs for the relavent on-line documents, allowing those
> who would like to further explore the issue to do so.
>
> JOB DESCRIPTIONS:
>
> Job Descriptions for the three levels of archaeological technician can be
> found on the ESA/WHD Wage Hour Division Home Page.
>
> #29023 Archaeological Technician Lv.I may be found at:
> http://www.dol.gov/dol/esa/public/regs/compliance/whd/wage/p29023.htm
>
> As of 5/12/97, the description read:
> "Under the direct supervision of archaeologcial crew chiefs...[the
> archaeological technician I] performs unskilled and semi-skilled tasks..."
>
>         As a once and future "field tech" I found this characterization
> insulting,
>         inaccurate, and injurious to the field.  How can a position which by
> and large
>         requires a BA in Anthropology and completion of at least one field
> school be            considered unskilled?  The ESA/WHD description goes on
> to list the specific
>         duties of a level I arch tech.  "Walks over project searching for for
>         archaeological materials...excavates...assists in preparation of sketc
h
>         maps...and field photography.  I would argue that all of these are
> skilled
>         tasks.  Obviously, the identification of archaeological materials
> requires prior
>         training and knowledge, as does excavation.  The need for these
> skills is
>         clearly reflected in the common hiring requirements mentioned above.
>
>         One avenue of debate which I would like to suggest follows from the
> glaring
>         contradications in the arch tech I job description.  What are the
> actual bases
>         and motives for the "unskilled" designation?  Will this deskilling
> entail a
>         change in requisite skills for hiring of technicians - will tech I's
> truly be
>         unskilled?  How will this effect employment opportunities for
> Anthropology
>         students?  Further, what will be the impact of an "unskilled"
> workforce on the
>         practice of archaeology, and what sort of chance will these workers
> have to
>         move into the higher-level positions?
>
> My position on these questions is that the deskilling of the archaeological
> technician position has no basis and was intended to reduce wage rates for
> union technicians.  Two things may come of this new system. Either hiring
> and employment practices will remain as they have in the past, and degreed
> "field techs" will continue to be paid at or below "living wage" levels
> despite the presence of a union, or the "unskilled" categorization will be
> taken to its logical extreme and contractors will begin to hire truly
> unskilled, non-degreed workers who have not even experienced an
> archaeological field school.  This could seriously degrade the quality of
> archaeological field work and reduce employment opportunities for trained
> and experienced Anthro. BA's and MA's.  Advancement will be extremely
> difficult for these initially unskilled and undegreed technicians, given the
> educational requirements often imposed on crew chiefs (arch tech II) and
> field supervisors (arch tech III).  There has always been a rift between
> field excavators and report writers/interpreters in the CRM field.  This
> deskilling has the potential to expand this rift into a rigid
> institutionalized barrier.
>
> WAGE RATES:
>
> According to ACRA's proposed wage rate scale for the three-tiered system,
> archaeological technician I wages will be based on the GS-4 pay scale.  See
> Tom Wheaton's 5/6/97 posting and ACRA's Web site:
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wheaton/wagedetermination.html
>
> Approximate rates are presented on the 1997 General Schedule of Pay Tables
> by Locality, found at:
> http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/OHR/Pay97gs.htm#minn
>
>         According to this information, a starting wage for a unionized
> archaeological
>         technician I in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
> NY-NJ-CT-PA
>         region will be approximately $9.00 per hour.  Rates will probably be
> slightly
>         lower for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE
> region, as well as         the Portland-Salem, OR-WA region.
>
>         Another area of discussion I would like to propose would be a
> broader comparison
>         of past wages with the proposed rates.  I would like to hear from
> others who
>         have investigated the rates for their areas.
>
> Based on the above rates, however, it appears that the Department of Labor's
> decision has set union wage rates back to pre-union levels, failing to
> address one of the basic concerns which spawned the union movement - the
> underpaying of skilled, degreed archaeologists working under contract.
>
> DIALOGUE
>
> As I stated at the beginning of this message, I would like this posting to
> be viewed as the opening argument in a dialogue on these issues.  Why do the
> current Dept. of Labor decisions fail to satisfy the union's goals, and how
> will these new categories undermine the doing of archaeology in the CRM
> field?  What can be done to better address the conditions of field
> technicians, respect and reward their skills and education, and yet maintain
> the viability of CRM and the craft of archaeology in general?  Not too long
> ago, Anita Cohen-Williams made a statement to the effect that HISTARCH was
> not a place for political discussions, but was for the discussion of issues
> relavent to the practice of archaeology.  In this case, I think the two mesh
> seemlessly.  I hope this can be a constructive debate.
>
>         I would like to close this message with a quote from a crew chief
> who, when
>         news of the archaeological technician I description was released,
> had this to
>         say:
>
>         "Its bad enough to underpay people, but another thing entirely to
> take away
>         their education."
>
>         Neither should have to be the case, yet the three-tiered system does
> both.
>
> ******* PLEASE POST THIS TO OTHER APPROPRIATE LISTSERVS ******
>
> Regards,
> Paul Reckner
Paul,
I am a third season archaeologist at Fort Drum, NY.  During this time
I,ve earned about 12.00 dollars per hour. I hold a SUNY B.A.  This
degree means nothing considering student loans,children,health issues
and general happiness.  If this is a call for unionization, you can
count me in.  This would certainly upset "fat cats" like Goodwin!
Let me Know,
Randy Amici