At 08:08 AM 5/27/97 +1000, you wrote:
>Mail*Link(r) SMTP               Skilled or Unskilled
>
>I too have heard the arguement that it is difficult enough to justify doing
>archaeology without actually expecting someone to pay for it and to some
>degree I can sympathise with the view. But on the other hand the alternative
>seems to be to devalue my professional skills learnt through my education and
>experience over 15 years.
>
>Nobody seems to expect engineers or architects to cost virtually nothing. The
>problem is that everyone seems to think that they can do archaeology (ie dig
>up old bottles or read old books) without understanding the skills all of us
>have.
>
>The best response I heard to this issue was from a colleuge who told an
>interfering engineer that she "was going to strat designing reinforced
>concrete  rail tunnels as the archaeology field was getting too crowded with
>him in it!
>
>Iain Stuart
>University of Sydney
>
>
I think Iain has hit the nail squarely on the head.  The tacit assumption
behind such calls for unity is that the lowest echelons of the field are
expected to bear the economic burden of maintaining the viability of the
trade in times of fiscal crisis (real or imagined).
 
The argument most often used by employers is that when wages go up, the
final cost of the product will inevitably increase in equal proportion.
This of course presupposes that net profits are not negotiable.  I would
argue that if one is truly concerned about justifying the rising cost of CRM
archaeology to the public and contractors, one needs to look at disparities
in the remuneration of field technicians versus salaried upper-level
management.  Why should the onus of keeping the field afloat not be shared
at both ends (or all levels) of the pay scale?
 
 
The same "pass the buck/call for unity" argument is at the crux of ACRA's
petition to the Dept. of Labor.  While it begins by characterizing the arch.
tech. I position as unskilled (despite obvious skill requirements in the
actual description of responsibilities), it then goes on to argue that the
above "unskilled argument" must be accepted or the cost of CRM archaeology
will become impractically high for those who must utilize contract firms.
The deskilling is argued in expressly economic terms and the same implicit
assumptions discussed above are being used:  If we are forced to pay out
higher wages we(the management) will not allow this to impinge on our net
profit - we will pass it directly on to you, the customer.  Specifically,
the many government agencies who are often required to comply with federal
preservation laws.
 
Many of these agencies were involved in negotiations with the Dept. of
Labor, but we have not heard directly from them regarding their position on
this issue.
 
 
 
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS POSTING INTO A PRE-PETITION PETITION, IF YOU WILL.
 
Would all those interested in contributing to a petition to the Dept. of
Labor demanding that they reconsider the recent archaeological technician
job descriptions and wage rates please POST A MESSAGE TO MY PRIVATE ACCOUNT
(DO NOT REPLY TO THE LISTSERV) at [log in to unmask]  I will use these
responses as a mailing list only, and will forward the text of the actual
petition, when it is written, for your consideration before affixing your
name to it.
 
 
********PLEASE POST THIS MESSAGE TO OTHER APPROPRIATE LISTSERVS***********
 
 
 
Regards,
Paul Reckner