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 sketch
        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