Diggers’ Forum response to IfA ‘Statement on archaeological salaries’

This is a brief initial response from the Diggers' Forum to the IfA Statement on
archaeological salaries (10/11/2009). The issues raised clearly warrant further in-depth
discussion. Diggers' Forum looks forward to working with the IfA Executive Committee to
look at ways of implementing improved measures to tackle the poor state of pay and
conditions within the profession.

Discussion of such important and emotive issues should be carried out in a transparent
manner. We would suggest that organisations or individuals proposing drastic change to
IfA policy should state their case publicly on a platform where the wider membership can
gain a clearer understanding of the arguments and have the opportunity to respond
accordingly. We would like to see the IfA facilitate an open discussion by calling an
Extraordinary General Meeting and/or opening a public forum on the IfA website,
specifically devoted to discussion of the salary minima issue within a set timescale.

IfA Council posed itself four questions and drew various conclusions, which are
summarised within the statement. Three DF members were present at the Council
meeting, but their views were not necessarily the same as those reached by the Council
as a whole. The following section presents a Diggers' Forum response to the four
questions:

1) Should IfA be involved in matters relating to the remuneration of archaeologists?

We believe it is crucial the IfA takes a lead role in matters relating to remuneration of
archaeologists. Pay levels are appalling, particularly within the Field sector. The IfA
Benchmarking Salaries Report (2008) identified an increase of 13-53% required to bring
archaeological pay in line with comparable professions. Diggers' Forum strongly
supports unionisation within commercial archaeology, but at present union
representation is limited and fragmentary. We acknowledge that tackling the pay issue
within the competitive-tendering system is a complex, difficult and challenging prospect
for commercial units. However, we see little or no evidence of the necessary
commitment and motivation needed to achieve the percentage increases outlined in the
Salaries Report. We believe that standards of archaeological practice are directly linked
to satisfactory pay levels, with particular regard to staff-retention and the advantages of
maintaining an experienced and highly-skilled workforce. In our view the IfA is currently
best-placed to provide a framework in which pay, conditions and standards of
archaeological practice can be worked on, managed and improved. We would urge all
archaeological contractors, whether within the IfA as ROs or individual members, or
operating outside the organisation, to work with the IfA towards an improved pay
structure.

2) Are the salary minima the best way of effecting improvement?

We believe the best way of effecting improvement is maintenance of salary minima with
built-in annual above-inflation pay increases that work towards the percentage pay
increases outlined in the Salaries Report. The increases should be phased in within set
timetables and ultimately should aim towards the increase at the top end of the scale,
rather than just focussing on 13% at the lower end.
3) Should compliance with salary minima be a requirement of registration?

We believe that compliance with salary minima should be a requirement of registration

and that it should be strictly adhered to. However, we would stress that current IfA salary
minima fall well-short of acceptable pay levels. They should be considered the bare
minimum, a safety-net, and the IfA should introduce phased above-inflation increases
(as described above) at the earliest opportunity.

4) What should any recommended minima be for 2010-11?

In our view, the recommended minima should at the very least include an increase in
line with inflation.