Happy news is that in teh UK... after websites such as this (well ok... BAJR) sticking the boot in... making a stance and getting a fair deal... there are fewer complaints about Pay and Conditions... its not perfect.. but its not BAD... so come on ... if this site, shovelbums and any others get together and refuse to publish adverts where the pay is taking the p##s things will change... not might change... but WILL change...

It worked for me... and I put my business on the line for it...

!

Unfortunately I don't think something like that would work over here. There are waaaaay too many places where employers can, and do post job adverts... Just a few I can rattle off - Shovelbums, and of course archaeologyfieldwork.com, the various e-lists (ACRA-L, ARCH-L, HISTARCH, regional and specific lists), AIA, About.com, SAA, other archaeology organizations, eculturalresources, not to mention all the employment search engines like America's Job Bank, Monster.com, Careerbuilder.com, etc... I think the likelihood of even a few of these banding together to argue for pay guidelines is slim to none, and employers would simply go elsewhere to advertise.

As webmaster of this site, I feel that it is my job to pass along any and all relevant position listings that I might run across, regardless of pay or advertised conditions. The individual has the choice of whether they want to take a crappy project making little more than minimum wage, or whether they want to hold out for something more reasonable in line with their education and experience. The reality is that there are a lot of people in this field who will work for next to nothing, and they have their reasons for doing so, whether it is a bid to get their foot in the door and acquire experience, or whatever it may be.

In our case, I think the problem of low pay in CRM is a lot more complex, and this has been addressed in a few message threads here on the site. Unfortunately there aren't any easy answers.

Anyway, this is just my opinion...

Jennifer,

I second your point of view.

I think, and this is by no means an insult, that BAJR has missed some subtle, but powerful (ya, it's a contradiction) differences in the cultures of GB and the USA, primarily the insistence of independence within systems and actors in the US, and the vast difference in scale of our two countries (the largeness of the US exacerbating the sense of independent imperative). The net result being what Jennifer has pointed out above.

I agree with Jennifer and FireArch. There is absolutely no way to "banding together" the various employment job posting sites here in the USA on the web to accomplish what BAJR has done in the UK. Some of these sites such as America's Job Bank, Monster.com and Careerbuilder.com list thousands of jobs of every type of occupation and the archeo/anthro jobs are just a fraction of a fraction of 1% of the total job postings on those sites. Those sites have absolutely no incentive now or ever in the future to single out our profession to assist us in some sort of a campaign to raise wages.

FireArch raises a very relevant point regarding the differences between the job market here and in the UK. What has worked there is not applicable to here.

The key to getting employers to start paying better wages is for field techs to stop applying for crappy low paying jobs. As long as companies offer low wages and as long as field techs apply and get hired on to those projects, the employers have no incentive to raise the wages. Supply and Demand.

Several months ago there was a company that had a fairly large upcoming project and was in need of several field techs (I think it was 20 or 25 field techs but can't remember exactly). The pay rate was pretty low, I think it was less than $11/hour, but the "stumbling block" so to speak was that the per diem was a receipts only plan. This company posted for this project several times over a 2 or 3 week period. It appeared, based on the numerous job postings (which were re-posted on this site) that only a very small number of people applied for the positions. It was not until this company switched to a flat rate per diem rate-with no receipts-that it was able to fill all the positions they needed, which they did within a week or so.

The point is this: This company had to change "something" in what they were offering the potential employees and in this case, they changed their per diem plan from a receipts only to a flat rate. The reason they did this is because no one was applying for their project. It would seem to follow that if people stopped applying for the crappy low paying jobs in this biz that the employers would have to start offering higher wages if they wanted to continue in business: without field techs they could not undertake a project.

I have worked with many, many field techs over the years who sit around and bitch about the low pay they have received at other jobs and yet they continue to work for those low wages: Catch-22.

The question posed at the beginning of this thread was "how much do you think you are worth in this field?". A legitimate question and one I have not seen posted here before. And I have to admit it is a question that has perplexed me. What am I worth? Or anyone else for that matter.

I, as I am sure most people out there, would like to be paid more. I am salaried and have benefits (health, dental and vision insurance plus 401K), which is uncommon in the private sector of this business. Where I live the cost of living is below the national average and my pay affords me a living standard that is not too bad compared to other college educated working adults in my community ( several of my college educated friends make at or below what I make here and never get per diem). I make enough to pay the rent and the bills and have some left over to spend as I please ( and I sometimes go over board with that!).

I get a raise every year too. However, my contribution to the health, dental and vision insurance goes up every year and pretty much wipes out my annual pay raise, and my employer pays nearly 70% of the total cost of those benefits and so they also have an increase in their insurance costs per employee--which is considerable.

So to answer the original question posed for this thread, I would love to be paid 25-30% more but in reality what I make now is pretty good for where I live. It's the yearly increase in my contribution to the insurance benefits that is eating away at my pay stub (and yes, all of you relatively new field techs, if you are offered insurance benefits you have to pay a part of that cost, just like everyone else working in hundreds of other occupations). My employer has little control over that.

It is an expense facing workers from all occupations across the country.

Fair points all... I take it on the chin :D

I played a more subtle game with folk.. where once people did advertise jobs in the Big papers and internet job services... but I kept at it until the place where real archaeologists looked for jobs was BAJR... and employers realised if they wanted to reach archaeologists they would have to advertise with BAJR .. soon the papers were empty.. the other jobsites no longer had these posts (at least the digging jobs) as it just cost too much to advertise on these sites... and I was both cheap and reliable .. plus a job on BAJR meant you could trust it... as I had made sure the employee was protected.

I do understand what you say about the scale of US v little UK... but unless you can control a certain aspect OR find an organisation that you can force into setting minimum pay levels ... then you are sc###ed

I took the liberty of looking at the other job sites you mentioned..

America's Job Bank Ceased Operations: July 1, 2007

Monster.com : 3 jobs –
Cultural Resources Principal Investigator (senior consultant position)
Archaeologist (Full time senior post)
Sr Archaeologist Principal Investigator (senior consultant position)

The lists are a problem – like Britarch – but less and less people use them – I can’t remember the last time a job was posted on Britarch…

AIA – (5 posts)

Assistant Professor of Classics and Archaeology
Tenure-Track Maritime Archaeology Position
Director, West Central Region; Program Planner Analyst
Principal Investigator, Project Director, Project Manager
Lecturer

eCulturalResources is a chip off the old block! They have a chance to bring in criteria… at the moment free as well.. just like BAJR was. Before it became a full time job

My point is… Only you – eCultrural and Shovelbums actually advertise the jobs that cause so much concern… the bottom of the heap the shovelbum the field tech…

So its not too much to get together … all the others advertise senior posts (and not many at that!) In the UK I have on average 30-40 live jobs at any one time… so you would expect more in the USA … being bigger?

3 groups… that’s more manageable … the other alternative is … just accept a crap wage…

I don't understand why what worked in teh UK does not apply in the USA? It did not apply in the UK till BAJR gave it a go...

the stop applying for crappy jobs never worked here though... peopel would always say... don't apply... but when the belly rumbled.. you still found yourself applying.... it needs a top down sustainable approach ... the AIA could be invited to comment... to put together a panel? the 3 fieldtech advertising sites could put a stop to low paid jobs being advertised overnight... where else would they advertise a shovelbum job?

Still... its up to you... as you say... you know the USA better :lol: and I would probably get pi##sed off if you told me to do that in the UK

:lol:


good luck....

the stop applying for crappy jobs never worked here though... peopel would always say... don't apply... but when the belly rumbled.. you still found yourself applying....

In my case... Of course there have been times when I've applied for jobs that were paying less than I would have liked to have ideally made. However, I have never applied for something with an advertised wage that has been insultingly low (and sadly, yes, some recent adverts fall into this category IMHO). There have been times during my tenure in CRM when I've actually chosen to do something else besides archaeology for awhile just because the money wasn't there, and it didn't make economic sense. I don't think I could swallow my pride enough to take a job paying what was the going rate when I started 13+ years ago, no matter how much I missed being in the field...

I still think that any chance for change is going to come through another avenue. Unfortunately I think you're assigning these websites a little more power than they actually wield in this regard.

Nothing ventured.. as they say.... thats what people thought about BAJR (in fact I was a bit shocked about what power BAJR had)

even today I have told a company it could not advertise at a rate that fell below... their choice... but short of spending a lot of money... and not even getting near the people who are looking for the jobs... what can they do??

I can only find Field Tech jobs on the three sites... so where else would the companies advertise...? and anyway... unlike BAJR, you would not be risking a business? I stood to lose my main income..

It may be worth talking to the others? ya never know... even for a bottom line deal that all 3 will not go below...? in the UK the minimum is £14260 - agreed by all...

there are no other avenues... when you look back over the posts over the years... it comes back to the stick and the carrot... and you hold the stick as well as the carrot :)

BAJR,

No doubt we are impressed with how things have changed in favor for the field tech in GB. A few years ago a similar effort was made when a group of folks banded together to form the UAFT. After a lot of effort on their part they got the federal employment law changed to recognize what was an archaeological field tech, and got the UAFT associated with a fairly powerful union, and it was almost entirely undone when a group of CRM consulting companies banded together to form ACRA, which then made it a point not to hire UAFT members or others that had similar tendencies. Like this example, should AFW.com, eCulturalresources, Shovelbums. and others band together to restrict job announcements - particularly by making the announcer pay - then the employers will find another outlet to circumvent the restriction.

It would be interesting for me to contact them – as an individual/BAJR to ask their position on pay and conditions with regards to the UK situation, and if they have considered setting minima either nationally or more realistically , by state.

If they represent the employer (like our SCAUM Standing Committee of Archaeological Unit Managers) then they should have a statement… which shows an intent to provide a clear guidance on treatment of employees.. (like the RAO – Registered Archaeological Organisation status required by the IFA. - You must comply to a raft of requirements from employment, pay and work guidance )

Just a thought -

Or should I just butt out?

J

Thanks for filling me in on the history… as it sounds like there was a real move that may have been scuppered… interesting

You are certainly welcome to. I wish we had standards and guidelines in place for what minimum qualifications should be met for positions at various levels, and what corresponding compensation should be. Other threads on archaeologyfieldwork.com have discussed this, and one of the models suggested for this has been the U.S. federal GS guidelines.

If you do decide to contact them, please keep us apprised of any response you receive.

Unfortunately I've also watched efforts by the UAFT lose steam and peter out through the years. When I was in college, I heard of the UAFT and thought it was a fantastic idea, and sent in my $20 membership, though never heard from them again.

In my experience, folks who have talked about unionizing and lobbying for higher wages haven't received the best reception at their respective CRM employers. I can recall one couple from NH who were very vocal about this on one particular project, and the company moved quickly to let them go. It's amazing that someone can be laid off for "lack of work", yet someone else is hired quickly to take their place the next day when work seemingly pops up again.

I used to work with a person who was involved in an earlier effort to unionize field techs and obtain higher wages. Due to her efforts of trying to stir up the pot, she ended up being effectively blacklisted from working in CRM for over three years, and she is very bitter over the experience. There are honestly a lot of people who are very supportive of the idea of a union and banding together for better pay, but many are afraid of the same kind of thing happening. Without us having any minimum standards in place of how qualified field archaeologists must be, there is nothing to keep a firm from letting go a problem employee and hiring someone right out of school... or someone with zero experience, for that matter.

The issues at hand are certainly multifaceted, and as many have pointed out, there is definately not an easy answer or quick fix. A lot of us have talked this to death here on archaeologyfieldwork.com over the years, and I'm still waiting to see a suggestion that looks like it might have a chance of changing an entire industry. I love archaeology, but I think personally that I've gotten a tad jaded from waiting for things to improve through the years and seeing wages backslide.

From what I have seen discussed here over the past couple of years, it occurs to me that the whole CRM better pay apple falls apart on one thing---a sense of victimization by CRM firm owners and managers.

Let's look at this just for a moment and focus on the word "victim." It reminds me of one of those Mayan frescoes where the head of the city state is decked out in all of his regalia while captured foreign warriors sit on steps just below him, nearly naked, with pleading looks on their faces, and both hands cupped together towards him to catch the forward pass of salvation. You believe that the CRM firms have all of the power and that you have none. Therefore, your only chance for a better paid future is to plead with them for mercy. Moreover, you believe that your financial salvation can only come from within the ranks of everyday CRM employees---that your only chance is for some messiah at this level who will rise up, buck the system, and deliver you. However, you are simulateously convinced that this will never happen because the potential messiah lives under the constant threat of "blacklisting." I think you folks have been living in a box and are quite unfortunately thinking solely within the confines of that box. You need to get out of the box. The answer is not in pleading with CRM firms to be merciful. The answer is not there. The answer lies outside the box and outside your own ranks. You consult with outside experts in labor relations and organizing. You hire lawyers. You create targeted and long-term plans to manipulate the sociocultural environment within which the CRM firm has to operate. You find a way to starve it of oxygen until it begs for an opprotunity to breathe. In my opinion, this can be done. You just have to look at your situation from a William Wallace perspective.

You consult with outside experts in labor relations and organizing. You hire lawyers. You create targeted and long-term plans to manipulate the sociocultural environment within which the CRM firm has to operate. You find a way to starve it of oxygen until it begs for an opprotunity to breathe. In my opinion, this can be done.

To some extent, I believe this approach was tried by the UAFT, though honestly I am not familiar with all the details. Maybe someone here can fill us in on what exactly happened with the UAFT, and why it seemed to crash and burn?


However, you are simulateously convinced that this will never happen because the potential messiah lives under the constant threat of "blacklisting."

There are people on just about any crew who complain about the low pay, but don't argue for higher wages out of fear of rocking the boat and being perceived as a troublemaker. That's just a fact.


The answer is not in pleading with CRM firms to be merciful

Absolutely. Why would someone want to pay more if they didn't have to? Why would anyone, as a business owner? It is interesting to note that some of the people in positions of influence at CRM firms who may be able to dictate higher wages did start out as techs making peanuts. These folks have "been there", so to speak, and if they aren't pushing for better wages for their crew, who would be their advocates? (Of course there are exceptions to every rule, and I've seen this at some companies).

I've never thought that simply pressuring CRM companies would achieve higher wages. I still believe that the answer is related to there actually being some sort of standards employed for those working in field archaeology.

As long as companies are able to hire any schmuck off the street to dig a hole (or as one of my former employers asked for me to fill a crew with "warm bodies"), there is no incentive to raise wages. If there was a system of standards in place where firms had to employ a certain percentage of skilled individuals based upon the types of projects, and these individuals had to actually meet criteria based upon experience and education (kind of like a lower-level SOI guidelines for field crew?), it would be a different story. As an example, if you were required to have a certain percentage of your crew meet the requirements to be, say, a Field Technician III with so many years of experience, it would be a lot harder to offer $10 an hour to these folks. We all know that many people get out of field archaeology after so long (I believe the old stats from the UAFT stated that people usually stay working in the field from 6 months to 3 years before they move on to something else). With this in mind, it is plausible to state that the number of field crew with a lot of experience is much smaller than the number of folks who have just graduated from school. It would be harder to find these skilled field crew, and this alone would likely drive up wages for the more experienced folk.

However, if things seem to be working now, and companies still get the projects done (and money made) with the current system, why any impetus for change? Even if a large number of field techs banded together (which is something that never happened with UAFT) and asked for higher wages, I don't think it would make that much of a difference. You would still see crews in the field that had enough experienced people on them to somehow pull it together (at least as far as making the final report look good), and the remainder of the positions filled by whoever they could hire... that is, all the kids right out of school who are more than willing to work for peanuts just for the perceived privilege of being an archaeologist... and also the ranks of the "day laborers" who have had zero education or experience in the discipline. And let's be honest... in many cases, it really is a matter of the final product looking good. How many of us have worked on projects where bad archaeology was practiced because of poor management and a largely inexperienced crew, and have seen a glorious report come from it?

I've been waiting for wages to improve for field crew since I started doing archaeology, and, if anything, it seems to be getting worse (with a few exceptions here and there). I don't see anything changing anytime soon.

Wrote to President of ACRA .. still waiting for reply.

will keep you informed.

I have simply asked about stance of organisation re Pay and Conditions, in relation to professionalising the profession :wink:

The first email of 5th December has had no reply..

sent another today.

Email has been read...

so await reply

BAJR, Jennifer and All,

David, personally I was amazed at how you and your fellow limeys managed to get everyone organized and effectively change things in the UK. Truly the stuff of legend (and example) for field techs world-wide.

Jennifer- I think BAJR has a point if you and R.Joe (shovelbums) set some standards up you would have 75-90% of the serious field techs covered. It would take too long for most of us company owners to promote our own system. If you both could combine that kind of push from your end with a "training/qualification organization" movement based out of something like the RPA we could get a serious start on getting organized. The training/quality aspect is much more palatable to company owners and would be the real back-door to a better pay scale.

As for ACRA, BAJR I don't think you have a chance. Its the CRM company lobbying organization in the US and so is focused on lobbying their priorities. None of which involve higher pay for their staff. I'm a member and discussions tend to focus much more on "quality control" and "training" when it comes to field techs, not much on pay. I think Jennifer has the ACRA majority point of view down when she says "the work gets done with the status quo-why change?".

My two cents,

RH

Brave words and true...

I will wait for a week and see what comes... to ignore it is to show that they have no stand and to publice that ... I certainly hope they do... as I have been polite and non-contravercial... so lets see.... do they have a policy or not??

BAJR

I am not surprised you have not heard back from ACRA yet, not because I think they are ducking you, but because of the nature of the organization (loosely affiliated individuals) and the time of year - with everyone scrambling to get as much as possible done before the Winter really sets in. Also, they just changed presidents a few months ago and the website still has the wrong person listed. Did you write to the new Prez - Michael Polk? (sageb@sagebrushconsultants.com)

For a bit of history on the whole issue you can look at some material archived on their website:

1997 - http://www.acra-crm.org/wagedetermination.html
1996 (Salary summaries) http://www.acra-crm.org/crmstats1996.html
and a lot more if you search around.

Again, the bottom line comes down to how much can a firm charge for a job and still get it - and often it is the Non-ACRA firms that do the lowball bidding. I understand the thought process that says "ACRA blackballed union talkers" but in reality, the ACRA companies I know personally have all tried to get better wages for their workers - but when they bid out projects at better rates, they have difficulty even winning contracts.

- and FYI - I am not a member of ACRA - nor can I join since I work in a gov't position - but I do think that they can be an agent for change in the industry - even for better wages if they can be cultivated properly.

DM

Thanks for all that... most useful.

I did right to new prez.. and secretary...

You are right about the time of year and loose conglomerate.. and how that acts... I guess I just expect a
YES we do have a stance ... here it is.... OR
NOwe don't ... naff off/ we must look at it in the new year (delete as applicable! )

My question was a basic one, asking if they do have a stance, and if they accept that well paid well trained staff are essential to a professional organisation.

I don't want to annoy them... far from it... though I do like replies though :wink:

Now I have to sit down and read all teh back story... always good when discussing something!

as it happens I am about to leave a Govt agency .. phew.... Freeeee free at last.... (2 days a week was too much for a wild rover like me)

ps... I note that more and more the pay offered is listed as Dependant on Experience ... I do love that one... :) my other fave is competitive or good rates of pay

tell ya what... if they are that good... why not let me know? As if they are that good, then you might get some good applications ... (you might get more ... but then you might get good - after all... its a risk writing in to find out what the pay is... as the fact you are looking puts you in a subordanate position)

Just my pennies/two cents worth

Some of you guys are techs. At least one is an apparent owner of a CRM company. To round things out, I am a buyer of archaeological services. I think crew members should be paid much better than what they get, including decent benefits just like most other folks with a college degree. This crap's got to end.

[quote:="heebiejeebie"]Some of you guys are techs. At least one is an apparent owner of a CRM company. To round things out, I am a buyer of archaeological services. I think crew members should be paid much better than what they get, including decent benefits just like most other folks with a college degree. This crap's got to end.

A friend of mine, who has a 4-year degree from a good program in southeastern archaeology, is paid $11/hour. I asked her about it this weekend, and she commented that they "also got benefits".

I let it go, but I wanted to ask in what other profession do benefits substitute for a decent wage. They're a "benefit," not "compensation for work".

Kid C. I understand your point. However, companies tend to look at it differently. If you ask "company man" manager in most businesses about how much a person makes, they will use a term like "total compensation package." This means that they also view benefits as part of the compensation package (i.e., how much they pay you). The benefits cost the company money.

In talking about total compensation, some businesses will even state a dollar number that they feel covers the total value of the benefits package. Based on numbers I have seen in the past, for a person who makes a straight professional salary of around $75,000/year, the company rates the value of the total benefits at $15,000 to $20,000 dollars per year for a total compensation package value of $90,000 to $95,000. I would also add that this value of the benefits package alone was about the average for most professional workplaces involving folks like engineers, chemists, professional geologists, public relations folks, corporate job trainers, etc. In other words, it does not necessarily reflect special stock options and other perks along those lines that most people in most jobs do not get.

I am with KC on this... where salary is one thing and benefits are exactly that... additional benefits .... a benefit can be a tax dodge :wink: or a way of offering accomodation... (make sure its cheap) but still a benefit... or a fave from the UK was a company that offered food as well... great say digger.... ah.... beans on toast... ... every day...

Clear compansation packages are needed to know exactly what you get... heebie is also right (I just love agreeing with everyone!)

But if a person is offered x as a salary then teh total value of benefits should also be clear... this allows the employee to make a value judgement on the post they will accept... companies should be vying for archaeologists, not picking them up like broiler turkeys and tossing them back after a few weeks

Speaking from long experience -

Benefits need to included as part of your pay when considering a job. For example - do you take a steady long term position at $11.50 per hour plus benefits, or pass it up for the 2 month job at $16.00 per hour?

The smart choice is the lower pay - it provides stability, garaunteed work, health insurance, sick time, holidays, etc. when it all adds up, you are much better off at a few dollars less per hour when the benefits are added in.

Now from an employer side - Keep in mind that in most businesses the charge out rate (what an employer charges a client) is actull 2-3 times what the employee gets paid. (in archaeology I have seen good companies try to push it up to 1.5-2x the pay rate, but they often loose work as a result). Out of this "charge rate" they need to not only pay any benefits that go directly to the workers (holidays, health insurance, etc.) but also cover unempolyment insurance (ever wonder where that money comes from), insurance on the firm, overhead,

Quite agree... so it would be good to know what the package is... and what the pay rate is... that way you decide before you apply... if it is worth it...

Standardised conditions?

In the UK... we have (with teh IFA and BAJR) standardised the minimum conditions... 6% pension contributions... 24days minimum holiday and sickness (over and above govt benefit - of course our health care is free in teh UK... you may die of a hospital illness... but its free :? )

Whats it worth in the US?

[quote:="Dmack89"]Speaking from long experience -

Benefits need to included as part of your pay when considering a job. For example - do you take a steady long term position at $11.50 per hour plus benefits, or pass it up for the 2 month job at $16.00 per hour?


I agree that benefits should be included in one's consideration of the total compensation package.

What I'm saying is that offering people benefits is not an alternative to paying a decent living wage. Benefits do cost companies money, but remember that those companies get better group rates than individuals for the same package, and even if they were, I know of no company that covers that all on their own. The employee is still required to pony up some of the cost.

And sure, some companies also include things like retirement plans, etc., but that still requires the employee to put up the cash. Either way, the cost of "benefits" should be added in to an employee's wage. $11.50 after the deduction of insurance costs would be somewhat more appropriate, although it's still pretty damn low.

The difference between making $15/hour plus benefits, versus, say, $17/hour and no benefits is what I would consider to be an adequate trade-off. $11.50 + benefits is inexcusable, unless you're in a position to actually make use of those benefits enough to offset the low wage.

There's just not enough of a margin for a person to save any money when $11.50 (or similar wages) is the figure. And that's the biggest problem, in my view: we've got a work force of people with college educations (and potentially student loan obligations) who are being paid so little that not only can they make no real headway with their current financial obligations, but they can just plain forget about saving for the future.

I consider the ability to save for retirement a "benefit", and would probably choose a better paying job with no official benefits if it meant that I could afford to put money into savings. The occasional medical expense, and basic health insurance, would be within my reach, and I could still put away money for the future.

That's basically what I've been doing for the last couple years, and it's one of the reasons why I haven't had to take out student loans to fund my return to school.

[quote:="KidCharlemagne"][
The difference between making $15/hour plus benefits, versus, say, $17/hour and no benefits is what I would consider to be an adequate trade-off. $11.50 + benefits is inexcusable, unless you're in a position to actually make use of those benefits enough to offset the low wage.


I agree that 11.50 is way to low - just a number I pulled out of the air - but my point was that even a seemingly very low pay with great benefits- if garaunteed full time for years - is better than seemingly great pay for a month or two - and then another couple months of no pay while looking for the next job. - Especially once kids are in the picture. I had a lot of great high paying jobs early on - in and out of archaeology - but in the long run could never save much due to the down times, medical bills, dental bills, etc.

I am heartened by the courage and honesty of people here... and if I may say --- Jens stance on this issue ----

THe time is now for an ethical stance... take the fight for rights to the fore. It is not being militant, it is being realistic about what is a fair wage... including additional benefits

Perhaps now is the time to push for positive action on this...

a rate of pay for positions (linked to location) and a standard benefits package. We are not in teh 19th century where teh employer dictates everything... we are often forced into accepting crap becasue it is all we can get... perhaps its time to say enough is enough

<waves>

What I would like to know is, does ACRA lobby for standardization of CRM firms in government regulation? What I mean is, do they push for a set standard requiring all firms, by law, to join an organization in order to be eligible for a bid?

This I believe would eliminate low-ball bids and allow for the companies who want to place a higher bid to do so without fear of losing the contract. The contracts should be based solely on the quality of the employees and the work being performed and not primarily on a time-line or low cost. From what I have noticed it seems that the small upstart companies(not all) are partially to blame for the low pay. I understand why they do it but at the same time it does more harm than good for the profession.

Shouldn't there be a government organization that oversees bidding of contracts for archaeology?

Another question to ask them directly perhaps... Questions demand answers.

One thing to keep in mind about ACRA is that their mission is not to standardize or overhaul the CRM industry in the US. Their main purpose is to provide for their member firms through cooperation, shared experiences, and lobbying the government. This all tends to spill over into better things (as perceived by ACRA) for the CRM community at large, but they are not an organization for the individual archeologist such as RPA. In that sense their actions will be directly related to how it benefits the member firms' growth and success. This is my opinion, of course, based on my dealings with ACRA over the last 8 years and now working for an ACRA member firm. I don't see ACRA stepping up to lead big changes in the CRM industry or archeology in general beyond what benefits their members.

As many firms here have found... benefits for workers = benefits for company... companies that see the value in valuing staff see there ability to carry out work increase.. thereby increasing profit to company etc... etc.....

the RPA... what are people thought on them?

There is a thread on the forums on the RPA, though I don't think this particular topic was discussed within it. http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1020

Some may argue that the RPA may not be expected to be the most vocal advocate for the betterment of pay and benefits for field crew, as their members hold MAs or higher, and most field crew have a bachelor's, at best. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, and I've worked with many RPA members who made their way up through the ranks, and have a lot of sympathy for field technicians.

I have been an RPA member for a long time and as far as I know they have never discussed the issue of field tech pay with their membership. They are generally concerned with the ethical conduct of individuals, not companies.

Perhaps its time then... as if they aren't and ACRA won't then ... er nobody is. Apart from here.