Topic ID #3183 - posted 4/1/2008 11:36 PM
rjhowell
SAA 2008 Union Meeting- Report of Discussions
rjhowell
The Arch Union 2.0 discussion meeting was held at the Hyatt in Vancouver. A little over 50 folks showed up, a bit less than we expected but still a reasonable showing considering the travel distance and the fact that most of their bosses were next door at the conference. I was happy to see so many P.I.'s and MA-level folks show up. Some people were still a bit timid, and refused to leave their real name, but "you always have some fence-sitter's" as we say in Wyoming.
The discussions were fruitful, mainly that a capital "U" union might not be the best organization style given the obvious provocative character of such an organization. Obviously, I was voted down on that one...
The consensus seems to be that a better argument might be made for affiliating with the Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA) in England who were apparently (Am I right Dave C.?) heavily involved in the organization over there. Or in organizing a sister organization in the US. One based on fieldworkers (of all levels) but with less of an antagonistic mission.
Something that was not as straight forward "us against them" or "labor vs. management" seemed to be the consensus mood of the room. We voted and agreed to continue these "discussions and information" meetings at the various regional conferences this season. Dave we voted to accept your offer of a supported web page/secure web-communication grid, please contact me off list to set up.
Please spread the word to your field colleagues, If you would like to host a regional discussion at your local conference please contact me via e-mail.
Unite or die!
(sorry watching too much John Adams on HBO in the old hotel room)
Ryan Howell
howell.ryan@charter.net
Arch Union 2.0 (or maybe IFA 2.0, now)
The discussions were fruitful, mainly that a capital "U" union might not be the best organization style given the obvious provocative character of such an organization. Obviously, I was voted down on that one...
The consensus seems to be that a better argument might be made for affiliating with the Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA) in England who were apparently (Am I right Dave C.?) heavily involved in the organization over there. Or in organizing a sister organization in the US. One based on fieldworkers (of all levels) but with less of an antagonistic mission.
Something that was not as straight forward "us against them" or "labor vs. management" seemed to be the consensus mood of the room. We voted and agreed to continue these "discussions and information" meetings at the various regional conferences this season. Dave we voted to accept your offer of a supported web page/secure web-communication grid, please contact me off list to set up.
Please spread the word to your field colleagues, If you would like to host a regional discussion at your local conference please contact me via e-mail.
Unite or die!
(sorry watching too much John Adams on HBO in the old hotel room)
Ryan Howell
howell.ryan@charter.net
Arch Union 2.0 (or maybe IFA 2.0, now)
Post ID#6588 - replied 4/2/2008 12:45 AM
FireArch
Moderator
Excellent work Ryan; thanks for the update.
Personally I'm for a system along the lines of IFA/BAJR as it approximates one my colleagues and I worked on 15 years ago.
Cheers,
Richard
Personally I'm for a system along the lines of IFA/BAJR as it approximates one my colleagues and I worked on 15 years ago.
Cheers,
Richard
Post ID#6698 - replied 4/7/2008 8:17 AM
rjhowell
Firearch,
You one of the old UAFT survivors?
Ryan Howell
You one of the old UAFT survivors?
Ryan Howell
Post ID#6705 - replied 4/7/2008 5:50 PM
FireArch
Moderator
Ryan,
No, I was never part of that organization, I'm not a unionist sort. The structures that I look to tend to be meritorious in nature. But I'm not going to discourage the current efforts as they seem to be heading more towards the direction I favor than a pure union-type thing, which I dont.
No, I was never part of that organization, I'm not a unionist sort. The structures that I look to tend to be meritorious in nature. But I'm not going to discourage the current efforts as they seem to be heading more towards the direction I favor than a pure union-type thing, which I dont.
Post ID#7609 - replied 5/17/2008 8:35 PM
Khodok
Ryan
I was peripherally involved with the UAFT during its heyday and had a number of conversations with Bryan West, especially when the whole 3-tier system was being argued before the DoL. Have you been able to make contact with any of the old UAFT folks to get their insight? Obviously there are a lot of lessons to be gained from their experience. Field techs present unusual problems for organizing.
I am very glad to see this movement going again. The UAFT made some real gains, and they have been eroding over the past few years.
I was peripherally involved with the UAFT during its heyday and had a number of conversations with Bryan West, especially when the whole 3-tier system was being argued before the DoL. Have you been able to make contact with any of the old UAFT folks to get their insight? Obviously there are a lot of lessons to be gained from their experience. Field techs present unusual problems for organizing.
I am very glad to see this movement going again. The UAFT made some real gains, and they have been eroding over the past few years.
Post ID#7617 - replied 5/17/2008 9:34 PM
FireArch
Moderator
[quote:="Khodok"]I am very glad to see this movement going again. The UAFT made some real gains, and they have been eroding over the past few years.
Yes indeed, most especially, I think, because of a lack of governmental enforcement and encouragement. The whole Secretary of the Interior Standards program is bunk, such that even the principal player in the effort to create the standard, Tom King, thinks so (I cant post a link because I cannot remember where I read that). You have to include the field crew as "professionals" and you have to have standards that require professional field crew on archaeological projects in order to foster better conditions. Once you can no longer hire just anyone to work on your project then you have to pay according to market forces. Cheap labor pool means low wages, poor conditions, and downright fraud in some cases.
I recently worked on a Federal contract through a private company that should have paid me per diem and expenses, but the environmental firm refused to pay, and the contracting officer wasnt too concerned to help me get to the bottom of things. With leading agencies ducking their responsibilities with respect to this sort of thing how indeed are we going to better the conditions we face?
Richard
Yes indeed, most especially, I think, because of a lack of governmental enforcement and encouragement. The whole Secretary of the Interior Standards program is bunk, such that even the principal player in the effort to create the standard, Tom King, thinks so (I cant post a link because I cannot remember where I read that). You have to include the field crew as "professionals" and you have to have standards that require professional field crew on archaeological projects in order to foster better conditions. Once you can no longer hire just anyone to work on your project then you have to pay according to market forces. Cheap labor pool means low wages, poor conditions, and downright fraud in some cases.
I recently worked on a Federal contract through a private company that should have paid me per diem and expenses, but the environmental firm refused to pay, and the contracting officer wasnt too concerned to help me get to the bottom of things. With leading agencies ducking their responsibilities with respect to this sort of thing how indeed are we going to better the conditions we face?
Richard
Post ID#7635 - replied 5/18/2008 12:35 PM
BAJR
You have to include the field crew as "professionals" and you have to have standards that require professional field crew on archaeological projects in order to foster better conditions. Once you can no longer hire just anyone to work on your project then you have to pay according to market forces. Cheap labor pool means low wages, poor conditions, and downright fraud in some cases.
Got it in one... standards mean something if... they actually mean something!
Got it in one... standards mean something if... they actually mean something!
|
Next topic: "debates? " |
|
Previous topic: "Jasper Perkiomen " |
|
Looking for something else? Show recent posts in Discussion |