Topic ID #2672 - posted 1/5/2008 5:27 PM
scottyj432
State of the Union: 2007 CRM Field Tech Pay Rates
scottyj432
State of the Union: 2007 CRM Field Tech Pay Rates
The topic of field tech pay rates in CRM has been discussed on this site in numerous forum topics over the past few years. During 2007 alone there were several discussions on this site and it got me to wondering exactly what are the pay rates for fields techs working in CRM. I tried to find information on several federal sites such as the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Department of Commerce and others, but could not find any reliable information of field tech pay rates in CRM. So, starting in the early summer of 2007 I began to compile information on all of the job postings that appeared here on this site as well as on R. Joe's site, plus a few others.
I have spent the past few evenings compiling all of that data into a format I now present here.
THE DATABASE
The database includes information regarding job postings for field techs in CRM only. I did not include information from any job posting from federal, state, county or academic entities. I also did not compile information on crew chief, supervisor or PI positions. This information presented here is strictly on field tech positions. The database is derived entirely from private CRM company job postings.
The database includes information on: field tech pay rates, whether the positions are temporary or permanent, the type of housing provided on projects and the type of per diem paid (but not the per diem rates as that varies from locality to locality). Whenever possible, I have also included information on the "pay rate ranges" that often appear in CRM job postings (such as $12.00-14.00/hour, "depending on experience").
All of the information presented here is derived from a total of 610 CRM job postings for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2007. Compiling the database required much cross-referencing of job postings between various websites to avoid duplication of information.
Because I did not start to compile the database until early summer 2007, I missed out on some postings from earlier in the year. While R. Joe's site archives the job postings, that is not true of all sites. What I did discover was that here on Jennifer's site, approximately 15% of all CRM field tech job postings are posted here and nowhere else. It is my best guess (conservative) that my database does not contain information from between 90 and 100 job postings that were posted earlier in the year (prior to mid-June 2007). Despite the lack of information from those postings, I feel reasonably confident that the information presented here is a somewhat realistic "snapshot" of what CRM companies were paying field techs here in the the USA during the year 2007.
THE 2007 JOB POSTINGS: N=610
The number of job postings with a specific number of positions listed= 33.5% of N.
These job postings represented a total of 822 field tech positions.
These job postings were for jobs ranging from 1 or 2 days to several months in duration.
The number of job postings with pay rate information= 73% of N.
Information regarding these pay rates will be presented below.
PER DIEM INFORMATION: N=610 JOB POSTINGS
No Receipts= 42.3%
Receipts only= 4.5%
Lump Sum (lodging plus meals)= 3.2%
Per Diem paid, but no information on type of Per Diem (Receipts/NoReceipts/Lump Sum)= 26.7%
No Per Diem (local or permanent positions)= 23.4%
HOUSING INFORMATION: N= 610 JOB POSTINGS
Motel, single room= 29.6% (N=181*)
*Of the 181 job postings specifying the field techs would reside in a single occupancy motel room, 15.7% (N=28) of those postings indicated the single occupancy motel room would also be provided on the days off. Three CRM companies accounted for over half of these postings and were for projects lasting 2 months or longer.
Motel, shared room= 0.8%
One job posting offered a shared motel room on the days off.
Apartment w/single bedroom per employee w/shared common areas= 0.8%
These included days off as well.
Camping= 1.8%
Field Techs were required to provide all of their own camping gear.
No housing provided (local or permanent)= 23.4%
Housing provided, but no information provided on type of housing arrangements= 43.6%
TYPE OF FIELD TECH JOB POSITIONS: N=610 JOB POSTINGS
Temporary= 80.1%
Temporary, Possible Permanent= 14.3%
Permanent= 5.6%
FIELD TECH PAY RATES IN CRM: 2007 (N= 610 JOB POSTINGS)
The information provided below represents all the pay rate information provided in the 610 job postings that constitute the basis of this database. As previously stated, 73% of the job postings provided information on field tech pay rates throughout the country.
The following information is provided on a state-by-state basis.
The "Pay Rate Range" referred to here is that which commonly occurs in job posting ads and which we have all seen numerous times: $12.00-14.00 per hour, depending on experience, for example.
The pay rate ranges and hourly pay rates are based on a combination of the 73% of the 610 job postings with pay information and the 822 field tech positions that were specified in those job postings (33.5% of 610) by CRM companies in 2007.
The state-by-state pay rate information is presented in this format (from left to right in the table below):
State
Lowest Entry Level Pay Rate Range Per Hour
Average Entry Level Pay Rate Range Per Hour
Highest Pay Rate Range Per Hour
Average Highest Pay Rate Range Per Hour
Average Hourly Pay Rate Per Hour For All Field Tech Job Postings In That State
In the first state listing which is Alabama (AL), the information presented is:
AL (11.00) 11.80-(13.00) 12.80: 11.91
Interpreted as:
State: Alabama
Lowest Entry Level Pay Rate Range: $11.00/hr
Average Entry Level Pay Rate Range: $11.80/hr
Highest Pay Rate Range: $13.00/hr
Average Highest Pay Rate Range: $12.80/hr
Average Hourly Pay Rate For All Field Tech Job Postings in Alabama: $11.91/hr
Other Notations:
NA= Fewer than three job postings included information on pay rates (either pay range or hourly rates) and /or none of the job postings contained pay rate information
*= There were only between 3 and 5 job postings that incuded any pay rate information, therefore the sample is small and the information presented here may not be a representative sample.
In the absence of these two notations, the information presented for each state represents between 6 and 25 job postings per state for field techs pay rates during the year 2007.
THE NATIONAL AVERAGE HOURLY RATE ADVERTISED FOR FIELD TECHS IN 2007= $12.37
State: (Lowest Entry Wage)Ave. Entry-(Highest DOE Wage)Ave. High DOE: Average Hourly Rate
AL (11.00)11.80-(13.00)12.80: 11.91
AK (11.00)13.00*-(18.00)17.00*: 14.19*
AZ (10.00)11.75-(15.00)14.00:13.17
AR (11.00)11.50-(14.00)12.50: 11.89
CA (13.00)14.00-(20.00)17.33: 14.44
CO (12.00)12.60-(16.00)15.00: 13.72
CN NA-NA: NA
DE NA-NA: 13.61
FL (10.00)10.50-(14.00)14.00: 11.57
GA (12.50)12.50-(14.50)14.50: 12.19
HI NA-NA: NA
ID (11.00)12.50*-(17.00)15.50*: 13.39*
IL NA-NA: 13.09
IN (11.00)11.20-(15.00)12.80: 11.62
IA NA-NA: 10.50*
KS NA-NA: NA
KY (10.50)10.92-(15.00)12.75: 11.89
LA NA-NA: 12.22*
ME NA-NA: NA
MD(incl D.C.) (11.00)11.75-(15.00)14.00: 12.82
MA NA-NA: 10.00*
MI NA-NA: 12.00*
MN (13.00)13.00*-(18.00)17.33*: 14.27*
MS (11.00)11.00-(12.00)12.00: 11.48
MO NA-NA: 12.40
MT (12.00)12.98-(15.00)14.33: 13.23
NE NA-NA: NA
NV (11.00)12.40-(20.00)15.80: 14.18
NH NA-NA: NA
NJ (10.00)11.36-(15.00)13.86: 11.88
NM (10.00)11.10-(21.00)14.85: 13.25
NY (10.00)10.95-(14.00)12.84: 11.45
NC (11.00)11.00*-(17.00)15.14*: 12.75*
ND NA-NA: 12.83
OH (10.00)10.84-(14.00)12.84: 11.32
OK NA-NA: 11.14*
OR NA-NA: 13.47
PA (10.50)10.93-(13.00)12.43: 11.62
RI NA-NA: NA
SC NA-NA: 12.80*
SD NA-NA: 13.29
TN NA-NA: 13.27
TX (10.00)10.68-(16.00)13.02: 12.40
UT (10.50)12.02-(15.00)14.08: 13.72
VT NA-NA: 10.52
VA (10.00)11.42-(15.00)13.04: 12.10
WA NA-NA: 15.46*
WV (11.00)11.25-(14.00)12.50: 12.09
WI NA-NA: 12.75*
WY (11.00)12.20-(15.00)14.40: 12.80
I had a bit of a problem getting the table to format correctly so sorry about that.....
Well, that's the information I found from the 610 job postings for 2007. Read it. Digest it. Whatever.
It is now past noon here and time for me to crack open an icy cold adult beverage.
Scott
The topic of field tech pay rates in CRM has been discussed on this site in numerous forum topics over the past few years. During 2007 alone there were several discussions on this site and it got me to wondering exactly what are the pay rates for fields techs working in CRM. I tried to find information on several federal sites such as the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Department of Commerce and others, but could not find any reliable information of field tech pay rates in CRM. So, starting in the early summer of 2007 I began to compile information on all of the job postings that appeared here on this site as well as on R. Joe's site, plus a few others.
I have spent the past few evenings compiling all of that data into a format I now present here.
THE DATABASE
The database includes information regarding job postings for field techs in CRM only. I did not include information from any job posting from federal, state, county or academic entities. I also did not compile information on crew chief, supervisor or PI positions. This information presented here is strictly on field tech positions. The database is derived entirely from private CRM company job postings.
The database includes information on: field tech pay rates, whether the positions are temporary or permanent, the type of housing provided on projects and the type of per diem paid (but not the per diem rates as that varies from locality to locality). Whenever possible, I have also included information on the "pay rate ranges" that often appear in CRM job postings (such as $12.00-14.00/hour, "depending on experience").
All of the information presented here is derived from a total of 610 CRM job postings for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2007. Compiling the database required much cross-referencing of job postings between various websites to avoid duplication of information.
Because I did not start to compile the database until early summer 2007, I missed out on some postings from earlier in the year. While R. Joe's site archives the job postings, that is not true of all sites. What I did discover was that here on Jennifer's site, approximately 15% of all CRM field tech job postings are posted here and nowhere else. It is my best guess (conservative) that my database does not contain information from between 90 and 100 job postings that were posted earlier in the year (prior to mid-June 2007). Despite the lack of information from those postings, I feel reasonably confident that the information presented here is a somewhat realistic "snapshot" of what CRM companies were paying field techs here in the the USA during the year 2007.
THE 2007 JOB POSTINGS: N=610
The number of job postings with a specific number of positions listed= 33.5% of N.
These job postings represented a total of 822 field tech positions.
These job postings were for jobs ranging from 1 or 2 days to several months in duration.
The number of job postings with pay rate information= 73% of N.
Information regarding these pay rates will be presented below.
PER DIEM INFORMATION: N=610 JOB POSTINGS
No Receipts= 42.3%
Receipts only= 4.5%
Lump Sum (lodging plus meals)= 3.2%
Per Diem paid, but no information on type of Per Diem (Receipts/NoReceipts/Lump Sum)= 26.7%
No Per Diem (local or permanent positions)= 23.4%
HOUSING INFORMATION: N= 610 JOB POSTINGS
Motel, single room= 29.6% (N=181*)
*Of the 181 job postings specifying the field techs would reside in a single occupancy motel room, 15.7% (N=28) of those postings indicated the single occupancy motel room would also be provided on the days off. Three CRM companies accounted for over half of these postings and were for projects lasting 2 months or longer.
Motel, shared room= 0.8%
One job posting offered a shared motel room on the days off.
Apartment w/single bedroom per employee w/shared common areas= 0.8%
These included days off as well.
Camping= 1.8%
Field Techs were required to provide all of their own camping gear.
No housing provided (local or permanent)= 23.4%
Housing provided, but no information provided on type of housing arrangements= 43.6%
TYPE OF FIELD TECH JOB POSITIONS: N=610 JOB POSTINGS
Temporary= 80.1%
Temporary, Possible Permanent= 14.3%
Permanent= 5.6%
FIELD TECH PAY RATES IN CRM: 2007 (N= 610 JOB POSTINGS)
The information provided below represents all the pay rate information provided in the 610 job postings that constitute the basis of this database. As previously stated, 73% of the job postings provided information on field tech pay rates throughout the country.
The following information is provided on a state-by-state basis.
The "Pay Rate Range" referred to here is that which commonly occurs in job posting ads and which we have all seen numerous times: $12.00-14.00 per hour, depending on experience, for example.
The pay rate ranges and hourly pay rates are based on a combination of the 73% of the 610 job postings with pay information and the 822 field tech positions that were specified in those job postings (33.5% of 610) by CRM companies in 2007.
The state-by-state pay rate information is presented in this format (from left to right in the table below):
State
Lowest Entry Level Pay Rate Range Per Hour
Average Entry Level Pay Rate Range Per Hour
Highest Pay Rate Range Per Hour
Average Highest Pay Rate Range Per Hour
Average Hourly Pay Rate Per Hour For All Field Tech Job Postings In That State
In the first state listing which is Alabama (AL), the information presented is:
AL (11.00) 11.80-(13.00) 12.80: 11.91
Interpreted as:
State: Alabama
Lowest Entry Level Pay Rate Range: $11.00/hr
Average Entry Level Pay Rate Range: $11.80/hr
Highest Pay Rate Range: $13.00/hr
Average Highest Pay Rate Range: $12.80/hr
Average Hourly Pay Rate For All Field Tech Job Postings in Alabama: $11.91/hr
Other Notations:
NA= Fewer than three job postings included information on pay rates (either pay range or hourly rates) and /or none of the job postings contained pay rate information
*= There were only between 3 and 5 job postings that incuded any pay rate information, therefore the sample is small and the information presented here may not be a representative sample.
In the absence of these two notations, the information presented for each state represents between 6 and 25 job postings per state for field techs pay rates during the year 2007.
THE NATIONAL AVERAGE HOURLY RATE ADVERTISED FOR FIELD TECHS IN 2007= $12.37
State: (Lowest Entry Wage)Ave. Entry-(Highest DOE Wage)Ave. High DOE: Average Hourly Rate
AL (11.00)11.80-(13.00)12.80: 11.91
AK (11.00)13.00*-(18.00)17.00*: 14.19*
AZ (10.00)11.75-(15.00)14.00:13.17
AR (11.00)11.50-(14.00)12.50: 11.89
CA (13.00)14.00-(20.00)17.33: 14.44
CO (12.00)12.60-(16.00)15.00: 13.72
CN NA-NA: NA
DE NA-NA: 13.61
FL (10.00)10.50-(14.00)14.00: 11.57
GA (12.50)12.50-(14.50)14.50: 12.19
HI NA-NA: NA
ID (11.00)12.50*-(17.00)15.50*: 13.39*
IL NA-NA: 13.09
IN (11.00)11.20-(15.00)12.80: 11.62
IA NA-NA: 10.50*
KS NA-NA: NA
KY (10.50)10.92-(15.00)12.75: 11.89
LA NA-NA: 12.22*
ME NA-NA: NA
MD(incl D.C.) (11.00)11.75-(15.00)14.00: 12.82
MA NA-NA: 10.00*
MI NA-NA: 12.00*
MN (13.00)13.00*-(18.00)17.33*: 14.27*
MS (11.00)11.00-(12.00)12.00: 11.48
MO NA-NA: 12.40
MT (12.00)12.98-(15.00)14.33: 13.23
NE NA-NA: NA
NV (11.00)12.40-(20.00)15.80: 14.18
NH NA-NA: NA
NJ (10.00)11.36-(15.00)13.86: 11.88
NM (10.00)11.10-(21.00)14.85: 13.25
NY (10.00)10.95-(14.00)12.84: 11.45
NC (11.00)11.00*-(17.00)15.14*: 12.75*
ND NA-NA: 12.83
OH (10.00)10.84-(14.00)12.84: 11.32
OK NA-NA: 11.14*
OR NA-NA: 13.47
PA (10.50)10.93-(13.00)12.43: 11.62
RI NA-NA: NA
SC NA-NA: 12.80*
SD NA-NA: 13.29
TN NA-NA: 13.27
TX (10.00)10.68-(16.00)13.02: 12.40
UT (10.50)12.02-(15.00)14.08: 13.72
VT NA-NA: 10.52
VA (10.00)11.42-(15.00)13.04: 12.10
WA NA-NA: 15.46*
WV (11.00)11.25-(14.00)12.50: 12.09
WI NA-NA: 12.75*
WY (11.00)12.20-(15.00)14.40: 12.80
I had a bit of a problem getting the table to format correctly so sorry about that.....
Well, that's the information I found from the 610 job postings for 2007. Read it. Digest it. Whatever.
It is now past noon here and time for me to crack open an icy cold adult beverage.
Scott
Post ID#5200 - replied 1/6/2008 4:19 AM
BAJR
Brilliant Scott, brilliant... they say that knowledge is power, but you have created a basis to 'see' the situation properly. and from this see averages and trends.
This is going to take some time for me to digest.
Nice! :D
This is going to take some time for me to digest.
Nice! :D
Post ID#5201 - replied 1/6/2008 11:38 AM
FireArch
Moderator
Scotty,
What a great piece of work. That must have taken a bit of time. Thanks.
Cheers to Scott,
Richard
What a great piece of work. That must have taken a bit of time. Thanks.
Cheers to Scott,
Richard
Post ID#5205 - replied 1/6/2008 3:10 PM
fresno
Thanks for taking the time to compile and present this information. It should be helpful to field techs and employers alike.
Post ID#5206 - replied 1/6/2008 7:27 PM
mcleodm
Moderator
Good job Scott. I would say you earned your "adult beverage". Pretty intersting figures and at first glance it looks as if states in south (minus Florida) and states in the east pay a little less than those in the far west like MT, OR, NM AZ etc. What do you think?
CMM
CMM
Post ID#5209 - replied 1/7/2008 10:28 AM
Jennifer Palmer
Webmaster
Scott, this was a fantastic idea. Thank you so much for your hard work in compiling the data. I really wish that I had left up some of the older posts on the archaeologyfieldwork.com forums from earlier in the year so that you had a more complete set of data to draw from. Awhile back I began auto-deleting posts from the employment listings forum after 60 days at the request of employers, and because it kept the website size reasonable. I can remember some mornings where I went a little crazy and would post 20 or 30 new jobs at a clip, so in some months we were looking at literally hundreds of new job adverts on the site.
I've also noticed some regional trends through the years as far as pay is concerned, though what you've posted has surprised me on a few accounts.
Hopefully it can give us something more to talk about on the forums, now that we have some "real" numbers to look at as far as wages are concerned. This will be quite useful for giving people an idea of what they can realistically expect to be making on field teching jobs, and also to see where a prospective employer's proposed pay falls within the range of what others are paying.
I've also noticed some regional trends through the years as far as pay is concerned, though what you've posted has surprised me on a few accounts.
Hopefully it can give us something more to talk about on the forums, now that we have some "real" numbers to look at as far as wages are concerned. This will be quite useful for giving people an idea of what they can realistically expect to be making on field teching jobs, and also to see where a prospective employer's proposed pay falls within the range of what others are paying.
Post ID#5218 - replied 1/7/2008 1:23 PM
rkeyo
Moderator
Scotty,
Excellent job! You ought to put it into a formal paper to deliver at the SAA or some such.
8-)
Excellent job! You ought to put it into a formal paper to deliver at the SAA or some such.
8-)
Post ID#5223 - replied 1/7/2008 5:37 PM
Dmack89
Excellent job - thanks so much for putting in the effort - Now -like Reyko suggested - get it published and get some credit for the work. This would be perfect for the SAA Archaeological Record.
Good Luck
DM
Good Luck
DM
Post ID#5227 - replied 1/7/2008 10:59 PM
scottyj432
Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I was not sure how everyone would interpret the info.
And...to Dmack...I will look into sending in something to the SAA Arch Record.
Now.....I forgot to include some information regarding Benefits and so here it is:
N=610 Job Postings:
Temporary Positions,
Benefits "Possible" 4.3%
Temporary Positions,
Benefits Provided 5.4%
Permanent Positions,
Benefits Provided 5.6%
Temporary Positions,
No Benefits 84.7%
Here is the Average Hourly Rates, by States listed from lowest to highest:
(I have omitted the "*" from the original posting so that the table would sort the data properly)
State: Average
MA: 10.00
IA: 10.50
VT: 10.52
OK: 11.14
OH: 11.32
NY: 11.45
MS: 11.48
FL: 11.57
IN: 11.62
PA: 11.62
NJ: 11.88
KY: 11.89
AR: 11.89
AL: 11.91
MI: 12.00
WV: 12.09
VA: 12.10
GA: 12.19
LA: 12.22
Nat'l Ave.: 12.37
MO: 12.40
TX: 12.40
WI: 12.75
NC: 12.75
WY: 12.80
SC: 12.80
MD(incl D.C.): 12.82
ND: 12.83
IL: 13.09
AZ: 13.17
MT: 13.23
NM: 13.25
TN: 13.27
SD: 13.29
ID: 13.39
OR: 13.47
DE: 13.61
UT: 13.72
CO: 13.72
NV: 14.18
AK: 14.19
MN: 14.27
CA: 14.44
WA: 15.46
HI: NA
KS: NA
ME: NA
CN: NA
NH: NA
NE: NA
RI: NA
I had originally intended to break the data down into regional areas. However, other than New England, I ran into a bit of a problem with the rest of the country as to what exactly "defines" each region. Even the feds have anywhere from 4 to 14 definitions of "regions" within this country depending on the type of data they track.
I grew up in the Midwest and even I do not know what states are "Midwestern". Granted, the Great Lake states are the core of the Midwest, but then what about KY, TN, ND and SD? Some federal agencies consider them "Midwest". Basically, it was all too complicated and I abandoned the whole idea.
However, I did break it all down into a basic "East vs. West":
States East of the Mississippi River:
Average Field Tech Hourly Rate: 11.92
States West of the Mississippi River (includes MN and LA):
Average Field Tech Hourly Rate: 13.16
Top 10 Highest Paying States East of the MS River:
(DE, TN, IL, MD, SC, NC, GA, VA, WV and MI)
Average Field Tech Hourly Rate: 12.58
Top 10 Highest Paying States West of the MS River:
(WA, CA, MN, AK, NV, CO, UT, OR, ID and SD)
Average Field Tech Hourly Rate: 13.72
I have also begun tracking the 2008 job postings.
Scott
And...to Dmack...I will look into sending in something to the SAA Arch Record.
Now.....I forgot to include some information regarding Benefits and so here it is:
N=610 Job Postings:
Temporary Positions,
Benefits "Possible" 4.3%
Temporary Positions,
Benefits Provided 5.4%
Permanent Positions,
Benefits Provided 5.6%
Temporary Positions,
No Benefits 84.7%
Here is the Average Hourly Rates, by States listed from lowest to highest:
(I have omitted the "*" from the original posting so that the table would sort the data properly)
State: Average
MA: 10.00
IA: 10.50
VT: 10.52
OK: 11.14
OH: 11.32
NY: 11.45
MS: 11.48
FL: 11.57
IN: 11.62
PA: 11.62
NJ: 11.88
KY: 11.89
AR: 11.89
AL: 11.91
MI: 12.00
WV: 12.09
VA: 12.10
GA: 12.19
LA: 12.22
Nat'l Ave.: 12.37
MO: 12.40
TX: 12.40
WI: 12.75
NC: 12.75
WY: 12.80
SC: 12.80
MD(incl D.C.): 12.82
ND: 12.83
IL: 13.09
AZ: 13.17
MT: 13.23
NM: 13.25
TN: 13.27
SD: 13.29
ID: 13.39
OR: 13.47
DE: 13.61
UT: 13.72
CO: 13.72
NV: 14.18
AK: 14.19
MN: 14.27
CA: 14.44
WA: 15.46
HI: NA
KS: NA
ME: NA
CN: NA
NH: NA
NE: NA
RI: NA
I had originally intended to break the data down into regional areas. However, other than New England, I ran into a bit of a problem with the rest of the country as to what exactly "defines" each region. Even the feds have anywhere from 4 to 14 definitions of "regions" within this country depending on the type of data they track.
I grew up in the Midwest and even I do not know what states are "Midwestern". Granted, the Great Lake states are the core of the Midwest, but then what about KY, TN, ND and SD? Some federal agencies consider them "Midwest". Basically, it was all too complicated and I abandoned the whole idea.
However, I did break it all down into a basic "East vs. West":
States East of the Mississippi River:
Average Field Tech Hourly Rate: 11.92
States West of the Mississippi River (includes MN and LA):
Average Field Tech Hourly Rate: 13.16
Top 10 Highest Paying States East of the MS River:
(DE, TN, IL, MD, SC, NC, GA, VA, WV and MI)
Average Field Tech Hourly Rate: 12.58
Top 10 Highest Paying States West of the MS River:
(WA, CA, MN, AK, NV, CO, UT, OR, ID and SD)
Average Field Tech Hourly Rate: 13.72
I have also begun tracking the 2008 job postings.
Scott
Post ID#5229 - replied 1/8/2008 3:05 AM
FireArch
Moderator
Are you stuck in a hotel...? :lol:
Awesome work Scott,
Richard
Awesome work Scott,
Richard
Post ID#5230 - replied 1/8/2008 9:04 AM
Jennifer Palmer
Webmaster
Scott, this seems to be a pretty good way of breaking it down by regions (from this site):
I could see how you were frustrated trying to settle on one definition of the regions, as even the feds can't seem to get it straight! :wink:
I'm still surprised to see that some of the lowest wages were in the northeast, where the cost of living is often on the high end. It does make you wonder...
I could see how you were frustrated trying to settle on one definition of the regions, as even the feds can't seem to get it straight! :wink:
I'm still surprised to see that some of the lowest wages were in the northeast, where the cost of living is often on the high end. It does make you wonder...
Post ID#5241 - replied 1/8/2008 12:54 PM
Dmack89
Jennifer -
Actually - I was not surprised by the low wages in the Northeast. I see the wages as a reflection of where archaeology is valued - and seen as important to both the general population and those who have to pay for it - as opposed to a nuisance that they have to deal with.
It might also be a reflection of where there are larger federally funded projects versus smaller (often not even 106 reviewed) projects. For the last year in NY (by acres) the local legislation and the top 3 state agencies account for over 45% of all terresrail work reviewed by the SHPO (top 3 fed agencies make up 35%) - and a lot of the locally covered work never even gets to the SHPO office for review.
DM
Actually - I was not surprised by the low wages in the Northeast. I see the wages as a reflection of where archaeology is valued - and seen as important to both the general population and those who have to pay for it - as opposed to a nuisance that they have to deal with.
It might also be a reflection of where there are larger federally funded projects versus smaller (often not even 106 reviewed) projects. For the last year in NY (by acres) the local legislation and the top 3 state agencies account for over 45% of all terresrail work reviewed by the SHPO (top 3 fed agencies make up 35%) - and a lot of the locally covered work never even gets to the SHPO office for review.
DM
Post ID#5243 - replied 1/8/2008 1:52 PM
moorele
Scott, great work.
How about expanding the study a little? Where are the jobs coming from? What states have the most offerings etc. My impression is that the west has the most job offerings but there may be a couple of eastern states that do well too. And yes the SAA newsletter would be a good place to summarize it all.
Larry Moore
How about expanding the study a little? Where are the jobs coming from? What states have the most offerings etc. My impression is that the west has the most job offerings but there may be a couple of eastern states that do well too. And yes the SAA newsletter would be a good place to summarize it all.
Larry Moore
Post ID#5244 - replied 1/8/2008 2:35 PM
scottyj432
How about expanding the study a little? Where are the jobs coming from? What states have the most offerings etc. My impression is that the west has the most job offerings but there may be a couple of eastern states that do well too. And yes the SAA newsletter would be a good place to summarize it all.
I think I have the data on that.....and I think most of the jobs are in the east.
I think I have the data on that.....and I think most of the jobs are in the east.
Post ID#5247 - replied 1/8/2008 6:04 PM
cmarknicholson
If you would like some assistance tying these data into GIS, I would gladly offer my services.
Great work.
Great work.
Post ID#5249 - replied 1/8/2008 7:16 PM
heebiejeebie
Heebiejeebie firmly recommends that you consolidate, tweak, and publish the results of your study, no matter how informal parts of it might be. What you have now alone would be "groundbreaking." DO IT!!!
Post ID#5253 - replied 1/8/2008 8:59 PM
Jennifer Palmer
Webmaster
I have to concur.
Scott, if you would like to include job postings from the first part of the year for archaeologyfieldwork.com, there is a possibility that I might have them archived in my website backups. I can look into it if you are interested. If you're not, I can understand, as it would probably be more difficult to integrate that info into the data set retroactively after you've done the initial work.
Scott, if you would like to include job postings from the first part of the year for archaeologyfieldwork.com, there is a possibility that I might have them archived in my website backups. I can look into it if you are interested. If you're not, I can understand, as it would probably be more difficult to integrate that info into the data set retroactively after you've done the initial work.
Post ID#5279 - replied 1/12/2008 9:50 AM
BAJR
If its posssible to send me teh database or excel sheet I can build you a map of America with state by state results... and colour coded states.?
Post ID#5293 - replied 1/13/2008 7:58 PM
scottyj432
It took me a few days but I did break the data down into regions based on the map Jennifer recently posted. Here are the results:
TOTAL JOB POSTINGS=610 (822 FIELD TECH POSITIONS)
THE % OF THE POSTINGS IS GIVEN FIRST, FOLLOWED BY THE AVERAGE PAY RATE IN THAT REGION.
New England: ME, NH, VT, MA, CT
1.3% AVE=10.44
MID-ATLANTIC: NY, PA, NJ
15.3% AVE=11.56
SOUTH ATLANTIC: DE, MD (INCL DC), WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL
19.3% AVE=12.31
E. SOUTH CENTRAL: KY, TN, MS, AL
8.7% AVE=12.34
E. NORTH CENTRAL: WI, MI, IL, IN, OH
18.1% AVE=11.72
W. NORTH CENTRAL: ND, SD, NE, KS, MN, IA, MO
5.6% AVE=12.96
W. SOUTH CENTRAL: OK, AR, LA, TX
8.1% AVE=12.20
MOUNTAIN WEST: MT, ID, WY, NV, UT, CO, AZ, NM
17.9% AVE=13.41
PACIFIC: WA, OR, CA, AK, HI
5.8% AVE=13.63
FireArch
Are you stuck in a hotel...?
Not at the moment, but a lot of the information I gathered was done while on the road. I spent a lot of weeks last year stuck in small towns far, far off the beaten path with not a whole hell of a lot to do. I got kind of bored and decided to something more productive than exorcising my thumb on the TV remote control.
cmarknicholson
If you would like some assistance tying these data into GIS, I would gladly offer my services.
This might be interesting. What sort of data would you need? Feel free to email me if you want.
admin
Scott, if you would like to include job postings from the first part of the year for archaeologyfieldwork.com, there is a possibility that I might have them archived in my website backups. I can look into it if you are interested. If you're not, I can understand, as it would probably be more difficult to integrate that info into the data set retroactively after you've done the initial work.
If this would be possible, then I think I could do something with the info, tho if do try and publish this stuff, I may not have time to go back and incorporate it all (before trying to publish it). The problem being right now, that I may be heading into the field soon for a big survey project (clients anymore do not seem to be aware that during the winter season it can and does snow) and the way my field season is shaping up, I may be out in the field from very soon until late November. Dmack has suggested the SAA Arch Record and I think that would be a good venue, but I would need to get it in soon. That wouldn't be a problem as it would be brief and to the point
Basically I would have to x-reference the job postings you may have with those of R. Joe's site for the period from January through mid-April. It would take a little bit of time, but not impossible. I don't mind crunching numbers.........I have been doing it for most of my life it seems, whether in archaeology or in other fields. Tho, I do not think it would change the results by much. Maybe a few cents per hour here and there, but data is data.
I have meant to respond to all the postings here for the past week but have been swamped at the office plus have been haggling with my insurance company over some medical bills and have been pretty much "mentally-deflated" by the time I have gotten home. Praise the gods for beer.
Anyway....thanks to one and all. If anyone has any other suggestions, please let me know here or email me.
Scott
TOTAL JOB POSTINGS=610 (822 FIELD TECH POSITIONS)
THE % OF THE POSTINGS IS GIVEN FIRST, FOLLOWED BY THE AVERAGE PAY RATE IN THAT REGION.
New England: ME, NH, VT, MA, CT
1.3% AVE=10.44
MID-ATLANTIC: NY, PA, NJ
15.3% AVE=11.56
SOUTH ATLANTIC: DE, MD (INCL DC), WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL
19.3% AVE=12.31
E. SOUTH CENTRAL: KY, TN, MS, AL
8.7% AVE=12.34
E. NORTH CENTRAL: WI, MI, IL, IN, OH
18.1% AVE=11.72
W. NORTH CENTRAL: ND, SD, NE, KS, MN, IA, MO
5.6% AVE=12.96
W. SOUTH CENTRAL: OK, AR, LA, TX
8.1% AVE=12.20
MOUNTAIN WEST: MT, ID, WY, NV, UT, CO, AZ, NM
17.9% AVE=13.41
PACIFIC: WA, OR, CA, AK, HI
5.8% AVE=13.63
FireArch
Are you stuck in a hotel...?
Not at the moment, but a lot of the information I gathered was done while on the road. I spent a lot of weeks last year stuck in small towns far, far off the beaten path with not a whole hell of a lot to do. I got kind of bored and decided to something more productive than exorcising my thumb on the TV remote control.
cmarknicholson
If you would like some assistance tying these data into GIS, I would gladly offer my services.
This might be interesting. What sort of data would you need? Feel free to email me if you want.
admin
Scott, if you would like to include job postings from the first part of the year for archaeologyfieldwork.com, there is a possibility that I might have them archived in my website backups. I can look into it if you are interested. If you're not, I can understand, as it would probably be more difficult to integrate that info into the data set retroactively after you've done the initial work.
If this would be possible, then I think I could do something with the info, tho if do try and publish this stuff, I may not have time to go back and incorporate it all (before trying to publish it). The problem being right now, that I may be heading into the field soon for a big survey project (clients anymore do not seem to be aware that during the winter season it can and does snow) and the way my field season is shaping up, I may be out in the field from very soon until late November. Dmack has suggested the SAA Arch Record and I think that would be a good venue, but I would need to get it in soon. That wouldn't be a problem as it would be brief and to the point
Basically I would have to x-reference the job postings you may have with those of R. Joe's site for the period from January through mid-April. It would take a little bit of time, but not impossible. I don't mind crunching numbers.........I have been doing it for most of my life it seems, whether in archaeology or in other fields. Tho, I do not think it would change the results by much. Maybe a few cents per hour here and there, but data is data.
I have meant to respond to all the postings here for the past week but have been swamped at the office plus have been haggling with my insurance company over some medical bills and have been pretty much "mentally-deflated" by the time I have gotten home. Praise the gods for beer.
Anyway....thanks to one and all. If anyone has any other suggestions, please let me know here or email me.
Scott
Post ID#5295 - replied 1/14/2008 8:12 AM
BAJR
I have had a reply from ACRA.. though still waiting to see if I can post it here... basically they feel there is little they can do :wink:
I would however... be more than happy to make a page on BAJR .. which has no worries about never working in teh USA... that names and shames ... companies that pay below the federal rates (RED) and those that pay above (GREEN)
thoughts?
Still happy to create the map of the US based on teh data.
I would however... be more than happy to make a page on BAJR .. which has no worries about never working in teh USA... that names and shames ... companies that pay below the federal rates (RED) and those that pay above (GREEN)
thoughts?
Still happy to create the map of the US based on teh data.
Post ID#5315 - replied 1/15/2008 2:43 PM
cmarknicholson
I just encountered an article on http://anthropology.net/ that has states the following in regards to an anthropologist's pay:
"Aside from, “What college/university has the best anthropology program?” I get asked, “How much do anthropologists make?” I will never be able honestly and thoroughly answer either question, but thanks to John Hawks, I think we’ve all have a better idea what the national average salary is for an anthropologist in the United States.
According to data collected from three major sites that specialize in job finding and salaries, the average salary of someone employed in anthropology is $66,861. You can expect a growth rate of 4.9% in the salary a year, based on the data. Unfortunately they only classify ‘anthropologists’ as people who,
“study the origin, cultural development and behavior of humans, [and] recover artifacts to gather information about humans.”
I really don’t know how much of a salary difference there is for anthropologists who work in other fields such as population genetics, medical anthropology, etc. Nevertheless, I think you can now understand that for the most part anthropologists aren’t making the mega bucks…. well at least not in the Bay Area."
This post is in reference to the following link: http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/MSN/CareerAdvice/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=1249&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=b3ee228b6b794d178731e6cfb00a75b9-253291498-XC-2
I think scottys work demonstrates that, at least in the field of archaeology, which falls under the category of anthropology, not to many folks are pulling down 60k a year...unless they are working 100 hours a week at $12 per hour.
"Aside from, “What college/university has the best anthropology program?” I get asked, “How much do anthropologists make?” I will never be able honestly and thoroughly answer either question, but thanks to John Hawks, I think we’ve all have a better idea what the national average salary is for an anthropologist in the United States.
According to data collected from three major sites that specialize in job finding and salaries, the average salary of someone employed in anthropology is $66,861. You can expect a growth rate of 4.9% in the salary a year, based on the data. Unfortunately they only classify ‘anthropologists’ as people who,
“study the origin, cultural development and behavior of humans, [and] recover artifacts to gather information about humans.”
I really don’t know how much of a salary difference there is for anthropologists who work in other fields such as population genetics, medical anthropology, etc. Nevertheless, I think you can now understand that for the most part anthropologists aren’t making the mega bucks…. well at least not in the Bay Area."
This post is in reference to the following link: http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/MSN/CareerAdvice/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=1249&cbRecursionCnt=1&cbsid=b3ee228b6b794d178731e6cfb00a75b9-253291498-XC-2
I think scottys work demonstrates that, at least in the field of archaeology, which falls under the category of anthropology, not to many folks are pulling down 60k a year...unless they are working 100 hours a week at $12 per hour.
Post ID#5316 - replied 1/15/2008 6:40 PM
FireArch
Moderator
RE: above; Ya, I'd like to see the source and the data sets that indicated 60k, cause that's not my payscale at present, nor is it near what most folks I know make. BTW, that's $32.15 per hour, full time, if the article is correct.
Post ID#5327 - replied 1/16/2008 7:06 PM
cmarknicholson
SAA did a salary study in 2005.
http://www.saa.org/membership/survey/
It doesn't appear as though field tech positions were included in the study.
Correct me if I'm wrong though
http://www.saa.org/membership/survey/
It doesn't appear as though field tech positions were included in the study.
Correct me if I'm wrong though
Post ID#5328 - replied 1/16/2008 9:05 PM
Jennifer Palmer
Webmaster
I didn't see any field tech (nor crew chiefing) positions listed either. Any thoughts on why these were excluded? Just about every other conceivable type of position seems to be listed. :?:
I would however... be more than happy to make a page on BAJR .. which has no worries about never working in teh USA... that names and shames ... companies that pay below the federal rates (RED) and those that pay above (GREEN)
Wouldn't that be interesting... I don't think a lot of firms would be very happy, though, about being included in any category of "shame" for relatively low hourly pay rates. Would this information come solely from advertised positions? It seems that the trend over time has been for companies to list generic employment adverts for field crew without laying out the specifics in terms of pay, benefits, per diem, etc. I give some credit to the companies that will actually lay it all out in their employment adverts, even if the terms aren't what most of us would consider to be favorable. At least they are providing the information up front, and letting the job seeker make a somewhat informed decision whether or not to apply ahead of time.
If anything, such a page would probably serve to be just a "snapshot" of what firms are paying at a given time. Pay rates often change, and sometimes there is variability even within one firm, depending upon which project they are hiring for, or what office is doing the hiring.
On a related note, I have seen a few forums (notably several Yahoo groups) which have been formed for the purpose of discussing pay rates and conditions at CRM firms. None of them have ever seemed to take off and have more than a few members.
I would however... be more than happy to make a page on BAJR .. which has no worries about never working in teh USA... that names and shames ... companies that pay below the federal rates (RED) and those that pay above (GREEN)
Wouldn't that be interesting... I don't think a lot of firms would be very happy, though, about being included in any category of "shame" for relatively low hourly pay rates. Would this information come solely from advertised positions? It seems that the trend over time has been for companies to list generic employment adverts for field crew without laying out the specifics in terms of pay, benefits, per diem, etc. I give some credit to the companies that will actually lay it all out in their employment adverts, even if the terms aren't what most of us would consider to be favorable. At least they are providing the information up front, and letting the job seeker make a somewhat informed decision whether or not to apply ahead of time.
If anything, such a page would probably serve to be just a "snapshot" of what firms are paying at a given time. Pay rates often change, and sometimes there is variability even within one firm, depending upon which project they are hiring for, or what office is doing the hiring.
On a related note, I have seen a few forums (notably several Yahoo groups) which have been formed for the purpose of discussing pay rates and conditions at CRM firms. None of them have ever seemed to take off and have more than a few members.
Post ID#5329 - replied 1/17/2008 8:09 AM
BAJR
For your interest, here is what we have in the UK....
The fab OutwageUK
http://www.freewebs.com/outwageuk/
heres what they do with the salary details:
http://www.freewebs.com/outwageuk/wages2007.htm
no laughing at the music..
The fab OutwageUK
http://www.freewebs.com/outwageuk/
heres what they do with the salary details:
http://www.freewebs.com/outwageuk/wages2007.htm
no laughing at the music..
Post ID#5330 - replied 1/17/2008 10:27 AM
rjhowell
Scott,
Some nice data, and something none of us who rant about the wage issue have done before (I think).
I'm a company owner and ACRA member, and they recently send out a "please submit information for our newsletter".
Sounds like a perfect place to show off some of your data, that will be read by alot of the management community.
With your permission I'd like to do an op-ed on the wage issue with your data and some of the movement in Britain.
BAJR- want to come in on this?
Ryan Howell
Black River Archaeology, LLC.
West Salem, Wisconsin USA
rjhowell@blackriverarch.com
Some nice data, and something none of us who rant about the wage issue have done before (I think).
I'm a company owner and ACRA member, and they recently send out a "please submit information for our newsletter".
Sounds like a perfect place to show off some of your data, that will be read by alot of the management community.
With your permission I'd like to do an op-ed on the wage issue with your data and some of the movement in Britain.
BAJR- want to come in on this?
Ryan Howell
Black River Archaeology, LLC.
West Salem, Wisconsin USA
rjhowell@blackriverarch.com
Post ID#5331 - replied 1/17/2008 5:13 PM
prisoner
[quote:="admin"]At least they are providing the information up front, and letting the job seeker make a somewhat informed decision whether or not to apply ahead of time.
This is key right here. I don't see any need to "shame" companies, but publishing the information could actually go a long way. When I came on with my current firm we had to hire a bunch of techs and we discovered we were pretty low on the issue of pay. We did some research and got our wages more in line and better than firms in our region. Some companies want to pay fair/good wages, but their management may not be fresh out of the trenches and in tune with what people want/need or expect these days.
Adding to what Jennifer said, this information provides field techs with a guide for what wages to expect and ask for. It is always an awkward moment when you fill out an app or have an interview and they ask you what your preferred salary is. Working all over the country like many techs do, you never have a firm grasp of what to ask for. About 10 yrs ago I worked for a large engineeering firm and when hired I asked for a certain wage (on the high end of what I expected) and got it. I found out later that another employee at roughly the same level as me was making about $2.00 less per hour, simply because they didn't know what to ask for and the company was more than happy to pay the lower wage.
As many discussions on this board allude to, wages will not rise until people stop accepting jobs for low wages. That is a tough prospect for some people who need the work, but armed with information like this, even if not completely exhaustive, could have a big impact. No one in the government, ACRA, SAAs, or RPA seems to be doing this, probably because none of those organizations care about field techs.
This is key right here. I don't see any need to "shame" companies, but publishing the information could actually go a long way. When I came on with my current firm we had to hire a bunch of techs and we discovered we were pretty low on the issue of pay. We did some research and got our wages more in line and better than firms in our region. Some companies want to pay fair/good wages, but their management may not be fresh out of the trenches and in tune with what people want/need or expect these days.
Adding to what Jennifer said, this information provides field techs with a guide for what wages to expect and ask for. It is always an awkward moment when you fill out an app or have an interview and they ask you what your preferred salary is. Working all over the country like many techs do, you never have a firm grasp of what to ask for. About 10 yrs ago I worked for a large engineeering firm and when hired I asked for a certain wage (on the high end of what I expected) and got it. I found out later that another employee at roughly the same level as me was making about $2.00 less per hour, simply because they didn't know what to ask for and the company was more than happy to pay the lower wage.
As many discussions on this board allude to, wages will not rise until people stop accepting jobs for low wages. That is a tough prospect for some people who need the work, but armed with information like this, even if not completely exhaustive, could have a big impact. No one in the government, ACRA, SAAs, or RPA seems to be doing this, probably because none of those organizations care about field techs.
Post ID#5332 - replied 1/17/2008 6:12 PM
BAJR
Count me in....
As ever information, and choise is power...
So rj... whatever you want... you got it.
As ever information, and choise is power...
So rj... whatever you want... you got it.
Post ID#5354 - replied 1/19/2008 3:16 PM
AMB
The SAA salary survey was a survey of its members. There are not many field tech members of the SAA.
Post ID#5656 - replied 2/12/2008 12:18 AM
Classarch
Has anyone seen the new article in Archaeology magazine about "Shovel Bums"? I was talking with my mother yesterday and she told me that there was an article discussing US and how poorly we are paid and how hard our lives and work is. I tried to find the article on line but had no luck. She mentioned that the Archaeology industry was worth (I may be wrong on the total) 3.5 Billion$.
What I am curious about is if this is the case then why is there nothing trickling down to us Techs considering that without us there would be no industry?
I am away from home right now so I can't post the article so does anyone else have it or read it?
What I am curious about is if this is the case then why is there nothing trickling down to us Techs considering that without us there would be no industry?
I am away from home right now so I can't post the article so does anyone else have it or read it?
Post ID#5657 - replied 2/12/2008 11:47 AM
cmarknicholson
Here is the link to the article:
http://www.archaeology.org/0803/abstracts/shovelbums.html
http://www.archaeology.org/0803/abstracts/shovelbums.html
Post ID#5673 - replied 2/14/2008 11:23 AM
Dmack89
unfortunatley only an Abstract of the full article is available on-line. If you want to see the full article and photos essay (or so the abstract says it is) you have to find a paper copy.
Post ID#5675 - replied 2/14/2008 5:53 PM
BAJR
two things...
a) BAJR is looking at a 2.5-3.5% rise in wages this year with further above inflation increase in 2009.. (part of a 5 year plan)
and
b)
http://www.archdiggers.co.uk/diggers/frameset.html
you can even find me as a fresh faced digger!
you have sun and evil dozer operators... we have rain and evil JCB operators!
a) BAJR is looking at a 2.5-3.5% rise in wages this year with further above inflation increase in 2009.. (part of a 5 year plan)
and
b)
http://www.archdiggers.co.uk/diggers/frameset.html
you can even find me as a fresh faced digger!
you have sun and evil dozer operators... we have rain and evil JCB operators!
Post ID#6125 - replied 3/11/2008 5:34 PM
scottyj432
I just thought I would drop a line into this forum to let one and all know the latest developments regarding this topic of field tech pay rates.
Several people, either on the forum or in private emails, encouraged me to seek a venue that would be willing to publish an article on this topic. In addition, Cmarknickolson offered his assistance in using my database to create some graphics for the proposed publication.
I then contacted the SAA Archaeological Record and presented a proposal for an article. They in turn agreed to accept a submission. At that time the deadline for the March issue was rapidly approaching and in a period of just a few days I wrote up a draft of an article and Chris put together some excellent graphics to accompany it. In addition, Chris provided his valuable editing skills as well as some very good additions to the text. Without Chris' help, I would not have been able to have met the deadline, and certainly would not have produced the final article that we both worked on. The end result was a much better version of what I had started out with. His contribution to the effort was as important as my own and for this reason we have shared authorship.
The March 2008 issue will be going to press this week and will soon be available. If you are a member of the SAA, you will be able to shortly access the issue online at the SAA web site. If you are not a member, the issue will be available for anyone to download in a couple of months.
The article is entitled: "What are Archaeological Field Technicians Paid?".
Look for it soon on a shelf near you.
Scott
Several people, either on the forum or in private emails, encouraged me to seek a venue that would be willing to publish an article on this topic. In addition, Cmarknickolson offered his assistance in using my database to create some graphics for the proposed publication.
I then contacted the SAA Archaeological Record and presented a proposal for an article. They in turn agreed to accept a submission. At that time the deadline for the March issue was rapidly approaching and in a period of just a few days I wrote up a draft of an article and Chris put together some excellent graphics to accompany it. In addition, Chris provided his valuable editing skills as well as some very good additions to the text. Without Chris' help, I would not have been able to have met the deadline, and certainly would not have produced the final article that we both worked on. The end result was a much better version of what I had started out with. His contribution to the effort was as important as my own and for this reason we have shared authorship.
The March 2008 issue will be going to press this week and will soon be available. If you are a member of the SAA, you will be able to shortly access the issue online at the SAA web site. If you are not a member, the issue will be available for anyone to download in a couple of months.
The article is entitled: "What are Archaeological Field Technicians Paid?".
Look for it soon on a shelf near you.
Scott
Post ID#6126 - replied 3/11/2008 5:52 PM
spynavy
Scott,
I look forward to reading it. Thanks to you and to Chris for all the hard work you've done to get the word out.
Mark
I look forward to reading it. Thanks to you and to Chris for all the hard work you've done to get the word out.
Mark
Post ID#6131 - replied 3/11/2008 11:08 PM
FireArch
Moderator
Bully to you two. :D
Post ID#6172 - replied 3/13/2008 6:14 PM
BAJR
oh you :lol:
Post ID#6296 - replied 3/18/2008 12:20 PM
FireArch
Moderator
There was a subthread within this thread discussing the status of where some CRM/Archaeology webhosts stood on posting low-wage announcements. That portion of the thread has been moved to its own topic.
If you wish to discuss what webhosts should be doing about posting low-wage jobs go to: http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3108
Cheers,
Richard
If you wish to discuss what webhosts should be doing about posting low-wage jobs go to: http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3108
Cheers,
Richard
Post ID#6406 - replied 3/25/2008 5:40 AM
BAJR
Any news on the article... would love to see a transcript.
Post ID#6442 - replied 3/27/2008 12:36 AM
scottyj432
The last time I checked, which was yesterday or the day before, the article had not yet been posted on the SAA web site.
I have several versions of the transcript. On the day Chris and I made the submission, we had a flurry of emails shooting thru cyberspace between us over a 4-5 hour period as we each made edits and additions to the article. The deadline was rapidly approaching, the creative juices were flowing and the pressure was on. It was a hectic day. So....of the various versions I have of the article, I now do not know which was the "final" version. Plus the SAA also made some minor changes and I would have to go back thru my emails to see what that was. And...I have not even looked at since the time period we submitted it as I have been pulling together a paper to present at an upcoming arch conference (unrelated to this topic) that has been consuming my time and research passions.
When it does get posted on the SAA web site, for at least the first 2 or 3 months, in order to view it one has to be a member of the SAA to download/view it. After that, anyone can access it. I am not a member of the SAA, so it may be a while even before I get to see it, tho I am curious to see how it turned out, and even more curious to see if there is any reaction within the membership of the SAA to the article.
I will say this: In one of the final flurry of the edited versions of the article flying between Chris and I, he rewrote the concluding paragraph (with additions) that, in my opinion, drove the point home in no uncertain terms what the pay situation is here in the states for field techs. I thought it went to the heart of the of the field tech pay rate conversation that has been discussed here over the past several years in various topic threads. I think it will be that paragraph in the article that will hopefully open some eyes within the SAA and elsewhere within this profession to the reality that all arch field techs are faced with throughout this country who are trying to make a living in this profession.
On a closing note ( rather lengthy).....I was invited to write and/or contribute to an article/op-ed piece to be submitted to the ACRA newsletter regarding this topic. In regards to this invitation, I was also forwarded some emails from the editor of the ACRA newsletter that led me to their web site and a "survey" they had conducted of pay rates in CRM. The jist of one of the emails was that they (ACRA) had conducted just such a survey of field tech pay rates and as far as I could tell, they were not interested in any "new" data in that regards. This "survey", I might add, was of a handful of CRM firms and was conducted back in the late 1990's. The survey was a joke at best. I never responded to the ACRA invitation for the reasons set out bellow (sorry about that to those of you who sent me emails):
When I first set out last year to create a database of the advertised field tech pay rates, it was purely out of curiosity on my part. When I finally pulled it all together I thought others might be interested to see the results especially since it has been a much posted topic on here over the years. After posting the data, several people contacted me to go further and publish an article on the subject. A few of the "wise-sages" from this site suggested the SAA as an outlet for the publication.
I spent an entire weekend pondering the idea proposed of publishing. I finally came to the conclusion that it was time to take this discussion of field tech pay rates to a higher level of discussion beyond this type of web site and others like it (no offence), but that I would need help doing so. Hence bringing Chris into it (and what a stroke of luck it was) and opting to go for the SAA as an outlet for that "higher level of discussion".
To be blunt, I do not believe that the ACRA newsletter is a venue for such a "higher level of discussion" to take place.
If real change is to take place, it needs to start as a discussion/debate in a broader relatively unbiased venue than one interested in protecting the bottom line of the ledger sheet.
Scott
I have several versions of the transcript. On the day Chris and I made the submission, we had a flurry of emails shooting thru cyberspace between us over a 4-5 hour period as we each made edits and additions to the article. The deadline was rapidly approaching, the creative juices were flowing and the pressure was on. It was a hectic day. So....of the various versions I have of the article, I now do not know which was the "final" version. Plus the SAA also made some minor changes and I would have to go back thru my emails to see what that was. And...I have not even looked at since the time period we submitted it as I have been pulling together a paper to present at an upcoming arch conference (unrelated to this topic) that has been consuming my time and research passions.
When it does get posted on the SAA web site, for at least the first 2 or 3 months, in order to view it one has to be a member of the SAA to download/view it. After that, anyone can access it. I am not a member of the SAA, so it may be a while even before I get to see it, tho I am curious to see how it turned out, and even more curious to see if there is any reaction within the membership of the SAA to the article.
I will say this: In one of the final flurry of the edited versions of the article flying between Chris and I, he rewrote the concluding paragraph (with additions) that, in my opinion, drove the point home in no uncertain terms what the pay situation is here in the states for field techs. I thought it went to the heart of the of the field tech pay rate conversation that has been discussed here over the past several years in various topic threads. I think it will be that paragraph in the article that will hopefully open some eyes within the SAA and elsewhere within this profession to the reality that all arch field techs are faced with throughout this country who are trying to make a living in this profession.
On a closing note ( rather lengthy).....I was invited to write and/or contribute to an article/op-ed piece to be submitted to the ACRA newsletter regarding this topic. In regards to this invitation, I was also forwarded some emails from the editor of the ACRA newsletter that led me to their web site and a "survey" they had conducted of pay rates in CRM. The jist of one of the emails was that they (ACRA) had conducted just such a survey of field tech pay rates and as far as I could tell, they were not interested in any "new" data in that regards. This "survey", I might add, was of a handful of CRM firms and was conducted back in the late 1990's. The survey was a joke at best. I never responded to the ACRA invitation for the reasons set out bellow (sorry about that to those of you who sent me emails):
When I first set out last year to create a database of the advertised field tech pay rates, it was purely out of curiosity on my part. When I finally pulled it all together I thought others might be interested to see the results especially since it has been a much posted topic on here over the years. After posting the data, several people contacted me to go further and publish an article on the subject. A few of the "wise-sages" from this site suggested the SAA as an outlet for the publication.
I spent an entire weekend pondering the idea proposed of publishing. I finally came to the conclusion that it was time to take this discussion of field tech pay rates to a higher level of discussion beyond this type of web site and others like it (no offence), but that I would need help doing so. Hence bringing Chris into it (and what a stroke of luck it was) and opting to go for the SAA as an outlet for that "higher level of discussion".
To be blunt, I do not believe that the ACRA newsletter is a venue for such a "higher level of discussion" to take place.
If real change is to take place, it needs to start as a discussion/debate in a broader relatively unbiased venue than one interested in protecting the bottom line of the ledger sheet.
Scott
Post ID#6445 - replied 3/27/2008 8:55 AM
FireArch
Moderator
[size=12:][color=black:]If real change is to take place, it needs to start as a discussion/debate in a broader relatively unbiased venue than one interested in protecting the bottom line of the ledger sheet.
Very nice Scott, very nice.
Thanks for the update and the context. Hopefully the SAA will do as they said and publish, and one of our members would do a cut-and-paste when the article is available.
Cheers to Scott and Chris,
Richard
Very nice Scott, very nice.
Thanks for the update and the context. Hopefully the SAA will do as they said and publish, and one of our members would do a cut-and-paste when the article is available.
Cheers to Scott and Chris,
Richard
Post ID#6526 - replied 3/31/2008 2:43 PM
BAJR
I have a bad feeling about this :wink:
I expect some lip service and nothing... perhaps a head-shaking... hmmm yes thats terrible... but from what I can see.. there is a big difference in pay and conditions between companies... obviously some can provide decent accomodation, per diems and rates.. and some fall well below.
Question?
How can some companies provide a decent standard of pay and still turn a profit... while others fall well below and probably claim that if they put the pay up, they would not be viable... it is possible to ... so why can't they.?
ACRA must show it is not a guardian of poverty but a management organisation that sees that staff wellbeign is important - and that all its members must (and I mean must) abide by minimum conditions.
I expect some lip service and nothing... perhaps a head-shaking... hmmm yes thats terrible... but from what I can see.. there is a big difference in pay and conditions between companies... obviously some can provide decent accomodation, per diems and rates.. and some fall well below.
Question?
How can some companies provide a decent standard of pay and still turn a profit... while others fall well below and probably claim that if they put the pay up, they would not be viable... it is possible to ... so why can't they.?
ACRA must show it is not a guardian of poverty but a management organisation that sees that staff wellbeign is important - and that all its members must (and I mean must) abide by minimum conditions.
Post ID#6528 - replied 3/31/2008 3:40 PM
FireArch
Moderator
Cmark and Scott,
Did either of you go to the SAA's? Was there anyone there to discuss what is happening with your article?
Did either of you go to the SAA's? Was there anyone there to discuss what is happening with your article?
Post ID#6534 - replied 3/31/2008 6:06 PM
scottyj432
I did not go. I too was wondering if the article was discussed at all. Also, the status of the union thing. I am as much in the dark as anyone.
Scott
Scott
Post ID#6558 - replied 4/1/2008 11:11 AM
cmarknicholson
I was unable to attend SAA's also. But I echo Scott’s sentiments on all he has written. Scott has done a great job of pulling together this data set, and in the long run this will greatly aid in this movement.
I understand BAJR's line of reasoning also, and can only hope that by spreading the word on the wage topic, we get folks to NOT SETTLE FOR CRAP WAGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The older generation of archaeologists (I include myself at the ripe age of 33) need to let folks who are getting their BA's know that there is no reason that they have to settle for wages that are equivalent to working at McDonalds or some other low-level service industry. I remember when I got my first CRM job, I would have taken anything; because I didn't know any better.
I see these and other forums as a method of outreach. Another form of outreach that I’ll advocate for, is putting on a brown bag lecture at you alma mater. Call up the chair and see if you can do a lecture on your CRM experience and the value of the education you got there.
I understand BAJR's line of reasoning also, and can only hope that by spreading the word on the wage topic, we get folks to NOT SETTLE FOR CRAP WAGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The older generation of archaeologists (I include myself at the ripe age of 33) need to let folks who are getting their BA's know that there is no reason that they have to settle for wages that are equivalent to working at McDonalds or some other low-level service industry. I remember when I got my first CRM job, I would have taken anything; because I didn't know any better.
I see these and other forums as a method of outreach. Another form of outreach that I’ll advocate for, is putting on a brown bag lecture at you alma mater. Call up the chair and see if you can do a lecture on your CRM experience and the value of the education you got there.
Post ID#6567 - replied 4/1/2008 4:43 PM
spynavy
[quote:="FireArch"][size=12:][color=black:]If real change is to take place, it needs to start as a discussion/debate in a broader relatively unbiased venue than one interested in protecting the bottom line of the ledger sheet.
Very nice Scott, very nice.
Thanks for the update and the context. Hopefully the SAA will do as they said and publish, and one of our members would do a cut-and-paste when the article is available.
Cheers to Scott and Chris,
Richard
As of today (1:30 Mtn time) the article is not on the SAA website. Given the SAA's just ended I would think it might take a couple of days to get posted.
My 2 cents.
Mark
Very nice Scott, very nice.
Thanks for the update and the context. Hopefully the SAA will do as they said and publish, and one of our members would do a cut-and-paste when the article is available.
Cheers to Scott and Chris,
Richard
As of today (1:30 Mtn time) the article is not on the SAA website. Given the SAA's just ended I would think it might take a couple of days to get posted.
My 2 cents.
Mark
Post ID#6568 - replied 4/1/2008 6:04 PM
BAJR
as I said...
I expect some lip service and nothing...
sad really..... not nice to talk about things such as decent pay at warm conferences.. apart from the usual tutting agreement :wink:
I expect some lip service and nothing...
sad really..... not nice to talk about things such as decent pay at warm conferences.. apart from the usual tutting agreement :wink:
Post ID#6600 - replied 4/2/2008 12:53 PM
cmarknicholson
I recently posted a portion of this thread on another forum and received this response:
I have tried to respond to the OP for the thread along similar lines, Chris. But have failed to find the words.
Fact is, this is an industry issue. It is not a labor vs. management issue. Having worked both sides of the fence, alternatingly, over the past 15 years I can say that with all certainty. Low wages are not the issue. Low rates (and, often, high overheads) are.
One concept that must enter this debate is the corporate bottom line on archaeology. Companies are simply not making much money off archaeology. In the current global market, any company with anyone holding the title "CEO" is gonna draw questions from labor...but not many CEOs, owners, or management are getting all that rich off their labor pool.
In many smaller firms, an owner may make less in a year than his or her senior-most employee. Yikes!!! That is simply not fair. Running a company is one royal pain in the ASS. I have never owned a company (well, I did consult "on the side" for a few months, but that does not count...) but have helped out. Owners put their entire security on the line, and trust people like us with their livliehoods knowing full well that field scientists make poor business decsions all the time. That is a lot of risk, for which they are bidding entirely too low.
I said it. Rates are too low. Clients have not come to terms with how labor intensive this game is.
What has failed in this system is that everyone, from labor to owners, wants to be treated like a "professional". To labor, that has been viewed as benefits and a living wage (at least). For owners, the definition varies.
I have worked under the management of a former VP for Hewlett Packard cum environemntal science Managing Principal, and I now feel safe stating that her management style emphasised a different level of what was "professional" that I hope none of you ever live to see. Talking an office with 60 people and a monthly rent of over $22, 000 a month...
What is "professional"? I would venture to say that not assessing the status of an emergent industry...not trade, but *industry*...and setting the corporate bar too high is one area where CRM has failed over the past 10 years.
We cannot address this issue from the field tech, up, but that is what has happened. Of course the debate has grown. People tend to forget this industry (CRM) is only 30 years old. That is the spand of a career for a healthy American. This is why we were fortunate to see PIs and PMs showing up to those meetings...these people have grown up in an emergent industry, and should be present to discuss the real shortcomings of our industry.
The monsters will die. We will hear them gasping soon. I am fortunate to be in a company that is addressing this issue head on, but this is a business model.
Labor needs to understand that their bosses cannot just change a business model. They will go bust if they change over night. It is far better to gravitate toward models that one could project as being both successful and capable of providing a good, living wage.
It is natural to consider that if I am poor, someone else must be getting fat. We are in a service industry, however. The people getting fat are the clients...not the owners. Labor vs. management is NOT the answer, at least not in the environment of the past 30 years. Unionization might be the answer in industries that are centuries old...transportation, mining, agriculture, machining...but unionization also has a way of seperating labor from management, and that is something we are too young to attempt. Today’s field tech could be management in 10 years. This is not yet the industry to be considering a "captial ’U’ union", not yet. Give it 20 years, then maybe. Too young!
Price fixing is illegal. But it will take some sort of a uniform rate hike over time to accomodate reasonable growth and facilitation of a stable labor base in order to achieve goals. This is industrial history.
I promote keeping the debate alive, but I also hope that folks do not do to themselves what we saw go down with UAFT not so long ago. It flat-out sucks to be a part of an emergent industry where $40k/yr. is considered a very healthy living to aspire toward, I know. But know this: your employer is not able to win bids and provide that wage.
Not yet. Not without the involvement of management. We wanna win this thing? I say take it up a notch in conversation with owners. Price fixing is illegal, BUT...prices are too incredibly low.
I know. We might run the oil and gas lobbiests right to D.C. to petition against the NHPA due to rate hikes. Whatever. The Indians still have a lot of the oil and gas they want, and that can be used against the lobbiests just as well.
This industry is going to shrink. Expect the big monster firms to fade away. There will be fewer job openings, and the quality of work will become more boilerplate, more industrial, and less academic. Why can’t we have healthy science and industry? I imagine that’ll be the debate about 10 years after we see things clear up in the area of compensation.
I’ll just part saying we are doing good for an emergent industry, so far.
Thoughts?
I have tried to respond to the OP for the thread along similar lines, Chris. But have failed to find the words.
Fact is, this is an industry issue. It is not a labor vs. management issue. Having worked both sides of the fence, alternatingly, over the past 15 years I can say that with all certainty. Low wages are not the issue. Low rates (and, often, high overheads) are.
One concept that must enter this debate is the corporate bottom line on archaeology. Companies are simply not making much money off archaeology. In the current global market, any company with anyone holding the title "CEO" is gonna draw questions from labor...but not many CEOs, owners, or management are getting all that rich off their labor pool.
In many smaller firms, an owner may make less in a year than his or her senior-most employee. Yikes!!! That is simply not fair. Running a company is one royal pain in the ASS. I have never owned a company (well, I did consult "on the side" for a few months, but that does not count...) but have helped out. Owners put their entire security on the line, and trust people like us with their livliehoods knowing full well that field scientists make poor business decsions all the time. That is a lot of risk, for which they are bidding entirely too low.
I said it. Rates are too low. Clients have not come to terms with how labor intensive this game is.
What has failed in this system is that everyone, from labor to owners, wants to be treated like a "professional". To labor, that has been viewed as benefits and a living wage (at least). For owners, the definition varies.
I have worked under the management of a former VP for Hewlett Packard cum environemntal science Managing Principal, and I now feel safe stating that her management style emphasised a different level of what was "professional" that I hope none of you ever live to see. Talking an office with 60 people and a monthly rent of over $22, 000 a month...
What is "professional"? I would venture to say that not assessing the status of an emergent industry...not trade, but *industry*...and setting the corporate bar too high is one area where CRM has failed over the past 10 years.
We cannot address this issue from the field tech, up, but that is what has happened. Of course the debate has grown. People tend to forget this industry (CRM) is only 30 years old. That is the spand of a career for a healthy American. This is why we were fortunate to see PIs and PMs showing up to those meetings...these people have grown up in an emergent industry, and should be present to discuss the real shortcomings of our industry.
The monsters will die. We will hear them gasping soon. I am fortunate to be in a company that is addressing this issue head on, but this is a business model.
Labor needs to understand that their bosses cannot just change a business model. They will go bust if they change over night. It is far better to gravitate toward models that one could project as being both successful and capable of providing a good, living wage.
It is natural to consider that if I am poor, someone else must be getting fat. We are in a service industry, however. The people getting fat are the clients...not the owners. Labor vs. management is NOT the answer, at least not in the environment of the past 30 years. Unionization might be the answer in industries that are centuries old...transportation, mining, agriculture, machining...but unionization also has a way of seperating labor from management, and that is something we are too young to attempt. Today’s field tech could be management in 10 years. This is not yet the industry to be considering a "captial ’U’ union", not yet. Give it 20 years, then maybe. Too young!
Price fixing is illegal. But it will take some sort of a uniform rate hike over time to accomodate reasonable growth and facilitation of a stable labor base in order to achieve goals. This is industrial history.
I promote keeping the debate alive, but I also hope that folks do not do to themselves what we saw go down with UAFT not so long ago. It flat-out sucks to be a part of an emergent industry where $40k/yr. is considered a very healthy living to aspire toward, I know. But know this: your employer is not able to win bids and provide that wage.
Not yet. Not without the involvement of management. We wanna win this thing? I say take it up a notch in conversation with owners. Price fixing is illegal, BUT...prices are too incredibly low.
I know. We might run the oil and gas lobbiests right to D.C. to petition against the NHPA due to rate hikes. Whatever. The Indians still have a lot of the oil and gas they want, and that can be used against the lobbiests just as well.
This industry is going to shrink. Expect the big monster firms to fade away. There will be fewer job openings, and the quality of work will become more boilerplate, more industrial, and less academic. Why can’t we have healthy science and industry? I imagine that’ll be the debate about 10 years after we see things clear up in the area of compensation.
I’ll just part saying we are doing good for an emergent industry, so far.
Thoughts?
Post ID#6603 - replied 4/2/2008 4:18 PM
FireArch
Moderator
Ya, I have a thought: Explain to me why companies with geologist and biologist AND archaeologist pay the Geos and Bios two to three times what we make. The models are the same, the overhead is the same, the pay is NOT the same.
Post ID#6604 - replied 4/2/2008 4:22 PM
FireArch
Moderator
Price fixing is illegal. But it will take some sort of a uniform rate hike over time to accomodate reasonable growth and facilitation of a stable labor base in order to achieve goals. This is industrial history.
Make federal prevailing wage the standard then...
Make federal prevailing wage the standard then...
Post ID#6622 - replied 4/2/2008 11:10 PM
scottyj432
Price fixing is illegal. But it will take some sort of a uniform rate hike over time to accomodate reasonable growth and facilitation of a stable labor base in order to achieve goals. This is industrial history.
FireArch said:
Make federal prevailing wage the standard then...
I completely agree!
FireArch said:
Ya, I have a thought: Explain to me why companies with geologist and biologist AND archaeologist pay the Geos and Bios two to three times what we make. The models are the same, the overhead is the same, the pay is NOT the same.
Here again I agree. Tho, I have worked with some Bio techs who do not get paid even what the lowliest of Arch techs are paid. However some Bios do in fact get paid much more than the Archs. Geos always get paid more, even as Geo techs. I suppose the argument could be made that the Geos "contribute" to the bottom line profit but that hardly explains those Bios who in fact do get paid more. As previously stated by Richard, it is in fact the same business model in which this situation exists.
I once worked on a pipeline project up in the mountains and had to work with three engineering techs. All three of these guys had 2 years of junior college. These 3 guys were provided by the client to "handle" all of the GIS/GPS data. The problem was that these 3 guys had no idea how to operate their equipment in the field. They could not even get it to turn on on many days. I had to show them how to do it, and if there was ever a problem with it, they came to me to "solve" it. AND.....these 3 yahoos were making 15K each a year more than me. I was beside myself.
Scott
FireArch said:
Make federal prevailing wage the standard then...
I completely agree!
FireArch said:
Ya, I have a thought: Explain to me why companies with geologist and biologist AND archaeologist pay the Geos and Bios two to three times what we make. The models are the same, the overhead is the same, the pay is NOT the same.
Here again I agree. Tho, I have worked with some Bio techs who do not get paid even what the lowliest of Arch techs are paid. However some Bios do in fact get paid much more than the Archs. Geos always get paid more, even as Geo techs. I suppose the argument could be made that the Geos "contribute" to the bottom line profit but that hardly explains those Bios who in fact do get paid more. As previously stated by Richard, it is in fact the same business model in which this situation exists.
I once worked on a pipeline project up in the mountains and had to work with three engineering techs. All three of these guys had 2 years of junior college. These 3 guys were provided by the client to "handle" all of the GIS/GPS data. The problem was that these 3 guys had no idea how to operate their equipment in the field. They could not even get it to turn on on many days. I had to show them how to do it, and if there was ever a problem with it, they came to me to "solve" it. AND.....these 3 yahoos were making 15K each a year more than me. I was beside myself.
Scott
Post ID#6630 - replied 4/3/2008 9:41 AM
FireArch
Moderator
[quote:="scottyj432"]I once worked on a pipeline project up in the mountains and had to work with three engineering techs. All three of these guys had 2 years of junior college. These 3 guys were provided by the client to "handle" all of the GIS/GPS data. The problem was that these 3 guys had no idea how to operate their equipment in the field. They could not even get it to turn on on many days. I had to show them how to do it, and if there was ever a problem with it, they came to me to "solve" it. AND.....these 3 yahoos were making 15K each a year more than me. I was beside myself.
Scott
Ouch. I would have been too. There is one difference I failed to note between geologists (not just a tech) and archaeologists, at least in Cali, is that geos have to pass a state test and are therefore licensed. It is an option that I have thought about for our field, but since no one's life is on the line if we make a mistake, it really would not cut out the lowballing and sheister firms from the business. Still, a geo does pretty much what we do; stick a hole in the ground, looks to see what's there, write a report about what was seen, make a recommendation for how to proceed if there is an issue - "Thank you very much that will be twice what he's making, have a good day...." :x
Scott
Ouch. I would have been too. There is one difference I failed to note between geologists (not just a tech) and archaeologists, at least in Cali, is that geos have to pass a state test and are therefore licensed. It is an option that I have thought about for our field, but since no one's life is on the line if we make a mistake, it really would not cut out the lowballing and sheister firms from the business. Still, a geo does pretty much what we do; stick a hole in the ground, looks to see what's there, write a report about what was seen, make a recommendation for how to proceed if there is an issue - "Thank you very much that will be twice what he's making, have a good day...." :x
Post ID#6635 - replied 4/3/2008 5:51 PM
prisoner
[quote:="FireArch"]Ouch. I would have been too. There is one difference I failed to note between geologists (not just a tech) and archaeologists, at least in Cali, is that geos have to pass a state test and are therefore licensed. It is an option that I have thought about for our field, but since no one's life is on the line if we make a mistake, it really would not cut out the lowballing and sheister firms from the business. Still, a geo does pretty much what we do; stick a hole in the ground, looks to see what's there, write a report about what was seen, make a recommendation for how to proceed if there is an issue - "Thank you very much that will be twice what he's making, have a good day...." :x
Geologists are probably making more simply because of the salary they can earn doing something other than environmental work, i.e. oil and gas work. So it probably has more to do with attracting quality geologists than what tasks they are actually getting paid for. My last company had environmental scientists making slightly more than archeologists, but then we had noise and air people, usually engineers, that were pulling in a lot more simply because they had engineering degrees. Same thing could be said for attracting quality technical specialties to less favorable parts of the country. My home town is an unappealing city which happens to have a big defense contractor there. They have to pay engineers more than they would make in Dallas or other cities simply to get them to come. It is a little whacky, but makes some sense.
Geologists are probably making more simply because of the salary they can earn doing something other than environmental work, i.e. oil and gas work. So it probably has more to do with attracting quality geologists than what tasks they are actually getting paid for. My last company had environmental scientists making slightly more than archeologists, but then we had noise and air people, usually engineers, that were pulling in a lot more simply because they had engineering degrees. Same thing could be said for attracting quality technical specialties to less favorable parts of the country. My home town is an unappealing city which happens to have a big defense contractor there. They have to pay engineers more than they would make in Dallas or other cities simply to get them to come. It is a little whacky, but makes some sense.
Post ID#6639 - replied 4/3/2008 7:45 PM
FireArch
Moderator
[quote:="prisoner"]Geologists are probably making more simply because of the salary they can earn doing something other than environmental work, i.e. oil and gas work. So it probably has more to do with attracting quality geologists than what tasks they are actually getting paid for. My last company had environmental scientists making slightly more than archeologists, but then we had noise and air people, usually engineers, that were pulling in a lot more simply because they had engineering degrees. Same thing could be said for attracting quality technical specialties to less favorable parts of the country. My home town is an unappealing city which happens to have a big defense contractor there. They have to pay engineers more than they would make in Dallas or other cities simply to get them to come. It is a little whacky, but makes some sense.
Ya, their degrees may be different and they may work in just a slightly different part of the same field as we do, but essentially they are doing the same thing: they go to field, assess the conditions, evaluate the project, its effects, and solutions, and write a report that describes all of that. It's the same model. The most obvious difference is the number of people in the practice of each field; there's a lot of archies, not as many G&O geos, fewer noise analysts....
Ya, their degrees may be different and they may work in just a slightly different part of the same field as we do, but essentially they are doing the same thing: they go to field, assess the conditions, evaluate the project, its effects, and solutions, and write a report that describes all of that. It's the same model. The most obvious difference is the number of people in the practice of each field; there's a lot of archies, not as many G&O geos, fewer noise analysts....
Post ID#6731 - replied 4/9/2008 11:54 AM
scottyj432
ACRA recently posted this survey on the ACRA website:
http://acra-crm.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=41
http://acra-crm.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=41
Post ID#6744 - replied 4/9/2008 6:07 PM
BAJR
My fave:
As we move forward with subsequent surveys, we’ll be able to begin to evaluate changes in our industry over time.
yup... keep on with teh survey.. but.... er... then??
I will be at an IFA Council meeting next week.. adn will be raising the discussions on this site... we are also approving teh benchmark... but this time... not just to build a profile.. but to work out how to raisse wages above inflation.. over 5 years... my great dream... !
raising crap is better than keeping crap steady!
will let ya know.
As we move forward with subsequent surveys, we’ll be able to begin to evaluate changes in our industry over time.
yup... keep on with teh survey.. but.... er... then??
I will be at an IFA Council meeting next week.. adn will be raising the discussions on this site... we are also approving teh benchmark... but this time... not just to build a profile.. but to work out how to raisse wages above inflation.. over 5 years... my great dream... !
raising crap is better than keeping crap steady!
will let ya know.
Post ID#6746 - replied 4/9/2008 7:12 PM
Heather626
Yay, BAJR crossing my fingers for some sort of raising of the bar in the UK. While I am happy that there is at least a minimum they have to abide by, it is still extremely low. Too bad when I convert my wages into dollars and file my taxes in the states it looks grand... not so much good for paying the rent in London though!
Post ID#6748 - replied 4/9/2008 10:03 PM
FireArch
Moderator
Remember, ACRA is in the business of protecting management's/owner's pig trough, they could give a rat's backside about field crew, same with RPA. If they did care they would ask us to participate in making things better for everyone.
It should come as no surprise, and clearly David hasnt been, that ACRA has not offered to publish Scotty's and Chris's work on the topic of pay.
It should come as no surprise, and clearly David hasnt been, that ACRA has not offered to publish Scotty's and Chris's work on the topic of pay.
Post ID#6749 - replied 4/9/2008 10:17 PM
scottyj432
Heather,
I am curious.....do you, as someone "on-the-ground" so to speak, with a unique American perspective think the standards initiated by BAJR have benefited the overall situation for techies in the UK?
So....just for the moment, put yourself into a sort of AFW.com "reporter-in-the field" role and provide us with a comparison of the sitch there as compared to here. Would the the "BAJR Method" work here in some form? If so, why and if not, then why? Do you think it is adaptable to here?
You alluded to the rent in London. Do you think the BAJR pay scales appropriately account for the differences in cost of living, bearing in mind that many tech jobs here in the states do not (take for example all the $10-11/hr jobs posted for positions in some pretty high cost of living areas here in the eastern states). I worked for awhile in that part of the world several years ago and loved every minute of it, but I did get a bit frustrated with the high cost of everything. London of course is pretty expensive. If you lived elsewhere that had a lower cost of living would the going pay rates then be "livable"?
What about the benefits per diem and housing?
Scott
I am curious.....do you, as someone "on-the-ground" so to speak, with a unique American perspective think the standards initiated by BAJR have benefited the overall situation for techies in the UK?
So....just for the moment, put yourself into a sort of AFW.com "reporter-in-the field" role and provide us with a comparison of the sitch there as compared to here. Would the the "BAJR Method" work here in some form? If so, why and if not, then why? Do you think it is adaptable to here?
You alluded to the rent in London. Do you think the BAJR pay scales appropriately account for the differences in cost of living, bearing in mind that many tech jobs here in the states do not (take for example all the $10-11/hr jobs posted for positions in some pretty high cost of living areas here in the eastern states). I worked for awhile in that part of the world several years ago and loved every minute of it, but I did get a bit frustrated with the high cost of everything. London of course is pretty expensive. If you lived elsewhere that had a lower cost of living would the going pay rates then be "livable"?
What about the benefits per diem and housing?
Scott
Post ID#6750 - replied 4/9/2008 10:57 PM
scottyj432
FireArch
Remember, ACRA is in the business of protecting management's/owner's pig trough, they could give a rat's backside about field crew, same with RPA. If they did care they would ask us to participate in making things better for everyone.
It should come as no surprise, and clearly David hasnt been, that ACRA has not offered to publish Scotty's and Chris's work on the topic of pay.
This ACRA survey lists approximately 450 total positions but it does not provide the number of CRM companies who responded. As I recall, the last survey of this kind they did (back in the late 1990's), they had input from was about 30 CRM companies (can't recall the exact number but it was pretty small). I suspect this too is a small sampling of the CRM companies out there and therefore a somewhat biased sampling.
On a related issue, today I had a phone call at my office from an old co-worker of mine from a project several years ago in so-cal. He has been working for the past few years full time for an environmental engineering firm that has a CRM division and they get the SAA Archaeology Record. Anyway, he read the article, recognized my name and the whole topic of the article actually became a topic of conversation within the CRM division of his employer. They actually used the data presented in the article to assess the compensation they pay to field techs in the regions they operate in to see if they needed to adjust it higher or not. They concluded they paid above the regional average and made no adjustments.
The important point is this: The CRM division read it, discussed it and reviewed their pay scales.
That I think is at least a small step forward; dialogue on the issue within CRM. Though it would have been nice to have seen a bump upwards with the pay. Oh well, baby steps always come before one can run.
Scott
Remember, ACRA is in the business of protecting management's/owner's pig trough, they could give a rat's backside about field crew, same with RPA. If they did care they would ask us to participate in making things better for everyone.
It should come as no surprise, and clearly David hasnt been, that ACRA has not offered to publish Scotty's and Chris's work on the topic of pay.
This ACRA survey lists approximately 450 total positions but it does not provide the number of CRM companies who responded. As I recall, the last survey of this kind they did (back in the late 1990's), they had input from was about 30 CRM companies (can't recall the exact number but it was pretty small). I suspect this too is a small sampling of the CRM companies out there and therefore a somewhat biased sampling.
On a related issue, today I had a phone call at my office from an old co-worker of mine from a project several years ago in so-cal. He has been working for the past few years full time for an environmental engineering firm that has a CRM division and they get the SAA Archaeology Record. Anyway, he read the article, recognized my name and the whole topic of the article actually became a topic of conversation within the CRM division of his employer. They actually used the data presented in the article to assess the compensation they pay to field techs in the regions they operate in to see if they needed to adjust it higher or not. They concluded they paid above the regional average and made no adjustments.
The important point is this: The CRM division read it, discussed it and reviewed their pay scales.
That I think is at least a small step forward; dialogue on the issue within CRM. Though it would have been nice to have seen a bump upwards with the pay. Oh well, baby steps always come before one can run.
Scott
Post ID#6752 - replied 4/10/2008 3:22 AM
FireArch
Moderator
Anyway, he read the article, recognized my name and the whole topic of the article actually became a topic of conversation within the CRM division of his employer. They actually used the data presented in the article to assess the compensation they pay to field techs in the regions they operate in to see if they needed to adjust it higher or not. They concluded they paid above the regional average and made no adjustments.
That's great to hear. It's especially great to know that they used to data to ensure that they are paying better than average, rather than assessing rates downward, as I pessimistically assume some of the less than honorable companies will do.
That's great to hear. It's especially great to know that they used to data to ensure that they are paying better than average, rather than assessing rates downward, as I pessimistically assume some of the less than honorable companies will do.
Post ID#6761 - replied 4/10/2008 5:04 PM
Heather626
I've only just started in CRM in the UK (in November to be exact), and have only worked for one company, but I am on a temporary contract that is renewed on a weekly basis since I started. So I don't know anything about the situation prior to the introduction of a standard.
That being said...
The one thing that is a major difference between working in the US (as I did for about 5 years) and the UK is that in the US a techs can get differing rates of pay depending on their experience. Whereas here, if you are a site assistant (field tech), you get the pay rate of a site assistant regardless of whether you left field school yesterday or have been working for a while. Yes, everyone who is a field tech is presumably doing the same job, but at the same time those of us with more experience end up having to pick up the slack or teaching the less experienced... especially with a larger crew when the crew chief doesn't have time to babysit all the new people. At least in the states I have been able to negotiate higher pay with my experience. I've also been paid as a specialist tech since I am an osteologist and companies in the US find me quite handy to have around.
The only reason it seems to be a rather daunting task in the states to have a standard minimum pay is due to the fact that we have so many contract firms, gov based firms, large firms, small companies... we probably have more CRM firms in the state of pennsylvania than they do in the whole country here.
I do live in London, moved after I was finished my MSc in Durham because I had friends to move in with here, and could easily get a job somewhere else if I could find a contract firm right off. Luckily I was headhunted by a company here and had a job immediately. I was hired on for a specific project that went on for a couple months... once they found out I know what I'm doing they kept me on and I still work for them as a digger (field tech), however now I am working in the office doing skeletal analysis that will keep me out of the field for a while. (Just providing some background for you.) Anyways... I may as well say what I make (it is listed on BAJR in the payscales) cause I don't care if people know and it will make explaining things easier...
So I live in London, I make 8.53 an hour (pounds)... I net 250 a week... basically this is the equivalent of trying to live in NYC on $8 an hour. Good luck. And I only make that much because I live in London... because in London you get about 2000 pounds extra a year to account for the fact that you live in a high cost area. I was offered jobs in the NE of England and in Worcestershire... they were only going to pay me about 6 to 7 pounds an hour. Less than I was making in the states with just my BS when translated into dollars. Sad when the cost of living all over the UK is higher than the US.
The jobs that have per diem and provide you with a hotel room are few and far between, and usually very short. I'm guessing that because this is such a small country, most companies only have to rely on people who live relatively locally. With my company, if we get a project outside zone 4 of London they do pay travel cost, and if its an hour from London they pay per diem and for a hotel. Since I don't have a car here, I don't have the option of just living in that as I basically did in the states for several field seasons, nor do I have the ability to crash at a parents' house between projects... so I have to pay the rent somewhere. There are just too few jobs to do the shovelbum thing as I did in the states.
So all in all, no matter where you live, you are definitely getting very poor pay in relation to cost of living in the UK. Yes I get paid more if I live in London, but I pay more to live in London. You would get paid about 2000 pounds less a year if working for a company anywhere but London.
Oh this has been long.... I could go on for days. I do love my job right now though... just wish I could earn enough to have a bit left over for savings at the end of the month!
That being said...
The one thing that is a major difference between working in the US (as I did for about 5 years) and the UK is that in the US a techs can get differing rates of pay depending on their experience. Whereas here, if you are a site assistant (field tech), you get the pay rate of a site assistant regardless of whether you left field school yesterday or have been working for a while. Yes, everyone who is a field tech is presumably doing the same job, but at the same time those of us with more experience end up having to pick up the slack or teaching the less experienced... especially with a larger crew when the crew chief doesn't have time to babysit all the new people. At least in the states I have been able to negotiate higher pay with my experience. I've also been paid as a specialist tech since I am an osteologist and companies in the US find me quite handy to have around.
The only reason it seems to be a rather daunting task in the states to have a standard minimum pay is due to the fact that we have so many contract firms, gov based firms, large firms, small companies... we probably have more CRM firms in the state of pennsylvania than they do in the whole country here.
I do live in London, moved after I was finished my MSc in Durham because I had friends to move in with here, and could easily get a job somewhere else if I could find a contract firm right off. Luckily I was headhunted by a company here and had a job immediately. I was hired on for a specific project that went on for a couple months... once they found out I know what I'm doing they kept me on and I still work for them as a digger (field tech), however now I am working in the office doing skeletal analysis that will keep me out of the field for a while. (Just providing some background for you.) Anyways... I may as well say what I make (it is listed on BAJR in the payscales) cause I don't care if people know and it will make explaining things easier...
So I live in London, I make 8.53 an hour (pounds)... I net 250 a week... basically this is the equivalent of trying to live in NYC on $8 an hour. Good luck. And I only make that much because I live in London... because in London you get about 2000 pounds extra a year to account for the fact that you live in a high cost area. I was offered jobs in the NE of England and in Worcestershire... they were only going to pay me about 6 to 7 pounds an hour. Less than I was making in the states with just my BS when translated into dollars. Sad when the cost of living all over the UK is higher than the US.
The jobs that have per diem and provide you with a hotel room are few and far between, and usually very short. I'm guessing that because this is such a small country, most companies only have to rely on people who live relatively locally. With my company, if we get a project outside zone 4 of London they do pay travel cost, and if its an hour from London they pay per diem and for a hotel. Since I don't have a car here, I don't have the option of just living in that as I basically did in the states for several field seasons, nor do I have the ability to crash at a parents' house between projects... so I have to pay the rent somewhere. There are just too few jobs to do the shovelbum thing as I did in the states.
So all in all, no matter where you live, you are definitely getting very poor pay in relation to cost of living in the UK. Yes I get paid more if I live in London, but I pay more to live in London. You would get paid about 2000 pounds less a year if working for a company anywhere but London.
Oh this has been long.... I could go on for days. I do love my job right now though... just wish I could earn enough to have a bit left over for savings at the end of the month!
Post ID#6766 - replied 4/10/2008 6:11 PM
FireArch
Moderator
if you are a site assistant (field tech), you get the pay rate of a site assistant regardless of whether you left field school yesterday or have been working for a while. Yes, everyone who is a field tech is presumably doing the same job, but at the same time those of us with more experience end up having to pick up the slack or teaching the less experienced... especially with a larger crew when the crew chief doesn't have time to babysit all the new people. At least in the states I have been able to negotiate higher pay with my experience. I've also been paid as a specialist tech since I am an osteologist and companies in the US find me quite handy to have around.
With this arrangement there is no incentive for you to work any harder than the newbie, let alone teach them anything. Why put in extra effort if you are not going to be compensated for your experience and expertise?
This is where BAJR should take a page from the Feds which use a Pay Grade and Step system; there are several Steps within each Pay Grade. Say you qualify at a Grade such as GS-09, then your first year there you are a Step 1, then a Step 2 after a year or two (I forget how long each step takes), etc. Each Step is a slightly higher pay rate for the Grade based on time (experience in service).
Heather, it's interesting to hear the hourly you make. I thought the rates for archs was much better than that. While ₤8.53 is just more than $17.00 an hour, as you noted, if it costs us $10.00 for something in the States the same something there will be ₤10.00, or $20.00! I would think that ₤8.53 is god-awful low. London was bloody expensive when I visited in 1997, I cant imagine how much more so it is now.
With this arrangement there is no incentive for you to work any harder than the newbie, let alone teach them anything. Why put in extra effort if you are not going to be compensated for your experience and expertise?
This is where BAJR should take a page from the Feds which use a Pay Grade and Step system; there are several Steps within each Pay Grade. Say you qualify at a Grade such as GS-09, then your first year there you are a Step 1, then a Step 2 after a year or two (I forget how long each step takes), etc. Each Step is a slightly higher pay rate for the Grade based on time (experience in service).
Heather, it's interesting to hear the hourly you make. I thought the rates for archs was much better than that. While ₤8.53 is just more than $17.00 an hour, as you noted, if it costs us $10.00 for something in the States the same something there will be ₤10.00, or $20.00! I would think that ₤8.53 is god-awful low. London was bloody expensive when I visited in 1997, I cant imagine how much more so it is now.
Post ID#6776 - replied 4/11/2008 4:50 AM
BAJR
Very interesting to read the Heather post... its not often I get to see an honest view such as that... and indeed it spurs me on to ensure the current benchmarking does not fail ... raising rates above inflation instead of treading water.
BAJRs rates are based on an average that can be accepted accross 4 sectors.. (commercial, council, museum, university) which does make it tricky... however, the pay has stabilised ... which is a great difference from the vast variations that once prevailed... 2 years ago I realised that what was missing was a progression scale... so now you have
G2 - digger with at least 6 month xp
G3 - digger with over 2 years xp
G3/4 - digger who is either happy being a digger but has great xp... OR a digger who is ready to train/move to teh next level of responsibility.. the supervisor...
Now teh problem seems to be ensuring that as each grade is reached... the pay increases... which is where my next cunning wheeze comes in
The Skills Passport... showing exactly what you are skilled in. However... it will not get away from the simple economics of.....
I for example, have 25 years xp have directeed and managed companies and been a county archaeologist... HOWEVER... if I applied for a job a digger who needed just 6 months xp... then thats what I would get... no matter what my previous work had been.. hopefully though... Heather will move up the rungs... though if its the company I think it is.... :wink: what she is getting now was a hard fought battle!
BAJRs rates are based on an average that can be accepted accross 4 sectors.. (commercial, council, museum, university) which does make it tricky... however, the pay has stabilised ... which is a great difference from the vast variations that once prevailed... 2 years ago I realised that what was missing was a progression scale... so now you have
G2 - digger with at least 6 month xp
G3 - digger with over 2 years xp
G3/4 - digger who is either happy being a digger but has great xp... OR a digger who is ready to train/move to teh next level of responsibility.. the supervisor...
Now teh problem seems to be ensuring that as each grade is reached... the pay increases... which is where my next cunning wheeze comes in
The Skills Passport... showing exactly what you are skilled in. However... it will not get away from the simple economics of.....
I for example, have 25 years xp have directeed and managed companies and been a county archaeologist... HOWEVER... if I applied for a job a digger who needed just 6 months xp... then thats what I would get... no matter what my previous work had been.. hopefully though... Heather will move up the rungs... though if its the company I think it is.... :wink: what she is getting now was a hard fought battle!
Post ID#6813 - replied 4/12/2008 12:55 PM
FireArch
Moderator
David,
That's a pretty nice site you've constructed - I havent been to it in quite a while. I see that you have organized staffing among 10 grade lines with a minimum pay rate. Now I know all this has been pointed out before, that positions should be defined and paid at a minimum accordingly etc., but I noticed something that didnt strike me before; those minimums seem to be about half of what's being paid over here - when adjusted for purchasing power of the respective currency.
Maybe I'm seeing this wrong or something. Let me use me as an example of what I would like to know about what things cost over there. When I total up my monthly bills and expenses it usually runs me about $1800 - $2,000 to live in San Diego, CA - that's rent, food, gas and electric, phone, insurance, a bit of entertainment, the odd surfboard, and ever rising petrol costs. That doesnt include retirement, health insurance, emergencies, dental or eye care, inflation, etc. So I need to earn, just to keep above water, in the neighborhood of $24,000 per annum. I would, based on my experience in GB a decade ago, think that folks over there would need to earn something along the lines of 24,000 pounds to do the same. Now, over here, a person working full time at $13.00 is going to make about $27,000 ($21,000 after taxes), so they would scrape by, but they are making the same rate as your G6 (as to purchasing power) and they would only need to be first-year archaeologist to earn that amount, whereas your G6 will have years of experience running entire projects. Am I missing something, or are those rates well below what's needed to make a living in GB?
That's a pretty nice site you've constructed - I havent been to it in quite a while. I see that you have organized staffing among 10 grade lines with a minimum pay rate. Now I know all this has been pointed out before, that positions should be defined and paid at a minimum accordingly etc., but I noticed something that didnt strike me before; those minimums seem to be about half of what's being paid over here - when adjusted for purchasing power of the respective currency.
Maybe I'm seeing this wrong or something. Let me use me as an example of what I would like to know about what things cost over there. When I total up my monthly bills and expenses it usually runs me about $1800 - $2,000 to live in San Diego, CA - that's rent, food, gas and electric, phone, insurance, a bit of entertainment, the odd surfboard, and ever rising petrol costs. That doesnt include retirement, health insurance, emergencies, dental or eye care, inflation, etc. So I need to earn, just to keep above water, in the neighborhood of $24,000 per annum. I would, based on my experience in GB a decade ago, think that folks over there would need to earn something along the lines of 24,000 pounds to do the same. Now, over here, a person working full time at $13.00 is going to make about $27,000 ($21,000 after taxes), so they would scrape by, but they are making the same rate as your G6 (as to purchasing power) and they would only need to be first-year archaeologist to earn that amount, whereas your G6 will have years of experience running entire projects. Am I missing something, or are those rates well below what's needed to make a living in GB?
Post ID#9890 - replied 7/14/2008 9:07 PM
scottyj432
I just wanted to let everyone know that the article Chris and I wrote for the SAA Archaeological Record is now available online and can be downloaded as a PDF.
The link below is for the March 2008 issue and the article starts on page 36.
http://www.saa.org/publications/theSAAarchRec/mar08.pdf
Scott
The link below is for the March 2008 issue and the article starts on page 36.
http://www.saa.org/publications/theSAAarchRec/mar08.pdf
Scott
Post ID#9967 - replied 7/16/2008 9:35 AM
Jennifer Palmer
Webmaster
Scott, thanks again for your work on this (great job!), and for posting the link.
Jennifer
Jennifer
Post ID#10183 - replied 7/20/2008 1:14 AM
Khodok
I'll second that. That is a very useful piece of research.
I think the SAA might have put a leeeetle more effort into the scanning though. Or I could be having monitor issues. But I can't read the keys on the figures.
I think the SAA might have put a leeeetle more effort into the scanning though. Or I could be having monitor issues. But I can't read the keys on the figures.
Post ID#10195 - replied 7/21/2008 5:53 PM
BAJR
I had (half) promised not to get involved in USA wage campaign :wink:
However...
1) Good work by getting the article in ... its the first step..
2) Am I missing something, or are those rates well below what's needed to make a living in GB? Yes... and No Yes you can live on these rates, no its not good... though at 2$ to the pound, it is hard to have an exact comparison... ie your fuel is cheaper, but your distances are larger... your accommodation is about the same, but ours is often free ( there is a long story attached to that one) food is not that different.. etc...
So yes the wages do allow you to live... but not well which leads me to
3) The document that BAJR and the IFA worked on (before I resigned from them .. though I still work with them) the Salary Benchmark...
I had been banging on about the realistic rises required... (some up to 30% ) but here we have a solid document to move on:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2867407/Benchmarking-Report-2008
BAJR wants to move forward now... and will do... with a general mandate... HOWEVER (there is always a however...!) the building market is slumping... and you can guess how that affects us... so it is all I can do to keep levels stable as they are.
On the upside... there is a will to change... and it starts in exactly the way that the SAA article moves... the information, collated and presented.
keep on kicking the tree!
However...
1) Good work by getting the article in ... its the first step..
2) Am I missing something, or are those rates well below what's needed to make a living in GB? Yes... and No Yes you can live on these rates, no its not good... though at 2$ to the pound, it is hard to have an exact comparison... ie your fuel is cheaper, but your distances are larger... your accommodation is about the same, but ours is often free ( there is a long story attached to that one) food is not that different.. etc...
So yes the wages do allow you to live... but not well which leads me to
3) The document that BAJR and the IFA worked on (before I resigned from them .. though I still work with them) the Salary Benchmark...
I had been banging on about the realistic rises required... (some up to 30% ) but here we have a solid document to move on:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2867407/Benchmarking-Report-2008
BAJR wants to move forward now... and will do... with a general mandate... HOWEVER (there is always a however...!) the building market is slumping... and you can guess how that affects us... so it is all I can do to keep levels stable as they are.
On the upside... there is a will to change... and it starts in exactly the way that the SAA article moves... the information, collated and presented.
keep on kicking the tree!
Post ID#11511 - replied 10/19/2008 6:37 AM
BAJR
How goes the tree kicking? Is the credit crunch affecting archaeology?
Post ID#11513 - replied 10/19/2008 9:06 PM
scottyj432
For now...at least in my part of the world here in the West...nothing seems to have been affected by the financial meltdown. Most of the projects I have been involved with for some time now have been energy development related. "Drill baby drill" (whatever!!), but that is what has been and continues to be going on.
I fully expect a slowdown in the work later in the year. Next year? Who knows. It seems these things have a delayed period before they set in, therefore I think next year, early on, everyone will begin to notice a decrease in the number of arch projects. And that will mean a tightening of the number of arch jobs available--fewer jobs and more people applying for those fewer jobs. A somewhat bleak outlook I should think. That type of situation favors lower wages being offered too. Not good.
So BAJR, how about on the other side of the pond? How is the employment situation being affected and how do you see the next few months unfolding in CRM there?
Scott
I fully expect a slowdown in the work later in the year. Next year? Who knows. It seems these things have a delayed period before they set in, therefore I think next year, early on, everyone will begin to notice a decrease in the number of arch projects. And that will mean a tightening of the number of arch jobs available--fewer jobs and more people applying for those fewer jobs. A somewhat bleak outlook I should think. That type of situation favors lower wages being offered too. Not good.
So BAJR, how about on the other side of the pond? How is the employment situation being affected and how do you see the next few months unfolding in CRM there?
Scott
Post ID#11575 - replied 10/23/2008 10:29 AM
BAJR
same here... with 'Capital Projects' almost non-existant though current ones are continuing.. The House Building market has all but slowed to a stop and redunancies are already happening for fieldstaff... a quick look at adverts over the past two months show almost no fieldwork jobs... Sadly when I say layoffs.. there is no redunancy package for short term staff.. it just means no workk.. no pay and no prospect.. this has an immence affect on teh future when (and it will) it picks up again. The experienced staff just won't be there, they will have bailed out...
Catching up on backlog work and post-ex... its the only way to survive jsut now.
I have only 2 jobs in teh offing (fieldwork related) the rest are tourism, digital, illustration etc... I keep my eggs in 5 baskets! Otherwise I would be in a sorry state.
This will pass... but nerves are frayed.. and pushing through pay reforms at a time when there is no work... go figure! I will try again in April though.. no harm in pushing!
Catching up on backlog work and post-ex... its the only way to survive jsut now.
I have only 2 jobs in teh offing (fieldwork related) the rest are tourism, digital, illustration etc... I keep my eggs in 5 baskets! Otherwise I would be in a sorry state.
This will pass... but nerves are frayed.. and pushing through pay reforms at a time when there is no work... go figure! I will try again in April though.. no harm in pushing!
Post ID#11738 - replied 11/11/2008 1:23 PM
KB
[quote:="scottyj432"]
I fully expect a slowdown in the work later in the year. Next year? Who knows. It seems these things have a delayed period before they set in, therefore I think next year, early on, everyone will begin to notice a decrease in the number of arch projects.
I've noticed a similar phenomenon... I don't recall feeling the effects of the Sept 11th aftermath in CRM until 2004, when it felt like things were really falling off.
At this point, I'm very concerned about the plummeting energy prices. Hopefully they'll recover to a reasonable level or at some point it will have some impact on coal, gas, pipeline, and wind farm projects that have kept a lot of us going.
I fully expect a slowdown in the work later in the year. Next year? Who knows. It seems these things have a delayed period before they set in, therefore I think next year, early on, everyone will begin to notice a decrease in the number of arch projects.
I've noticed a similar phenomenon... I don't recall feeling the effects of the Sept 11th aftermath in CRM until 2004, when it felt like things were really falling off.
At this point, I'm very concerned about the plummeting energy prices. Hopefully they'll recover to a reasonable level or at some point it will have some impact on coal, gas, pipeline, and wind farm projects that have kept a lot of us going.
Post ID#11744 - replied 11/12/2008 12:45 AM
scottyj432
At this point, I'm very concerned about the plummeting energy prices. Hopefully they'll recover to a reasonable level or at some point it will have some impact on coal, gas, pipeline, and wind farm projects that have kept a lot of us going.
I think the drop in energy prices is just a very temporary thing. Almost a weird fluke in the markets. I expect them to go back up to levels we just recently experienced---and beyond. China and India drive the world market on energy..and they are going to consume more and more energy resources. They have yet to "really consume" up to their potential.
Enjoy the cheap gas now.....it is a thing of the past.
Scott
I think the drop in energy prices is just a very temporary thing. Almost a weird fluke in the markets. I expect them to go back up to levels we just recently experienced---and beyond. China and India drive the world market on energy..and they are going to consume more and more energy resources. They have yet to "really consume" up to their potential.
Enjoy the cheap gas now.....it is a thing of the past.
Scott
Post ID#11753 - replied 11/12/2008 2:31 PM
FireArch
Moderator
[quote:="scottyj432"]At this point, I'm very concerned about the plummeting energy prices. Hopefully they'll recover to a reasonable level or at some point it will have some impact on coal, gas, pipeline, and wind farm projects that have kept a lot of us going.
I think the drop in energy prices is just a very temporary thing. Almost a weird fluke in the markets. I expect them to go back up to levels we just recently experienced---and beyond. China and India drive the world market on energy..and they are going to consume more and more energy resources. They have yet to "really consume" up to their potential.
Enjoy the cheap gas now.....it is a thing of the past.
Scott
Absolutely, and with all major auto manufactures hell bent on getting them into gasoline powered vehicles its only going to get worse, and all the more reason for our country to be at the vanguard of alt-energy transportation systems AND city planning that minimizes the need for single seat or any seat traveling within the community.
All these industrializing countries have and are looking at the US as the model for that industrialization and commodification process. How much more so would they look to us if our GDP increased because of our demand for increased efficiencies?
I think the drop in energy prices is just a very temporary thing. Almost a weird fluke in the markets. I expect them to go back up to levels we just recently experienced---and beyond. China and India drive the world market on energy..and they are going to consume more and more energy resources. They have yet to "really consume" up to their potential.
Enjoy the cheap gas now.....it is a thing of the past.
Scott
Absolutely, and with all major auto manufactures hell bent on getting them into gasoline powered vehicles its only going to get worse, and all the more reason for our country to be at the vanguard of alt-energy transportation systems AND city planning that minimizes the need for single seat or any seat traveling within the community.
All these industrializing countries have and are looking at the US as the model for that industrialization and commodification process. How much more so would they look to us if our GDP increased because of our demand for increased efficiencies?
Post ID#11755 - replied 11/12/2008 3:06 PM
Charlie Hatchett
This may end up being part of the solution:
Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos
Post ID#11770 - replied 11/13/2008 1:03 PM
grabast
Good article Scotty ... your conclusion is on target!
One of the many problems with this industry is that it is primarily government driven - hence the federal pay scale is too often used to calculate and compensate archaeology fieldworkers. However, it is erroneous to do so because most government employees have many other perks, such as full-time employment, that compensate for the generally lower pay rate. Most CRM companies apply these same (or similar) pay schedules to all of their projects, even when using temporary employees. Additionally, too many CRM employers require temporary workers to be treated at as "employees," when in fact most are actually contract laborers working for many different firms throughout the year. To be par with full-time employees compensated according to these schedules, a contract laborer should 1) be hired as a contractor and not a temporary employee, and 2) expect around three to five times the allotted schedule rate.
Another issue that affects the contractor's (temporary field worker) cost is the periodicity of payment. Being paid on a regular schedule, when expected is important, and it can cost a lot of money when you are paid late. Too many CRM firms pay their temporary labor force after they are paid. While this may sound fair, it is fact a statement about the hiring firm's poor business management or attempting to bootstrap their business. The simple fact is that if they don’t have the financial reserves needed to plan and execute a contract, then they shouldn't.
One of the many problems with this industry is that it is primarily government driven - hence the federal pay scale is too often used to calculate and compensate archaeology fieldworkers. However, it is erroneous to do so because most government employees have many other perks, such as full-time employment, that compensate for the generally lower pay rate. Most CRM companies apply these same (or similar) pay schedules to all of their projects, even when using temporary employees. Additionally, too many CRM employers require temporary workers to be treated at as "employees," when in fact most are actually contract laborers working for many different firms throughout the year. To be par with full-time employees compensated according to these schedules, a contract laborer should 1) be hired as a contractor and not a temporary employee, and 2) expect around three to five times the allotted schedule rate.
Another issue that affects the contractor's (temporary field worker) cost is the periodicity of payment. Being paid on a regular schedule, when expected is important, and it can cost a lot of money when you are paid late. Too many CRM firms pay their temporary labor force after they are paid. While this may sound fair, it is fact a statement about the hiring firm's poor business management or attempting to bootstrap their business. The simple fact is that if they don’t have the financial reserves needed to plan and execute a contract, then they shouldn't.
|
Next topic: "Poor Housing Options " |
|
Previous topic: "How much does it cost to work? " |
|
Looking for something else? Show recent posts in Discussion |