I started as a field tech in 2001 at 9/hour. with a BS.  I just finished my MA and make 16/hour now....I just heard on NPR that a high school custodian makes 13/hour.  Sick, isn't it (but not surprising to say the least).

When I first started out as a tech in the spring of '05, I got in on a phase III for 12.50/hr and about 25 per diem. I paid attention to older techs and what they were making and where. I decided I was not going to work for less than $12 an hour, and I never have. If we keep taking jobs that pay so little, that's what the going rate will be. Draw the line somewhere on a personal level! I was willing to travel, had a great time shovel-bumming from Georgia to Alaska, and eventually settled down at a permanent job where the pay was fair and negotiable. I realize that's not realistic for some people who are tied down to a particular area for different reasons. If you are willing to travel, then pick a pay rate and don't compromise, unless you are truly starving. 
We'll never make what we deserve as college graduates, especially those of you who have master's degrees. I made as a crew chief with just a B.S. what many of my colleagues make with a master's (or more!!). You do archaeology for the love of it, not the money... however, "The workman deserves his wages!" (Jesus).

Hi, Elizabeth! How's Steve?

I'm glad you landed a permanent job, but here's a piece of advice for everyone--ALWAYS keep your CV up to date. I had a permanent job a year ago, at the company where you were on my crew on the Criss Hollow project, but the 10 years of seismic work that I moved to Utah for ended forever after less than three years. That company is now out of the archaeology business permanently, and there is very little work going on here. Nowadays there really is no such thing as a "permanent" job.

I made $12 an hour with like $35 per diem last summer before I even got my degree.  I found out that the degree would only earn me another $1 an hour. 

Yes, we do it for the love, but now it is just unacceptable.  Many postings I have seen offer no per diem.  I am with the line in the sand idea, but I remember a strong anti-union statement when I was hired.  Is that whats missing, or do the firms just take too much off the top. 

It seems like Archaeology is the only science that gets praise, but not pay.  Should we just sensationalize every project into a discovery channel show?  Maybe then we would get a little more money.

The problem is (often) not the company keeping the profit, its them trying to get the job in the first place, and needing to cut the cost to the client just to have a competitive bid (and that cut getting passed on to field workers).  This is always true in some sense due to the low ball companies out there that often charge cheap prices (often reflected in their output).  I worked for years for a company that kept tyring to raise our wages, but would always find that kept them from getting jobs - and I was one of the people developing budgets so I know where the money was going.

This has been exacerbated in the current economy where everyone is scrambling for any work.  I have heard from many companies of all sizes that have had difficulty over the last year.  Hopefully as the economy improves and things get better - it will be reflected in archaeology salaries as well.

p.s. my first job was a straight $40 a day - and the days were often 10-12 hours long with travel included (2 hours each way- no per diem).  That translates to about $3-4/hour - so $12/hour plus $35 per diem is a very good starting wage.  If you are expecting much more - you are in the wrong field.  Sad to say, but historically that is the reality.  You have to keep in mind that are job is labor intensive, and provides no benefit (profit) to the developers responsible for paying us - thus they will cut every penny they can on our cost.

I made $12 an hour with like $35 per diem last summer before I even got my degree.  I found out that the degree would only earn me another $1 an hour. 

That seems to be pretty universal for temporary employees.  When we put budgets together for projects, we plan for a certain number of people at designated pay rates and there's very little wiggle room.  A large project may have 20 open Field Tech II slots at $12.50 an hour, which we might be able to bump up a $1.00 for the right people but it's typically rare.  But in the end, a FTII slot is an FTII slot, regardless if somebody has a BA or an MA.  The supervisory positions are almost always held by our permanent staff or long term temporary staff who we tend to have an open door policy with.

Yes, we do it for the love, but now it is just unacceptable.  Many postings I have seen offer no per diem.  I am with the line in the sand idea, but I remember a strong anti-union statement when I was hired.  Is that whats missing, or do the firms just take too much off the top.

Ever since the Caesars fiasco and a couple other large mitigation in the late 90's, there's been a strong anti-union sentiment in the industry.  I don't recall any serious attempts to organize in the past 10 years.  Part of the problem is the field is incredibly cut throat, with little oversight, and firms are encouraged to do the absolute minimal job possible.  Anything that increases overhead makes it even harder to bid out projects, as it is very common for lowballed bids to come in at 20 or 30% of the median--bids that are so low, it's unclear how they can even send a field crew out for a day.  Given the temporary nature of the majority of technicians, it's not practical to provide benefits and there's always an influx of new workers every summer eager to work for whatever wages are offered.  It's a bad system but hard to get around the constraints.

It seems like Archaeology is the only science that gets praise, but not pay.

It's not just archaeology; I know many biologists, chemists and geologists who say the same thing.  If you're doing compliance work, generally speaking, you're not going to make much money at it.  A biology technician taking water samples for a firm monitoring stream flow & water quality probably isn't going to make much more than a typical archaeology field tech.  In many of the sciences, you're also typically a technician and not a scientist/analyst unless you have a graduate degree.

I think I say this on virtually all of my posts here but...  if you want a career in archaeology with stability, reasonable pay, and benefits you absolutely must get a graduate degree or have a critical skill (GIS, geophysical, etc.).

I agree with KB. I wasn't around for the whole unionization thing but I do remember talks of resurrecting it when I first started and another one that was trying to meet at an arch convention in Canada(?) that we never got news on if people turned out, lol.  I think its just the nature of the beast and although there is a line in the sand my first job was at 11 an hour and I have been at a consistent 13.50 since, although I have no work now, I will not take a job at 11 or lower anymore unless the per diem is high.  I always factored the per diem in with the wage and most of the time it came out to a very reasonable amount especially if you could get consistent work.  My first year working straight through I made about 29k in taxable wages plus all of my per diem it came out to about 35-38k.  To me that is damn good.

I just wish the economy would pick up I would even work part time just to be in the field again and feel like I am an archaeologist again.

If you're doing compliance work, generally speaking, you're not going to make much money at it.

I guess that is basically what it comes down to.  The work is there more or less to meet legislative requirements, ideally at the least possible cost to the client.  And, as the projects that have to comply ebb and flow, like the current situation,  we feel the squeeze (mainly from competition).

I have grad school in my sights, I just need something I can live on.

My first year working straight through I made about 29k in taxable wages plus all of my per diem it came out to about 35-38k.  To me that is damn good.

I agree, that does sound good.  I just hope we get back there soon. I feel bad for those who live in areas where the cost of living is so much higher than it is here in the Southeast, because the pay rates seem to be about the same.

There  are far more field techs than there are jobs, keeping wages low. However, $9/hr is an outrageous insult. I hope NO ONE ever takes a job for wages like these. Companies that offer this kind of exploitive crap should be boycotted by us, and driven out of business. As long as we put up with this sort of thing, they will continue to take advantage of us.

I agree with rkeyo, 9 bucks an hour is an insult.  Never accept a job for less than what you think you are worth.  To me 12 bucks an hour is the bare minimum anyone should accept in most areas.  Some areas should pay higher at a minimum rate due to the cost of living.  If people would start accepting those low paing ratesnately, far too many people do accept crappy wages and then complain about it.  Unfortunately far too many people accept those low crappy wages and then complain about them.  If you think the rate is too low, then pass it up.

I would like to ask those who are working for $9.00/hr to speak up and add their point of view. I'm sure some are wondering why they would work for so low a wage.  Are these mostly folks who have little or no paid experience in archaeology and are trying to obtain it? How many of these people do have experience, and are still willing to take a low paying job in archaeology, even if the pay might be substantially less than other jobs they've had?  Are people throwing up their hands in defeat and just taking what they can get, and chalking it up to the economy?

Through the years I can remember a handful of times when I've accepted a slot on a project that paid a little less than I was used to (usually a drop of $1/hr), but there was a reason I took it (the job was close to home, or a really cool project).  I would be interested to hear from someone who usually is paid a lot better on archaeology projects but now signs on to projects paying $9 or $10 an hour. I would guess that some do it because they love fieldwork and it still may be seen as a better alternative than other types of jobs outside archaeology.

I will say a few words now about the jobs that I pass along to archaeologyfieldwork.com.  I'm not always enthused about the pay listed in some of the adverts, but please remember - I am just putting this information out there, for whatever it's worth. Browsing through the field tech jobs, you can get a sense of what the pay is realistically like right now in CRM, for better or for worse. I wish all the tech jobs were paying $20 an hour or more with full benefits, but unfortunately that isn't the case.

Let me clarify: my comments were not meant to be critical of archaeologyfieldwork.com. Jennifer does an extraordinary job of posting a wide variety of jobs. However, we as individual archaeologists, who have invested time, money, blood, sweat, and tears to our profession, should boycott firms that clearly are exploiting us. High school drop-outs can make $9/hr flipping burgers, and our labor is clearly worth more than that. By not taking jobs where they made us share cheap motel rooms, we got most companies to stop the practice. Learn how to "just say NO!"

I for one would be happy to have a 9.00/hour job. Not proud, mind you, but happy. I have had only a couple of short term temp jobs in the past year, and as time goes on the chances of ever working in archaeology again get slimmer every day. To go from 19/hr to nothing is a real hit.

I started my first gig at $10 and hr and $21 a day per diem. Since then I have had jobs ranging from $12.50 an hr to $21 an hr with per diem being $21 a day with half per diem on fridays to $69 a day per diem. Avg is around 30 though. 

My fiance is in the Grad program at William & Mary and one of her profs told her that back in the 70's he was making $17 hr as a tech!! Imagine that! Of course back in the day archaeologist were looked upon with respect but our culture and educational system has changed to a point where that is rarely true anymore. 

The reality of the matter is that with the economy the way it is and the number of new archy's graduating every year there is much more competition for positions and many companies are taking advantage of this. KB is correct when he mentions the budgeting and the need to pay lower wages so that a project can be done within budget. At the same time though there are some companies which are simply CHEAP! When a company charges the client on avg 2.5% over what they are paying their field and lab techs, etc and they say they can't afford to pay an .50 cents or $1 for experience or longevity it is usually b.s. 

I worked for a company out of SC a few years back which was paying us $12 an hour. After the initial contract was up they only invited a handful of us to return to continue work. We asked the owner if he/she could give us a slight increase of pay for our hard work and loyalty, to which the reply was " I can't afford to!" Several o us quit for better paying jobs. A few years later it came to my attention that the company owed in the 100's of 1000's to the IRS for back taxes. The owner wrote a check out for the full amount like it was nothing from the company funds! So there is no way a raise could not be given to the returning techs. I know of at least one more company that would never give raise, even after 6 months or a years, but yet opened a new office in one of the highest real estate areas in south Florida during that same time!

Yeah there are some companies that low ball intentionally just to get a job and perform cr*p work, while there are others who actually care about the work but low bid so that they can stay in business and still try to pay a fair wage. The reality comes down to each individual company and there is no black and white reasons as to why it happens.

On that note it is still a smack in the face for any CRM firm to offer only $9 an hour for a tech but double that for a FS. It is simple take a a few dollars of the FS pay and give it to the tech. The FS will still get a fair wage which is not an insult and they will also make the techs happier.

My fiance is in the Grad program at William & Mary and one of her profs told her that back in the 70's he was making $17 hr as a tech!! Imagine that! Of course back in the day archaeologist were looked upon with respect but our culture and educational system has changed to a point where that is rarely true anymore.

I think part of the reason that this is happening is because the nature of archaeology has changed.  It wasn't long ago that an excavation would consist of a PhD level archaeologist, a few students and then a legion of laborers.  The archaeologists were compensated reasonably well and the laborers were on par for what laborers make doing other (roughly equivalent) jobs and the students were just grateful to get the experience.

Now, we have a situation where there's typically a single PI and a few Staff Archaeologist, and the students and laborers have been replaced by professional field technicians.  Unless it's different elsewhere, I've never worked anywhere where hiring letters/job descriptions for field technicians mention a tech as being an "Archaeologist".  Job descriptions tend to go out of their way to make technician jobs look as unskilled as possible.

At the same time though there are some companies which are simply CHEAP! When a company charges the client on avg 2.5% over what they are paying their field and lab techs, etc and they say they can't afford to pay an .50 cents or $1 for experience or longevity it is usually b.s.

You're absolutely right when speaking of individuals.  It's easy to give one person a raise but it can be virtually impossible to do so for an entire crew.  It's a complete cop out but many times it's just easier for supervisors to just give a blanket "no" when it comes to temporary personnel.

On that note it is still a smack in the face for any CRM firm to offer only $9 an hour for a tech but double that for a FS. It is simple take a a few dollars of the FS pay and give it to the tech. The FS will still get a fair wage which is not an insult and they will also make the techs happier.

If I had to guess, I'd say that if a company is paying techs $9/hr then the supervisors aren't making much more.  But then again, there's often a distinction between full time staff (supervisors) and temporary technicians.  As awful as it sounds, full time/permanent employees are invested in and temporary employees are essentially disposable.  It shouldn't be like that but it tends to work that way.  My biggest complaint is when companies pay their Field Techs $10/hr but then bring in unskilled laborers at $9.50.  The only time I've ever quit a job was when this happened on a project I was on around 1998.

On a personal level, I know I spent way too many years as a Field Tech before I came to the realization that it was a dead end career.  My $28k/year wasn't great but it was enough to be comfortable enough to avoid putting off grad school for a long time.  My career has been immeasurably more satisfying since completing it.