Hello.
Firstly, I know this forum is predominantly US based, but it looks like architect-types from all over take part, so I hope I'm not out of place in posting this here. Apologies if so - go tell me to take a hike.
I know a few of you already know me, but for those who don't, I'm a UK student of architecture (7th year, or PartIII, or final professional practice year, or whatever you want to call it) and I've been blogging for a few months on the "institution of architecture".
I'm passionate about architecture and have wanted to be an architect ever since I could say "Ludwig Mies van der Rohe". It's for this reason that I want the architectural profession to be a great place to work. But the reality is that it's not. I don't want to spend my life working somewhere that sucks, so I'd like to have a go at making it better. Hence the blog, which I've called PartIV.
But this is more than a blatant advert: Just before Christmas, I posted about Foreign Office Architects hiring students to work for free, which I think is unacceptable. I called them a "Zero of our time", to contrast with a series of "Heroes of our time" with which I try and remind myself why architecture really is what I want to do. Well, it's been pretty popular and it's made me think that I should try to start a campaign to kick up a stink over this shenanigans.
So before I launch into my plan of attack (which was instigated by a bloke called Rob in one of my comments), I'd firstly like to test the temperature.
What do people think about students/interns/starter-outers working for no remuneration? Is it acceptable or not? Is there a situation when it is? Is it the same all over the world, or is it particularly bad in the UK (London really - one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in)? Does anybody have first or second hand experience of it? If so, are you willing to email me about it, either on, or off the record? On the record would be great, but off would be helpful: I'd like to get my facts straight first.
The blog is at http://partiv.blogspot.com if you want to read the original post (where the campaign name comes from).
I'll leave you with this:
Last year, Norman Foster took a pay cut from £6million to £2million. (That's from over $10.5million to over $3.5million at today's exchange rate). And I've heard (2nd hand, I'll grant you) that people work for free there.
Thanks for your time.
Norman Blogster
Architectural Antifreeze
Hell yeah it is something worth discussing. Mdler, shame on you, what a ridiculous thing to say.
After my final review last year I was offered two jobs that afternoon, both by young, progressive, well-known and published architects. However, neither firm was willing nor able to pay me. I, of course, turned down both jobs, not being in a position to work for free (bills to pay).
As I understand it, the majority of students who work for famous architects for no compensation are of relatively wealthy families and can thus afford to give away their time in exchange for the sheer value of the experience. The fact that there exists this pool of free labor creates a sketchy business environment, effectively replacing proper competition by talent and work experience with the apparently irresistible allure of a gratis pair of hands.
Unfortunately, I do not see this group of individuals voluntarily rejoining in proper competition anytime soon, as their comfortable financial situation gives them a real advantage in obtaining work at a firm they might otherwise have no hope at.
Also, the fact that it is illegal to have unpaid interns is irrelevant, as minimum wage (the legal alternative) is low enough to deter all but this same group of wealthy young people.
I do understand that many less-wealthy individuals choose to work without compensation, but I believe that the well-heeled are at the heart of the problem.
///
The fault in mdler's statement lies in its passivity. Much of the financial woes many of us find ourselves complaining about on this forum are the result of the ignorant perpetuation of improper business practices, such as the underpayment of interns; if architects stop undercutting one another, if they stop giving away design services for free with every 'competition' they enter, if employees demand and, in turn, receive proper compensation... in short: if we stop disrespecting ourselves with our actions, the world (those who pays our salaries) would be forced to take notice and follow suit. Mdler's statement implies that if you do want to work for free, you should, when, really, nobody should ever work (that is to say, generate income for whom you work) without compensation, as it only serves to perpetuate this sort of complex architects have come to have, where they complain about how the profession is not respected nor compensated nearly as well as it should be, when their actions and only their actions are at the heart of the problem.
Long story short, if you want to be respected by others, you must first respect yourself (and thus the interests of your profession). It seems people will always be willing to work/hire for free (or minimum wage), and so it seems the practice, the disrespect, will never cease.
joed-
Couldn't have put it better myself. For me, at the end of the day, this issue is about not devaluing the profession as a whole.
At the moment there is loads and loads of work around and we're still paying ourselves badly. 10-15 years ago there was a huge recession - so much so, I had to get a loan to go to Australia to get my 1st year's experience in architecture and be paid. In the UK, professionals were giving away their labour & skills for free. This sorry situation will happen in the next recession if we haven't got more respect for ourselves.
I had dinner with an ex-colleague of mine last night, who worked at Fosters for 2-3 years. He said that people do work for free there, but only those doing "work experience", for the summer, for example, or the gap year before going to uni. If you have a degree, you get paid something at least. So is an 18 year old work for free for the experience ok? Still illegal (unless they sign away their rights of course). But we kind of accept it in pretty much all professions. Fine, if mummy & daddy can support them for an extra year.
This still propogates the wealthy looking after the wealthy situation in architecture though.
I still need to get in touch with people who have worked for free or been offered jobs before I go any further.
Tepid reception for this post, although I guess my subject title didn't do me any favours.
I'm watching the "dont be ashamed for not getting payed,post your boss name here!!!!!!" post with interest though...
Whistle blowers - where are you?!
I want an opinion..
my friend graduated from AA and she was offered 2500 Pound sterling a month at a starchitect's office (think was zaha ).....is that enough money to live respectably in london ?
Perhaps a different view:
The majority of architects acquire commissions by preparing proposals for clients. This involves the outlay of work for no revenue, but brings with it the potential for future revenue. The level of risk, expense, etc involved with proposals is measured against the potential reward.
In much the same way, I expect that interns who work for little or no pay are hedging their immediate discomfort (lack of revenue) against the potential rewards (improved future status, earnings, etc).
In a much more watered-down version, it is not unlike my own situation, where I've taken and kept a position for slightly less money than I could get elsewhere, because the location, work environment, exposure to long-term clientele that I want to build relationships with, etc are all what I am after.
We can be hard on mdlr for his initial post, but ultimately, NO ONE works for nothing. Anyone who takes a job for no pay is expecting some other form of benefit, present or future, or they are clueless (and therefore of no value to the employer, or us, anyway).
That said, I would never work for less than about 75% of my market value, no matter what the conditions.
nevermore: the answer to your question is yes. however people working for Zaha spend their lives at the office, so if you think in terms of hourly rate it's really not a lot. and i am quite suprised that Zaha would pay that much money anyway, i know a lot of people who started there at 1000 pounds net a month. your friend must be very very good.
joed: i agree with everything you wrote, it's down to each and everyone of us to make sure we get what we deserve. not only do we deserve to get paid for our work but we should make sure that we get paid well. fair enough recent graduates lack experience but they have skills and knowledge that must be taken into account. i can't believe that some offices had the audacity to offer you to work for them for free. How insulting, and what a bunch of arrogant pricks they are, i hope you told them a piece of your mind. if it's not paid, then it's not work, period.
in my opinion, more damage is done to the wages within the profession by graduating masters degree students who take jobs paying $35k.
Totally agree with you there, j. Though I'm not sure how to change it. The market will only bear so much - I'm now registered and self-employed and very likely will not have cleared $35K as a partner last year. Let alone what we could afford to pay an intern. Though I'd never hire someone unless I could offer them a decent wage and excellent learning experience.
Tangentially, the location of this thread next to another one led me to the momentary confusion that this thread was titled "Stop sending ugly children up chimneys!" Ha!
i had no idea what the post was about from the thread title so please forgive me...
i think a lot of the issues about people working for shit wages / no wages, especially at the beginning of their architectural careers, have already been established and discussed ad nauseam. there will always be the big names that will somehow extract free crappy labor from the children of rich people.
i actually think the "passive" approach is the right one. if you don't want to work for free - don't. additionally, if you are in a position to hire, remember how bad you felt when you were approached to work for free - and don't ask the next generation to do it.
personally i think that the value of a "starchitect" on one's resume is relatively small when compared to the value of free work one would give to a big-name office...unless you want to teach at some trendy school or work at another "starchitect's" office. and with some firm like foreign office architects (pardon me, but WHO? i mean, i know who they are, but...) you really run the risk of that firm's name falling off the radar...and then you're stuck with just another name on your CV. and you may have given them 40-50 thousand $ or pounds worth of free work.
j, while I completely agree with the notion that recent Masters graduates agreeing to work for 35k is hurting the profession, I stand by my claim that people agreeing to work for free is hurting it as well.
Your claim that:
"if a principal can maximize profits by hiring an army of free production, working willfully, then so be it. matters of ethics, self respect, and the good of the profession are moot."
shows not only a general ignorance of the law, but a bad attitude and, yes, an unethical one at that. The fact that you think it is a "cheap shot" to bring up ethics is actually the moot point. First of all, it is illegal in the United States to hire a single individual, much less "an army," and not pay them at least minimum wage, even if they are "willing." Second of all, it is because of unethical people such as yourself that our profession finds itself in the position it does; as I mentioned in my first post, if architects had more respect for one another and generally acted in an ethical manner, we would all be getting paid (at least close to) as much as we are worth.
As you mentioned, we will never unionize, because ours is a profession and not a trade; the creative work we do makes each of us different enough from one another to render any notion of unionization not only implausible but laughable. And so, it is _truly_ up to the respectful and ethical decisions of the _individuals_ in our profession to raise not only our salaries but our role in the world as well. Hiding behind capitalism has obviously not helped us in the past and is thus unlikely to help us now.
Call me arrogant, but at least I am proposing a solution to this insidious problem, while you are merely glorifying the causes of it. I don't care if a person is rich or poor, working for free breeds disrespect and devaluation of the architect and of architecture.
One possible partial solution that I can think of would be for all the Masters graduates this year to agree among themselves to not work for free. However, as I mentioned earlier, there are always going to be those who are perfectly willing to whore themselves out.
FYI, the AIA did try at one point (a couple of decades ago, I believe) to establish a higher minimum wage within the profession. This was efficiently shut down by the government, under the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, and the AIA was fined somewhere in excess of a million dollars. The reasoning behind this goes: wages make up a large percentage of design fees, and if wages go up, design fees go up. This was viewed as collusive price fixing by the government.
The alternative, obviously, is for firms to step up to the plate and make a difference at the local level, paying employees higher wages and charging higher design fees (obviously the quality of the work must bear this increase). This, eventually, would effect the global level, making design fees uniformly higher, and architects happier.
Which brings me to a point which liberty bell brings up, about how much the market can bear. With such poor design consciousness in America, I can definitely understand a pessimistic outlook towards uniform increases in design fees. It _is_ highly unlikely that things will ever change in the business of architecture in America; we probably are all too competitive, too poor at properly managing a business, too poor at self-promotion, too egotistical, etc. etc... to ever effect the kind of change in the profession that we all wish would happen but are too unwilling (or too incompetent) to actually work towards.
Firstly, I agrre that nobody really works for free long term, as even unpaid work like we're discussing is "investment" as freq_arch rightly says.
But that's not really my point.
My real underlying problem is with the starchitects and how they control the profession, turning us into seemingly celebrity obsessed, media focussed, image conscious, fashionistas. It's the starchitects that perpetrate the free working lark. They know that if one student won't work for free, there'll be another one off the boat very shortly. This gives them an unfair advantage in, for example, winning work by entering competitions (where the free working is focussed I believe). It's all factored into their profit margin. BDP in the UK is one of Europe's largest architectural companies with loads of work and high design standards and it pays every one of its workers a reasonable wage (for the industry), including overtime when required. Ok, it may never win the Stirling prize, but it has happy clients, users and workers. Is there a problem with that?
J - free working is like smoking. You can't tell someone to not smoke in their own space - if they want a premature death, that's up to them. But you can object to passive smoking if they smoke in your space. I see interns working for free as passive salary reduction. They're working in my space.
This will probably lose me even more friends, but although I sound like I'm coming from a "socialist ethical" motivation, I'm not really. I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know what's best for anyone other than myself (even that's debatable). But what's best for me is not only that I don't work for free, but that nobody else does either. Only in this situation, do we all win as a profession.
It's like a classic prisoner's dillema. We'll only all benefit if none of us agree to do it. So the "passive" "work for free if you want to, don't if you don't" approach doesn't really work. And I think there's the crux - I want us all to be able to achieve higher salaries (who doesn't?).
It's when architecture acts as a "creative industry"/art (where free working interns is accepted as the norm) rather than a business (where it's unacceptable) that the problems begin. Everyone knows it goes on and it's accepted, but wouldn't it be better for all if everyone knew it DIDN'T go on and it WASN'T accepted?
ochona - if you don't consider FOA to be starchitect status just yet, then just wait a few years. They've just been awarded a huge slice of the London 2012 Olympic pie (I wonder who did those visuals) and they move and shake the London scene from the AA to the Bartlett.
I've bored you all for too long now, I'll get my coat...
Additionally, I should mention how utterly ludicrous it is for me to be criticized by alleged capitalists for proposing ways to increase the wages of young architects to what we all obviously believe them to be justly valued at. A free market, in the American context, does not mean that employers are "free" to do whatever they want, nor does it mean that employees are completely powerless to affect the market.
Passively accepting practices which adversely affect you is not being capitalist, it is being lazy.
Joed -- you're missing a point that takes a while to learn. There is a genius order to a free market system, but there are no guarantees.
No one automatically owes you or your chosen profession a given wage. You're an architect? Big deal. You'll first have to prove that your works deserves compensation, and then how much compensation based upon how relatively good it is. So stop scheming and start proving.
And, Norman, while I am almost entirely with you on this whole issue, I have to disagree that:
"Nobody really works for free long term, as even unpaid work like we're discussing is 'investment'."
The only meaningful definition of the term "work" in the context we are discussing is "the production of a saleable product." When you go to school, you are PAYING to learn. You are paying for a product which is produced by the institution. In architecture, clients play a similar role: they pay for a product. This product was, in part, produced by you. If you do not get paid, then you "worked for free."
Long term and short term are not relevent here. Saying that an intern who works for free is "investing" his time and mental energy, and that this "investment" will mature with time into a more profitable and fulfilling career is like saying that the "investment" of a slave's time and physical energy will "mature" into a physically fit slave; the obviousness of these facts does not make them agreeable conditions.
Working for free in the field of architecture is never a good investment. If you want a good investment, go buy the monographs of all your favorite architects for between $30 and $100 each, study them carefully and apply the lessons in your practice. Odds are that you will not learn nearly as much about the applicable design philosophies of any starchitect while working for them for free; you will most likely be in the model-building dungeon or developing carpal tunnel syndrome working on bathroom details. Furthermore, as somebody already mentioned above, the value of the starchitect name on your resume is never certain.
So, you have the choice between fucking up your profession and throwing away between $35k and maybe $60k per year while doing menial labor, or taking on a paid position at a decent firm and ponying up a few hundred bucks and some reading time every evening to learn the secrets of the stars. It seems like a pretty obvious choice to me, but then, I am not one of the elite few who have the brain cells to select the latter choice.
When I said "Nobody really works for free long term, as even unpaid work like we're discussing is 'investment'.", I think I was referring to the fact that it's a calculated risk that intelligent graduates make in their careers. They ARE being exploited, but they know what they're doing - they can always resign. It always pays off immediately for the exploiter, it may or may not pay off later for the exploited.
I'm enjoying the debate and thank you all for your input and interest, but I have to force myself away to a stag do in Berlin for a few days.
I'll mull over what to do next (if anything) with the campaign and either pick up the thread, or start a different one with a better subject line next week.
I'm thinking of an e-petition to take to the UK press, if I can figure out the web technology to achieve it.
throwing ethics into this is a cheap shot. we live in a capitalist society and architecture is a business. if a principal can maximize profits by hiring an army of free production, working willfully, then so be it. matters of ethics, self respect, and the good of the profession are moot.
yes, the much reviled "relative morality" is acceptable when folks with enough (or more) wealth gain more wealth from folks with less wealth.
Ha ! spend 20-25000 UK pound sterling at a star school and graduate and earn 1000 UK pounds at a freakstarchitect office drawing formats for drawings on autocad.
Im glad i decided to drop my idea of studying masters at those star schools.
But see thats exactly what we have to fight ... architecture is soon being termed as a bohemian career ... it should not have to be...
just the fact that we slogged 5 years in school... countless sleepless nights ... emotionaly wreaking crits and jury's and shit loads of money to finish of drawings and build models, should qualify our demand for a better and more humane pay !!
I mean, if your mason makes more money than you .. then surely there's something wrong in the system.
I feel architects is being exploited !! we should have a minimum pay standard.
Sporadic Supernova- Which system are you talking about? The starchitects (being architect themselves, who`ve climbed the same ladder as interns) 'don`t pay the intern' system or the system in the society which pays architects less?
If it is the former.. why join them? The latter needs some thinking..
well i started out with the former ... but yeah that in turn translates into the later ...
I've never worked for any Starchitect as such ( though i have worked for some good ones!!) I've always been payed for the work I've done.
My only quam is that, Somehow, the amount of money I ( we) make does not make sense when you compare it with the work I (we) do.
And all this talk of "I'm not in the proffesion to make money" is all bogus. I have needs and i refuse to be slaved to my work. which in turn means I need money. ( sorry to sound like a greedy jerk... but it's all the frustration that's coming out )
I maybe going on a different tangent.. but you get the point right ?
I thought we gave up Slavery in the US of A long time ago....maybe the Europeans never caught on. Wondering is that why their the Shining Stars of Today....Anyhow, screw working for FREE..find a job get your Registration Number and do your own DAMN THING! You will be better than any Star Architect! Rember if you Take Advantage of people it will only come back and bite you in the ASS!
the damndest thing is it never stops , no matter where you are in the scale of things.
developer buys a bit of land for 2 mil, you design a nice little building on it for half a mil, he flips it for 4, profit 1.5 mil (ok, say 1.0 because lawyer fees and taxes will take at least 200G from that, probably more).
who added the value?
who gets the money?
as you are an architect and stupid with money and finance you agree to do the small project for 7% of budget which is just barely enough to break even because you have 10 people in the office and overhead and cetera. so you get diddly while the guy with money gets enough to buy another property, a new car, whatever...
do that for 10 years and then start thinking how YOU can do it too, and realise you just don't have the cash to get started. and then you REALLY notice you don't have a clue where to start to begin with...in fact you don't even know any bankers or real estate brokers, nor do you have a clue about loan agreements, equity, or spreadsheets.
i more or less agree that working for free devalues our profession...
architecture is an art, a profession, and a business... architecture grads fresh out of school admire the art, architects later in their career know that they are selling, and that it is a business of human capital...
ultimately a good office that continually takes temporary cheap labor benefit from a continual inflow of fresh energy and ideas, but on the other hand they won't benefit from the learning curve that comes with experience... if they keep training young professionals but don't retain them, they may be feeding experience and talent to other offices willing to pay decent wages, ultimately they may be giving up long run human capital for short term gains. on the other hand, they can always buy experience as well... tap the experienced worker pool by subsidizing it with cheap student / new grad labour.
but this creates a necessary divide: these two labour pools must necessarily be kept separate... where the labour pools start to overlap, for example if the cheap labour learns and encroaches on the experienced labour, they start to devalue the experience and they have to either be handed a full graduation into the other pool, or there is a conflict... revloution?
ironically, in order for a firm to hire cheap labour, they have to have a steady and fast turnover of that labour otherwise the system breaks down... so they will be continually pumping out experience into the larger workforce... or else they have to have continual growth, more and more projects, where they will start to become more corporate-like, possibly lose their "cutting" edge?...
Feb 2, 06 3:58 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
"Stop sending children up chimneys" campaign
Hello.
Firstly, I know this forum is predominantly US based, but it looks like architect-types from all over take part, so I hope I'm not out of place in posting this here. Apologies if so - go tell me to take a hike.
I know a few of you already know me, but for those who don't, I'm a UK student of architecture (7th year, or PartIII, or final professional practice year, or whatever you want to call it) and I've been blogging for a few months on the "institution of architecture".
I'm passionate about architecture and have wanted to be an architect ever since I could say "Ludwig Mies van der Rohe". It's for this reason that I want the architectural profession to be a great place to work. But the reality is that it's not. I don't want to spend my life working somewhere that sucks, so I'd like to have a go at making it better. Hence the blog, which I've called PartIV.
But this is more than a blatant advert: Just before Christmas, I posted about Foreign Office Architects hiring students to work for free, which I think is unacceptable. I called them a "Zero of our time", to contrast with a series of "Heroes of our time" with which I try and remind myself why architecture really is what I want to do. Well, it's been pretty popular and it's made me think that I should try to start a campaign to kick up a stink over this shenanigans.
So before I launch into my plan of attack (which was instigated by a bloke called Rob in one of my comments), I'd firstly like to test the temperature.
What do people think about students/interns/starter-outers working for no remuneration? Is it acceptable or not? Is there a situation when it is? Is it the same all over the world, or is it particularly bad in the UK (London really - one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in)? Does anybody have first or second hand experience of it? If so, are you willing to email me about it, either on, or off the record? On the record would be great, but off would be helpful: I'd like to get my facts straight first.
The blog is at http://partiv.blogspot.com if you want to read the original post (where the campaign name comes from).
I'll leave you with this:
Last year, Norman Foster took a pay cut from £6million to £2million. (That's from over $10.5million to over $3.5million at today's exchange rate). And I've heard (2nd hand, I'll grant you) that people work for free there.
Thanks for your time.
Norman Blogster
Architectural Antifreeze
if you dont want to work for free, dont
And if you don't care about the devaluation of the profession, do nothing about it. I think this is something worth talking discussing.
People don't work for free at Foster's. They don't get paid much but it's not for free.
But I do agree with on you on students working for free is unethical. Go ahead raise awareness.
Hell yeah it is something worth discussing. Mdler, shame on you, what a ridiculous thing to say.
After my final review last year I was offered two jobs that afternoon, both by young, progressive, well-known and published architects. However, neither firm was willing nor able to pay me. I, of course, turned down both jobs, not being in a position to work for free (bills to pay).
As I understand it, the majority of students who work for famous architects for no compensation are of relatively wealthy families and can thus afford to give away their time in exchange for the sheer value of the experience. The fact that there exists this pool of free labor creates a sketchy business environment, effectively replacing proper competition by talent and work experience with the apparently irresistible allure of a gratis pair of hands.
Unfortunately, I do not see this group of individuals voluntarily rejoining in proper competition anytime soon, as their comfortable financial situation gives them a real advantage in obtaining work at a firm they might otherwise have no hope at.
Also, the fact that it is illegal to have unpaid interns is irrelevant, as minimum wage (the legal alternative) is low enough to deter all but this same group of wealthy young people.
I do understand that many less-wealthy individuals choose to work without compensation, but I believe that the well-heeled are at the heart of the problem.
///
The fault in mdler's statement lies in its passivity. Much of the financial woes many of us find ourselves complaining about on this forum are the result of the ignorant perpetuation of improper business practices, such as the underpayment of interns; if architects stop undercutting one another, if they stop giving away design services for free with every 'competition' they enter, if employees demand and, in turn, receive proper compensation... in short: if we stop disrespecting ourselves with our actions, the world (those who pays our salaries) would be forced to take notice and follow suit. Mdler's statement implies that if you do want to work for free, you should, when, really, nobody should ever work (that is to say, generate income for whom you work) without compensation, as it only serves to perpetuate this sort of complex architects have come to have, where they complain about how the profession is not respected nor compensated nearly as well as it should be, when their actions and only their actions are at the heart of the problem.
Long story short, if you want to be respected by others, you must first respect yourself (and thus the interests of your profession). It seems people will always be willing to work/hire for free (or minimum wage), and so it seems the practice, the disrespect, will never cease.
joed-
Couldn't have put it better myself. For me, at the end of the day, this issue is about not devaluing the profession as a whole.
At the moment there is loads and loads of work around and we're still paying ourselves badly. 10-15 years ago there was a huge recession - so much so, I had to get a loan to go to Australia to get my 1st year's experience in architecture and be paid. In the UK, professionals were giving away their labour & skills for free. This sorry situation will happen in the next recession if we haven't got more respect for ourselves.
I had dinner with an ex-colleague of mine last night, who worked at Fosters for 2-3 years. He said that people do work for free there, but only those doing "work experience", for the summer, for example, or the gap year before going to uni. If you have a degree, you get paid something at least. So is an 18 year old work for free for the experience ok? Still illegal (unless they sign away their rights of course). But we kind of accept it in pretty much all professions. Fine, if mummy & daddy can support them for an extra year.
This still propogates the wealthy looking after the wealthy situation in architecture though.
I still need to get in touch with people who have worked for free or been offered jobs before I go any further.
Tepid reception for this post, although I guess my subject title didn't do me any favours.
I'm watching the "dont be ashamed for not getting payed,post your boss name here!!!!!!" post with interest though...
Whistle blowers - where are you?!
no whistle blower here. i wasn't foolish enough to work without pay.
Where do I sign up?
Where do I sign up?
i wonder what kind of work they do for free? or rather how could anyone not pay someone who is working for the firm? whats the advantage?
does this happen in other professions too?
oops.. sorry to many to answer.
Totally agree, J. Very well put.
I want an opinion..
my friend graduated from AA and she was offered 2500 Pound sterling a month at a starchitect's office (think was zaha ).....is that enough money to live respectably in london ?
Perhaps a different view:
The majority of architects acquire commissions by preparing proposals for clients. This involves the outlay of work for no revenue, but brings with it the potential for future revenue. The level of risk, expense, etc involved with proposals is measured against the potential reward.
In much the same way, I expect that interns who work for little or no pay are hedging their immediate discomfort (lack of revenue) against the potential rewards (improved future status, earnings, etc).
In a much more watered-down version, it is not unlike my own situation, where I've taken and kept a position for slightly less money than I could get elsewhere, because the location, work environment, exposure to long-term clientele that I want to build relationships with, etc are all what I am after.
We can be hard on mdlr for his initial post, but ultimately, NO ONE works for nothing. Anyone who takes a job for no pay is expecting some other form of benefit, present or future, or they are clueless (and therefore of no value to the employer, or us, anyway).
That said, I would never work for less than about 75% of my market value, no matter what the conditions.
nevermore: the answer to your question is yes. however people working for Zaha spend their lives at the office, so if you think in terms of hourly rate it's really not a lot. and i am quite suprised that Zaha would pay that much money anyway, i know a lot of people who started there at 1000 pounds net a month. your friend must be very very good.
joed: i agree with everything you wrote, it's down to each and everyone of us to make sure we get what we deserve. not only do we deserve to get paid for our work but we should make sure that we get paid well. fair enough recent graduates lack experience but they have skills and knowledge that must be taken into account. i can't believe that some offices had the audacity to offer you to work for them for free. How insulting, and what a bunch of arrogant pricks they are, i hope you told them a piece of your mind. if it's not paid, then it's not work, period.
Totally agree with you there, j. Though I'm not sure how to change it. The market will only bear so much - I'm now registered and self-employed and very likely will not have cleared $35K as a partner last year. Let alone what we could afford to pay an intern. Though I'd never hire someone unless I could offer them a decent wage and excellent learning experience.
Tangentially, the location of this thread next to another one led me to the momentary confusion that this thread was titled "Stop sending ugly children up chimneys!" Ha!
hehehe - I wonder if Zaha ever went up a chimney? ;)
J - I'll come back for a more serious post to try and address your previous point, once I've finished this stair detail...
i had no idea what the post was about from the thread title so please forgive me...
i think a lot of the issues about people working for shit wages / no wages, especially at the beginning of their architectural careers, have already been established and discussed ad nauseam. there will always be the big names that will somehow extract free crappy labor from the children of rich people.
i actually think the "passive" approach is the right one. if you don't want to work for free - don't. additionally, if you are in a position to hire, remember how bad you felt when you were approached to work for free - and don't ask the next generation to do it.
personally i think that the value of a "starchitect" on one's resume is relatively small when compared to the value of free work one would give to a big-name office...unless you want to teach at some trendy school or work at another "starchitect's" office. and with some firm like foreign office architects (pardon me, but WHO? i mean, i know who they are, but...) you really run the risk of that firm's name falling off the radar...and then you're stuck with just another name on your CV. and you may have given them 40-50 thousand $ or pounds worth of free work.
j, while I completely agree with the notion that recent Masters graduates agreeing to work for 35k is hurting the profession, I stand by my claim that people agreeing to work for free is hurting it as well.
Your claim that:
"if a principal can maximize profits by hiring an army of free production, working willfully, then so be it. matters of ethics, self respect, and the good of the profession are moot."
shows not only a general ignorance of the law, but a bad attitude and, yes, an unethical one at that. The fact that you think it is a "cheap shot" to bring up ethics is actually the moot point. First of all, it is illegal in the United States to hire a single individual, much less "an army," and not pay them at least minimum wage, even if they are "willing." Second of all, it is because of unethical people such as yourself that our profession finds itself in the position it does; as I mentioned in my first post, if architects had more respect for one another and generally acted in an ethical manner, we would all be getting paid (at least close to) as much as we are worth.
As you mentioned, we will never unionize, because ours is a profession and not a trade; the creative work we do makes each of us different enough from one another to render any notion of unionization not only implausible but laughable. And so, it is _truly_ up to the respectful and ethical decisions of the _individuals_ in our profession to raise not only our salaries but our role in the world as well. Hiding behind capitalism has obviously not helped us in the past and is thus unlikely to help us now.
Call me arrogant, but at least I am proposing a solution to this insidious problem, while you are merely glorifying the causes of it. I don't care if a person is rich or poor, working for free breeds disrespect and devaluation of the architect and of architecture.
Ahh, yes... the familiar struggle... individualism vs. collectivism.
Freedom is a fine thing, Joed. Stop fighting it.
There is a difference between freedom and being blind to the causes of problems within your profession. Stop ignoring it.
One possible partial solution that I can think of would be for all the Masters graduates this year to agree among themselves to not work for free. However, as I mentioned earlier, there are always going to be those who are perfectly willing to whore themselves out.
FYI, the AIA did try at one point (a couple of decades ago, I believe) to establish a higher minimum wage within the profession. This was efficiently shut down by the government, under the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, and the AIA was fined somewhere in excess of a million dollars. The reasoning behind this goes: wages make up a large percentage of design fees, and if wages go up, design fees go up. This was viewed as collusive price fixing by the government.
The alternative, obviously, is for firms to step up to the plate and make a difference at the local level, paying employees higher wages and charging higher design fees (obviously the quality of the work must bear this increase). This, eventually, would effect the global level, making design fees uniformly higher, and architects happier.
Which brings me to a point which liberty bell brings up, about how much the market can bear. With such poor design consciousness in America, I can definitely understand a pessimistic outlook towards uniform increases in design fees. It _is_ highly unlikely that things will ever change in the business of architecture in America; we probably are all too competitive, too poor at properly managing a business, too poor at self-promotion, too egotistical, etc. etc... to ever effect the kind of change in the profession that we all wish would happen but are too unwilling (or too incompetent) to actually work towards.
Firstly, I agrre that nobody really works for free long term, as even unpaid work like we're discussing is "investment" as freq_arch rightly says.
But that's not really my point.
My real underlying problem is with the starchitects and how they control the profession, turning us into seemingly celebrity obsessed, media focussed, image conscious, fashionistas. It's the starchitects that perpetrate the free working lark. They know that if one student won't work for free, there'll be another one off the boat very shortly. This gives them an unfair advantage in, for example, winning work by entering competitions (where the free working is focussed I believe). It's all factored into their profit margin. BDP in the UK is one of Europe's largest architectural companies with loads of work and high design standards and it pays every one of its workers a reasonable wage (for the industry), including overtime when required. Ok, it may never win the Stirling prize, but it has happy clients, users and workers. Is there a problem with that?
J - free working is like smoking. You can't tell someone to not smoke in their own space - if they want a premature death, that's up to them. But you can object to passive smoking if they smoke in your space. I see interns working for free as passive salary reduction. They're working in my space.
This will probably lose me even more friends, but although I sound like I'm coming from a "socialist ethical" motivation, I'm not really. I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know what's best for anyone other than myself (even that's debatable). But what's best for me is not only that I don't work for free, but that nobody else does either. Only in this situation, do we all win as a profession.
It's like a classic prisoner's dillema. We'll only all benefit if none of us agree to do it. So the "passive" "work for free if you want to, don't if you don't" approach doesn't really work. And I think there's the crux - I want us all to be able to achieve higher salaries (who doesn't?).
It's when architecture acts as a "creative industry"/art (where free working interns is accepted as the norm) rather than a business (where it's unacceptable) that the problems begin. Everyone knows it goes on and it's accepted, but wouldn't it be better for all if everyone knew it DIDN'T go on and it WASN'T accepted?
ochona - if you don't consider FOA to be starchitect status just yet, then just wait a few years. They've just been awarded a huge slice of the London 2012 Olympic pie (I wonder who did those visuals) and they move and shake the London scene from the AA to the Bartlett.
I've bored you all for too long now, I'll get my coat...
Additionally, I should mention how utterly ludicrous it is for me to be criticized by alleged capitalists for proposing ways to increase the wages of young architects to what we all obviously believe them to be justly valued at. A free market, in the American context, does not mean that employers are "free" to do whatever they want, nor does it mean that employees are completely powerless to affect the market.
Passively accepting practices which adversely affect you is not being capitalist, it is being lazy.
Joed -- you're missing a point that takes a while to learn. There is a genius order to a free market system, but there are no guarantees.
No one automatically owes you or your chosen profession a given wage. You're an architect? Big deal. You'll first have to prove that your works deserves compensation, and then how much compensation based upon how relatively good it is. So stop scheming and start proving.
And, Norman, while I am almost entirely with you on this whole issue, I have to disagree that:
"Nobody really works for free long term, as even unpaid work like we're discussing is 'investment'."
The only meaningful definition of the term "work" in the context we are discussing is "the production of a saleable product." When you go to school, you are PAYING to learn. You are paying for a product which is produced by the institution. In architecture, clients play a similar role: they pay for a product. This product was, in part, produced by you. If you do not get paid, then you "worked for free."
Long term and short term are not relevent here. Saying that an intern who works for free is "investing" his time and mental energy, and that this "investment" will mature with time into a more profitable and fulfilling career is like saying that the "investment" of a slave's time and physical energy will "mature" into a physically fit slave; the obviousness of these facts does not make them agreeable conditions.
Working for free in the field of architecture is never a good investment. If you want a good investment, go buy the monographs of all your favorite architects for between $30 and $100 each, study them carefully and apply the lessons in your practice. Odds are that you will not learn nearly as much about the applicable design philosophies of any starchitect while working for them for free; you will most likely be in the model-building dungeon or developing carpal tunnel syndrome working on bathroom details. Furthermore, as somebody already mentioned above, the value of the starchitect name on your resume is never certain.
So, you have the choice between fucking up your profession and throwing away between $35k and maybe $60k per year while doing menial labor, or taking on a paid position at a decent firm and ponying up a few hundred bucks and some reading time every evening to learn the secrets of the stars. It seems like a pretty obvious choice to me, but then, I am not one of the elite few who have the brain cells to select the latter choice.
damn it, in my last sentence i meant the former choice, not the latter. apparently proof-reading and previewing can only do so much.
When I said "Nobody really works for free long term, as even unpaid work like we're discussing is 'investment'.", I think I was referring to the fact that it's a calculated risk that intelligent graduates make in their careers. They ARE being exploited, but they know what they're doing - they can always resign. It always pays off immediately for the exploiter, it may or may not pay off later for the exploited.
I'm enjoying the debate and thank you all for your input and interest, but I have to force myself away to a stag do in Berlin for a few days.
I'll mull over what to do next (if anything) with the campaign and either pick up the thread, or start a different one with a better subject line next week.
I'm thinking of an e-petition to take to the UK press, if I can figure out the web technology to achieve it.
It's been emotional ;)
yes, the much reviled "relative morality" is acceptable when folks with enough (or more) wealth gain more wealth from folks with less wealth.
is that one of those the ugly ones?
ditto to norman and e909...
ive mentioned this before and i believe in it very strongly-
No starchitect or whatever is greater than the profession itself.
there is no "free market system", never will be, and never can be. it's just the name of yet another intellectualized social theory.
Ha ! spend 20-25000 UK pound sterling at a star school and graduate and earn 1000 UK pounds at a freakstarchitect office drawing formats for drawings on autocad.
Im glad i decided to drop my idea of studying masters at those star schools.
C'mon nevermore ...
dont discourage me .. lol ...
But see thats exactly what we have to fight ... architecture is soon being termed as a bohemian career ... it should not have to be...
just the fact that we slogged 5 years in school... countless sleepless nights ... emotionaly wreaking crits and jury's and shit loads of money to finish of drawings and build models, should qualify our demand for a better and more humane pay !!
I mean, if your mason makes more money than you .. then surely there's something wrong in the system.
I feel architects is being exploited !! we should have a minimum pay standard.
Sporadic Supernova- Which system are you talking about? The starchitects (being architect themselves, who`ve climbed the same ladder as interns) 'don`t pay the intern' system or the system in the society which pays architects less?
If it is the former.. why join them? The latter needs some thinking..
well i started out with the former ... but yeah that in turn translates into the later ...
I've never worked for any Starchitect as such ( though i have worked for some good ones!!) I've always been payed for the work I've done.
My only quam is that, Somehow, the amount of money I ( we) make does not make sense when you compare it with the work I (we) do.
And all this talk of "I'm not in the proffesion to make money" is all bogus. I have needs and i refuse to be slaved to my work. which in turn means I need money. ( sorry to sound like a greedy jerk... but it's all the frustration that's coming out )
I maybe going on a different tangent.. but you get the point right ?
I thought we gave up Slavery in the US of A long time ago....maybe the Europeans never caught on. Wondering is that why their the Shining Stars of Today....Anyhow, screw working for FREE..find a job get your Registration Number and do your own DAMN THING! You will be better than any Star Architect! Rember if you Take Advantage of people it will only come back and bite you in the ASS!
It is funny to read this stuff. Wait until the economy for arcitects is in the toilet again and 35K will seem like awsome pay.
the damndest thing is it never stops , no matter where you are in the scale of things.
developer buys a bit of land for 2 mil, you design a nice little building on it for half a mil, he flips it for 4, profit 1.5 mil (ok, say 1.0 because lawyer fees and taxes will take at least 200G from that, probably more).
who added the value?
who gets the money?
as you are an architect and stupid with money and finance you agree to do the small project for 7% of budget which is just barely enough to break even because you have 10 people in the office and overhead and cetera. so you get diddly while the guy with money gets enough to buy another property, a new car, whatever...
do that for 10 years and then start thinking how YOU can do it too, and realise you just don't have the cash to get started. and then you REALLY notice you don't have a clue where to start to begin with...in fact you don't even know any bankers or real estate brokers, nor do you have a clue about loan agreements, equity, or spreadsheets.
i more or less agree that working for free devalues our profession...
architecture is an art, a profession, and a business... architecture grads fresh out of school admire the art, architects later in their career know that they are selling, and that it is a business of human capital...
ultimately a good office that continually takes temporary cheap labor benefit from a continual inflow of fresh energy and ideas, but on the other hand they won't benefit from the learning curve that comes with experience... if they keep training young professionals but don't retain them, they may be feeding experience and talent to other offices willing to pay decent wages, ultimately they may be giving up long run human capital for short term gains. on the other hand, they can always buy experience as well... tap the experienced worker pool by subsidizing it with cheap student / new grad labour.
but this creates a necessary divide: these two labour pools must necessarily be kept separate... where the labour pools start to overlap, for example if the cheap labour learns and encroaches on the experienced labour, they start to devalue the experience and they have to either be handed a full graduation into the other pool, or there is a conflict... revloution?
ironically, in order for a firm to hire cheap labour, they have to have a steady and fast turnover of that labour otherwise the system breaks down... so they will be continually pumping out experience into the larger workforce... or else they have to have continual growth, more and more projects, where they will start to become more corporate-like, possibly lose their "cutting" edge?...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.