the problem I have with getting academic credit for an internship is this: you PAY for your schooling by the credit! Therefor, if you're interning for credit, you are actually paying to work, which sounds much more unfair to me than working for free.
But if you're paying for work via academic credit, it's an arrangement whereby you are most likely actually learning something. The guy I knew who did the free internship at Eisenman for 3 months was stuck at a desk cutting strips of museum board for 16 hours a day. He didn't learn a damn thing, and said so. And I think he actually saw Eisenman only once, across the office, in the distance like a big blowing whale.
But Donna, I agree that doing grunt or billable work is an illegal unpaid internship and that makes me really angry too, but what about one where you are being shown stuff and being coached and learning stuff the whole time? Like a training period. More like my internship with the engineer.
Where I think we go wrong is IDP, of which I have affectionately shuffled the letters to DIP because that is what I think of the program. Perhaps DIP can stand for Developmentally Isolated Professionals. Anyways, instead of a training period, which is common in most types of jobs, DIP is a series of hoops to jump through. Neat. Ya think it has anything to do with contributing the state of the profession today? I think it does, I think it is a huge factor.
I received an intensive training for my new job. Sure I would have figured it out on my own eventually by reading books, putting things together in my own head, making mistakes and learning from them, but it would be much more effective to do it intensively (and non-billable) and learn directly from the masters so I did it. Of course architecture is way more complicated and broad than what I'm doing now, but if internships were training periods like this, instead of a mandatory period of paying drafting and library cataloging dues like they have turned into, they certainly could be unpaid, and much shorter, say a year or two. AND the interns that come out of it would be competent, confident and profitable. Somehow firms think they shouldn't have to provide any sort of training, and that interns working billable time, even at reduced competency, is the way to go, why is that?
^ written while you wrote your last comment, Donna, so I think we are on the same page... So the flaw in the internship model is in the work done, not in the pay received.
My cousin (not an architect) had an internship over the summer where she was essentially a file clerk. Other professions do it too. We aren't alone. But if the internship is paid, this is what it is going to look like, employers need to get something out of it if they are paying someone. The intern is supposed to pick stuff up by osmosis by hanging around the office I guess. Great. That leads to a lot of holes.
i think the discussion with our starchitect friends sounds great, but this may be worth remembering:
Enforcement of the [Fair Labor Standards] Act is carried out by Wage and Hour Division investigators stationed throughout the country. A variety of remedies is available to the Department to enforce compliance with the Act's requirements. When investigators encounter violations, they recommend changes in employment practices in order to bring the employer into compliance and request the payment of any back wages due employees.
Willful violations may be prosecuted criminally and the violators fined up to $10,000. A second conviction may result in imprisonment. Employers who willfully or repeatedly violate the minimum wage or overtime pay requirements are subject to civil money penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. When a civil money penalty is assessed, employers have the right, within 15 days of receipt of the notice of such penalty, to file an exception to the determination. When an exception is filed, it is referred to an administrative law judge for a hearing and determination as to the appropriateness of the penalty. If an exception is not filed, the penalty becomes final.
The Secretary of Labor may also bring suit for back pay and an equal amount in liquidated damages and obtain injunctions to restrain persons from violating the Act.
Employees may also bring suit, where the Department has not done so, for back pay and liquidated damages, as well as attorney's fees and court costs.
It has been a while since there was a good healthy debate on TC. Good going Orhan and Lars. Everyone lookout for a blog post by me tomorrow... I'm name dropping.
Like you say, Strawbeary, you weren't expected to be profitable - the firm was teaching YOU things - which is one of the criteria for unpaid internship according to FLSA. Eventually, because you had a great experience where the firm actually took their responsibility to interns seriously, you actually learned stuff, which made you valuable.
Just FYI, I read an article today about Forever 21, a mall store I've never been to. They pay their garment workers in the US by the piece - about 12 cents per shirt. And they blatantly steal designs by small independents, knowing they likely won't get caught, and make enough money to pay out settlements IF they are. Just to say unfair practices don't only happen in our profession, and if you're getting something for super cheap it's probably on someone else's back.
Thanks won, for reminding us that it is easier to sue for back pay from an unpaid internship (where one did billable work therefore deserving compensation) than it is to demand that paid interns be in an environment that fosters their growth as professionals.
strawbeary, both circumstances need to be addressed within our profession - the former is cut and dry from a legal standpoint; the later an issue within the sadly murky area of professional responsibility.
"basically we agree via different observations and positions. i am not against people wanting to work for great architects and in their offices. but if it is like cult, than we need to look further into what we are as a profession and its academia."
NOW this is something i can totally agree with...i guess the line between fascination and admiration is what's important.
but then again if i had the opportunity to work for enric miralles i probably would have worked for free... i guess the question is if he would have taken that opportunity and not offered...is this something new though? as i said before there have always been stars that people want to work for (FLW, Kahn, etc) and i'm sure others before there were glossy magazines or books or whatever...this is not a recent problem (if it is indeed a problem)... there's also situations like OMA that has produced successful progeny, possibly some of those unpaid.
i agree with the general idea that internships should be learning experiences... my first job was at a larger firm of about 140 people or so... they had me come in and work on a model to test me out and then hired me...they then paid me to learn CAD in an intensive weeklong session...(come to think of it my next job did too) (can anyone imagine that happening anymore? now it's a gauntlet of fifteen different programs you just MUST KNOW before you can even walk into the interview, but i digress)
if i ever have a firm i'm definitely going to take interns on site to see work being done. i learn/ed more on a jobsite than years of working in an office. asking questions directly to crafstmen who are building the drawings we are making.
the other thing i would make sure i had is access to a master detailer who interns could ask questions to... my first two jobs each had a guy that had been detailing for years...if i ever got stuck on a detail i would go over and ask them a question...especially the second guy..he was never too busy to stop and explain what would be a better detail or a better idea or tell me i was right.
and i'd still like to think that i could find a way to pay them an hourly wage.
the idea of not paying someone because of how amazing it must be for someone to work at your firm that they'd want to do it for free is egotistical to me. unless they're getting school credit or something..there has to be something given in return for work...it seems like a basic concept to me.
i don't think you should feel bad in the scenario you described...after all after the person had gone through the unpaid internship they would actually have experience so they'd definitely deserve to be paid
i think there are many reasons to work for 'stars'...you get to work on very interesting projects (art museums, institutional buildings, skyscrapers or whatever) and you're not going to get that at other firms. i don't quite understand why those at the top of our profession shouldn't be admired...top thinkers in any profession attract people to them..why should our profession be any different? moreover why should that idea be discouraged? what am i missing here?
There's no reason that those at the top of our profession shouldn't be admired. But there's no reason that those at the top of our profession shouldn't not pay their employees, either. Just because these people are the "top thinkers" doesn't mean they don't have a responsibility to pay their employees. If they're so fabulous why shouldn't we hold them to a standard of properly running a business? Why let them get away with immoral and illegal business practices simply because they are talented in other areas?
There isn't really any good reason that they couldn't pay their interns an appropriate wage. Interns are not expensive. It's not going to break the firm's finances to pay them. Just because people are beating down your door to work for you doesn't mean you are justified in ill-treating them. Why can't we say that to work for a starchitect is a wonderful learning experience (assuming it is) AND you get paid? These firms are post-justifying a reasoning (see Eisenman at elinor's link above) in order to get away with saving peanuts of dollars here and there.
We see this all the time in business - not just in architecture, but everywhere in capitalism ! - and it's depressing. In many (most!) cases a business owner will do whatever it takes to save a few pennies on your back. This is not new to business - we are only creating an elaborate justification system in our field for what people have been doing for millenia. Underneath all the manufactured reasonings, the bottom line is "we wanted to save money (so we'd have more for ourselves) and this is a convenient excuse to do it." This is why employees everywhere fight for raises, adequate pay, adequate time off, etcetera. Because if you don't ask for it, why would anybody just give it to you? Every dollar to you is a dollar less to them. Capitalism is fueled by human greed, that is the whole point of the system. Why we are parsing this issue down to imaginary nuances of "talent" and "experience" is beyond me. It's a simple issue and an endemic one in our culture at large - not just in architecture.
the low risk of getting caught and the minimal penalties involved are not enough of an incentive for many businesses to change their behavior - you get free labor and what - a $10,000 fine IF someone reports you (maybe 1 out of several dozen)? I've never heard of anyone going to jail for this.
for example - I personally would rather get $20 parking ticket if the garage around the corner costs me $30 to park all day. This is similar to the reason why any business would engage in illegal activity - if the penalties are just fines, and by doing said illegal activity you'd make more of a profit than it would cost you if you got caught, then why not?
IMO - in order for this to stop or at least for firms to start doing legit unpaid internships, the penalties must be MUCH steeper.
toaster, it's the back pay issue that could really burn a firm financially. if a class action lawsuit were filed against a firm on behalf of unpaid interns over a 3 year period, it could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. that could bankrupt a firm. i think the financial implications of the existing law are a sufficient deterrent.
A buddy of mine, along with several others at the firm, sued their former employer for back wages as interns working without overtime compensation. They won and got a settlement, but the unintended consequences is that there are several local firms who won't hire any of them because they are considered troublemakers.
that is depressing, strawbeary, but i am so glad they did. i think the only way to put a stop to this is to bring the law down hard. and the fact that the few who do assert themselves are bullied out of the profession is, in my mind, even more reason to do so.
i am interested in the debate you are proposing, paul. what worries me is that it is so easy for architects to talk themselves into the many gray areas that serve as cover for these kinds of practices in the profession. i've argued previously on this site that this profession has to decide between a professional education and an apprenticeship education. at the moment we are doing bits of both...putting in twice the effort to get half as far...5-6 years of education, 3 years of idp, exams, and then these unofficial 'apprenticeship' internships. and since many practicing architects who hire unpaid interns double as academics, it's so easy for them to put on their 'educator' hats when discussing the unpaid intern issue, which is just a cop-out since all those interns are usually doing professional work. even if interns are working on nothing but competitions, for which the architect is ostensibly not being paid, the architect still owns the resulting work product and profits from its publication, etc.
...so in my mind there's very little room for debate on this issue.
and eisenman's argument that that's how it's always been and that it is somehow good for the interns sounds creepily like the arguments people used to make in defense of domestic violence. thankfully we wised up on that one.
i could make the argument for the unpaid internship. afterall, that is the way things were done in the artisan/trades for centuries. if one makes that argument, however, the oddman out is Architecture School. Of course, the firms using unpaid interns are taking advantage of the skills and probably the software that the unpaid interns bring with them.
so if the risk is several hundred dollars in fines - why do firms continue to do this? maybe because they know that no one will report them? I can't help but think that a large number of interns who do the "unpaid internship" know that what they are involved in is wrong, and they choose not to say anything because of the perceived long-term benefit to themselves.
@ elinor: I was actually at that lecture - the person who asked the question was visibly shaking - Eisenman got really pissed off and red in the face and the entire audience was booing him. so yes, it's legit. I do believe there is video floating around on the internets someplace.
unpaid internships have been a big topic as long as I've been paying attention to architecture since the 90s... I remember there was a big push to get the AIA to at least condemn this practice (which they currently do not allow unpaid work on sponsored competitions). the only thing the AIA can do is advocate for more enforcement, but they've got other problems right now...
I'm looking forward to this debate, paul - I think you should also find a rep or two from a well-known cutting-edge firm who pays its interns - just so it's not only the archinect rabble. otherwise these guys won't learn anything.
Unpaid labor also leads to a very unruly and unhealthy work environment. One intern will work 16 hours because the other one worked 15, a 3rd one will work 24 because the 2nd worked 16. Next time around there are many not sleeping at all.
manta..perhaps you misread my post? i at no time used the quote you took to justify not paying interns. i was merely arguing that there's a good reason for people to go to work for these people. and if there's anyone that can afford to pay for interns it's the people that are most in demand since they're most likely charging the largest percentage fees.
vado. i think that there's alot to be gained out of school and internship. for me college was all about learning how to think critically, adjust to life on my own, deal with people that i didn't always get along with in a studio environment, and all the other things that being on your own teaches you...developing a style, interests etc.
i think the intern period is far different..or at least mine was. i don't think either would be good without the other.
"unpaid internship. afterall, that is the way things were done in the artisan/trades for centuries."
Except apprentices and journeymen, while unpaid, were provided with food and shelter. Even then, apprenticeships have been always highly regulated by guilds, town and city-state government.
If we could amend the tax code to where such practices could be legitimate business expenses and tax deductible... it would definitely be a more favorable proposition for modern businesses.
So, it's not like there's a historical precedent for treating people like shit and not paying them. Oh wait there is... the entire Western Hemisphere circa 1550 C.E. to 1900 C.E..
Excluding chattel slavery, debt prisoners, slavery, indentured servitude and work camps... there is not much of a precedent for making people work for free.
Even 7 year-old child coal miners in England made a little less than today's minimum wage after their housing and boarding expenses were deducted.
When I started working in the Architectural Profession my take home pay was $110.00 a week. I started out as a go-for...ya go-for this go-for that. Plus I had insurance, paid holidays, and a paid vacation. I didn't know shit about architecture but I wanted to be one. I sat for the registration exam after a long period of time in the profession with and without formal Architectural Education. All I can say is it is wrong not to pay someone when there working for you in any capacity.
My understanding of NCARB is that they no longer allow one to apprencite into the profession, but on the other hand they do want
you to apprentice into the profession, by working in an office for a period of time before you can sit for the exam. I would think they more than the AIA have the power to make Architectural Firms Pay Interns, by some verification process tied to a tax payments.
It is a mistake on the part of our profession to look the other way. If this profession wants to be inclusive of all then it must honor this for all people who work in the profession. Otherwise we will thump along as a bunch of over the top middle and upper class thugs not wanting social diversification of our profession.
Just tossing this out if it hasn't been raised yet - I can't remember if I read it here or on one of the many employment law blogs I was reading in prep for my class yesterday: if you are unpaid, you are not protected by ANY labor laws. So if you're sexually harassed, discriminated against, or the office manager digs through your bag to see if you're stealing pens, you have no legal recourse.
The flip side seems to be that since you're not in a legal relationship with the firm, you can go ahead and download every bit of their software and project information for your own use - because the firm is essentially letting some person off the street have unregulated access to their office and equipment. So have at it, young unpaid ones! and realize this is yet another reason I'll never not pay someone.
As my wise friend and co-teacher said: when you pay someone, it gives them a sense of responsibility for their own effort. Not paying someone is lazy and encourages further laziness on the part of the "volunteer".
donna...
the flip side of your coin is that as interns you're still bound by the law of the land right? i mean you could still be charged with larceny or copyright infringement or whatever right?
that was a point i had been thinking of earlier...if you don't pay your employees they will invariably find a way of getting paid in some way... and if they feel unappreciated there's not a feeling of comaraderie or feeling of mutual respect.
also what your friend said is exactly how i feel...receiving pay creates incentive for people to actually work hard..and it doesnt have to be alot.. just enough to feel appreciated.
To respond more fully to larlarson's earlier inquiry about the role of AIA in preventing unpaid internships, I offer the following links, where the Institute has addressed this question publically in recent years:
Additionally, the AIA's Canon of Ethics includes the following ethical standard:
Ethical Standard 5.1 Professional Environment: Members should provide their associates and employees with a suitable working environment, compensate them fairly, and facilitate their professional development.
It's important to remember that the AIA is a member-based volunteer organization and it has little, if any, enforcement authority over the general economy. As a result, much of this question becomes a matter of 'the law'.
since i love language this is particularly interesting to me;
Ethical Standard 5.1 Professional Environment: Members should provide their associates and employees with a suitable working environment, compensate them fairly, and facilitate their professional development.
WEll, it is snowing again and I have a beer in my hand. It looks like another 10 inches tonight so that will put us at 53 inches for the Month of January.
I remember tossing bales of hay for 3 cents a piece and shit I thought I was getting rich cause I have enough money in my pocket to put a couple bucks of gas in my dads car, and take my girlfriend to a movie. It was hard ass work but I felt appreciated cause I was being paid something for what I was doing.
I think any partner in a firm would be hard pressed to not receive a check for three months and pay for his current lifestyle. Think of a poor kid starting out with out the same kind of lifestyle, and then think of having to work for nothing.
I recall a lady I was dating many years ago. Her brother was a medical intern and with what he was being paid as and intern he was able to afford to live in Dallas Texas, and finance flying back and forth to Chicago to get hair plugs, because he was vain.
on the conversation of free internship, I was issued a nice cheque today for about 1.5 months of work (out of a 1.5 year work relationship) - it is nice being paid and as Donna so beautifully articulated you feel like a part of the firm, in many ways. I went in this relationship for log book hours - but with a few perks and compensation - though not on a fixed schedule. But I have a full-time job outside of that and would never agree or suggest to anyone to undertake what I did. Added I instigated that my role was not to deter the hiring of any new members of staff and it hasn't.
i find those arguments to be a side-trip donna. isn't it better to just say not paying interns is bad than to try to scare both sides of the divide with unlikely (i hope!) scenarios? i mean really, do you think some guy (girl) working without pay for eisenman is going to take you seriously if you say don't do it because peter (or zaha) might molest him(her)?
just to be clear an intern is a person with no work experience who is still a student right? usually an undergraduate. I am wondering if this means something else in N.America than we do here and in Europe?
I do believe pay is to be expected, but since we are teaching interns and not in any remote way able to use them as proper fulltime staff, i am not sure that the deal is as lop-sided as it sounds. pay commensurate with the work being done means interns will not be paid the same as a graduate architect etc. it probably means just mcdonalds level wages, or less...
jump I'm trying to explain why it's illegal - it's not a formal relationship of any kind. I certainly don't think Zaha or Eisenman are going to molest someone! But if scaring the youngsters is the only way to get them to not work for free I guess I'll do it!
snook i'm so sorry to hear you're looking at another 10 inches. Sheez, we got a flurry today and I was literally shaking my fist at the sky saying STOP THIS!! I can't fit any more layers of clothing on my body and still function!
jump - just to be clear an intern is a person with no work experience who is still a student right? usually an undergraduate. I am wondering if this means something else in N.America than we do here and in Europe?
That's exactly the problem - here in the states the term "intern" is now used to refer to any architecturally-employed person who is not a licensed architect. (Due to the perversities of the AIA-sponsored "protectionary" legislation.) So here in the states - unpaid intern could mean anything, really. We are trying to rectify that in our discussions here by stating that an undergrad intern could be compensated by credit - while someone who is out of school (and still called an intern, and working full-time for a firm) needs to receive appropriate paid compensation.
Right, what manta said. In States you have to do three years minimum of "internship" after your degree. So I was running projects but still not licensed and considered an intern.
Goodness, things have been getting interesting around here. I'm sorry I missed it. I am WRAPPED UP in my own life these days. Busy busy with work, and trying to do some work on myself. I have some good news, too, but I'll share once it's official.
I sincerely hope you all are well, and I hope I'll have time to loiter again soon.
a graduate architect working for free is kind of odd to me.
i guess the question is do the same rules apply to a graduate as for a student? it feels different to me, even if i can't say exactly why. something about how lop-sided the equation is. for the student intern there is a lot of real learning going on, and not so much useful work. by the time graduation swings around that might be different....
@ donna, but you know if you try to argue with extremes only people who believe you to begin with will listen. the rest will dismiss you as a hyperbolator, maybe even an architectural Michele Bachmann <noooo! ok, not that far. you would have to start talking aliens and probes and such to get to that point, but you know what i mean...>
isn't the big lesson of American politics right now that it is better to stick to the strong central arguments ?
to amend Donna's comment -
yes, you're required to do a minimum of 3 years' "internship" post-graduation here in the states - but:
a) the average time it is taking people to complete that "internship" period is 7 years
b) legally, anyone who is not a licensed architect but is practicing as a design professional in an architecture firm is an Intern - regardless of how many years of experience they have. Even if they have 50 years' experience but are not licensed they are still, legally, supposed to be called an Intern.
For example: I have roughly a decade or so of total experience, roughly 6 years of so of that is as a Project Manager (running projects from start to finish) - however even with all that experience technically - legally - my title must still be "Intern Architect". Kind of bullshit, eh? Firms get around this by avoiding the word architecture in titles at all... so my title has been Project Manager for years (which frankly is a pretty good way to deal with this.)
However, the only people accepting unpaid positions are typically those within a few years of having received their degree, so those are the people we're talking about mainly.
my previous title was 'manager of sustainable design' before I got my RLA... that seven year itch will occur for me next year - still no prospect of finishing up IDP now that I'm teaching.
I'll go on the record to ask - what right does Peter have to bully a blogger into removing a post about a public event?
It's also a sad day for lovers of earth art and the 1970s avante garde.
Thread Central
the problem I have with getting academic credit for an internship is this: you PAY for your schooling by the credit! Therefor, if you're interning for credit, you are actually paying to work, which sounds much more unfair to me than working for free.
But if you're paying for work via academic credit, it's an arrangement whereby you are most likely actually learning something. The guy I knew who did the free internship at Eisenman for 3 months was stuck at a desk cutting strips of museum board for 16 hours a day. He didn't learn a damn thing, and said so. And I think he actually saw Eisenman only once, across the office, in the distance like a big blowing whale.
But Donna, I agree that doing grunt or billable work is an illegal unpaid internship and that makes me really angry too, but what about one where you are being shown stuff and being coached and learning stuff the whole time? Like a training period. More like my internship with the engineer.
Where I think we go wrong is IDP, of which I have affectionately shuffled the letters to DIP because that is what I think of the program. Perhaps DIP can stand for Developmentally Isolated Professionals. Anyways, instead of a training period, which is common in most types of jobs, DIP is a series of hoops to jump through. Neat. Ya think it has anything to do with contributing the state of the profession today? I think it does, I think it is a huge factor.
I received an intensive training for my new job. Sure I would have figured it out on my own eventually by reading books, putting things together in my own head, making mistakes and learning from them, but it would be much more effective to do it intensively (and non-billable) and learn directly from the masters so I did it. Of course architecture is way more complicated and broad than what I'm doing now, but if internships were training periods like this, instead of a mandatory period of paying drafting and library cataloging dues like they have turned into, they certainly could be unpaid, and much shorter, say a year or two. AND the interns that come out of it would be competent, confident and profitable. Somehow firms think they shouldn't have to provide any sort of training, and that interns working billable time, even at reduced competency, is the way to go, why is that?
^ written while you wrote your last comment, Donna, so I think we are on the same page... So the flaw in the internship model is in the work done, not in the pay received.
My cousin (not an architect) had an internship over the summer where she was essentially a file clerk. Other professions do it too. We aren't alone. But if the internship is paid, this is what it is going to look like, employers need to get something out of it if they are paying someone. The intern is supposed to pick stuff up by osmosis by hanging around the office I guess. Great. That leads to a lot of holes.
So in my ideal internship scenario of internship as training, who is "working"? The employer!!! What a concept!
Sorry for the many post rant, it is a subject that gets my blood boiling too, albeit for different reasons.
i think the discussion with our starchitect friends sounds great, but this may be worth remembering:
Enforcement of the [Fair Labor Standards] Act is carried out by Wage and Hour Division investigators stationed throughout the country. A variety of remedies is available to the Department to enforce compliance with the Act's requirements. When investigators encounter violations, they recommend changes in employment practices in order to bring the employer into compliance and request the payment of any back wages due employees.
Willful violations may be prosecuted criminally and the violators fined up to $10,000. A second conviction may result in imprisonment. Employers who willfully or repeatedly violate the minimum wage or overtime pay requirements are subject to civil money penalties of up to $1,000 per violation. When a civil money penalty is assessed, employers have the right, within 15 days of receipt of the notice of such penalty, to file an exception to the determination. When an exception is filed, it is referred to an administrative law judge for a hearing and determination as to the appropriateness of the penalty. If an exception is not filed, the penalty becomes final.
The Secretary of Labor may also bring suit for back pay and an equal amount in liquidated damages and obtain injunctions to restrain persons from violating the Act.
Employees may also bring suit, where the Department has not done so, for back pay and liquidated damages, as well as attorney's fees and court costs.
Great discussion. It's been a busy past couple of weeks, but I'm still alive.
It has been a while since there was a good healthy debate on TC. Good going Orhan and Lars. Everyone lookout for a blog post by me tomorrow... I'm name dropping.
Like you say, Strawbeary, you weren't expected to be profitable - the firm was teaching YOU things - which is one of the criteria for unpaid internship according to FLSA. Eventually, because you had a great experience where the firm actually took their responsibility to interns seriously, you actually learned stuff, which made you valuable.
Just FYI, I read an article today about Forever 21, a mall store I've never been to. They pay their garment workers in the US by the piece - about 12 cents per shirt. And they blatantly steal designs by small independents, knowing they likely won't get caught, and make enough money to pay out settlements IF they are. Just to say unfair practices don't only happen in our profession, and if you're getting something for super cheap it's probably on someone else's back.
Fast fashion is so, so bad for everyone.
Thanks won, for reminding us that it is easier to sue for back pay from an unpaid internship (where one did billable work therefore deserving compensation) than it is to demand that paid interns be in an environment that fosters their growth as professionals.
strawbeary, both circumstances need to be addressed within our profession - the former is cut and dry from a legal standpoint; the later an issue within the sadly murky area of professional responsibility.
"basically we agree via different observations and positions. i am not against people wanting to work for great architects and in their offices. but if it is like cult, than we need to look further into what we are as a profession and its academia."
NOW this is something i can totally agree with...i guess the line between fascination and admiration is what's important.
but then again if i had the opportunity to work for enric miralles i probably would have worked for free... i guess the question is if he would have taken that opportunity and not offered...is this something new though? as i said before there have always been stars that people want to work for (FLW, Kahn, etc) and i'm sure others before there were glossy magazines or books or whatever...this is not a recent problem (if it is indeed a problem)... there's also situations like OMA that has produced successful progeny, possibly some of those unpaid.
i agree with the general idea that internships should be learning experiences... my first job was at a larger firm of about 140 people or so... they had me come in and work on a model to test me out and then hired me...they then paid me to learn CAD in an intensive weeklong session...(come to think of it my next job did too) (can anyone imagine that happening anymore? now it's a gauntlet of fifteen different programs you just MUST KNOW before you can even walk into the interview, but i digress)
if i ever have a firm i'm definitely going to take interns on site to see work being done. i learn/ed more on a jobsite than years of working in an office. asking questions directly to crafstmen who are building the drawings we are making.
the other thing i would make sure i had is access to a master detailer who interns could ask questions to... my first two jobs each had a guy that had been detailing for years...if i ever got stuck on a detail i would go over and ask them a question...especially the second guy..he was never too busy to stop and explain what would be a better detail or a better idea or tell me i was right.
and i'd still like to think that i could find a way to pay them an hourly wage.
the idea of not paying someone because of how amazing it must be for someone to work at your firm that they'd want to do it for free is egotistical to me. unless they're getting school credit or something..there has to be something given in return for work...it seems like a basic concept to me.
paul,
will the new archinect have an edit button?
and when is this debate/discussion happening?
does the AIA have anything to say regarding unpaid internships?
also...donna
i don't think you should feel bad in the scenario you described...after all after the person had gone through the unpaid internship they would actually have experience so they'd definitely deserve to be paid
There's no reason that those at the top of our profession shouldn't be admired. But there's no reason that those at the top of our profession shouldn't not pay their employees, either. Just because these people are the "top thinkers" doesn't mean they don't have a responsibility to pay their employees. If they're so fabulous why shouldn't we hold them to a standard of properly running a business? Why let them get away with immoral and illegal business practices simply because they are talented in other areas?
There isn't really any good reason that they couldn't pay their interns an appropriate wage. Interns are not expensive. It's not going to break the firm's finances to pay them. Just because people are beating down your door to work for you doesn't mean you are justified in ill-treating them. Why can't we say that to work for a starchitect is a wonderful learning experience (assuming it is) AND you get paid? These firms are post-justifying a reasoning (see Eisenman at elinor's link above) in order to get away with saving peanuts of dollars here and there.
We see this all the time in business - not just in architecture, but everywhere in capitalism ! - and it's depressing. In many (most!) cases a business owner will do whatever it takes to save a few pennies on your back. This is not new to business - we are only creating an elaborate justification system in our field for what people have been doing for millenia. Underneath all the manufactured reasonings, the bottom line is "we wanted to save money (so we'd have more for ourselves) and this is a convenient excuse to do it." This is why employees everywhere fight for raises, adequate pay, adequate time off, etcetera. Because if you don't ask for it, why would anybody just give it to you? Every dollar to you is a dollar less to them. Capitalism is fueled by human greed, that is the whole point of the system. Why we are parsing this issue down to imaginary nuances of "talent" and "experience" is beyond me. It's a simple issue and an endemic one in our culture at large - not just in architecture.
the low risk of getting caught and the minimal penalties involved are not enough of an incentive for many businesses to change their behavior - you get free labor and what - a $10,000 fine IF someone reports you (maybe 1 out of several dozen)? I've never heard of anyone going to jail for this.
for example - I personally would rather get $20 parking ticket if the garage around the corner costs me $30 to park all day. This is similar to the reason why any business would engage in illegal activity - if the penalties are just fines, and by doing said illegal activity you'd make more of a profit than it would cost you if you got caught, then why not?
IMO - in order for this to stop or at least for firms to start doing legit unpaid internships, the penalties must be MUCH steeper.
toaster, it's the back pay issue that could really burn a firm financially. if a class action lawsuit were filed against a firm on behalf of unpaid interns over a 3 year period, it could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. that could bankrupt a firm. i think the financial implications of the existing law are a sufficient deterrent.
A buddy of mine, along with several others at the firm, sued their former employer for back wages as interns working without overtime compensation. They won and got a settlement, but the unintended consequences is that there are several local firms who won't hire any of them because they are considered troublemakers.
that is depressing, strawbeary, but i am so glad they did. i think the only way to put a stop to this is to bring the law down hard. and the fact that the few who do assert themselves are bullied out of the profession is, in my mind, even more reason to do so.
i am interested in the debate you are proposing, paul. what worries me is that it is so easy for architects to talk themselves into the many gray areas that serve as cover for these kinds of practices in the profession. i've argued previously on this site that this profession has to decide between a professional education and an apprenticeship education. at the moment we are doing bits of both...putting in twice the effort to get half as far...5-6 years of education, 3 years of idp, exams, and then these unofficial 'apprenticeship' internships. and since many practicing architects who hire unpaid interns double as academics, it's so easy for them to put on their 'educator' hats when discussing the unpaid intern issue, which is just a cop-out since all those interns are usually doing professional work. even if interns are working on nothing but competitions, for which the architect is ostensibly not being paid, the architect still owns the resulting work product and profits from its publication, etc.
...so in my mind there's very little room for debate on this issue.
and eisenman's argument that that's how it's always been and that it is somehow good for the interns sounds creepily like the arguments people used to make in defense of domestic violence. thankfully we wised up on that one.
i could make the argument for the unpaid internship. afterall, that is the way things were done in the artisan/trades for centuries. if one makes that argument, however, the oddman out is Architecture School. Of course, the firms using unpaid interns are taking advantage of the skills and probably the software that the unpaid interns bring with them.
vado, my point exactly. then the internship IS the education, and that's the end of it.
If a paid internship means cutting museum board strips, and an unpaid one means going to jobsites, I'll take the unpaid one!
so if the risk is several hundred dollars in fines - why do firms continue to do this? maybe because they know that no one will report them? I can't help but think that a large number of interns who do the "unpaid internship" know that what they are involved in is wrong, and they choose not to say anything because of the perceived long-term benefit to themselves.
@ elinor: I was actually at that lecture - the person who asked the question was visibly shaking - Eisenman got really pissed off and red in the face and the entire audience was booing him. so yes, it's legit. I do believe there is video floating around on the internets someplace.
unpaid internships have been a big topic as long as I've been paying attention to architecture since the 90s... I remember there was a big push to get the AIA to at least condemn this practice (which they currently do not allow unpaid work on sponsored competitions). the only thing the AIA can do is advocate for more enforcement, but they've got other problems right now...
I'm looking forward to this debate, paul - I think you should also find a rep or two from a well-known cutting-edge firm who pays its interns - just so it's not only the archinect rabble. otherwise these guys won't learn anything.
even though he's no longer cutting edge, I know at least Gehry pays his interns.
oops...
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2010/04/gehrys_take_two_on_leed_architecture.html
Unpaid labor also leads to a very unruly and unhealthy work environment. One intern will work 16 hours because the other one worked 15, a 3rd one will work 24 because the 2nd worked 16. Next time around there are many not sleeping at all.
manta..perhaps you misread my post? i at no time used the quote you took to justify not paying interns. i was merely arguing that there's a good reason for people to go to work for these people. and if there's anyone that can afford to pay for interns it's the people that are most in demand since they're most likely charging the largest percentage fees.
vado. i think that there's alot to be gained out of school and internship. for me college was all about learning how to think critically, adjust to life on my own, deal with people that i didn't always get along with in a studio environment, and all the other things that being on your own teaches you...developing a style, interests etc.
i think the intern period is far different..or at least mine was. i don't think either would be good without the other.
"unpaid internship. afterall, that is the way things were done in the artisan/trades for centuries."
Except apprentices and journeymen, while unpaid, were provided with food and shelter. Even then, apprenticeships have been always highly regulated by guilds, town and city-state government.
If we could amend the tax code to where such practices could be legitimate business expenses and tax deductible... it would definitely be a more favorable proposition for modern businesses.
So, it's not like there's a historical precedent for treating people like shit and not paying them. Oh wait there is... the entire Western Hemisphere circa 1550 C.E. to 1900 C.E..
Excluding chattel slavery, debt prisoners, slavery, indentured servitude and work camps... there is not much of a precedent for making people work for free.
Even 7 year-old child coal miners in England made a little less than today's minimum wage after their housing and boarding expenses were deducted.
When I started working in the Architectural Profession my take home pay was $110.00 a week. I started out as a go-for...ya go-for this go-for that. Plus I had insurance, paid holidays, and a paid vacation. I didn't know shit about architecture but I wanted to be one. I sat for the registration exam after a long period of time in the profession with and without formal Architectural Education. All I can say is it is wrong not to pay someone when there working for you in any capacity.
My understanding of NCARB is that they no longer allow one to apprencite into the profession, but on the other hand they do want
you to apprentice into the profession, by working in an office for a period of time before you can sit for the exam. I would think they more than the AIA have the power to make Architectural Firms Pay Interns, by some verification process tied to a tax payments.
It is a mistake on the part of our profession to look the other way. If this profession wants to be inclusive of all then it must honor this for all people who work in the profession. Otherwise we will thump along as a bunch of over the top middle and upper class thugs not wanting social diversification of our profession.
Just tossing this out if it hasn't been raised yet - I can't remember if I read it here or on one of the many employment law blogs I was reading in prep for my class yesterday: if you are unpaid, you are not protected by ANY labor laws. So if you're sexually harassed, discriminated against, or the office manager digs through your bag to see if you're stealing pens, you have no legal recourse.
The flip side seems to be that since you're not in a legal relationship with the firm, you can go ahead and download every bit of their software and project information for your own use - because the firm is essentially letting some person off the street have unregulated access to their office and equipment. So have at it, young unpaid ones! and realize this is yet another reason I'll never not pay someone.
As my wise friend and co-teacher said: when you pay someone, it gives them a sense of responsibility for their own effort. Not paying someone is lazy and encourages further laziness on the part of the "volunteer".
grrrr.... thanks techno for adding another page to my amazon wishlist
donna...
the flip side of your coin is that as interns you're still bound by the law of the land right? i mean you could still be charged with larceny or copyright infringement or whatever right?
that was a point i had been thinking of earlier...if you don't pay your employees they will invariably find a way of getting paid in some way... and if they feel unappreciated there's not a feeling of comaraderie or feeling of mutual respect.
also what your friend said is exactly how i feel...receiving pay creates incentive for people to actually work hard..and it doesnt have to be alot.. just enough to feel appreciated.
To respond more fully to larlarson's earlier inquiry about the role of AIA in preventing unpaid internships, I offer the following links, where the Institute has addressed this question publically in recent years:
Can Student Interns Work for Free?
Can Intern Architects Work for Free to Get IDP Experience?
Additionally, the AIA's Canon of Ethics includes the following ethical standard:
Ethical Standard 5.1 Professional Environment: Members should provide their associates and employees with a suitable working environment, compensate them fairly, and facilitate their professional development.
It's important to remember that the AIA is a member-based volunteer organization and it has little, if any, enforcement authority over the general economy. As a result, much of this question becomes a matter of 'the law'.
donna, i like the double post (on school blog and news post) re: Eisenman paying his interns....
ALso, barry looks like you have been busy over at Infrascape design. Quite a few posts up since i last checked in.
Hi all.
Oops, didn't mean to double post - my internet is sucky in this cold weather, it seems.
since i love language this is particularly interesting to me;
Ethical Standard 5.1 Professional Environment: Members should provide their associates and employees with a suitable working environment, compensate them fairly, and facilitate their professional development.
Should does not equal Must
WEll, it is snowing again and I have a beer in my hand. It looks like another 10 inches tonight so that will put us at 53 inches for the Month of January.
I remember tossing bales of hay for 3 cents a piece and shit I thought I was getting rich cause I have enough money in my pocket to put a couple bucks of gas in my dads car, and take my girlfriend to a movie. It was hard ass work but I felt appreciated cause I was being paid something for what I was doing.
I think any partner in a firm would be hard pressed to not receive a check for three months and pay for his current lifestyle. Think of a poor kid starting out with out the same kind of lifestyle, and then think of having to work for nothing.
I recall a lady I was dating many years ago. Her brother was a medical intern and with what he was being paid as and intern he was able to afford to live in Dallas Texas, and finance flying back and forth to Chicago to get hair plugs, because he was vain.
beta, shouldn't that language be shall?
Donna, Did you see the "Cooper Hawk in the Library of Congress"?
Maybe your hawk has moved onto a more civilized meal.
on the conversation of free internship, I was issued a nice cheque today for about 1.5 months of work (out of a 1.5 year work relationship) - it is nice being paid and as Donna so beautifully articulated you feel like a part of the firm, in many ways. I went in this relationship for log book hours - but with a few perks and compensation - though not on a fixed schedule. But I have a full-time job outside of that and would never agree or suggest to anyone to undertake what I did. Added I instigated that my role was not to deter the hiring of any new members of staff and it hasn't.
postal glad that I could assist your growing booklist.
i find those arguments to be a side-trip donna. isn't it better to just say not paying interns is bad than to try to scare both sides of the divide with unlikely (i hope!) scenarios? i mean really, do you think some guy (girl) working without pay for eisenman is going to take you seriously if you say don't do it because peter (or zaha) might molest him(her)?
just to be clear an intern is a person with no work experience who is still a student right? usually an undergraduate. I am wondering if this means something else in N.America than we do here and in Europe?
I do believe pay is to be expected, but since we are teaching interns and not in any remote way able to use them as proper fulltime staff, i am not sure that the deal is as lop-sided as it sounds. pay commensurate with the work being done means interns will not be paid the same as a graduate architect etc. it probably means just mcdonalds level wages, or less...
jump I'm trying to explain why it's illegal - it's not a formal relationship of any kind. I certainly don't think Zaha or Eisenman are going to molest someone! But if scaring the youngsters is the only way to get them to not work for free I guess I'll do it!
snook i'm so sorry to hear you're looking at another 10 inches. Sheez, we got a flurry today and I was literally shaking my fist at the sky saying STOP THIS!! I can't fit any more layers of clothing on my body and still function!
jump - just to be clear an intern is a person with no work experience who is still a student right? usually an undergraduate. I am wondering if this means something else in N.America than we do here and in Europe?
That's exactly the problem - here in the states the term "intern" is now used to refer to any architecturally-employed person who is not a licensed architect. (Due to the perversities of the AIA-sponsored "protectionary" legislation.) So here in the states - unpaid intern could mean anything, really. We are trying to rectify that in our discussions here by stating that an undergrad intern could be compensated by credit - while someone who is out of school (and still called an intern, and working full-time for a firm) needs to receive appropriate paid compensation.
Right, what manta said. In States you have to do three years minimum of "internship" after your degree. So I was running projects but still not licensed and considered an intern.
Goodness, things have been getting interesting around here. I'm sorry I missed it. I am WRAPPED UP in my own life these days. Busy busy with work, and trying to do some work on myself. I have some good news, too, but I'll share once it's official.
I sincerely hope you all are well, and I hope I'll have time to loiter again soon.
Happy 2011!
a graduate architect working for free is kind of odd to me.
i guess the question is do the same rules apply to a graduate as for a student? it feels different to me, even if i can't say exactly why. something about how lop-sided the equation is. for the student intern there is a lot of real learning going on, and not so much useful work. by the time graduation swings around that might be different....
@ donna, but you know if you try to argue with extremes only people who believe you to begin with will listen. the rest will dismiss you as a hyperbolator, maybe even an architectural Michele Bachmann <noooo! ok, not that far. you would have to start talking aliens and probes and such to get to that point, but you know what i mean...>
isn't the big lesson of American politics right now that it is better to stick to the strong central arguments ?
;-)
to amend Donna's comment -
yes, you're required to do a minimum of 3 years' "internship" post-graduation here in the states - but:
a) the average time it is taking people to complete that "internship" period is 7 years
b) legally, anyone who is not a licensed architect but is practicing as a design professional in an architecture firm is an Intern - regardless of how many years of experience they have. Even if they have 50 years' experience but are not licensed they are still, legally, supposed to be called an Intern.
For example: I have roughly a decade or so of total experience, roughly 6 years of so of that is as a Project Manager (running projects from start to finish) - however even with all that experience technically - legally - my title must still be "Intern Architect". Kind of bullshit, eh? Firms get around this by avoiding the word architecture in titles at all... so my title has been Project Manager for years (which frankly is a pretty good way to deal with this.)
However, the only people accepting unpaid positions are typically those within a few years of having received their degree, so those are the people we're talking about mainly.
my previous title was 'manager of sustainable design' before I got my RLA... that seven year itch will occur for me next year - still no prospect of finishing up IDP now that I'm teaching.
I'll go on the record to ask - what right does Peter have to bully a blogger into removing a post about a public event?
It's also a sad day for lovers of earth art and the 1970s avante garde.
How does everybody know about this eisenmann thing? I feel so out of touch. Actually, I feel a bit like a whiner today.
Ok, back to working on my upcoming presentation...
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.