After reading many of the posts, I wanted to add some insight into one thing that seemingly hasn't been discussed by anyone. The big white elephant (or whatever color) in the room is the disease. CANCER. His father-in-law has an "advanced form" and was "coming in from out of town". First of all, even if it's his father-in-law and not his father, it's still family, and seemingly Jefferson supports his wife in her time of need as well. This was plans made (I presume) some time back. Therefore it's extremely important to him and his family. Plus it's the fricken weekend, not a day of the week, etc!!
It's truly an irritating issue for me because 1) I like many of you have suffered through the trials that we all have to deal with working in this profession - although I don't understand why it exists, and 2) because I too was recently diagnosed with cancer.
Folks, this is not a fun and games sort of thing. Cancer is a killer! FULL STOP!!
People suffering through it need the support of their family and loved ones, even friends. I took a bit of offense at what some have said blindly about the boss in Jefferson's situation, and even whilst I respect Gregory's (and others') in somewhat a defense of Jefferson's boss......frankly it's repulsive.
It's apparent that from what Jefferson told us, his boss knew his father-in-law has cancer, and was coming in from out of town. How can you just surpass the fact that the father-in-law is making a special trip to see his daughter and son-in-law, and dealing with such a horrible disease, possibly having his life in jeapardy and essentially not having the decency to understand that Jefferson is NOT available!
Just goes to show you the self centered conditions of some people. I dont care if you have to deal with "their backlog, their debts", etc. This is about someone's LIFE!! I can't understand why anyone would put anything else above that!! (shaking my head)
Squirrley - I'm not defending anyone that's a jerk. What I've simply said is that I'm quite surprised by the subsequent reaction.
2 facts to point out: first, we don't know for sure if Jefferson made his employer aware that their father in law has cancer and the importance of the visit (at least when they initially asked for the time off). Perhaps they did but if I were in that situation, I'm not sure how much I'd want to disclose. And, at any rate, someone asking for the day off shouldn't have to give an explanation as to why. I'm not trying on any level to dismiss what concerns you've raised (I've personally yet to deal with cancer in that form but certainly have endured plenty of other similar situations, like most of us have at one time or another), but the reality is Jefferson didn't make that crystal clear in his first post. They simply could have been reminding the boss that they had the days off. If the boss fully knew and understood Jefferson's family situation and still asked them back, then absolutely they're an ass.
Second, he was being asked to come back in on a Friday that he had asked off for, not to come in on a weekend day. Not that it matters, but just saying.
I'm still surprised that no one else in this thread, other than myself, have pointed out the huge legal ramification here.
There are laws— they do exist and breaking them is felonious offense— that deal with this exact issue. You know... the kind of crimes that can instantly get your licensed revoked because of the ethical and judgment repercussions these laws have. But leave it up to a profession, which practices a form of slavery, to debate an issue that's legally black-and-white.
Squirrelly, et al.,
I did not mean to get so off topic on my previous post. Either i have a bad habit of looking and responding to the last post in the thread only or else the internet is plotting against me by showing me the last post first. In any case i wholeheartedly agree with all of the comments in support of Jefferson.
jjr..i think it's cause a lot of us think it doesn't apply to the situation... the FMLA at least... it's not his father and he's not asking out of work to take care of him anyway..just take a day off of work to go sightseeing or something..or do you have some other way it could be illegal?
jjr ... I agree with Greg ... you're flogging a dead horse ... FMLA simply does not carry any legal weight in this particular situation, as we understand the facts.
No worries mate, topics have been hijacked many a time (from my recollection). I don't know if this occurs as much anymore since I have mentioned I have only today returned from a long stint away.
As far as I am concerned, I personally dont know how "illegal" it may be or not, but it's more about the moral and ethical questions that it raises, full stop!
It does if you work for a firm with more than 50 employees— the AIA 2005 compensation report shows that offices of 50 employees or larger make up 11% of the total respondents. But that doesn't tell us what percentage of the workforce works in a large firm.
The Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 2008: NAICS 54 - Professional, scientific, and technical services of the United States states of the 1,457,812 working in Architectural, engineering, and related services, 54% of them work in firms categorized as having 100 or more employees.
If we focus on just the 210,065 employed in Architectural services, 29.4% of employees work in firms of 100 or more employees. Considering that number is based on 100+ paid workers, we can assume firms where the FMLA policy applies to is 1 out of every 3 people employed in Architecture.
Furthermore, just because your firm doesn't directly employ 50 or so people directly does not mean you are 100% exempt from this law; "The FMLA applies to all public agencies, including state, local and federal employers, local education agencies (schools), and private-sector employers who employed 50 or more employees in 20 or more workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year, including joint employers and successors of covered employers."
If your firm's business relies on a significant number of contractors and subcontractors, your firm maybe considered a joint employer. There is no legal definition for the term "joint employer" and many court rulings regarding whether or not employers, especially those questioned as joint employers, tend to rule in favor of the plaintiff (such as Zheng v. Liberty Apparel). These judgments, however, are generally relevant to wage and hour violations.
Your company may not meet the requirements of the FMLA but could still be sued if the company voluntarily promises benefits similar to FMLA. And the FMLA may still even apply to your company even if you do not meet the 75-50 rule but do not disclose the FMLA or notify your employees of non-compliance with the FMLA.
Some states like Illinois, Hawaii, District of Columbia, Washington, Louisiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont have even more strenuous state laws regarding medical leave that can apply to all employers, employers with at least 10, 20, or 25 employees or employees who have worked for at least 6 months or 1,000 hours.
In New Jersey and Wisconsin, parent-in-laws are covered by their state's medical leave acts.
The illegal aspect here is, that while it may not be a violation for a 5-person firm in Florida, is that there's been enough ethical and moral violations regarding this topic for the government to step in and create laws regulating the matter.
And even if your company is not legally required to be complaint with the law or even if you win a lawsuit, it does not shield you from personal liability. Under the FSLA and the FMLA, the word employer is define by "any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee." This can wind up in a whole other level of tort lawsuits based on prior court cases— in this sense, it's possible to single out a single partner or principal of a firm for wrongful termination regarding breach of contract or defamation.
And considering most state architectural registration boards use vague language such as "gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the practice of architecture," even a civil labor lawsuit regarding denying your employee time off to visit with a cancer-ridden relative may end up with your license in a hot seat.
I am going to wholeheartedly agree with Gregory. You are branding the boss as a jerk without knowing the details.
First, most often when we are told we have been scheduled for an interview, there is no choice for the date or the time. And we have lost jobs from interviews and been told that either we did not have all the team members there and they were uncomfortable with that, or they were not bowled over by the person we did bring. So kudos of Jefferson for being so important and valuable tot the firm. Sometimes asking someone else is just not an option.
Secondly, work is not easy to come by these days, and if you put yourself in the Boss's shoes, you might just see that he is trying to maximize the possibility of getting the job, and keeping Jefferson employed.
Thirdly, everyone is different. Even if the boss knew that the father in law was coming and has cancer, he may assume that it is still not a big deal. He might assume that the father in law spends two hours every morning throwing up from chemo and would rather be alone anyway. He might assume the father in law would like some time with his daughter alone. He might assume that the father in law sleeps in late anyway, or goes to the gym, or that they were just going to sit around and watch tv anyway. He asked. You could have said no if it was so important to you. Perhaps I am a jerk to, but to me (and yes, I am married, yes I have kids, yes I have had a SPOUSE WITH CANCER and two other family members with cancer......) 3 hours out of a 4 day weekend is not a big deal, and I probably would have asked too. If the employee had said that they had specific plans that could not be changed, or they were really needed and could not come, well then I would accept it but at least I asked. You never know.
Fourthly, Family leave is not two days vacation time to visit with your father in law. It is time off without pay to CARE for a sick person. If this is what Jefferson was requesting, he should have asked earlier. "Employees seeking to use FMLA leave are required to provide 30-day advance notice of the need to take FMLA leave when the need is foreseeable and such notice is practicable. " You can't schedule off vacation days then ask for them to be changed to FMLA days. And unless the father was sick enough to require care (and therefore probably not traveling), he would not qualify anyway.
As white collar office workers, we have it easy. Try being in some profession like nursing, or police work. Your schedule can change and you can get called in to work anytime. I know people who have missed their kids high school graduation, or been late to weddings because of work issues. Oh, and I know an engineer who is now serving in Afghanistan. She is in reserves and owns a business here. She has to participate in interviews by Skype if she can. Her whole life, family and business was interrupted by her "job" . She was two weeks from retirement and "we the people" called her up for her second tour, for a year. So I guess we are all jerks!
Please keep a positive outlook, Squirrely; I am extremely sorry to hear that you have cancer. Please know that is not always, not even most of the time, a killer. Having a spouse, sister and father who all have had cancer and are all still alive today, 4 to 22 years later, it is not a death sentence.
Ms. Architect, My family does come first. I did not say to put the job ahead of your family. I said that a couple of hours out of a day, that might have involved just sitting around watching tv for all we know, might have been ok with Jefferson, and I do not think the boss is a jerk for asking. If it is a big deal for jefferson, then he needed to speak up.
And Ms. Architect, please have some respect for the woman I mentioned who is serving our country at war. She is a fabulous individual who has two small children. Would you scorn her for putting her duty to her country "ahead" of her family?
I must say that when I read your response you did sound (from the way it was written) as a very angry individual, whom appeared to be defending Jefferson's boss.
First of all, thanks for your words. I am doing my best....and I am a fighter so I will go down swinging if I have to (btw, I am going to work each and every day even though I have to endure the radiation and chemo, and honestly feel like shit).
Yet, I have to say that with all the legal ramifications that his potential situation can/could have generated, the bottom line here is not that his boss asked, its the ethical scenario that was painted initially by Jefferson. Assume that the situation is exactly as he described verbatim, then we have a very real situation that calls into question the whole aspect of this cat's focus and understanding of what his place is (he being the boss). From what I have gathered the HOT topic/aspect of this situation has been the way his boss responded by saying that Jefferson needed to get his priorities in order (or something to that effect).
I still feel the guy was an ass for not approaching things a little differently.
Additionally.....I too have served my country and continue to do so as of now (as long as they don't decide to kick me out because of this current diagnoses).
Squirrelly, you are right, I was trying to defend the boss, or at least see things from his viewpoint, but I was not angry. You are also correct, the boss did push it too far with the priority comment, but if he had asked in a less judgemental way, I think it would have been ok. Good luck with your treatment, and from the bottom of my heart, I thank you for the service to our country. You are a much braver person than I could ever be.
My firm's principal died of cancer back in '08. Our clients hardly gave a shit, they just wanted to know where their permits were. Everybody in this business has a boss and it's usually the boss's boss (client) that sets the tempo. To me, Jefferson's in a shitty situation, but either his boss is a total dick or is in a shitty situation himself.
I think that architects need to be involved in business, because they always design for someone but never for their own benefit. Why do architects let this happen? Because architects never invest their revenues in their projects(I am not talking about design, when I said Business. I refer to investments in real estates); although, some people would argue that architects do not need to make investments because they have high salaries. In fact if they would have high salaries, they would not be living poorly right now, because architecture is not having a good situation due to the economic recession. As a result, a lot of architects have lost their jobs. Moreover, architects depend too much on other people to do projects that they want to( Of course, They have to start with small projects). Architects do not really have freedom on their job because they do not design what they desire, architect have to design what their clients want. Architects should invest their incomes to build and sell their projects( As fashion designers do, they design products and they sell the products by themselves), instead of waiting for clients to contract them to create a building’s design. Presently, the involvement in economy is important, because architects will not sustain the profession only with design; they need to get more involved in the business area, become more independents, and show off that they can do more than just designing because architects could be also really good doing business but they do not use that ability at all. In my opinion, the profession needs some changes because it is being too conservative. For this reason, civil engineers are taking control of the construction sector because they are doing more than architects do. Furthermore, a civil engineer is currently also a contractor whereas the majority of architects are not. Civil engineering firms are three times richer than architecture firms are. Architecture firm should also be real estate developer because architects deserve to have that right as civil engineers are also contractors. Architect’s rights have to make good improvements, because architects should be the ones who design the entire building without the necessity of someone else as a civil engineer. Since, architects as Michelangelo, Filippo Brunelleschi, Leon Battista Alberti and Christopher Wren created and built magnificent buildings without civil engineers. A lot of those buildings are still in the world, and some of those buildings are better than buildings which civil engineers have been involved. The civil engineers should only focus on transportation and industrial services. Architects should learn more about structures. In that way, they would not need civil engineers in their jobs, because civil engineers are also the ones who are dulling the architecture sector. Architects also work hard, and get very little for that great sacrifice.
My perspective on this is that the employer did nothing wrong by simply asking if you could go to the interview. Bosses can sometimes be tone-deaf to the stuff going on in their employee's lives. I'd say to him point blank, "I'm sorry, but my father is in town and ill. Is there someone else who can go in my place, because I don't think I can." If he's relentless after this, or it becomes an issue of losing your job, then good riddance.
You should read the story "Bartleby the Scrivener."
what is it about some architects....
Back to the topic at hand (Jefferson's issue).
After reading many of the posts, I wanted to add some insight into one thing that seemingly hasn't been discussed by anyone. The big white elephant (or whatever color) in the room is the disease. CANCER. His father-in-law has an "advanced form" and was "coming in from out of town". First of all, even if it's his father-in-law and not his father, it's still family, and seemingly Jefferson supports his wife in her time of need as well. This was plans made (I presume) some time back. Therefore it's extremely important to him and his family. Plus it's the fricken weekend, not a day of the week, etc!!
It's truly an irritating issue for me because 1) I like many of you have suffered through the trials that we all have to deal with working in this profession - although I don't understand why it exists, and 2) because I too was recently diagnosed with cancer.
Folks, this is not a fun and games sort of thing. Cancer is a killer! FULL STOP!!
People suffering through it need the support of their family and loved ones, even friends. I took a bit of offense at what some have said blindly about the boss in Jefferson's situation, and even whilst I respect Gregory's (and others') in somewhat a defense of Jefferson's boss......frankly it's repulsive.
It's apparent that from what Jefferson told us, his boss knew his father-in-law has cancer, and was coming in from out of town. How can you just surpass the fact that the father-in-law is making a special trip to see his daughter and son-in-law, and dealing with such a horrible disease, possibly having his life in jeapardy and essentially not having the decency to understand that Jefferson is NOT available!
Just goes to show you the self centered conditions of some people. I dont care if you have to deal with "their backlog, their debts", etc. This is about someone's LIFE!! I can't understand why anyone would put anything else above that!! (shaking my head)
Squirrley - I'm not defending anyone that's a jerk. What I've simply said is that I'm quite surprised by the subsequent reaction.
2 facts to point out: first, we don't know for sure if Jefferson made his employer aware that their father in law has cancer and the importance of the visit (at least when they initially asked for the time off). Perhaps they did but if I were in that situation, I'm not sure how much I'd want to disclose. And, at any rate, someone asking for the day off shouldn't have to give an explanation as to why. I'm not trying on any level to dismiss what concerns you've raised (I've personally yet to deal with cancer in that form but certainly have endured plenty of other similar situations, like most of us have at one time or another), but the reality is Jefferson didn't make that crystal clear in his first post. They simply could have been reminding the boss that they had the days off. If the boss fully knew and understood Jefferson's family situation and still asked them back, then absolutely they're an ass.
Second, he was being asked to come back in on a Friday that he had asked off for, not to come in on a weekend day. Not that it matters, but just saying.
I'm still surprised that no one else in this thread, other than myself, have pointed out the huge legal ramification here.
There are laws— they do exist and breaking them is felonious offense— that deal with this exact issue. You know... the kind of crimes that can instantly get your licensed revoked because of the ethical and judgment repercussions these laws have. But leave it up to a profession, which practices a form of slavery, to debate an issue that's legally black-and-white.
Squirrelly, et al., I did not mean to get so off topic on my previous post. Either i have a bad habit of looking and responding to the last post in the thread only or else the internet is plotting against me by showing me the last post first. In any case i wholeheartedly agree with all of the comments in support of Jefferson.
JJR - care to elaborate?
jjr..i think it's cause a lot of us think it doesn't apply to the situation... the FMLA at least... it's not his father and he's not asking out of work to take care of him anyway..just take a day off of work to go sightseeing or something..or do you have some other way it could be illegal?
jjr ... I agree with Greg ... you're flogging a dead horse ... FMLA simply does not carry any legal weight in this particular situation, as we understand the facts.
JeffryBurchard:
No worries mate, topics have been hijacked many a time (from my recollection). I don't know if this occurs as much anymore since I have mentioned I have only today returned from a long stint away.
As far as I am concerned, I personally dont know how "illegal" it may be or not, but it's more about the moral and ethical questions that it raises, full stop!
It does if you work for a firm with more than 50 employees— the AIA 2005 compensation report shows that offices of 50 employees or larger make up 11% of the total respondents. But that doesn't tell us what percentage of the workforce works in a large firm.
The Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 2008: NAICS 54 - Professional, scientific, and technical services of the United States states of the 1,457,812 working in Architectural, engineering, and related services, 54% of them work in firms categorized as having 100 or more employees.
If we focus on just the 210,065 employed in Architectural services, 29.4% of employees work in firms of 100 or more employees. Considering that number is based on 100+ paid workers, we can assume firms where the FMLA policy applies to is 1 out of every 3 people employed in Architecture.
Furthermore, just because your firm doesn't directly employ 50 or so people directly does not mean you are 100% exempt from this law; "The FMLA applies to all public agencies, including state, local and federal employers, local education agencies (schools), and private-sector employers who employed 50 or more employees in 20 or more workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year, including joint employers and successors of covered employers."
If your firm's business relies on a significant number of contractors and subcontractors, your firm maybe considered a joint employer. There is no legal definition for the term "joint employer" and many court rulings regarding whether or not employers, especially those questioned as joint employers, tend to rule in favor of the plaintiff (such as Zheng v. Liberty Apparel). These judgments, however, are generally relevant to wage and hour violations.
Your company may not meet the requirements of the FMLA but could still be sued if the company voluntarily promises benefits similar to FMLA. And the FMLA may still even apply to your company even if you do not meet the 75-50 rule but do not disclose the FMLA or notify your employees of non-compliance with the FMLA.
Some states like Illinois, Hawaii, District of Columbia, Washington, Louisiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Vermont have even more strenuous state laws regarding medical leave that can apply to all employers, employers with at least 10, 20, or 25 employees or employees who have worked for at least 6 months or 1,000 hours.
In New Jersey and Wisconsin, parent-in-laws are covered by their state's medical leave acts.
The illegal aspect here is, that while it may not be a violation for a 5-person firm in Florida, is that there's been enough ethical and moral violations regarding this topic for the government to step in and create laws regulating the matter.
And even if your company is not legally required to be complaint with the law or even if you win a lawsuit, it does not shield you from personal liability. Under the FSLA and the FMLA, the word employer is define by "any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee." This can wind up in a whole other level of tort lawsuits based on prior court cases— in this sense, it's possible to single out a single partner or principal of a firm for wrongful termination regarding breach of contract or defamation.
And considering most state architectural registration boards use vague language such as "gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the practice of architecture," even a civil labor lawsuit regarding denying your employee time off to visit with a cancer-ridden relative may end up with your license in a hot seat.
I am going to wholeheartedly agree with Gregory. You are branding the boss as a jerk without knowing the details.
First, most often when we are told we have been scheduled for an interview, there is no choice for the date or the time. And we have lost jobs from interviews and been told that either we did not have all the team members there and they were uncomfortable with that, or they were not bowled over by the person we did bring. So kudos of Jefferson for being so important and valuable tot the firm. Sometimes asking someone else is just not an option.
Secondly, work is not easy to come by these days, and if you put yourself in the Boss's shoes, you might just see that he is trying to maximize the possibility of getting the job, and keeping Jefferson employed.
Thirdly, everyone is different. Even if the boss knew that the father in law was coming and has cancer, he may assume that it is still not a big deal. He might assume that the father in law spends two hours every morning throwing up from chemo and would rather be alone anyway. He might assume the father in law would like some time with his daughter alone. He might assume that the father in law sleeps in late anyway, or goes to the gym, or that they were just going to sit around and watch tv anyway. He asked. You could have said no if it was so important to you. Perhaps I am a jerk to, but to me (and yes, I am married, yes I have kids, yes I have had a SPOUSE WITH CANCER and two other family members with cancer......) 3 hours out of a 4 day weekend is not a big deal, and I probably would have asked too. If the employee had said that they had specific plans that could not be changed, or they were really needed and could not come, well then I would accept it but at least I asked. You never know.
Fourthly, Family leave is not two days vacation time to visit with your father in law. It is time off without pay to CARE for a sick person. If this is what Jefferson was requesting, he should have asked earlier. "Employees seeking to use FMLA leave are required to provide 30-day advance notice of the need to take FMLA leave when the need is foreseeable and such notice is practicable. " You can't schedule off vacation days then ask for them to be changed to FMLA days. And unless the father was sick enough to require care (and therefore probably not traveling), he would not qualify anyway.
As white collar office workers, we have it easy. Try being in some profession like nursing, or police work. Your schedule can change and you can get called in to work anytime. I know people who have missed their kids high school graduation, or been late to weddings because of work issues. Oh, and I know an engineer who is now serving in Afghanistan. She is in reserves and owns a business here. She has to participate in interviews by Skype if she can. Her whole life, family and business was interrupted by her "job" . She was two weeks from retirement and "we the people" called her up for her second tour, for a year. So I guess we are all jerks!
jjr
you missed the point.. it's not whether the firm qualifies for FMLA..it's that the situation doesn't qualify.
Please keep a positive outlook, Squirrely; I am extremely sorry to hear that you have cancer. Please know that is not always, not even most of the time, a killer. Having a spouse, sister and father who all have had cancer and are all still alive today, 4 to 22 years later, it is not a death sentence.
archie... you are a sad sad individual. Money, jobs, people, bosses.... will come and go.
But family really... should always be first.
And also... lets not make this profession bigger than it is. ( as awesome as it might be... )
Ms. Architect, My family does come first. I did not say to put the job ahead of your family. I said that a couple of hours out of a day, that might have involved just sitting around watching tv for all we know, might have been ok with Jefferson, and I do not think the boss is a jerk for asking. If it is a big deal for jefferson, then he needed to speak up.
And Ms. Architect, please have some respect for the woman I mentioned who is serving our country at war. She is a fabulous individual who has two small children. Would you scorn her for putting her duty to her country "ahead" of her family?
Archie:
I must say that when I read your response you did sound (from the way it was written) as a very angry individual, whom appeared to be defending Jefferson's boss.
First of all, thanks for your words. I am doing my best....and I am a fighter so I will go down swinging if I have to (btw, I am going to work each and every day even though I have to endure the radiation and chemo, and honestly feel like shit).
Yet, I have to say that with all the legal ramifications that his potential situation can/could have generated, the bottom line here is not that his boss asked, its the ethical scenario that was painted initially by Jefferson. Assume that the situation is exactly as he described verbatim, then we have a very real situation that calls into question the whole aspect of this cat's focus and understanding of what his place is (he being the boss). From what I have gathered the HOT topic/aspect of this situation has been the way his boss responded by saying that Jefferson needed to get his priorities in order (or something to that effect).
I still feel the guy was an ass for not approaching things a little differently.
Additionally.....I too have served my country and continue to do so as of now (as long as they don't decide to kick me out because of this current diagnoses).
Squirrelly, you are right, I was trying to defend the boss, or at least see things from his viewpoint, but I was not angry. You are also correct, the boss did push it too far with the priority comment, but if he had asked in a less judgemental way, I think it would have been ok. Good luck with your treatment, and from the bottom of my heart, I thank you for the service to our country. You are a much braver person than I could ever be.
agreed!
Thanks and it is my pleasure....I do this (defend this country) because I can!
My firm's principal died of cancer back in '08. Our clients hardly gave a shit, they just wanted to know where their permits were. Everybody in this business has a boss and it's usually the boss's boss (client) that sets the tempo. To me, Jefferson's in a shitty situation, but either his boss is a total dick or is in a shitty situation himself.
This is the game we suit up everyday to go play.
^ Only if you decide to play the game.
What do you think about this?
I think that architects need to be involved in business, because they always design for someone but never for their own benefit. Why do architects let this happen? Because architects never invest their revenues in their projects(I am not talking about design, when I said Business. I refer to investments in real estates); although, some people would argue that architects do not need to make investments because they have high salaries. In fact if they would have high salaries, they would not be living poorly right now, because architecture is not having a good situation due to the economic recession. As a result, a lot of architects have lost their jobs. Moreover, architects depend too much on other people to do projects that they want to( Of course, They have to start with small projects). Architects do not really have freedom on their job because they do not design what they desire, architect have to design what their clients want. Architects should invest their incomes to build and sell their projects( As fashion designers do, they design products and they sell the products by themselves), instead of waiting for clients to contract them to create a building’s design. Presently, the involvement in economy is important, because architects will not sustain the profession only with design; they need to get more involved in the business area, become more independents, and show off that they can do more than just designing because architects could be also really good doing business but they do not use that ability at all. In my opinion, the profession needs some changes because it is being too conservative. For this reason, civil engineers are taking control of the construction sector because they are doing more than architects do. Furthermore, a civil engineer is currently also a contractor whereas the majority of architects are not. Civil engineering firms are three times richer than architecture firms are. Architecture firm should also be real estate developer because architects deserve to have that right as civil engineers are also contractors. Architect’s rights have to make good improvements, because architects should be the ones who design the entire building without the necessity of someone else as a civil engineer. Since, architects as Michelangelo, Filippo Brunelleschi, Leon Battista Alberti and Christopher Wren created and built magnificent buildings without civil engineers. A lot of those buildings are still in the world, and some of those buildings are better than buildings which civil engineers have been involved. The civil engineers should only focus on transportation and industrial services. Architects should learn more about structures. In that way, they would not need civil engineers in their jobs, because civil engineers are also the ones who are dulling the architecture sector. Architects also work hard, and get very little for that great sacrifice.
My perspective on this is that the employer did nothing wrong by simply asking if you could go to the interview. Bosses can sometimes be tone-deaf to the stuff going on in their employee's lives. I'd say to him point blank, "I'm sorry, but my father is in town and ill. Is there someone else who can go in my place, because I don't think I can." If he's relentless after this, or it becomes an issue of losing your job, then good riddance.
You should read the story "Bartleby the Scrivener."
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.