There are lots of job listings still going up on archinect that don't adhere to the new salary disclosure laws (in both California since Jan 1st, and in NYC since December). Can archinect crack down on this? I think these listings should simply be removed if they're not going to follow the laws.
Everyday Architect
Jan 6, 23 8:40 pm
I'm curious to know why you think complaining about it here is going to do anything? Others have brought this up before and archinect has provided responses in some of those cases (see example linked at the bottom). Bottom line is I'm not sure archinect is liable for any violations posted on their site (don't take my word for it though ... please research it and correct me if I'm wrong). If that's the case, archinect doesn't really need to care.
The issue is the employers not including the information when required by the law. I suspect you'd have better luck getting something to change by filing a complaint with whatever agency is tasked with enforcing these laws in their respective jurisdictions.
Agreed, I filed a complaint for NYC stating Archinect as agency for hosting jobs without included information. We will see if I get a response.
Everyday Architect
Jan 7, 23 3:41 pm
Based on my cursory reading of the NYC law, it's a requirement for employers ... not websites that host those postings. By all means report the employer. Archinect is not in the business of law enforcement, nor are they the employer ... so I'm not sure why you think archinect needs to be reported. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/Salary-Transparency-Factsheet.pdf
pandahut
Jan 7, 23 4:00 pm
EA, its more out of principal. Archinect is knowingly allowing employers to illegally post job ads. You don't think they need to be held accountable as a company? Any different than Twitter allowing hate speech? I've got nothing against Archinect but the principal is the same. People need to be held accountable in allowing people to distort the law. Sorry.
pandahut
Jan 7, 23 4:07 pm
I would go as far to say hate speech is not even technically illegal. Hurtful, absolutely. Everyone comes out and doxes platforms for allowing it to happen but it's not even illegal. Archinect allows hosting if job ads, the ones posted without salaries, while legally required....you don't think that anything should happen? Archinect needs to get their UX UI team and implement a feature that any posting in a state that requires cannot be posted unless a box is filled out with a numerical value. It's extremely simple. Arguing semantics I know and not looking for verbal confrontation. Just comparing what I see in the world with something I feel is actually more mandated.
natematt
Jan 8, 23 2:39 am
Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s worse than something legal. Going on a racist tirade against someone may not be illegal, but going 26mph on a 25mph road is. Pretty sure the general consensus would be that the former is much worse and worthy of consequence (legal or social).
There is a limit to how much we can reasonably expect anyone police the legality of things, and I would expect architects in particular to have a good sense of that.
Sidenote: I could be mistaken, but I really doubt Archinect has a UX UI team. I haven’t seen any serious updates to the site or the app in years, and based on what I see happening on the site, it would not surprise me if the team consisted of only the 8 people they list. I’m not sure about moderation either, but it could probably be handled by just one or two people given the site’s level of activity. I’m fairly sure the coding is outsourced.
Archinect
Jan 9, 23 1:16 pm
Archinect is not an agency, Karen McPandahut. Agencies, who hire people as representatives for employers, and job boards are very different businesses. The former is responsible for disclosing salary, in certain situations, the latter doesn't, for obvious reasons.
pandahut
Jan 14, 23 5:25 pm
Lol at Archinect calling someone a Karen. Like I said, I've reported Archinect to NYC CHR and we will see the response I get. Happy Saturday Brandon :)
Richard Balkins
Jan 14, 23 6:23 pm
*raise eyebrow*
yesno
Jan 7, 23 1:36 pm
So according to that previous thread, archinect writes a small disclaimer asking emplyers to adhere to salary transparency laws, but then does nothing when the employer just ignores them? very helpful lol
Obviously the employers are the main ones at fault here - but since archinect is the biggest job boards for architects, and it's basically the main function of their site, I would think that the least they could do is make sure the job postings are meeting basic legal requirements
Everyday Architect
Jan 7, 23 3:45 pm
I get the frustration on some level, but what you're asking is for archinect to review all postings and make a determination if any law has been violated so they can take appropriate action. Archinect is not a lawyer, nor a judge, nor a law enforcement agency. They are a website that hosts employers job postings. Your complaints should be with the employers ... not archinect.
Does this mean archinect shouldn't do anything? Not exactly ... but I don't think they have any legal obligation to do anything.
natematt
Jan 8, 23 2:36 am
While I agree on principle that Archinect should be trying to address this issue, I don't see it as a major concern. I think you’re missing the bigger picture. This site is a forum, jobs are secondary. And you might disagree as It’s probably one of the best job listing sites FOR ARCHITECTS… but… Those same jobs are typically posted all over other websites with far greater reaches and resources that include more markets. I would guess almost every single one is posted on LinkedIn, which has over 20k employees, and the resources to address this issue. But they are not doing so. They
should, as should any of the other huge job market sites, with all jobs not just architecture. If the sites that are actually job markets did something about this, then firms would start being better about it.
Richard Balkins
Jan 8, 23 4:48 am
Ultimately, it's the employers' posting jobs to comply with the respective laws. Lets stop putting the burden onto 'platforms' the responsibility of individual adults and their businesses. They are adults so they should be held accountable as adults. Anyone can file complaints so if anyone see a legal issue on this matter, send a complaint to respective authorities. Even contact then by phone to get forms that need to be filled out, if necessary.
joseffischer
Jan 9, 23 3:19 pm
It wouldn't be hard, required fields before posting can exist, just make everyone post a salary range, done
yesno
Jan 7, 23 4:21 pm
Honestly it's not that complicated. Salary range should simply be a required field when posting a job ad if you select one of the states/cities that legally requires it.
Considering that a number of states recently passed these laws (CA, RI and WA), along with a bunch of cities rolling them out (including NYC), jobs posted in those places probably account for 90%+ of all listings on the site. Seems like it's only a matter of time before basically every state requires it.
natematt
Jan 8, 23 2:37 am
Sure, but how useful is that really, look at all the great examples that are following the laws... “Compensation is between 80k-140k” … wow helpful hahahah
yesno
Jan 7, 23 4:31 pm
Also, I have read that employers can be fined for violating this in California, but so far I haven't been able to find a link where I can submit a violation like that. I sent an email to the California Labor Commissioner's office requesting more info, so I'll post back if I hear more.
I'll report all of the employers one by one if I can...
Richard Balkins
Jan 8, 23 4:50 am
email or call them. They may be able to send you the form to be filled out or whatever that is needed. Sometimes, violations will just have to be an email with sufficient information that the investigator of such violation can follow up and check.
Everyday Architect
Jan 9, 23 11:45 am
Here's a form you can fill out and submit to the Labor Commissioner's office. I don't think they've updated the form to reflect the new law, but there is a space where you can report the violation under "Other Violations" with an explanation. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/DLSE1_BOFE.pdf
For NYC posts. From date of complaint "Businesses will have 30 days to fix the violation, otherwise they could face civil penalties of up to $250,000". As I have made numerous complaints I am curious to see how it plays out.
More importantly Archinect should be an advocate in good faith for the profession. Much like anyone who is a part of the community. Knowingly allowing companies to post jobs here that do not meet a legal requirement to me shows Archinect is not acting, in good faith and in favor of those of the profession. OvEr N' OuT
How hard is it to add a box for salary input for states required with a red * and the post will not post until it is filled out......lol
Everyday Architect
Jan 9, 23 11:36 am
Related question ... on your drawings or in your specs have you ever put in a note like "install per code" or "ensure installation meets building code" expecting the contractor to do that?
Assuming the answer is yes, do you also have elaborate submittals of checklists where you verify everything submitted and installed meets the applicable codes?
No!?
Why not?
joseffischer
Jan 9, 23 3:21 pm
you hypothesize on a system to verify things are actually on the up and up and even use the word submittals to describe it... then suggest we don't do that...
Everyday Architect
Jan 9, 23 4:47 pm
I actually didn't suggest such a system, I was just wondering if pandahut follows such a system to the degree they seem to think Archinect should for job postings.
Of course, there are significant differences with responsibility and my comparative analogy so I'll be the first to admit it's not perfect. The point is you likely put CYA language in your documents expecting to shield yourself (rightfully or wrongly) from some liability and you rely on the other party to follow that language in good faith without verifying the compliance to the degree people are asking of archinect here.
msparchitect
Jan 9, 23 11:32 am
Legally responsible or not, Archinect should be on the side of it's userbase and not allow postings from Colorado, California, or New York City without salary information disclosed. Some of these offices need to be pushed into compliance.
Everyday Architect
Jan 9, 23 11:48 am
You forgot Washington, thereby making an effective case for why archinect has taken the approach it does.
Richard Balkins
Jan 9, 23 2:58 pm
I think we can have text field that says, Salary/Salary range and let it be a text box field and with an instructive note: If you are located is a state, county/parish, or municipality that requires disclosure of salary range for job positions, you shall put a salary range in the text field. The site has to be careful because of so many different jurisdictions and new ones that are popping up.
x-jla
Jan 9, 23 1:04 pm
this is a terribly misguided law. It will essentially cause “bidding” wars between firms rather than between employers and employees. This can happen in the positive direction during a good economy, or in the negative direction during recession.
x-jla
Jan 9, 23 1:05 pm
I’d be willing to bet that as the economy slows you will see a disproportionate drop in income in these states vs states where there is a less transparent view of who’s paying what.
Non Sequitur
Jan 9, 23 1:18 pm
I'm not surprised you'd be against this.
Chad Miller
Jan 9, 23 1:54 pm
I would like to hear why x-jla thinks that the laws in question will cause problems.
Richard Balkins
Jan 9, 23 3:00 pm
x-jla is purposefully a contrarian.
x-jla
Jan 9, 23 3:03 pm
For reasons I already mentioned. Mainly It will create a pay equilibrium and remove the ability of employees to negotiate higher pay. Believe me, I’ve encountered this in both directions with subs. They raise and lower prices in concert with each other. Good subs then have a terribly hard time negotiating higher fees, and shitty subs ride the wave getting paid more than they deserve for low quality workmanship. Wages become controlled by the median which is set by firm competition.
x-jla
Jan 9, 23 3:03 pm
It’s essentially price fixing of the labor market.
Non Sequitur
Jan 9, 23 3:06 pm
spoiler alert, we don't believe you. The world does not work the way you believe it to.
x-jla
Jan 9, 23 3:08 pm
Ok
x-jla
Jan 9, 23 3:12 pm
You don’t have to believe me. I’m not asking you to take my word for it. I’m just asking you to use common sense and logical reasoning to predict how this will ultimately play out. Unfortunately if you arrive at a conclusion that strays from the feel good narrative you automatically become a ___fill in the blank.
Richard Balkins
Jan 9, 23 3:14 pm
price-fixing requires a collusion... a conspiring to price fix. It's not price-fixing if there is no interaction and dialogue establishing an agreement. Price-fixing would be a cartel of competitors meeting together to set the price of goods, services, etc. There's a fairly decent "King of the Hill" episode that gets into an example involving the principle of price-fixing. Maybe you might want to watch that episode and then read up on it from sources that are actually lawyers. This would not be.
pandahut
Jan 9, 23 4:01 pm
X, just a heads up that every firm has to set a budget for positions filled. So I don't think it will encroach too much on bidding wars because some firms will allocate more money for positions than others can.
x-jla
Jan 9, 23 4:41 pm
RB, that’s right, but in effect it’s the same outcome. 1. It limits the employees ability to negotiate if the employer knows what everyone else in town is paying. Anyone who plays poker can see that this is a problem. 2. Salaries ranges will begin to standardize (collusion not required). It will just happen as everyone will be aware of the salary ranges that everyone else pays. This doesn’t always mean that it will trend up. Obviously it won’t when recession hits. I’m many ways this will commodify the employee, in the same way that any other commodity standardizes. Concrete prices are pretty homogeneous. Material prices ebb and flow in a pretty homogeneous way. Now, salaries will be governed by same forces.
Richard Balkins
Jan 9, 23 4:56 pm
You may be right but the consensus is not clear because it is rather new laws without sufficiently collected data and information to arrive at your conclusion. At least, not yet. If it ends up a being more problem then helpful, those requirements may be repealed or amended out of the law.
x-jla
Jan 9, 23 5:17 pm
Problem with the progressive types that advocate these laws is that they are really bad at anticipating unintentional consequences. This is one of countless examples. Once a law is passed like this there are no political incentives to repeal it.
Richard Balkins
Jan 9, 23 5:31 pm
Politics is an interesting beast but there can be incentive if there is enough outcry. Laws do occassionally get repealed or more commonly, amended effectively out of it by series of incremental changes until its terms are effectively gone. Laws that are not enforced for so long, they do frequently get removed or repealed. This is how towns throw out laws still on the books that are no longer relevent and not enforced. It happens but can take several decades to over a century. Technically, it was illegal to drive automobiles in Astoria downtown commercial area and was on the books before the 1900s. The law was only repealed in the 2000s to 2010s but had not been enforced since the area was rebuilt in the 1920s after a devastating fire. When the laws were made, it made sense considering the area was all wooden piles, piers, deck structure and decking, and mostly wood frame construction. The laws were never officially repealed until the 2000s when the city went over the laws and was cleaning up the laws that were legally still on the books because there was not the records of it being repealed in historic minutes of the city council so they then repealed those laws.
Richard Balkins
Jan 9, 23 5:32 pm
Laws do get repealed eventually. This situation isn't just effecting architects.
x-jla
Jan 9, 23 5:34 pm
Maybe in purple states where you teeter back and forth between parties. Not in these states. For a law like this, No liberal politician will ever surrender state power back to the market.
Non Sequitur
Jan 9, 23 5:39 pm
Ohhhhhh change, scary. No wonder you’re so backward.
x-jla
Jan 9, 23 5:43 pm
I don’t have a problem with change. I just don’t have a religious faith in it either. That allows me to think clearly.
Chad Miller
Jan 9, 23 5:52 pm
We get what we deserve.
Richard Balkins
Jan 9, 23 6:08 pm
All states values changes over time with the values of the individuals. Even the values of political parties changes over time.
Non Sequitur
Jan 9, 23 6:17 pm
Clearly is not the term I’d use X.
x-jla
Jan 9, 23 7:14 pm
I have no faith in radical change. I have lots of faith in evolutionary change. But good luck winning an election on that slogan “don’t worry it will work itself out”
Non Sequitur
Jan 9, 23 7:51 pm
Sorry, no time to argue, the new pantone colour has been released.
x-jla
Jan 10, 23 3:37 pm
Haha. Good one
square.
Jan 11, 23 9:10 am
listing salaries is hardly "radical change," it's been done in other sectors and industries for decades.
in fact, it is the epitome of "evolutionary change" since there is already a well established precedent and it is doing nothing to manipulate the broader economic system itself, but merely disclose more information about what already exists.
you have a funny habit of labeling anything you disagree with as "radical"... sound familiar.
Richard Balkins
Jan 12, 23 2:19 pm
Or whatever his favorite surrogate for a brain has labeled as "radical".
x-jla
Jan 12, 23 6:13 pm
Square, that was a general statement. Regardless, the state is absolutely incompetent in just about everything they do. I have zero confidence in their ability to see all of the angles on something like this. It’s a law for political posturing.
x-jla
Jan 12, 23 6:14 pm
^except a few things- They excel at war and enriching themselves
Chad Miller
Jan 12, 23 6:19 pm
I have no problem with others knowing how much I make. It's a stupid US 'custom' not to openly talk about what you and your team members are making.
x-jla
Jan 12, 23 6:31 pm
Problematic word “law”
Richard Balkins
Jan 12, 23 9:56 pm
Laws are justs words on paper that is supposedly enforced but not always the case. When do people know what they really want or need? Everything is an idea and laws are too. They are experimented and tested after adopted because it can not be tested before hand. If a law is flawed, it's ammended, corrected, or repealed/replaced if it can not. It is the way it is for any democracy. Laws are not written in stone anymore and never was for the United States which has a law system that is amended. The laws are put forth by people and laws and the political agenda behind them are put in place by the people we elect to represent us. So when we elect people, we are voting for them to put forth and if possible fulfill those agendas and that includes laws. If you don't trust the people elected, then campaign to get elected and others that shares your views substantively. Since you seem more interested in politics than anything, why don't you pursuit a political career?
square.
Jan 13, 23 9:18 am
you're bringing too much ideology into this, it's really quite simple: as a job seeker, it's incredibly helpful to have a salary range not only for that job but also as a means to compare positions.
Chad Miller
Jan 13, 23 9:58 am
x-jla -
A lot of companies have policies that prohibit employees from discussing their pay with others. If you violate this policy then you're fired. This seems to be violation of several rights.
I think having a pay transparency law is a good idea.
Richard Balkins
Jan 13, 23 2:11 pm
This isn't even unique to architecture.
If x-jla actually worked for companies as much as the number of posts that he spends on ideologies and politics, he might have came across at least one of those companies with those arrangements like Chad said.
It may not be as common as Chad may have unintendedly expressed (if you interpret "A lot of companies..." to mean most) but he's correct in that there a lot of companies that does this even though it is relatively uncommon when compared to the shear volume of companies employing.
I kind of agree with Chad and also see potential flaws with the idea, too.
x-jla
Jan 13, 23 4:54 pm
“A lot of companies have policies that prohibit employees from discussing their pay with others. If you violate this policy then you're fired. This seems to be violation of several rights.” I would be against that type of NDA as well. This is not the same though. On a side note, I’d be curious how this will affect a unions ability to collectively bargain for higher pay at one particular employer in a certain industry. I can’t imagine that this will be in their favor. I believe unions are a much more effective way to get better working conditions and pay. This seems to hurt their ability to negotiate as it will “standardize/normalize” pay across entire industries.
Richard Balkins
Jan 13, 23 5:14 pm
x-jla,
"I would be against that type of NDA as well. This is not the same though. On a side note, I’d be curious how this will affect a unions ability to collectively bargain for higher pay at one particular employer in a certain industry. I can’t imagine that this will be in their favor. I believe unions are a much more effective way to get better working conditions and pay. This seems to hurt their ability to negotiate as it will “standardize/normalize” pay across entire industries."
This is probably your strongest argument. Especially the part I put in bold. Employers will sometimes, set their salary range and benefits package higher to attract and retain employees. Others may be lower because they are more price-competing and will have a different take. It will come with pros and cons. We'll have to see how it goes and refine the laws or whatever if need be.
square.
Jan 17, 23 9:57 am
This seems to hurt their ability to negotiate as it will “standardize/normalize” pay across entire industries.
you're forgetting the what makes union negotiations more powerful than one-one-one negotiations is that they... aren't that. it's a collective negotiation, which puts much more pressure on the employer. simply listing pre-existing salaries (which are sometimes listed with a dubious range) isn't going to move the needle as much as union power.
the real benefit of the transparency law is it gives potential employees a better ability to shop around and avoid bad firms; collective bargaining is needed to get the best wages.
Archinect
Jan 9, 23 1:13 pm
All of the districts that have imposed salary laws have specific guidelines surrounding the laws that leave many firms exempt from the requirements. Archinect reaches out to advertising firms regularly, reminding them of the laws, and we often receive replies outlining how their firms are not required to include salary information for a variety of reasons.
To be clear, job boards are not responsible for enforcing district laws surrounding this issue. And even though we are in support of the new salary disclosure laws, there is no way we can investigate the business structure and financials of each advertiser to ensure they are complying with the laws in their district.
As we indicate to the firms that may appear to be ignoring the laws, they risk fines, and they also risk backlash from people assuming they are skirting the law, or lack of relevant applications from potential job seekers.
Chad Miller
Jan 9, 23 1:44 pm
How about you simply state that any job postings here must include a salary range regardless of state laws? You're a huge site that EVERYONE uses. Lead by example.
Archinect
Jan 9, 23 1:48 pm
It's something we've been talking about internally
Richard Balkins
Jan 9, 23 2:48 pm
Thank you Archinect for taking the opportunity to discuss what you guys are doing and do what you can with supporting salary range disclosure laws. I also agree it isn't the jobboard platform's responsibility to comply with the laws. It is the ultimate responsibility of employers posting jobs according to the applicable laws and rules. The platform's duty at most is facilitate compliance, to a reasonable effort. The platforms can 'police' compliance on its own platform like pulling job postings that are clearly not complying. We the users of Archinect may file complaints for non-compliance but it should be done where it is reasonable. In some places, the enforcement of such law may be held up in court.... especially if its new laws.
pandahut
Jan 9, 23 4:02 pm
@Archinect, have you reached out to NYCCHR to confirm this statement "To be clear, job boards are not responsible for enforcing district laws surrounding this issue"?.......
Chad Miller
Jan 9, 23 4:06 pm
I doubt they would say something like this without verifying it. While Archinect is posting on a forum that doesn't mean they are clueless wankers who post whatever under an anonymous username.
Richard Balkins
Jan 9, 23 4:58 pm
They probably have legal counsel involved. It would make sense in this case.
Everyday Architect
Jan 9, 23 1:45 pm
I appreciate the comments Archinect, thank you for your clarifications.
In the meantime I was tired of seeing this happening so I decided to write a post where users can find information on these salary transparency laws and how to report violations where applicable. Please leave comments there if you see anything that could be updated and I'll do what I can to keep it edited and up to date.
genuinely curious: our state doesn't require this but we add in the following (including on our active ad on this platform):
The anticipated salary range for this position aligns with the AIA's Architect III category.
our thought is someone can absolutely go look it up - it's not that hard to see.
the reason i personally (and can't speak for my firm here) don't like the numbers is that, frankly, i don't think people read the job descriptions but rather the numbers. and it leads to more applications from people who aren't remotely qualified. so, again, my personal reasoning, is that if you're going to look up the number, you'll see what the AIA uses to define that position.
natematt
Jan 9, 23 4:21 pm
That seems more than fair somewhere that doesn't require it. That said, a lot of firms should look up these numbers before they write their job descriptions hahaha.
Everyday Architect
Jan 9, 23 4:56 pm
I tend to like that approach, even if it is flawed. It could be better if firms (and I can't speak for your firm) actually tailored the positions to fit those descriptions in practice and not just the job posting. I've never worked a job where my responsibilities aligned with the AIA position descriptions. I also find those AIA numbers to be lagging as they are almost always out of date by the time they are published and only published every other year.
Also as a separate topic, that's one of the things I'd hope an architectural workers' union would be able to help establish with employers ... clear job descriptions/delineation of responsibilities and salary ranges (based on AIA's survey or otherwise).
Gregory Walker
Jan 9, 23 8:05 pm
Everyday - tailoring positions may be a wholly separate topic. it's so difficult to say a position at an individual firm is going to match the aggregate profile description like the salary guide. maybe in a larger firm? but for something as small as ours (20+), people are going to cross description boundaries at times. In terms of lagging, a lot depends on how hot (or cold) the market is. but a year lag seems reasonable - they can't do a continuous, real time surveying (it's a resource question). for that, something like glassdoor might be better.
natematt
Jan 9, 23 8:20 pm
To be fair, a huge chunk of jobs are in specific major cities that tend to have higher pay and higher costs of living. They also tend to not be freely available from the AIA, only general regions, so the numbers are often not going to be that tuned in.
However, I think most of the openings you get with ranges start real cheep by comparison
Richard Balkins
Jan 9, 23 9:28 pm
Employers should reflect salary ranges with their immediate local context and also duties & responsibilities of the position considered in addition to experience.
Everyday Architect
Jan 9, 23 10:27 pm
Of course. That's all fair. As much as I understand the limitations, I usually find firms aren't willing to acknowledge those limitations while also selectively using the report to their advantage (maybe that's just my luck). For example, they'll gladly use the 2-year old report (with ~3-year old numbers), but refuse to acknowledge or adjust for inflation over those 2-3 years. Also insisting someone should only be getting Architect I salary because they only have 5 years experience but they won't acknowledge that their responsibilities (and the firm's expectations) are somewhere between Architect II and III.
Richard Balkins
Jan 10, 23 3:43 am
Very good point.
"Also insisting someone should only be getting Architect I salary because they only have 5 years experience but they won't acknowledge that their responsibilities (and the firm's expectations) are somewhere between Architect II and III"
In this, I might reflect responsibility as a major factor over mere years of experience. At normal years of responsibility, the midpoint might fall in at the halfway point. However, I might approach it something like, salary range aggregated between Arch II and III divide by two or take the lower and upper range of each of the three Arch I, II, and III, divide by 3 (for each of the three low and three high end), and then do local adjustments for cost of living. The ranges reflects a range of experience. It would be based on the numbers. I'd also take into account, inflation and local costs of living factored in. Some of the figures may be low because a low-cost area in turn reflects a lower salary than in an expensive city.
So those local context matters. They should be able to reasonably afford to live in the area within a 20 to 25 mile radius. Ideally, within 10-15 miles. Really ideal in <10 miles.
Gregory Walker
Jan 10, 23 9:47 am
Everyday - that's both a crappy excuse (the "oh but you only have X years) and poor negotiating on the employee's behalf. meaning, if you're doing more than what they're trying to slot you in salary wise, or not accounting for inflation, then back up your statistics and hold your ground.
square.
Jan 10, 23 9:50 am
then back up your statistics and hold your ground.
at least there's some acknowledgement of the hostility inherent in the situation.. but you're acting as if an employee negotiating with their employer is a level playing field- one has the absolute right to fire the other over any reason they see fit, let alone set a salary. in a lot of cases it doesn't matter how good your data or argument is, the boss's word is final.
Gregory Walker
Jan 10, 23 11:23 am
and in a more recessionary market, the employer will have more leverage. right now, it's the opposite. but in any market, it's a negotiation, hopefully one that's done respectfully. if someone wants to say 'here's my number or i'll walk'... ok. your call. if the owner's response is 'this is our final offer', then either you can see that as a byproduct of an implied threat or that's really what they can afford and you have to decide what's worth it to you. and, yes, there's going to be asshole owners who will hold that threat over someone's head. not unique to architecture. is that really where you'd want to work?
Everyday Architect
Jan 10, 23 12:05 pm
Regardless of the market, the tables are always tilted in favor of the employer. The difference is how much they are tilted.
I was in a good position to negotiate though. I had colleagues that weren't in as good of a position (more easily replaceable) and they were simply told "no raise" regardless of what the AIA survey said.
There are lots of job listings still going up on archinect that don't adhere to the new salary disclosure laws (in both California since Jan 1st, and in NYC since December). Can archinect crack down on this? I think these listings should simply be removed if they're not going to follow the laws.
I'm curious to know why you think complaining about it here is going to do anything? Others have brought this up before and archinect has provided responses in some of those cases (see example linked at the bottom). Bottom line is I'm not sure archinect is liable for any violations posted on their site (don't take my word for it though ... please research it and correct me if I'm wrong). If that's the case, archinect doesn't really need to care.
The issue is the employers not including the information when required by the law. I suspect you'd have better luck getting something to change by filing a complaint with whatever agency is tasked with enforcing these laws in their respective jurisdictions.
https://archinect.com/forum/th...
Agreed, I filed a complaint for NYC stating Archinect as agency for hosting jobs without included information. We will see if I get a response.
Based on my cursory reading of the NYC law, it's a requirement for employers ... not websites that host those postings. By all means report the employer. Archinect is not in the business of law enforcement, nor are they the employer ... so I'm not sure why you think archinect needs to be reported. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/Salary-Transparency-Factsheet.pdf
EA, its more out of principal. Archinect is knowingly allowing employers to illegally post job ads. You don't think they need to be held accountable as a company? Any different than Twitter allowing hate speech? I've got nothing against Archinect but the principal is the same. People need to be held accountable in allowing people to distort the law. Sorry.
I would go as far to say hate speech is not even technically illegal. Hurtful, absolutely. Everyone comes out and doxes platforms for allowing it to happen but it's not even illegal. Archinect allows hosting if job ads, the ones posted without salaries, while legally required....you don't think that anything should happen? Archinect needs to get their UX UI team and implement a feature that any posting in a state that requires cannot be posted unless a box is filled out with a numerical value. It's extremely simple. Arguing semantics I know and not looking for verbal confrontation. Just comparing what I see in the world with something I feel is actually more mandated.
Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s worse than something legal. Going on a racist tirade against someone may not be illegal, but going 26mph on a 25mph road is. Pretty sure the general consensus would be that the former is much worse and worthy of consequence (legal or social).
There is a limit to how much we can reasonably expect anyone police the legality of things, and I would expect architects in particular to have a good sense of that.
Sidenote: I could be mistaken, but I really doubt Archinect has a UX UI team. I haven’t seen any serious updates to the site or the app in years, and based on what I see happening on the site, it would not surprise me if the team consisted of only the 8 people they list. I’m not sure about moderation either, but it could probably be handled by just one or two people given the site’s level of activity. I’m fairly sure the coding is outsourced.
Archinect is not an agency, Karen McPandahut. Agencies, who hire people as representatives for employers, and job boards are very different businesses. The former is responsible for disclosing salary, in certain situations, the latter doesn't, for obvious reasons.
Lol at Archinect calling someone a Karen. Like I said, I've reported Archinect to NYC CHR and we will see the response I get. Happy Saturday Brandon :)
*raise eyebrow*
So according to that previous thread, archinect writes a small disclaimer asking emplyers to adhere to salary transparency laws, but then does nothing when the employer just ignores them? very helpful lol
Obviously the employers are the main ones at fault here - but since archinect is the biggest job boards for architects, and it's basically the main function of their site, I would think that the least they could do is make sure the job postings are meeting basic legal requirements
I get the frustration on some level, but what you're asking is for archinect to review all postings and make a determination if any law has been violated so they can take appropriate action. Archinect is not a lawyer, nor a judge, nor a law enforcement agency. They are a website that hosts employers job postings. Your complaints should be with the employers ... not archinect.
Does this mean archinect shouldn't do anything? Not exactly ... but I don't think they have any legal obligation to do anything.
While I agree on principle that Archinect should be trying to address this issue, I don't see it as a major concern. I think you’re missing the bigger picture. This site is a forum, jobs are secondary. And you might disagree as It’s probably one of the best job listing sites FOR ARCHITECTS… but… Those same jobs are typically posted all over other websites with far greater reaches and resources that include more markets. I would guess almost every single one is posted on LinkedIn, which has over 20k employees, and the resources to address this issue. But they are not doing so. They should, as should any of the other huge job market sites, with all jobs not just architecture. If the sites that are actually job markets did something about this, then firms would start being better about it.
Ultimately, it's the employers' posting jobs to comply with the respective laws. Lets stop putting the burden onto 'platforms' the responsibility of individual adults and their businesses. They are adults so they should be held accountable as adults. Anyone can file complaints so if anyone see a legal issue on this matter, send a complaint to respective authorities. Even contact then by phone to get forms that need to be filled out, if necessary.
It wouldn't be hard, required fields before posting can exist, just make everyone post a salary range, done
Honestly it's not that complicated. Salary range should simply be a required field when posting a job ad if you select one of the states/cities that legally requires it.
Considering that a number of states recently passed these laws (CA, RI and WA), along with a bunch of cities rolling them out (including NYC), jobs posted in those places probably account for 90%+ of all listings on the site. Seems like it's only a matter of time before basically every state requires it.
Sure, but how useful is that really, look at all the great examples that are following the laws... “Compensation is between 80k-140k” … wow helpful hahahah
Also, I have read that employers can be fined for violating this in California, but so far I haven't been able to find a link where I can submit a violation like that. I sent an email to the California Labor Commissioner's office requesting more info, so I'll post back if I hear more.
I'll report all of the employers one by one if I can...
email or call them. They may be able to send you the form to be filled out or whatever that is needed. Sometimes, violations will just have to be an email with sufficient information that the investigator of such violation can follow up and check.
Here's a form you can fill out and submit to the Labor Commissioner's office. I don't think they've updated the form to reflect the new law, but there is a space where you can report the violation under "Other Violations" with an explanation. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/DLSE1_BOFE.pdf
You can also file online: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Ho...
For NYC posts. From date of complaint "Businesses will have 30 days to fix the violation, otherwise they could face civil penalties of up to $250,000". As I have made numerous complaints I am curious to see how it plays out.
More importantly Archinect should be an advocate in good faith for the profession. Much like anyone who is a part of the community. Knowingly allowing companies to post jobs here that do not meet a legal requirement to me shows Archinect is not acting, in good faith and in favor of those of the profession. OvEr N' OuT
Oh, hi there. It's archinect acting (and advocating) in good faith... https://archinect.gumlet.io/uploads/76/768e588455033d3de149ee3134a754ad.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&w=514&dpr=2
How hard is it to add a box for salary input for states required with a red * and the post will not post until it is filled out......lol
Related question ... on your drawings or in your specs have you ever put in a note like "install per code" or "ensure installation meets building code" expecting the contractor to do that?
Assuming the answer is yes, do you also have elaborate submittals of checklists where you verify everything submitted and installed meets the applicable codes?
No!?
Why not?
you hypothesize on a system to verify things are actually on the up and up and even use the word submittals to describe it... then suggest we don't do that...
I actually didn't suggest such a system, I was just wondering if pandahut follows such a system to the degree they seem to think Archinect should for job postings.
Of course, there are significant differences with responsibility and my comparative analogy so I'll be the first to admit it's not perfect. The point is you likely put CYA language in your documents expecting to shield yourself (rightfully or wrongly) from some liability and you rely on the other party to follow that language in good faith without verifying the compliance to the degree people are asking of archinect here.
Legally responsible or not, Archinect should be on the side of it's userbase and not allow postings from Colorado, California, or New York City without salary information disclosed. Some of these offices need to be pushed into compliance.
You forgot Washington, thereby making an effective case for why archinect has taken the approach it does.
I think we can have text field that says, Salary/Salary range and let it be a text box field and with an instructive note: If you are located is a state, county/parish, or municipality that requires disclosure of salary range for job positions, you shall put a salary range in the text field. The site has to be careful because of so many different jurisdictions and new ones that are popping up.
this is a terribly misguided law. It will essentially cause “bidding” wars between firms rather than between employers and employees. This can happen in the positive direction during a good economy, or in the negative direction during recession.
I’d be willing to bet that as the economy slows you will see a disproportionate drop in income in these states vs states where there is a less transparent view of who’s paying what.
I'm not surprised you'd be against this.
I would like to hear why x-jla thinks that the laws in question will cause problems.
x-jla is purposefully a contrarian.
For reasons I already mentioned. Mainly It will create a pay equilibrium and remove the ability of employees to negotiate higher pay. Believe me, I’ve encountered this in both directions with subs. They raise and lower prices in concert with each other. Good subs then have a terribly hard time negotiating higher fees, and shitty subs ride the wave getting paid more than they deserve for low quality workmanship. Wages become controlled by the median which is set by firm competition.
It’s essentially price fixing of the labor market.
spoiler alert, we don't believe you. The world does not work the way you believe it to.
Ok
You don’t have to believe me. I’m not asking you to take my word for it. I’m just asking you to use common sense and logical reasoning to predict how this will ultimately play out. Unfortunately if you arrive at a conclusion that strays from the feel good narrative you automatically become a ___fill in the blank.
price-fixing requires a collusion... a conspiring to price fix. It's not price-fixing if there is no interaction and dialogue establishing an agreement. Price-fixing would be a cartel of competitors meeting together to set the price of goods, services, etc. There's a fairly decent "King of the Hill" episode that gets into an example involving the principle of price-fixing. Maybe you might want to watch that episode and then read up on it from sources that are actually lawyers. This would not be.
X, just a heads up that every firm has to set a budget for positions filled. So I don't think it will encroach too much on bidding wars because some firms will allocate more money for positions than others can.
RB, that’s right, but in effect it’s the same outcome. 1. It limits the employees ability to negotiate if the employer knows what everyone else in town is paying. Anyone who plays poker can see that this is a problem. 2. Salaries ranges will begin to standardize (collusion not required). It will just happen as everyone will be aware of the salary ranges that everyone else pays. This doesn’t always mean that it will trend up. Obviously it won’t when recession hits. I’m many ways this will commodify the employee, in the same way that any other commodity standardizes. Concrete prices are pretty homogeneous. Material prices ebb and flow in a pretty homogeneous way. Now, salaries will be governed by same forces.
You may be right but the consensus is not clear because it is rather new laws without sufficiently collected data and information to arrive at your conclusion. At least, not yet. If it ends up a being more problem then helpful, those requirements may be repealed or amended out of the law.
Problem with the progressive types that advocate these laws is that they are really bad at anticipating unintentional consequences. This is one of countless examples. Once a law is passed like this there are no political incentives to repeal it.
Politics is an interesting beast but there can be incentive if there is enough outcry. Laws do occassionally get repealed or more commonly, amended effectively out of it by series of incremental changes until its terms are effectively gone. Laws that are not enforced for so long, they do frequently get removed or repealed. This is how towns throw out laws still on the books that are no longer relevent and not enforced. It happens but can take several decades to over a century. Technically, it was illegal to drive automobiles in Astoria downtown commercial area and was on the books before the 1900s. The law was only repealed in the 2000s to 2010s but had not been enforced since the area was rebuilt in the 1920s after a devastating fire. When the laws were made, it made sense considering the area was all wooden piles, piers, deck structure and decking, and mostly wood frame construction. The laws were never officially repealed until the 2000s when the city went over the laws and was cleaning up the laws that were legally still on the books because there was not the records of it being repealed in historic minutes of the city council so they then repealed those laws.
Laws do get repealed eventually. This situation isn't just effecting architects.
Maybe in purple states where you teeter back and forth between parties. Not in these states. For a law like this, No liberal politician will ever surrender state power back to the market.
Ohhhhhh change, scary. No wonder you’re so backward.
I don’t have a problem with change. I just don’t have a religious faith in it either. That allows me to think clearly.
We get what we deserve.
All states values changes over time with the values of the individuals. Even the values of political parties changes over time.
Clearly is not the term I’d use X.
I have no faith in radical change. I have lots of faith in evolutionary change. But good luck winning an election on that slogan “don’t worry it will work itself out”
Sorry, no time to argue, the new pantone colour has been released.
Haha. Good one
listing salaries is hardly "radical change," it's been done in other sectors and industries for decades. in fact, it is the epitome of "evolutionary change" since there is already a well established precedent and it is doing nothing to manipulate the broader economic system itself, but merely disclose more information about what already exists.
you have a funny habit of labeling anything you disagree with as "radical"... sound familiar.
Or whatever his favorite surrogate for a brain has labeled as "radical".
Square, that was a general statement. Regardless, the state is absolutely incompetent in just about everything they do. I have zero confidence in their ability to see all of the angles on something like this. It’s a law for political posturing.
^except a few things- They excel at war and enriching themselves
I have no problem with others knowing how much I make. It's a stupid US 'custom' not to openly talk about what you and your team members are making.
Problematic word “law”
Laws are justs words on paper that is supposedly enforced but not always the case. When do people know what they really want or need? Everything is an idea and laws are too. They are experimented and tested after adopted because it can not be tested before hand. If a law is flawed, it's ammended, corrected, or repealed/replaced if it can not. It is the way it is for any democracy. Laws are not written in stone anymore and never was for the United States which has a law system that is amended. The laws are put forth by people and laws and the political agenda behind them are put in place by the people we elect to represent us. So when we elect people, we are voting for them to put forth and if possible fulfill those agendas and that includes laws. If you don't trust the people elected, then campaign to get elected and others that shares your views substantively. Since you seem more interested in politics than anything, why don't you pursuit a political career?
you're bringing too much ideology into this, it's really quite simple: as a job seeker, it's incredibly helpful to have a salary range not only for that job but also as a means to compare positions.
x-jla -
A lot of companies have policies that prohibit employees from discussing their pay with others. If you violate this policy then you're fired. This seems to be violation of several rights.
I think having a pay transparency law is a good idea.
This isn't even unique to architecture.
If x-jla actually worked for companies as much as the number of posts that he spends on ideologies and politics, he might have came across at least one of those companies with those arrangements like Chad said.
It may not be as common as Chad may have unintendedly expressed (if you interpret "A lot of companies..." to mean most) but he's correct in that there a lot of companies that does this even though it is relatively uncommon when compared to the shear volume of companies employing.
I kind of agree with Chad and also see potential flaws with the idea, too.
“A lot of companies have policies that prohibit employees from discussing their pay with others. If you violate this policy then you're fired. This seems to be violation of several rights.” I would be against that type of NDA as well. This is not the same though. On a side note, I’d be curious how this will affect a unions ability to collectively bargain for higher pay at one particular employer in a certain industry. I can’t imagine that this will be in their favor. I believe unions are a much more effective way to get better working conditions and pay. This seems to hurt their ability to negotiate as it will “standardize/normalize” pay across entire industries.
x-jla,
"I would be against that type of NDA as well. This is not the same though. On a side note, I’d be curious how this will affect a unions ability to collectively bargain for higher pay at one particular employer in a certain industry. I can’t imagine that this will be in their favor. I believe unions are a much more effective way to get better working conditions and pay. This seems to hurt their ability to negotiate as it will “standardize/normalize” pay across entire industries."
This is probably your strongest argument. Especially the part I put in bold. Employers will sometimes, set their salary range and benefits package higher to attract and retain employees. Others may be lower because they are more price-competing and will have a different take. It will come with pros and cons. We'll have to see how it goes and refine the laws or whatever if need be.
This seems to hurt their ability to negotiate as it will “standardize/normalize” pay across entire industries.
you're forgetting the what makes union negotiations more powerful than one-one-one negotiations is that they... aren't that. it's a collective negotiation, which puts much more pressure on the employer. simply listing pre-existing salaries (which are sometimes listed with a dubious range) isn't going to move the needle as much as union power.
the real benefit of the transparency law is it gives potential employees a better ability to shop around and avoid bad firms; collective bargaining is needed to get the best wages.
All of the districts that have imposed salary laws have specific guidelines surrounding the laws that leave many firms exempt from the requirements. Archinect reaches out to advertising firms regularly, reminding them of the laws, and we often receive replies outlining how their firms are not required to include salary information for a variety of reasons.
To be clear, job boards are not responsible for enforcing district laws surrounding this issue. And even though we are in support of the new salary disclosure laws, there is no way we can investigate the business structure and financials of each advertiser to ensure they are complying with the laws in their district.
As we indicate to the firms that may appear to be ignoring the laws, they risk fines, and they also risk backlash from people assuming they are skirting the law, or lack of relevant applications from potential job seekers.
How about you simply state that any job postings here must include a salary range regardless of state laws? You're a huge site that EVERYONE uses. Lead by example.
It's something we've been talking about internally
Thank you Archinect for taking the opportunity to discuss what you guys are doing and do what you can with supporting salary range disclosure laws. I also agree it isn't the jobboard platform's responsibility to comply with the laws. It is the ultimate responsibility of employers posting jobs according to the applicable laws and rules. The platform's duty at most is facilitate compliance, to a reasonable effort. The platforms can 'police' compliance on its own platform like pulling job postings that are clearly not complying. We the users of Archinect may file complaints for non-compliance but it should be done where it is reasonable. In some places, the enforcement of such law may be held up in court.... especially if its new laws.
@Archinect, have you reached out to NYCCHR to confirm this statement "To be clear, job boards are not responsible for enforcing district laws surrounding this issue"?.......
I doubt they would say something like this without verifying it. While Archinect is posting on a forum that doesn't mean they are clueless wankers who post whatever under an anonymous username.
They probably have legal counsel involved. It would make sense in this case.
I appreciate the comments Archinect, thank you for your clarifications.
In the meantime I was tired of seeing this happening so I decided to write a post where users can find information on these salary transparency laws and how to report violations where applicable. Please leave comments there if you see anything that could be updated and I'll do what I can to keep it edited and up to date.
Blog Post: Salary Transparency Laws
genuinely curious: our state doesn't require this but we add in the following (including on our active ad on this platform):
The anticipated salary range for this position aligns with the AIA's Architect III category.
our thought is someone can absolutely go look it up - it's not that hard to see.
the reason i personally (and can't speak for my firm here) don't like the numbers is that, frankly, i don't think people read the job descriptions but rather the numbers. and it leads to more applications from people who aren't remotely qualified. so, again, my personal reasoning, is that if you're going to look up the number, you'll see what the AIA uses to define that position.
That seems more than fair somewhere that doesn't require it. That said, a lot of firms should look up these numbers before they write their job descriptions hahaha.
I tend to like that approach, even if it is flawed. It could be better if firms (and I can't speak for your firm) actually tailored the positions to fit those descriptions in practice and not just the job posting. I've never worked a job where my responsibilities aligned with the AIA position descriptions. I also find those AIA numbers to be lagging as they are almost always out of date by the time they are published and only published every other year.
Also as a separate topic, that's one of the things I'd hope an architectural workers' union would be able to help establish with employers ... clear job descriptions/delineation of responsibilities and salary ranges (based on AIA's survey or otherwise).
Everyday - tailoring positions may be a wholly separate topic. it's so difficult to say a position at an individual firm is going to match the aggregate profile description like the salary guide. maybe in a larger firm? but for something as small as ours (20+), people are going to cross description boundaries at times. In terms of lagging, a lot depends on how hot (or cold) the market is. but a year lag seems reasonable - they can't do a continuous, real time surveying (it's a resource question). for that, something like glassdoor might be better.
To be fair, a huge chunk of jobs are in specific major cities that tend to have higher pay and higher costs of living. They also tend to not be freely available from the AIA, only general regions, so the numbers are often not going to be that tuned in.
However, I think most of the openings you get with ranges start real cheep by comparison
Employers should reflect salary ranges with their immediate local context and also duties & responsibilities of the position considered in addition to experience.
Of course. That's all fair. As much as I understand the limitations, I usually find firms aren't willing to acknowledge those limitations while also selectively using the report to their advantage (maybe that's just my luck). For example, they'll gladly use the 2-year old report (with ~3-year old numbers), but refuse to acknowledge or adjust for inflation over those 2-3 years. Also insisting someone should only be getting Architect I salary because they only have 5 years experience but they won't acknowledge that their responsibilities (and the firm's expectations) are somewhere between Architect II and III.
Very good point.
"Also insisting someone should only be getting Architect I salary because they only have 5 years experience but they won't acknowledge that their responsibilities (and the firm's expectations) are somewhere between Architect II and III"
In this, I might reflect responsibility as a major factor over mere years of experience. At normal years of responsibility, the midpoint might fall in at the halfway point. However, I might approach it something like, salary range aggregated between Arch II and III divide by two or take the lower and upper range of each of the three Arch I, II, and III, divide by 3 (for each of the three low and three high end), and then do local adjustments for cost of living. The ranges reflects a range of experience. It would be based on the numbers. I'd also take into account, inflation and local costs of living factored in. Some of the figures may be low because a low-cost area in turn reflects a lower salary than in an expensive city.
So those local context matters. They should be able to reasonably afford to live in the area within a 20 to 25 mile radius. Ideally, within 10-15 miles. Really ideal in <10 miles.
Everyday - that's both a crappy excuse (the "oh but you only have X years) and poor negotiating on the employee's behalf. meaning, if you're doing more than what they're trying to slot you in salary wise, or not accounting for inflation, then back up your statistics and hold your ground.
then back up your statistics and hold your ground.
at least there's some acknowledgement of the hostility inherent in the situation.. but you're acting as if an employee negotiating with their employer is a level playing field- one has the absolute right to fire the other over any reason they see fit, let alone set a salary. in a lot of cases it doesn't matter how good your data or argument is, the boss's word is final.
and in a more recessionary market, the employer will have more leverage. right now, it's the opposite. but in any market, it's a negotiation, hopefully one that's done respectfully. if someone wants to say 'here's my number or i'll walk'... ok. your call. if the owner's response is 'this is our final offer', then either you can see that as a byproduct of an implied threat or that's really what they can afford and you have to decide what's worth it to you. and, yes, there's going to be asshole owners who will hold that threat over someone's head. not unique to architecture. is that really where you'd want to work?
Regardless of the market, the tables are always tilted in favor of the employer. The difference is how much they are tilted.
FWIW, I did back up the statistics, and I got more than what I was expecting them to give, but not as much as I should have based on the survey ... https://archinect.com/blog/article/150036777/2017-aia-compensation-report
I was in a good position to negotiate though. I had colleagues that weren't in as good of a position (more easily replaceable) and they were simply told "no raise" regardless of what the AIA survey said.
The name “Karen McPandahut” made me LOL.