I feel like the Architectural Profession artificially "caps" Architects' income earning potential by banning their opportunity to moonlight. I totally understand the concerns related to liability, focus, and down-right competition. However, what exacerbates the problem here is that this "cap" is coupled with low pay, essentially barring Architects from realizing longer-term goals and aspirations that a better financial situation may help realize. When a firm bans employee moonlighting, they are essentially "buying" the exclusive rights to the employee's skills in exchange for a salary. Notice how they may not ban one's ability to make a few extra bucks on ebay, but are concerned about making a few bucks through employing one's professional skillset outside of the workplace.
Wouldn't it make sense that such a stipulation would make sense in exchange for high pay? How do we fix this problem? Wouldn't it make sense to put architects in situations (ex. conferences) where they can bring in the type of work the firm wants to go after and reward the employee accordingly? Otherwise, what usually happens is that most employees get stuck in the office doing the work that is given to them by for a fixed salary (i.e. a "capped" income) while only certain other individuals such as firm owners and marketing personnel get to participate in going after new work.
For me, this boils down to control, power, and ego-stroking and is a big problem in helping Architects make more money and live the life they aspire to have. To me this is a big reason for why people start their own practice, but if we want to consolidate and not have so many "solo practitioners", how do we help them make the money they deserve?
BulgarBlogger
Sep 1, 23 4:25 pm
To add to my above post: aren’t all “firm owners” moonlighting in a way relative to the different projects they are working on? An employee is just treating their employer as one of their clients….
Gregory Walker
Sep 1, 23 5:05 pm
no, firm owners are not moonlighting.
why should the employer subsidize your side hustle?
if you want real money in a firm, bring in the clients and manage the project profitably.
or....
take on all the liability, start a firm, and get it done.
equity is what drives pay. owners have the equity because they incur all the risk. hopefully, that's not some kind of magical revelation...
b3tadine[sutures]
Sep 1, 23 5:50 pm
As a firm owner, other than the stated "liability" concerns I've heard time and time again. What are your direct concerns?
I'm of the mind that so long as we're not playing in the same sandbox, I don't do outside work on company time/resources etc. Performing outside of my full time only makes me a stronger professional.
b3tadine[sutures]
Sep 1, 23 5:54 pm
Not to mention reduces the financial stresses am around.
Gregory Walker
Sep 1, 23 6:35 pm
if you're playing that way and it's not in the same sandbox, generally... firms will discourage it but it's going to happen.
b3tadine[sutures]
Sep 1, 23 6:55 pm
I understand they will discourage, I'm asking what are your concerns as a firm owner?
Gregory Walker
Sep 1, 23 9:34 pm
because case law isn't super clear about whether the firm can be held liable, even if it didn't enter into the contract. if the employee uses items - they print drawings on the premises, they use software, they even mention that they work for the firm (even if the contract's with the as an individual), even if they do work on the project during the firm's "normal" business hours but not on the premises, it could land them in the middle of being sued. will they get out of the suit? likely but not 100%. see this case - O’Brien v. Miller, 876 N.Y.S. 2d 23 (2009)
Gregory Walker
Sep 1, 23 9:42 pm
but what is super clear is your insurance won't cover that liability. so if the employee mis-represents the firm's involvement (they imply but don't say literally), that's probably enough to not be able to get out of a suit quickly but still won't be covered. why take that risk?
BulgarBlogger
Sep 1, 23 11:24 pm
Again- I’m not talking about working during firm hours or using any firm property.
b3tadine[sutures]
Sep 19, 23 5:45 pm
What are you chirping about, bitch, I thought you were smart enough to be on your own?
BulgarBlogger
Sep 1, 23 5:10 pm
I wasn't suggesting they are moonlighting. I was trying to "counter" the fear (for a lack of a better word) that employees, if they moonlight, may not be focused on their work... so my point was is that that doesn't sound right because firm owners have many different clients as well...
And as to your point that employers take all the risk - yes they do. But that wasn't the main part of what I was getting at. No one is subsidizing my "side hustle", just as no one is subsidizing my decision to sell my record collection in an auction. Yet, I would in many cases be required to voluntarily cap my income earning potential in exchange for a low salary, just because I am in the same line of work as they are - why?
bowling_ball
Sep 1, 23 6:56 pm
First, owners aren't moonlighting - they're trying to make sure that your salary is covered. There's no side hustles when you're an owner (and in fact it's in my partnership agreement).
bowling_ball
Sep 1, 23 7:02 pm
As to why you'd 'voluntarily cap' your salary, that's just not true. If you're as good as you say you are, then nobody's stopping you from switching jobs for example. It's a choice and there are alternatives.
BulgarBlogger
Sep 1, 23 7:07 pm
I disagree. If you sign an employment agreement with a firm that has a non-moonlighting policy, they are "capping" your income earning potential. Then there is what an "average" salary is in the area. So naturally employers won't want to pay more than they have to so that is ipso facto a type of "cap" you have in the marketplace when working for others. The AIA salary calculator is a good reference for many firms.
b3tadine[sutures]
Sep 1, 23 7:12 pm
Here's what I find interesting. In many professions it's almost mandatory that as a worker looking for an increase in salary, you need to move from company to company. Salary increases inside the organization is almost unheard of, and by increase, I mean of a measurable difference. Why is this necessary? I know my value, and in knowing my value, I'm better able to advocate on a firm's behalf. So why the hoop jumping?
Gregory Walker
Sep 1, 23 9:39 pm
@BB - they are not capping your income. you can choose to moonlight - if you get caught, you'll get fired (if they have a policy). what I hear - whether your intention or not - is that you'd like to have the security of a solid day job (as an employee) and then use that for a side hustle doing the same thing on your own. but you don't want the risks of being on your own. or something else. so... my firm is my job. and my duty to it is to do what's best for the firm. that absolutely recognizes my employees overall well being. but there's limits. this is one. there may not be a path to agreement here but hopefully it makes sense.
BulgarBlogger
Sep 1, 23 10:20 pm
So what if someone doesn’t want the risk? If you are giving 100% of what is expected and what you do on your own time doesn’t affect that, that should be no one’s business. What am I missing here?
bowling_ball
Sep 1, 23 10:45 pm
I don't think you're missing anything. Whether to moonlight is a choice, and choices have consequences. If you work for a firm that doesn't allow it, and you want to be able to, then you have a choice to make. For what it's worth, I've never said no to moonlighting by my staff, because we discuss these things first. I did a few moonlighting jobs as an employee - the agreement was that I was limited to SFR. No problem. That was there wasn't a conflict and we both get what we want. Back to my employees who want to do this - again, it's never been a problem- if it starts affecting your "day job" then we need to talk. Again, that's never happened but I don't think is an unreasonable take. Just talk to each other.
kjpn
Sep 5, 23 11:59 am
I think all of the talk about liability is a total red herring. There are more obvious reasons why employers generally don't want their employees moonlighting.
reallynotmyname
Sep 5, 23 12:54 pm
Employers are afraid of lost productivity and the firm's projects taking a backseat to the side hustle work. Especially when its their employees moonlighting as independent architects doing little residential and commercial jobs. Very few people are able to pull off moonlighting in a way that is 100% confined to the hours outside of their day job.
gibbost
Sep 5, 23 1:03 pm
^ Agreed. However, one could also argue that the unfortunate practice of working 50+ hours a week for your day job robs you evenings and weekends--where you might be able to properly bifurcate the two.
reallynotmyname
Sep 5, 23 1:25 pm
Totally. I was employed at a 50-hour a week sweatshop (low salary, unpaid overtime) when I landed a project of my own. I pivoted from a 7a-7p work schedule at the sweatshop to strict 40 hours: 8:30a -5:30p (like all the firm's principals!) so I could produce the side work at night. When the sweatshop needed to lay off people, they picked the 15% of their people who worked the least amount of overtime. I was one of the people laid off.
msparchitect
Sep 5, 23 1:37 pm
I've worked for several firms from NYC to London. Never had a "no moonlighting" policy. If you want to do work on the side and your employer is saying that they will terminate you if you choose to do so, then bring it up with the employer as an issue. Or do it on the side and don't get caught (its not difficult). Or leave the damn firm. Sounds like a terrible place to work. Maybe if enough people like you raised the issue at the firm the policy will change.
Reading all your comments here it sounds like you feel you are held back. You aren't. Just go do whatever it is you feel you need to do. To heck with everyone else.
Non Sequitur
Sep 5, 23 2:10 pm
I'll chime in because why not?
We have a clear-cut no moonlight policy in the office. There was none for a long time... and it got added to our internal bylaws without any announcement but it was in direct response to an employee caught (more then once, then fired) using office equipment for personal moonlighting projects. The liability issue is all that matters, every other explanation against is moot in comparison.
I assume every place is different but because we require either corporate or individual certificates of practice in order to offer architectural services, if an employee were to moonlight as an architect, they would first need their own certificate of practice + insurance as well as a letter signed by their current employer guaranteeing that said employee moonlighting is legally separated from their day-time job. I'm simplifying it but very few employers are willing to jump through those hoops.
With that said, the few times I've had projects outside of the office, I always had a brief blurb where I stated in black and white that my office and office's stamps are in no way shape of form related but I don't do that anymore. Simply not worth the time and effort for a few extra $ for me but I can see why others would. Not everyone has mentally-challenging or client-heavy day job so for some, moonlighting is worthy outlet.
BulgarBlogger
Sep 5, 23 4:16 pm
A few extra $? I've made over $150k just in side work doing work after hours. Some might ask why I don't just start my own firm. Well... it boils down to how much savings you have.
Non Sequitur
Sep 5, 23 4:28 pm
BB, in my area, there is no real money as an architect doing side work unless you go through the proper hoops. What work is available tho is mostly small-scale residential things but we also have a whole certified building design process that pics most of that work up. What I do know is that there are plenty of people looking for moonlighters in the commercial fit-up space (precovid) who fail and then come crawling to us to do the work correctly. Actually have a high-end house in construction atm that was acquired that way. Anyways, in my area, there is little $ out there in moonlighting projects and I have no patience for small residential things anymore.
BulgarBlogger
Sep 5, 23 4:52 pm
I'm talking about my area - NYC.
Non Sequitur
Sep 5, 23 5:41 pm
^gotcha
square.
Sep 21, 23 1:10 pm
so you went against your office's no moonlighting policy? or before it was mandated?
Chad Miller
Sep 5, 23 2:15 pm
In my entire career no firm I've worked with had a no moonlighting policy. There were a few stipulations though:
No using any firm resources
No outside work done at the office.
Any outside work was not to impact your firm work - aka no pulling an all nighter on your side work and then performing like junk at the office
With all that I still never did paying side work. I did a few competitions with small cash prizes and volunteered my design services a couple of times for charity.
BulgarBlogger
Sep 5, 23 4:23 pm
Again though: my original post was about this "artificial cap" the profession puts on our ability to make money. My philosophy is: you either pay me enough so that I don't have to consider moonlighting, or you let me moonlight (with certain rules). Up to you. But don't artificially tell me that because I can only earn up to a certain amount of money, that I can only have a certain lifestyle.
msparchitect
Sep 5, 23 5:22 pm
I think this is all in your head. Nobody is holding you back. If they are, just do something else.
BulgarBlogger
Sep 5, 23 5:39 pm
I am only being "held back" if I choose to abide by the rules.
midlander
Sep 5, 23 6:03 pm
you've said above that you are moonlighting and doing great with that. So what is the argument - that other firms you don't work for would hold you back? if this is working for you, it looks like you've solved the problem. most architects don't seem to be looking for side hustles, and most i've worked with would be incapable of providing valuable work on their own - no one is holding them back. if you can make 150k doing it, you're holding yourself back not to open a firm or partner with someone.
midlander
Sep 5, 23 6:15 pm
put another way, the work you do yourself is more valuable than the work you do for your company. take advantage of that - don't expect your company to figure out how to maximize the value of your work.
midlander
Sep 5, 23 6:12 pm
it might be more interesting to talk about specific instances in history where moonlighting led to a split. FL Wright and Louis Sullivan for example. In that case i think it was mostly about ego and creative control; both were notoriously incompetent businesses managers.
Chad Miller
Sep 5, 23 6:28 pm
BulgarBlogger wrote
"Again though: my original post was about this "artificial cap" the profession puts on our ability to make money. My philosophy is: you either pay me enough so that I don't have to consider moonlighting, or you let me moonlight (with certain rules). Up to you. But don't artificially tell me that because I can only earn up to a certain amount of money, that I can only have a certain lifestyle."
I don’t think there is an “artificial cap” on what architects can make. There is a cap – it’s what your clients and market segment will pay for your services.
Regardless, it sounds like you need to find a new firm to work with (not for).
Without knowing your personal situation (financial, location, experience, ect) it’s difficult to understand how underpaid you are. I’m not asking for that information. I only mention this because there are a lot of factors that can impact how much you need to make to have a certain lifestyle. Sometimes the lifestyle you want simply isn’t attainable.
joseffischer
Sep 5, 23 10:45 pm
One of the reasons I left my previous firm was because of some property condition assessment and owner's rep work I did on the side and had written some software for that let me do it quickly. The firm I worked for got bought out. It had sort of a don't ask don't tell policy where they discouraged it and if caught in office fired you (see everyone's liability reasons above). The new owners put in some crazy requirements for everyone down to PA level, NDAs, non-competes and a IP agreement basically saying that anything we ever created while working there, whether for them or on our own, that had anything to do with our profession was owned by them. After talking to some friends in tech they said that was more typical in that profession. I first ignored it, but eventually had to get a lawyer friend to help me out with some responses to their letters. I think I was on my 3rd round of lawyerese edits when I found a new job. It dragged on for about 9 months where weekly I'd get an email "you've not signed these papers yet, we may fire you" and I'd respond with "per our most recent email regarding the negotiations to my IP you are trying to purchase" ... I would have been more open to conversations if ownership buyin was on the table, but definitely not for a mook like me.
mission_critical
Sep 19, 23 11:19 pm
No moonlighting policies usually exist in forms where an individual architect can poach a client while promising to charge them at a discount. When I was working for a firm that did large government and university projects they had no moonlighting policy. It’s a pretty simple business tactic to keep you from staking existing clients or from removing future clients from the pool (residential). Also, it’s in the name… Moonlighting makes you work after hours, many folks commonly giving up sleep, leaving them exhausted and unproductive for the workday/week. If you’re interested in supplementing your income with your professional status (not driving Uber/door dash) I recommend working where you’re not seen as a threat by the employer and doing residential work on the side.
Chad Miller
Sep 20, 23 9:51 am
In the US that's not entirely correct.
In many US states anything produced using firm resources opens the firm up to liability for the work. In some states this even applies to architects who are under the firms insurance and do side work without using any of the firm's resources.
The above tends to be be primary reason why some firm's don't allow moonlighting.
mission_critical
Sep 21, 23 9:36 pm
You’re implying that the firm is aware and condoning an employee’s actions. Certainly an employee can be sued for designing an ADU in their spare time and there’s some sort of blanket lawsuit that wraps the employer. But all the employer need to says is that they didn’t assist in the ADU design and they had no knowledge of their actions. Even if the employee was using the Firm’s Revit license,
Chad Miller
Sep 25, 23 5:30 pm
You're incorrect.
Even if the firm didn't know what the team member was doing they can be held liable if their resources were used. In some states it doesn't matter if no firm resources were used. In those states the firm can still be sued because their insurance covers all architects in the firm. The one way around this is the person doing the moonlighting establishes an LLC.
Aren't you trying to start a design build firm that doesn't charge for design but then increases the construction cost to pay for the design time? You really need to do more research this.
BulgarBlogger
Sep 25, 23 6:20 pm
I've always had a private company. LLC's are not allowed in NYS.
Chad Miller
Sep 25, 23 6:23 pm
Good point BB.
As I've been saying from the beginning it all depends on the state. LLC's are just what I've encountered in the dozen or so states I've done projects in.
I feel like the Architectural Profession artificially "caps" Architects' income earning potential by banning their opportunity to moonlight. I totally understand the concerns related to liability, focus, and down-right competition. However, what exacerbates the problem here is that this "cap" is coupled with low pay, essentially barring Architects from realizing longer-term goals and aspirations that a better financial situation may help realize. When a firm bans employee moonlighting, they are essentially "buying" the exclusive rights to the employee's skills in exchange for a salary. Notice how they may not ban one's ability to make a few extra bucks on ebay, but are concerned about making a few bucks through employing one's professional skillset outside of the workplace.
Wouldn't it make sense that such a stipulation would make sense in exchange for high pay? How do we fix this problem? Wouldn't it make sense to put architects in situations (ex. conferences) where they can bring in the type of work the firm wants to go after and reward the employee accordingly? Otherwise, what usually happens is that most employees get stuck in the office doing the work that is given to them by for a fixed salary (i.e. a "capped" income) while only certain other individuals such as firm owners and marketing personnel get to participate in going after new work.
For me, this boils down to control, power, and ego-stroking and is a big problem in helping Architects make more money and live the life they aspire to have. To me this is a big reason for why people start their own practice, but if we want to consolidate and not have so many "solo practitioners", how do we help them make the money they deserve?
To add to my above post: aren’t all “firm owners” moonlighting in a way relative to the different projects they are working on? An employee is just treating their employer as one of their clients….
no, firm owners are not moonlighting.
why should the employer subsidize your side hustle?
if you want real money in a firm, bring in the clients and manage the project profitably.
or....
take on all the liability, start a firm, and get it done.
equity is what drives pay. owners have the equity because they incur all the risk. hopefully, that's not some kind of magical revelation...
As a firm owner, other than the stated "liability" concerns I've heard time and time again. What are your direct concerns?
I'm of the mind that so long as we're not playing in the same sandbox, I don't do outside work on company time/resources etc. Performing outside of my full time only makes me a stronger professional.
Not to mention reduces the financial stresses am around.
if you're playing that way and it's not in the same sandbox, generally... firms will discourage it but it's going to happen.
I understand they will discourage, I'm asking what are your concerns as a firm owner?
because case law isn't super clear about whether the firm can be held liable, even if it didn't enter into the contract. if the employee uses items - they print drawings on the premises, they use software, they even mention that they work for the firm (even if the contract's with the as an individual), even if they do work on the project during the firm's "normal" business hours but not on the premises, it could land them in the middle of being sued. will they get out of the suit? likely but not 100%. see this case - O’Brien v. Miller, 876 N.Y.S. 2d 23 (2009)
but what is super clear is your insurance won't cover that liability. so if the employee mis-represents the firm's involvement (they imply but don't say literally), that's probably enough to not be able to get out of a suit quickly but still won't be covered. why take that risk?
Again- I’m not talking about working during firm hours or using any firm property.
What are you chirping about, bitch, I thought you were smart enough to be on your own?
I wasn't suggesting they are moonlighting. I was trying to "counter" the fear (for a lack of a better word) that employees, if they moonlight, may not be focused on their work... so my point was is that that doesn't sound right because firm owners have many different clients as well...
And as to your point that employers take all the risk - yes they do. But that wasn't the main part of what I was getting at. No one is subsidizing my "side hustle", just as no one is subsidizing my decision to sell my record collection in an auction. Yet, I would in many cases be required to voluntarily cap my income earning potential in exchange for a low salary, just because I am in the same line of work as they are - why?
First, owners aren't moonlighting - they're trying to make sure that your salary is covered. There's no side hustles when you're an owner (and in fact it's in my partnership agreement).
As to why you'd 'voluntarily cap' your salary, that's just not true. If you're as good as you say you are, then nobody's stopping you from switching jobs for example. It's a choice and there are alternatives.
I disagree. If you sign an employment agreement with a firm that has a non-moonlighting policy, they are "capping" your income earning potential. Then there is what an "average" salary is in the area. So naturally employers won't want to pay more than they have to so that is ipso facto a type of "cap" you have in the marketplace when working for others. The AIA salary calculator is a good reference for many firms.
Here's what I find interesting. In many professions it's almost mandatory that as a worker looking for an increase in salary, you need to move from company to company. Salary increases inside the organization is almost unheard of, and by increase, I mean of a measurable difference. Why is this necessary? I know my value, and in knowing my value, I'm better able to advocate on a firm's behalf. So why the hoop jumping?
@BB - they are not capping your income. you can choose to moonlight - if you get caught, you'll get fired (if they have a policy). what I hear - whether your intention or not - is that you'd like to have the security of a solid day job (as an employee) and then use that for a side hustle doing the same thing on your own. but you don't want the risks of being on your own. or something else. so... my firm is my job. and my duty to it is to do what's best for the firm. that absolutely recognizes my employees overall well being. but there's limits. this is one. there may not be a path to agreement here but hopefully it makes sense.
So what if someone doesn’t want the risk? If you are giving 100% of what is expected and what you do on your own time doesn’t affect that, that should be no one’s business. What am I missing here?
I don't think you're missing anything. Whether to moonlight is a choice, and choices have consequences. If you work for a firm that doesn't allow it, and you want to be able to, then you have a choice to make. For what it's worth, I've never said no to moonlighting by my staff, because we discuss these things first. I did a few moonlighting jobs as an employee - the agreement was that I was limited to SFR. No problem. That was there wasn't a conflict and we both get what we want. Back to my employees who want to do this - again, it's never been a problem- if it starts affecting your "day job" then we need to talk. Again, that's never happened but I don't think is an unreasonable take. Just talk to each other.
I think all of the talk about liability is a total red herring. There are more obvious reasons why employers generally don't want their employees moonlighting.
Employers are afraid of lost productivity and the firm's projects taking a backseat to the side hustle work. Especially when its their employees moonlighting as independent architects doing little residential and commercial jobs. Very few people are able to pull off moonlighting in a way that is 100% confined to the hours outside of their day job.
^ Agreed. However, one could also argue that the unfortunate practice of working 50+ hours a week for your day job robs you evenings and weekends--where you might be able to properly bifurcate the two.
Totally. I was employed at a 50-hour a week sweatshop (low salary, unpaid overtime) when I landed a project of my own. I pivoted from a 7a-7p work schedule at the sweatshop to strict 40 hours: 8:30a -5:30p (like all the firm's principals!) so I could produce the side work at night. When the sweatshop needed to lay off people, they picked the 15% of their people who worked the least amount of overtime. I was one of the people laid off.
I've worked for several firms from NYC to London. Never had a "no moonlighting" policy. If you want to do work on the side and your employer is saying that they will terminate you if you choose to do so, then bring it up with the employer as an issue. Or do it on the side and don't get caught (its not difficult). Or leave the damn firm. Sounds like a terrible place to work. Maybe if enough people like you raised the issue at the firm the policy will change.
Reading all your comments here it sounds like you feel you are held back. You aren't. Just go do whatever it is you feel you need to do. To heck with everyone else.
I'll chime in because why not?
We have a clear-cut no moonlight policy in the office. There was none for a long time... and it got added to our internal bylaws without any announcement but it was in direct response to an employee caught (more then once, then fired) using office equipment for personal moonlighting projects. The liability issue is all that matters, every other explanation against is moot in comparison.
I assume every place is different but because we require either corporate or individual certificates of practice in order to offer architectural services, if an employee were to moonlight as an architect, they would first need their own certificate of practice + insurance as well as a letter signed by their current employer guaranteeing that said employee moonlighting is legally separated from their day-time job. I'm simplifying it but very few employers are willing to jump through those hoops.
With that said, the few times I've had projects outside of the office, I always had a brief blurb where I stated in black and white that my office and office's stamps are in no way shape of form related but I don't do that anymore. Simply not worth the time and effort for a few extra $ for me but I can see why others would. Not everyone has mentally-challenging or client-heavy day job so for some, moonlighting is worthy outlet.
A few extra $? I've made over $150k just in side work doing work after hours. Some might ask why I don't just start my own firm. Well... it boils down to how much savings you have.
BB, in my area, there is no real money as an architect doing side work unless you go through the proper hoops. What work is available tho is mostly small-scale residential things but we also have a whole certified building design process that pics most of that work up. What I do know is that there are plenty of people looking for moonlighters in the commercial fit-up space (precovid) who fail and then come crawling to us to do the work correctly. Actually have a high-end house in construction atm that was acquired that way. Anyways, in my area, there is little $ out there in moonlighting projects and I have no patience for small residential things anymore.
I'm talking about my area - NYC.
^gotcha
so you went against your office's no moonlighting policy? or before it was mandated?
In my entire career no firm I've worked with had a no moonlighting policy. There were a few stipulations though:
With all that I still never did paying side work. I did a few competitions with small cash prizes and volunteered my design services a couple of times for charity.
Again though: my original post was about this "artificial cap" the profession puts on our ability to make money. My philosophy is: you either pay me enough so that I don't have to consider moonlighting, or you let me moonlight (with certain rules). Up to you. But don't artificially tell me that because I can only earn up to a certain amount of money, that I can only have a certain lifestyle.
I think this is all in your head. Nobody is holding you back. If they are, just do something else.
I am only being "held back" if I choose to abide by the rules.
you've said above that you are moonlighting and doing great with that. So what is the argument - that other firms you don't work for would hold you back? if this is working for you, it looks like you've solved the problem. most architects don't seem to be looking for side hustles, and most i've worked with would be incapable of providing valuable work on their own - no one is holding them back. if you can make 150k doing it, you're holding yourself back not to open a firm or partner with someone.
put another way, the work you do yourself is more valuable than the work you do for your company. take advantage of that - don't expect your company to figure out how to maximize the value of your work.
it might be more interesting to talk about specific instances in history where moonlighting led to a split. FL Wright and Louis Sullivan for example. In that case i think it was mostly about ego and creative control; both were notoriously incompetent businesses managers.
BulgarBlogger wrote
"Again though: my original post was about this "artificial cap" the profession puts on our ability to make money. My philosophy is: you either pay me enough so that I don't have to consider moonlighting, or you let me moonlight (with certain rules). Up to you. But don't artificially tell me that because I can only earn up to a certain amount of money, that I can only have a certain lifestyle."
I don’t think there is an “artificial cap” on what architects can make. There is a cap – it’s what your clients and market segment will pay for your services.
Regardless, it sounds like you need to find a new firm to work with (not for).
Without knowing your personal situation (financial, location, experience, ect) it’s difficult to understand how underpaid you are. I’m not asking for that information. I only mention this because there are a lot of factors that can impact how much you need to make to have a certain lifestyle. Sometimes the lifestyle you want simply isn’t attainable.
One of the reasons I left my previous firm was because of some property condition assessment and owner's rep work I did on the side and had written some software for that let me do it quickly. The firm I worked for got bought out. It had sort of a don't ask don't tell policy where they discouraged it and if caught in office fired you (see everyone's liability reasons above). The new owners put in some crazy requirements for everyone down to PA level, NDAs, non-competes and a IP agreement basically saying that anything we ever created while working there, whether for them or on our own, that had anything to do with our profession was owned by them. After talking to some friends in tech they said that was more typical in that profession. I first ignored it, but eventually had to get a lawyer friend to help me out with some responses to their letters. I think I was on my 3rd round of lawyerese edits when I found a new job. It dragged on for about 9 months where weekly I'd get an email "you've not signed these papers yet, we may fire you" and I'd respond with "per our most recent email regarding the negotiations to my IP you are trying to purchase" ... I would have been more open to conversations if ownership buyin was on the table, but definitely not for a mook like me.
No moonlighting policies usually exist in forms where an individual architect can poach a client while promising to charge them at a discount. When I was working for a firm that did large government and university projects they had no moonlighting policy. It’s a pretty simple business tactic to keep you from staking existing clients or from removing future clients from the pool (residential). Also, it’s in the name… Moonlighting makes you work after hours, many folks commonly giving up sleep, leaving them exhausted and unproductive for the workday/week. If you’re interested in supplementing your income with your professional status (not driving Uber/door dash) I recommend working where you’re not seen as a threat by the employer and doing residential work on the side.
In the US that's not entirely correct.
In many US states anything produced using firm resources opens the firm up to liability for the work. In some states this even applies to architects who are under the firms insurance and do side work without using any of the firm's resources.
The above tends to be be primary reason why some firm's don't allow moonlighting.
You’re implying that the firm is aware and condoning an employee’s actions. Certainly an employee can be sued for designing an ADU in their spare time and there’s some sort of blanket lawsuit that wraps the employer. But all the employer need to says is that they didn’t assist in the ADU design and they had no knowledge of their actions. Even if the employee was using the Firm’s Revit license,
You're incorrect.
Even if the firm didn't know what the team member was doing they can be held liable if their resources were used. In some states it doesn't matter if no firm resources were used. In those states the firm can still be sued because their insurance covers all architects in the firm. The one way around this is the person doing the moonlighting establishes an LLC.
Aren't you trying to start a design build firm that doesn't charge for design but then increases the construction cost to pay for the design time? You really need to do more research this.
I've always had a private company. LLC's are not allowed in NYS.
Good point BB.
As I've been saying from the beginning it all depends on the state. LLC's are just what I've encountered in the dozen or so states I've done projects in.