On Tuesday, employees at the well-regarded firm SHoP Architects said that they were seeking to change the formula of long hours for middling pay by taking a step that is nearly unheard-of in their field. They are seeking to unionize. — The New York Times
The labor organizers at SHoP Architects, which recently became employee-owned, are proposing to join ranks with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Architecture, in general, is behind the rest of the economy in terms of similar efforts that could become more and more common now with the public backing of industry groups like The Architecture Lobby, which recently threw its support behind employees at the firm.
“The Architecture Lobby stands in solidarity with Architectural Workers United at SHoP Architects and unequivocally supports their efforts to form a union in their workplace,” the group's Statement of Support reads. “As an organization of architectural workers, we call on the firm’s principals to voluntarily recognize the union and engage in good faith negotiations with the collective bargaining unit.”
“We’re very innovative in a lot of our office work,” SHoP employee and unionization backer Danielle Tellez told the NY Times. “This feels like an extension of our ambition to lead the industry, to innovate in the industry but for our professional standards.”
111 Comments
Bravo SHoP! Proving you are industry leaders in ways beyond the traditional means of design and technology we already think of you for.
Congratulations on this initiative. I have always wondered why this hasn’t occurred earlier.
Curious where the AIA would stand on this.
I'm assuming the AIA cannot be reached for comment.
Wow!! Curious to see if SHoP management tries to defeat this. Way too many firm owners in the USA rely on lots of unpaid overtime to make their business numbers work.
Wow! Considering that SHOP's principals have long positioned themselves as innovative entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley-mold, I wonder how they would respond to this.
Also curious where the foreign employees who depend on employers for visa sponsorship would eventually stand, given their precarious situation. In the worst case scenario, the burden of work is shifted from Americans to (namely) Chinese employees awaiting H1Bs/Green Cards - who unfortunately are not in a position of power as far as negotiation goes. Finding employer sponsorship is tough enough. If they stand alongside their American colleagues, these foreign graduates could be replaced by their countrymen who would stomach low wages/long hours in exchange for the great prize of an American green card.
That's why a union is important. Anyone replacing them would be a scab, and we all know what happens to scabs!
Are foreigners allowed to join American unions? Seems like a grey area to me. The employer could satisfy the American union members and shaft the foreigners on the next desk if they cannot stand together. And I strongly suspect a good number of foreigners would not want to endanger their one shot at American permanent residence by daring to rebel against terrible work hours. Labor must unite to stand a chance.
I'm glad the article highlighted the differences between the more commercial practices that do not spend time on artistic pursuits/chasing competitions and the firms that do. They operate on different rules, with the latter enjoying "clout" and some misplaced sense of cultural mission that still entices hundreds and thousands of fresh graduates to their doors every summer. Even the most prestigious of commissions end up costing the artistic firms money, and that cost tumbles down on the employees who work OT for zero pay.
If only you could take a page from other industries that confront project risk and uncertainties, such as government infrastructure contractors. They mitigate their extra cost by over-charging government dollars but that is something no architecture firm (GCs definitely) can do on a regular basis.
I think the foreigners may come out ok. I was in a food workers union many years ago, and anybody who could legally work in the workplace could also join the union. It was in a "right-to-work" state, so joining the union was not mandatory, but everyone still got paid the union wage. If you didn't join and pay the monthly dues, you missed out on some union-only health benefits and the right to have a union rep help you with any issues you may have with your supervisor or manager.
This:
Indeed. The middle management have to buy in too. I think they are crucial as while the junior employees may be readily replaced - they cycle out of the major acronym starchitect offices every few year anyway - losing experienced managers would be incredibly damaging. If the unionization effort is limited to the fresh grads, it would be much much weaker. A union's power lies in its control over labor supply. If these junior employees can be replaced by the hundreds of fresh grads who are still beating a path to "cool" firms like Shop, their case could ring hollow.
I absolutely love them turning the firm's own language and values to the cause of labor:
“We’re very innovative in a lot of our office work,” SHoP employee and unionization backer Danielle Tellez told the NY Times. “This feels like an extension of our ambition to lead the industry, to innovate in the industry but for our professional standards.”
I would love to know more about SHoP's employee ownership set-up. The unionization drive suggests that becoming an employee-owned business was insufficient to appease SHoP's workforce.
There are 5000 reasons this won't work in practice and not enough time to outline them all.
Having read the article, can someone say specifically what this union would negotiate and/or set? Is this about overtime? Base pay? Benefits? Advancement?
Who is "ownership" in this equation, if they are employee owned? Also, does anyone know if SHOP is and ESOP structure?
Is the unionization perhaps related to this from the article? "The firm also said it had become 100 percent employee-owned this year, but equity shares have yet to be allocated and employees were skeptical that they would have much additional say in how the firm was managed."
I'm all for dialogue and a healthy working environment. I can't say what SHOP's office is like having never worked there. But I can say broad scale unionization will not solve the issues most people want solved (pay and overtime). And, if SHOP is now essentially an ESOP, I can't see how a union works internally.
Says the owner who is used to relying on employees uncompensated labor to keep their business afloat.
myself? really? care to prove that?
You're asking 100% DD questions at a Concept Charrette. Trust the process.
I was going to say something, but it seems like tduds beat me to it and said it better than I would have so ... there you go. A lot of things would have to fall into place for this to even get to the point where anyone would be able to answer the questions you're asking. That's not a failure, it's simply part of the process.
That being said, Gregory, I'd invite you to elaborate on your statement, "But I can say broad scale unionization will not solve the issues most people want solved (pay and overtime)." As that seems more broadly applicable than this specific news item relating to SHoP, I'd invite you to elaborate in this thread: Should the Profession of Architecture Unionize?
Hi Everyday - I have (under a previous moniker) to a few of those. And I've written a lot about labor on my blog (which admittedly was more around the 2008-12 timeframe). I'll take the Concept Charette answer on in that thread though.
i'm in a union for teaching gigs, and is 100% preferable to being an "at will" employee at an architecture firm - i never have to ask for raises, and my hours are clearly spelled out. also, if tech workers and other professionals can do it, there's no reason architects can't.
Greg, love the work your firm does, and think you're a good guy, but with all due respect, why are you being this guy? You know exactly what these employees want, it's up and down the article. What's going on at SHoP and many other high profile firms, is the same bullshit that's been going on forever, because it's not occurring at your firm, doesn't mean it isn't happening, something needs to change. Don't be the firm that is positioning itself as NAAF. Because not all businesses have unions, and maybe not all businesses need unionization, despite how I feel, but given the profession's past, and current transgressions, this is a great first step.
more broadly, it's not up to the bosses to determine whether this will work out or not - this is the entire point of a union, to keep bosses in check and fairly represent workers. things work out better for you in the current system (undisclosed salary negotiation, being able to fire without explanation etc etc), so it's understandable you want to keep it that way.
plus, it keeps ownership from pitting employees against one another, which is really the crux of organizing.
i'll have to find where i read this recently, but there was a lot of shared grievances, even from the higher earners. the general sentiment from employees at google, for example, was that yes they make plenty of money, but after a certain point it's not enough to make up for all the other shit - plenty were willing to take a pay cut if it mean more stability. they are also sympathetic to the staff who is contracted (e.g. janitorial), and it's not hard to see the writing on the wall.
Completely agree with @Gregory Walker
I am in complete agreement with @Gregory Walker.
I think many people in here are not realizing this is a cultural problem that all of us (including Archinect) perpetuate.
Architectural culture, particularly high-design, is based off of glorification and status. On one end, we criticize abysmal working conditions, yet on the other hand we glorify the same architects who have horrible working conditions. Pure hypocrisy. Those 2 are not mutually exclusive, folks, yet many of us forget that many of the works that we "celebrate" and show off on Archinect, Arch daily, Dezeen, have been executed under horrible working conditions. So when young fresh students see this work being glorified, of course they're going to want to work for those offices, of course they will take on unpaid internships, of course they will accept the fact they are undervalued, why - because we perpetuate this culture of glorification. Why is it that many BArch and MArch programs do not have courses on how Architecture Offices make money based on real jurisdictional data, how much they charge clients, how many ACTUAL hours the staff work vs what they're paid in salary, how much they pay employees - because if they did, 50% of the students will drop out of the architectural program after they realize the low returns but high work-load/coordination.
Also, many of you who are supporting this and agree the working conditions are horrible, why haven't you done anything about this? Why haven't you spoken to your own co-workers to start a union?
This will not become a national trend because we have too many people like yourselves who complain on the inside (and in Archinect), but kowtow on the outside because being an architect sounds "cool." I remember I made a comment on here a couple months ago about how I pay my staff based on experience, not whether they're licensed or not, and half of the responses were infuriated because they believed once you received licensure, you somehow qualify for higher pay regardless of your work experience. This is the type of semantic and credentialist dogma that perpetuates imbalanced business practices.
Finally, many employers will stoke fears into their employees who try to unionize - "well, if you want higher pay / better work schedules, then our clientele will drop, which means we cannot fit payroll, which means we will need to layoff staff." Also, what are you unionizing for? Better pay? Better hours? Better design projects? More say in the company? Again, why haven't any of you unionized for these demands? Unionization is not a new phenomena. You're not going to get all of those things. It's impossible. Even if you were given a 50% pay raise, you work schedule will become hectic. And then once you work schedule is hectic, you're going to want better working hours. Don't forget, your boss has a boss, and that's the client. If your boss loses clientele or a number of RFPs, because of pro-longed schedule to have better working hours, that office is going to tank once its security/savings run out. Then you might say, hire more people, sure - then your payroll will decrease because if your boss charges too much, the client will find another office to work for less.
I would also like to point out the clear hypocrisy of us architects. We support unionization for better working conditions / pay, yet half of the products we use and love (like Apple), are built off the worst working conditions, and half of the clients that our "favorite" architects work for have some of the most questionable profiles. The reason why we're so mad is because when it happens to us, we get angry, when it happens to someone else, we don't care. Human nature is fascinating.
If you want things to change, then you need to start with the actual students. You need to teach students how CURRENT architectural practices are run. you need to teach students how to value themselves as architects. You need to teach students how to run an architectural business. You need to teach students about both the great and horrible aspects about this profession. They're the future. They're the ones who will set the tone about better salary, and better working conditions.
"I think many people in here are not realizing this is a cultural problem that all of us (including Archinect) perpetuate."
No, it is employers like you.
"because if they did, 50% of the students will drop out of the architectural program after they realize the low returns but high work-load/coordination."
No, illuminating the problem would help change it.
"This will not become a national trend"
Then why the need to post a wall of text about it?
"Finally, many employers will stoke fears into their employees who try to unionize"
Anyone come to mind?
"if you were given a 50% pay raise, you work schedule will become hectic. And then once you work schedule is hectic, you're going to want better working hours."
Why is it too much to ask that employers treat their employees fairly?
"The reason why we're so mad is because when it happens to us, we get angry, when it happens to someone else, we don't care"
Just because you were born without empathy don't assume everyone else has.
"If you want things to change, then you need to start with the actual students."
Or at least wait until you retire right?
Of course nothing will change when you cannot even acknowledge how you and others facilitate and support the very thing you want to change. All you have are these emotive responses with nothing concrete to reference.
"No, illuminating the problem would help change it."
- Which is exactly what I advocate for at the very end of my original comment.
"Why is it too much to ask that employers treat their employees fairly?"
- Can you please define what this means? Some offices have great pay and benefits but "uninteresting" work, some offices have very "interesting" work, but low pay and no benefits, other offices have very interesting work, good pay, horrible hours, some offices have very interesting work, horrible pay, and horrible hours. So again, what are you advocating for? Some offices have very interesting projects but horrible clientele, like communist regimes, or support slave labor, or predatory capitalists, is that also part of your advocacy of equity and fairness? Hm...
"No, it is employers like you."
- You can finger point all you want, but it has nothing to do with employers. Putting your faith in your employer to implement change in office culture is not going to happen overnight and not over years, especially if you have kept silent about it (like most people in this forum and most architects). This has everything to do with the culture that we perpetuate. Why is it OK to constantly pull all-nighters at arch school? It isn't - but we normalized it. These sacrificial attitudes are then carried over to the work-place. It needs to change at the academic level before people even enter the work-place if you want to see a true generational change over time. But if all you want are these pathetic slogans and tiny wins that will not have a ripple effect - sure.
You're all over the map, and you obviously put the cart in front of the horse. Nothing in your tl/dc comments puts any of the responsibility on ownership, none. You want architectural workers to solve all of the problems with the profession, and yet you fail to acknowledge that the "architectural workers" are not only future architects, but a much broader spectrum of workers that are also exploited. Employee owned is not the panacea that people like to make of it, not yet. If workers collectively bargain for their rights; paid for labor, Healthcare, and paid leave, THAT is a ripple, and ripples can start tidal waves. Or did you forget what a ripple is?
No wonder you keep repeating the same naive thoughts, you don't like to read, or as you say, TL/DR.
Your commentary is too naive and clearly indicative that you're unaware of realities of professional practice at an ownership level or how a business is run. Paid for labor? Paid for healthcare? Paid for leave? The vast majority of firms already offer those 3 elements. Even many "starchitect" offices have those "perks." You literally do not know what you want. Many firms offer those benefits and STILL have horrible work hours or horrible work culture. So in your world, as long as those 3 elements are provided, they can work you like a mule? So those 3 things will solve the problems of architectural office culture? Really?
Again, these "unions" will not work in the architectural profession as easily as it does in other industries. Architecture is a service industry. We are not offering products like Ford or a food company. We offer services. If you do not have a client, it does not matter how "egalitarian" these office structures are, the firm will collapse. You will still need some type of hierarchy in the practice where someone needs to dedicate their time finding clients while others do the "work." Who decides on which clients to take on? A committee of 3? 5? 10? What if you don't have a selection of clients? The staff are gone? You can't have everyone trying to find clients. You're also forgetting at how incredibly competitive this profession is. Many principals will take a slight loss if they want to work with a new client / project type rather than see them go to their local competitor. It happens all the time. The staff don't feel it and the principal usually absorbs the loss for a long term gain of that client coming back with larger projects. I think I mentioned this in our back and forth on the "licensure" thread, but you were too hung on my pronoun usage.
You and many other people are also forgetting that many of the new generation are going off on their own in a "gig" economy at a much faster pace than previous generations. They're working as freelancers or consultants or contractors rather than a typical W2 employee.
For the fourth time, we need to accept our (mine and YOUR) hypocrisy of how we perpetuate the very thing we criticize. If you think these work conditions suck, stop glorifying the architectural works of practices that exploit their own workers. If you care about social justice, stop working for practices that have questionable clientele, like gentrifying developers or projects that use slave labor in the UAE, or shut down free speech and use sweat shops. Go work for a practice you believe in, whether it's good office hours, cool design work, great mission, interesting clients, etc. But if all you care about is paid leave and paid healthcare, then just go apply to the thousands of offices in the US. You don't even need a union for those benefits, they're already there.
First, I wrote tl/dc, not tl/dr. Second, there are a multitude of service based unions; teachers, fire fighters, SEIU is another. So do your homework. Third, paid for hours worked, is not a perk. Fourth, you appear to suggest that beautiful work cannot be conceived without indentured servitude, and furthermore go on to castigate the university all-nighters, without even the slightest bit of acknowledgement of the same system responsible for the indentured worker. The pipeline for the broken system is created by the environment the workers are organizing to fight against. Additionally, the fact that you don't know about the efforts of The Architectural Lobby to destroy the systems inside both, renders you horribly uninformed.
As I stated before, and will say again, no union gets everything, but unless they start somewhere, they'll never change anything.
—Oh, so you don't care what other's have to say if it's too long. Very apt.
—You're comparing teachers and fire fighters to architects? You're comparing a PUBLIC SECTOR with PRIVATE SECTOR? And I am the the SillyBilly, ha! You do realize that only 6% of the private sector is unionized. Only 10% of the ENTIRE US WORKFORCE is unionized. Completely different working structure given the fact that the vast majority of those public sector positions are bound by multiple constraints like TAX PAYERS, PUBLIC EDUCATION, the GOVERNMENT. You're not going to run out of children to teach and you're not going to run out of fires to quell, but an architect's office can easily tank once they lose clientele, in a matter of months. If you're going to make an apt comparison, then compare private sector to private sector, like the the union efforts of big architect offices (SHoP) to big law offices, which is nearly nothing. It just doesn't work pragmatically in either case.
—I never suggested that beautiful work cannot be conceived unless with crappy work conditions. I said (now for the third time) that we advocate for better working conditions yet celebrate works of architecture that are executed in the abysmal working conditions we want to change. But clearly since it was TL and you DC, you missed that point 2x in a row. Let's hope not a third.
—Unions establish a VERY clear line of hierarchy, it does not create a more fair / egalitarian workplace, it creates a strict hierarchical workplace where unions collectively bargain with the EMPLOYER and MANAGMENT. And that's language from the AFL-CIO, ACLU, and NLRB.
—What's your collective bargaining with the employer? "Increase our pay, we want to work less hours, find clients we like, no greedy developers, or projects in the UAE, don't you dare apply for any competition work, no super rich greedy residential clients, only do public schools and libraries, oh and please make sure you keep finding clients for us so that we have jobs, lol."
—What do you when your Boss who you are now collectively bargaining with, can't find any more clientele because what you're asking for will drive clients away? Just wait it out? What do you do about new staff, or staff who take advantage of the union and do not put in their fair share of hours, but can easily file a grievance with a union that they're abiding by the union rule but are being pushed around by other union members to become a Revit Monkey? What do you do when youre in a Right-To-Work-State (almost 30, now). What do you do if your employer terminates the company in response to your union forming? There is nothing illegal in terminating your company (you can get sued for firing your staff who want to join a union, but even that can be avoided quite easily), it's been done many times before where some employers would rather shut down their company and start a new one rather than unionize. Unions are not the solution in the architecture industry, again, just look at the low numbers of union membership in the private sector. Look at the fact of why YOURE not in a union, let alone probably 95% of the people on this Archinect platform. Nothing stopped them from creating a union. You're telling me that everyone on here is happy where they work, yet almost all you read on this forum is trauma bonding on crappy work conditions.
—Finally, all you care about, and I am quoting you here, "If workers collectively bargain for their rights; paid for labor, Healthcare, and paid leave, THAT is a ripple,..." Paid for labor, Healthcare, and paid leave. These are the things that will send ripples across the industry? Again these things are offered at the vast majority of architectural practices in the US. No wonder architects are underpaid. You honestly do not know your worth as an architect. You are worth more than those 3 little bargaining chips. For some reason you're missing the point that you can get paid what you want, get the leave you want, and get the healthcare you want, but you will still be over-worked in a now very hierarchical union structure, and since you're being over-worked, you're actually being underpaid. You keep putting your dependence on your employer whose entire practice is dependent on a client. You forget that your employer will most likely not change the office culture if it's working both at a financial and professional stand-point. You make it sound like employer will just change their tune over night, they're not.
—For the 5th time, you need to change the culture from the very beginning of the architectural process - the students in architecture school. Because they will start to ask for different types of wages, and different types of work settings and accommodations. They're the new generation of work-force where they can be taught at an early stage that they do not have to compromise their health to have good design. So many of my female colleagues have missed their periods because of stress at arch school and at work, That's not normal. People's physical and hormonal balance should not be thrown out of whack because of horrible academic and working conditions. But if all you're asking for is paid leave/ paid labor/ and paid healthcare, get ready to be worked like a mule because your bargaining chips are so weak. "As I stated before, and will say again, no union gets everything, but unless they start somewhere, they'll never change anything."
—It's not going to change anything in the architectural profession. Unions are just as archaic as capitalism. You're depending on an antiquated system of leverage. You're using a Gutenberg printing press in a world of laser printers to get what you want. Capitalism is phasing out to a more feudal economic system, which we all participate in (Amazon, Instagram, Facebook, Google, Apple TikTok). Again, this is hypocrisy of glorification.
Simple question.
If as you say unions won't work and won't make any difference then what difference does it make if there is one?
To be VERY clear. I have nothing against a healthy academic and working environment. Architects for the most part are underpaid, have horrible work hours, and have a very hard time assessing their worth. We need a better and healthier academic and work culture. But antiquated and archaic usage of unions will not do anything to change that culture. You can read my rants above for more detail.
You didn't answer the question.
Why not let a union rise or fall on its own merits s
Or is free market capitalism only for employers?
Please don't respond with another bad faith argument.
"Why not let a union rise or fall on its own merits s"
—Unions have already risen and fallen. Unions are not a new phenomenon. They have been around in the United States since the late 1800s. Yet only 6% of the private market is unionized. Architecture Unions are practically non-existent. There is absolutely nothing stopping an employee at an architecture firm from starting a union - nothing, yet we barely have architecture unions. You can literally go right now and start a union. It's illegal for your employer to fire you if you try to start a union. You don't even have to tell your employer. Many unions start implicitly, and once they have sound membership, they express their demands to their employer or management. Are you telling me for the past 200 years architects we're too naive to know they can start a union?
—Instead of asking me about the "merits of unions", which I have answered 5x now, the question should be why haven't architects and designers in the United States started unions when they have been given the complete right? If architects started a national union back in the early 1900s (maybe something like American Federation of Architects, or better yet, something like...American Institute of Architects! oh wait....that's taken already, I wonder what they do? Maybe give AIA awards to some firms that have horrible working conditions, perhaps? Hmm.....), then yes - there would be great leverage, but they were too busy competing against one another to win projects and competitions and trying to find as many clients as they can, just like we are now - but we're much worse off. We now all cooperate in and support a feudal economic system: more intense competition, architects trying to grab every project they can get their hands on (even if they're not qualified), horrible hours, trying to uphold client demands so they can have a returning client, Instagram fame, trying to get posted on Archinect, Dezeen, Archdaily, Divisare, and desperately trying to be culturally accepted amongst their architectural cohorts. People still bask in this pathetic idea of how it sounds to call yourself an "Architect" because entertainment made it sound so alluring.
—You and so many people on this forum are so scared to acknowledge their own hypocrisy in this profession, it's astounding. Again and again, employers are not going to change their culture overnight. Architects are not going to be less competitive overnight. Architects are not going to start unions enmasse, they're too busy pulling all-nighters at school and working 10 hour days because they are just so "passionate" about their projects. You need to be realistic. We need to accept that we all perpetuate this problem,
Unions haven't "fallen", they have been systematically disenfranchised both legally and politically precisely because of what they represent.
1. Ok, then let this union form and you stay out of it.
2. I never asked you about the merits of a union. That was you using the pretzel logic of a bad faith argument.
3. There is going to be a union so get used to it.
4. Enough said.
Ok, then let this union form and you stay out of it.
Stay out of it? What are you talking about? This is an internet forum to express ideas. Or do you not welcome differences of opinion?
I never asked you about the merits of a union.
Yet you ask: "Why not let a union rise or fall on its own merits s" Do you even know the merits of unions in an architectural office? There isn't any.
There is going to be a union so get used to it.
Um. Ok? There has been National architectural-lobby trying to unionize. How's their membership going? Have you joined? Let alone the people in this forum? Hm....
Enough said.
Thank you.
"I have nothing against unions and they are your legal right, I just don't think you should form one."
--Your Employer (probably)
"Unions won't solve the issues you're complaining about, but then again neither will I ... so suck it up buttercup."
--Your Employer (probably)
"Oh you want a union? Did you ever pull an all-nighter in school? Sounds to me like you want to be exploited."
--Your Employer (probably)
"How am I supposed to compete for work if I have to pay you for your labor? My business isn't sustainable and not paying you for all your work is the only way I've been able to keep it going."
--Your Employer (probably)
My personal favorite that has the right amount of cluelessness, lack of self awareness, and lack of enlightenment."I am completely against unions and would never join one. I work 40 hours a week, get paid OT, paid holidays, sick leave, vacation, and health insurance. If you work for a firm that doesn't quit and work for a firm that does(give union benefits)."
@Everyday Architect
Simple Question: Why haven't American architects and designers working for all firm sizes formed a cohesive functioning union that has an impact on the profession as a whole?
Unions have been around since the late 1800's. The Architecture Lobby has been around since 2014. It barely has any representation whatsoever. Just look at the "local chapter" page, what, 8 chapters out of 60+ locations? It's been 8 years. "Your Employer (Probably)" has nothing to do with the formation of Unions, that's the prerogative of the employee and is leveraging tool to "collectively bargain" with your employer. So the fact that you keep quoting hypotheticals from an "Employer" is baseless because they don't decide on who, when, or how the union is formed. They're entitled to their opinion on why the may not support a Union as an employee is entitled not only to their opinion, but their right to start or join a union.
Your argument seems to be that architects missed the boat on unionizing decades ago and so we shouldn't do it now?
just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't it mean it can't, won't or shouldn't (see all of history). your argument is incredibly weak and overly simplistic, while others are trying to dig into the details of how this might work.
"The profession only gets one chance to unionize and it probably happened a long time ago before any of us, and the problems today, where a part of it. Sorry, but that's just the way it works. You can't have a union."
--sillybilly (i.e. Your Employer (probably)).
@square, I actually provided very detailed scenarios in my previous comments. No one else cared to respond to the reasons why it won't work. You can also scroll down and see my latest comment. But I will take this opportunity to address you directly and see if you can give me a direct response to these scenarios:
-- Although architecture is very collaborative when it comes to getting a project to the finish line and establishing an office culture, it's also highly entrepreneurial. highly competitive, highly international, highly cultural, and highly contingent on a singular entity - A CLIENT. Many architecture employees either move high enough in the staff hierarchy, or start their own office, or move laterally in the design profession. Which is exactly what happens in the Law industry.
--Here is a scenario for you. What are you collectively bargaining for if your office offers paid labor, healthcare, and leave before unionizing Should the office even unionize?
--Your office is now newly unionized: How do you address a principal picking and maintaining new and old clients with new union rates? What if / When clients start to work with different Architects because the new union rates are driving the clients away? What if the principal wants to go after a competition project? What if the only way the principal can maintain the union's rate is by working with clientele with questionable profiles? How should the client take on international work? How do you handle new staff taking advantage of the union [especially in a right-to-work state] where they're slacking off by doing the bare minimum and can prove to the NLRB that they're following the guidelines of the union? How do you handle the additional layer of hierarchy and Revit / CAD monkey nature? How do you define long work hours? Please, answer these questions. These are not NEW scenarios. Anyone. I would love to see counters to these.
The whole concept of a union is that it operates at the industry level, not the company level. All of your scenarios rest on a single false assumption & aren't worth entertaining.
I'm going to disagree slightly tduds. I once worked for a grocer where the employees were represented by a union. I worked for another grocer in the same town where they weren't. It can be on a company level rather than industry. That doesn't negate the influence the union probably had on the non-union grocer though in order to compete in the industry for the same talent. I don't necessarily see that if SHoP unionizes, the rest of the industry will follow. It could, but then SHoP might just be an outlier like that grocer. Even then this is only a slight disagreement in that I still think it would influence the industry ... it just doesn't mean that everyone in the industry has to join a union.
I think the thing that sillybilly's line of thinking illustrates is that it is still very self-centered. I.e.: What do you, a singular worker, want that you think a union will offer you that you can't already find out there by changing employers? The answer is maybe nothing. However, that's the issue. The union is about the power of collective bargaining. I might be able to go find a better job elsewhere, but will all of the workers at SHoP? Probably not. I might be able to negotiate a raise, but I've seen where my coworkers have not.
The desire to unionize is for me more about the desire to stand together as a collective employee unit and negotiate for everyone. So to answer broadly sillybilly's question of what am I bargaining for if my employer already offers me pay, benefits, etc.? The answer is still maybe nothing for me personally, except for those same things in a collective contract for me and the rest of my coworkers. Change the questioning to "What do we think we can get for us by forming a union," and then we're on the right track.
Good point, thanks.
@Everyday
"What do we think we can get for us by forming a union,"
If this is the dogma you're relying on - the collective - then it's clear why unions will never work in the architectural profession (private sector). As much as we all hate on Ayn Rand, the architectural profession in the US is highly individualistic and predatory. Why are you not acknowledging how competitive this profession is? Both internally and externally. Even at the public RFP level, which is where I operate at, it is brutally competitive. Why are you not acknowledging why so many firms go after AIA awards to impress clients? They don't give awards to all the participants. It's a competition. How are you not acknowledging why so many Pritzker awards (an American award) have gone to Japanese architects and other foreign architect who have some of the worst working conditions. You cannot care about the "we" if one "we" is intensely competing against the other "we" for the same project. You cannot think about the "we" where many of those people at the "we" will most likely quit to start their own practice or move laterally in the profession. You cannot care about the "we" where some of the "we" are competing intensely to become an "associate" or "director" or "principal" at the same practice you're painstakingly trying to unify. It's like you're reading out of some Union handbook without acknowledging the realities of the profession.
@Everyday
"What do we think we can get for us by forming a union,"
I might be able to go find a better job elsewhere, but will all of the workers at SHoP?
Really? Everyday? "Oh no, where will I ever go after working at SHoP. I am not qualified to work anywhere else. Why would I ever want to leave NYC for more affordable rent and better working hours for maybe less rich clients. This world is so hard. I need a union so that I can keep working at SHoP to cater to some of the richest clients in the world." This is what the poor few who cannot leave SHoP will say?
@tduds
The whole concept of a union is that it operates at the industry level, not the company level. All of your scenarios rest on a single false assumption & aren't worth entertaining.
New Flash! We do NOT have a specific architectural union that operates at an industry level. That's why SHoP went to IAM instead of (insert fake architectural union). This first of its kind since 1940! Have you even gone to the IAM website? Have you even seen what Architectural Workers United is asking for? Have you seen their grievances?
"Because 3 weekends in a row does not equal one comp pay."
I am sorry but you have to be a complete idiot to work at such an environment and expect representation and fairness. It's a bunch of entitled kids who wanted to show off working at SHoP now realizing they're being overworked and wanting better working conditions. But the kicker is this, they gladly do projects for Uber who also treat their drivers like shit? And Google (youtube) who track and sell all your data? It's a feedback loop of hypocrisy and entitlement.
Throwing a wrench into the discussion, my wife is part of a union (education, has no choice) but has seen her salary increase about 2k loonies over the last 12 years and this is with several strikes and labour negotiations. She makes less today than I did when I was a fresh grad but had she been able to shop around and negotiate salary based on skills and experience, she would be far better off because skills are irrelevant once you're in. It's not all roses when you're stuck in the big union machine.
Interesting. So you would be better off without 40 hr work weeks, health insurance, paid OT, sick days, holidays, and vacations. Where do you think these came from and continue being the norm? Enlightened employers?
Not sure I follow. No exploitation here since most offices offer these perks by default because it attracts quality applicants.
They came into being because of the union movement. They remain the norm because of the presence of .unions not because of employers wanting to attract quality applicants.
That's a silly argument. Yes, unions arose when real exploitation and job security were issues but the world changes and now offices offer these and above to all in order to keep for talent. Now it's a stale low-pace grind for those who's only option is to join unions... which offer no additional benefits than what's available in free market.
Not here. Stagnant wages, erosion of benefits, gig economy, 1099 workers, income inequality all a result of union busting. Hope it doesn't happen to you, but you are fooling yourself if you trust employers to look out for your best interest.
I'm in charge of my own interests but I get it that conditions vary by location/governements/markets. My example above is to show that even with union forces, work conditions don't automatically get better nor does it help one's career. With that said, I could definitively see a drafting staff union in a large office but I do not see how a generic architect union would work.
I think there are a lot of unions, especially "public" unions, that have become stagnant and relatively ineffective. I also think it's important for the pro-union lobby to admit this, because otherwise it becomes an argument against the concept of unions altogether rather than an argument for the reform of individual ones.
SSTduds, get-outta-here with your logicallistics and whatnot.
how do your health benefits compare?
i think it's pretty clear that nothings is perfect, and there are plenty of example of bad unions, but the (higher) ed ones i am in guarantee a higher entry wage and negotiated increases (even saw a retroactive raise recently), whereas in the public sector it is totally at the whim of other forces.
i much prefer what i have in terms of security and stability for my union gigs vs the private sector ones.
Sorry, sorry... I'll leave you to your fights.
I'm in charge of my own interests
i think this gets at much of your perspective, which is fine.. we all have perspectives. but this is the gist of the problem for me; at will employment works for the squeakiest wheels, the ones who believe, and are able to act on, what you do.
unions use collective power to bring about (in theory) the greatest good for the greatest number of people. so for me if that means slightly less pay for better benefits, clarity in working hours/expectations, more equitable pay for everyone, and greater security, i'll take it.
Square, see the "wrench" part in my OP comment? It's a tangential comment, not a full-blown counter argument. Anyways, my wife's benefits (public sector union, education) are slightly better than mine from the wild-west at will world in that it includes vision care... but that's really the only difference (keep in mind, I have free Canadian healthcare so benefits are different here). Job security and pay however, for her, is abysmal. Mostly because the lowest tier employee is treated the same as the better ones so there is no incentive/opportunity to advance within the union machine. I truly would hate to have my career hampered because I could not individually negotiate/act on my own terms . /2cents
agreed, i think that's a huge difference in the conversation here - we're in our own "wild west" when it comes to health care, and it seems the only way to get good healthcare is either work for an incredibly wealth company or be a part of a union.
does your wife's union include pay increases for credentials for masters? that's pretty typical here at all levels (though of course varies state to state). i also am placed in a higher tier in my college teaching gig because of both having a masters and being licensed, and it's not insignificant.
Square, the answer is no, further education will not get pay increases in her domain although it does for others like HS teachers. Also, I have no idea how ya'll do it with hospital costs down there. My son spent 2 days in hospital for a scheduled surgery 2 weeks ago (plus 9 days of scripts) and all it cost me was 28$ in parking.
NS, I'm sure there are some differences due to the border between us, but my wife (public sector union member, education) is probably seeing some of the same things you bring up wrt your wife. I don't think that's on the union alone though. I think political pressure and the gutting of education funding for other uses and the inability (politically) to increase taxes to fund education has more impact there. The union she belongs to fights tooth and nail to get everything they can for their members. But they can't get everything, and they for sure can't get what isn't there (especially when political pressure mounts against them).
I'll also note that some of the other things you complain about, like lack of job security and pay, is down to the negotiated contracts. My wife's school district had to do a round of layoffs because of the effects of C-19 and lower student enrollment numbers that impacted funding. Some good teachers were let go and some teachers that should have been let go instead got to stay. But the district followed the contract which (I believe) based everything on seniority (last hired, first to go). If it was based on something else (training, education, certifications, student feedback, etc.), the result would be different. It could be changed to better reflect what might be desirable, but it would have to be weighed against what would be considered fair and equitable for the membership. It's not easy and there are competing interests within the membership, but it has probably protected more people than it harms. As was mentioned by square, it's about the collective power to bring about the greatest good for the greatest people.
Contrasting the layoffs for example is the fact that the union a few years ago was able to negotiate significant pay raises (still less than what I think they should be, but still significant) for everyone. So much so that a friend of ours that left teaching for administration said that if she had known the pay would have been that much better she probably would have stayed teaching because she would be making about the same amount as she is currently in admin but without all the stress and responsibility.
I would like to have a pension, but the companies all got together and decided to raid that shit so hard wall street gave them something better that outsourced the risk to the employee. While I believe this happened while unions still had some power, if you think that things will improve just because employees are hard to attract, I have a few McDonalds franchises with shortened operating hours to sell you.
Why are we comparing to teachers unions? First off, It's a public sector market (bound by taxes and government, not some ["greedy"] principal). Second, public school teachers have huge leverage. Student's are not going to run out any time soon. Parents want their kids in schools. Schools need teachers (You don't even need an architect to get your house designed or built in many jurisdictions in the United States). Third, the American Federation of Teachers is one of the biggest and one of the most powerful unions in the United States. Fourth, the AFT was founded in 1916. By 1916, we already had 11 Skyscrapers built in the United States, but no Architectural Union (AIA was established late 1800s btw), because again - architects were too busy competing against one another, the same way we compete for projects now.
It seems that many people in this community do NOT want to accept that Unions have never worked in this industry (Architecture) and never will because the nature of Architecture in the US is antithetical to the ethos of unions. Although architecture is very collaborative when it comes to getting a project to the finish line and establishing an office culture, it's also highly entrepreneurial. highly competitive, highly international, highly cultural, and highly contingent on a singular entity - A CLIENT. Many architecture employees either move high enough in the staff hierarchy, or start their own office, or move laterally in the design profession. Which is exactly what happens in the Law industry. And hence why neither of those industries have a centralized union that has any leverage whatsoever. I listed so many real-life scenarios of why Unions will not work in Architecture, not one of the comments on here addressed any of those scenarios (picking and maintaining clients and projects, taking on international work, new staff taking advantage of the union [especially in a right-to-work state], the additional layer of hierarchy, work hours.)
Unions are a highly antiquated model in today's economic climate. It's just not going to work. I am not sure why people in this forum think that only now, after 150+ years, Architects should NOW unionize? There's nothing special about this time to unionize. People think I am saying this because I do not like Unions - No - I am saying this from a place of pragmatism. It literally will not work industry-wide (Architecture) in the United States. The AIA is too busy giving awards out to firms like BIG, Morphosis, Steven Holl - I am pretty sure some people on this forum worked there. I worked in Japan before starting my practice, both in the United States and in Japan, a good number of (design) offices have grueling work hours - the pay is below par - acceptable benefits per the design culture - yet the biggest institution that represents Architects in the United States (AIA) supports those offices and similar ones. Just look at all the Pritzker awards given to Japanese Architects. My god, you would be horrified if you saw the work conditions. Yet we glorify their work. Let's not forget the myriad of schools who also glorify those works. Again, you can keep complaining about 401k, overtime, healthcare - which almost the vast majority of US Architecture office offer as benefits - that's not the issue - it's a deep cultural issue that we keep perpetuating.
architects (and engineers, planners, etc) that work for municipalities are in unions.
next?
? That's the PUBLIC SECTOR. Has nothing to do with the architectural profession and has everything to do with the fact that they work for the government. The vast majority of government jobs are unionized and have been unionized for decades. They're not represented by a niche architecture union, theyre represented by the AFGE and AFSCME, those unions combined have over a million members from ALL public serving positions. I can't believe that no one on this forum who keeps chest thumping about the necessity of unions in architecture can't even offer a real pragmatic solution for its application in a private sector market. It's a little pathetic that everyone on here just has snide sarcastic remarks and no solution to implement a functioning union for the industry. Also square, you still have not responded to my scenarios.
licensed architects, who have the same educations and have gone through the same credential process, but work for the government, have nothing to do with the profession of architecture? your bias is far to thick to pretend you're presenting an object view here.
you're also missing the entire point of this original article, which is not about founding a broad-based architecture union, but forming a chapter at a specific work place that is part of a larger, pre-existing union (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, literally the first sentence).
The longer something exists, the less reason to change it. Just ask the South.
"Unions are antiquated and don't work in today's economy. They simply won't work. Of course the business model of exploiting fresh grads and young professionals is also highly antiquated and doesn't really work if you look at it holistically. The difference is it currently benefits me and not you, and since I hold most of the power in this relationship, that's the way it's going to be. Unless of course you organize and stand up to me with your collective bargaining power ... so that's why I don't want a union."
--Your Employer (probably)
"licensed architects, who have the same educations and have gone through the same credential process, but work for the government, have nothing to do with the profession of architecture?"
Working for the government and working for the private sector are 2 completely different paradigms. 90% of Architects work in the private sector. To compare 90% to 10% is a blatant false equivalence. To compare public sector market that is bound by the govt/tax payers/ multiple bureaucracies / and a union sector that represents over 1 million people to a private sector market with no union representation has nothing to do with the private sector of the architectural profession - which again, comprises the vast majority of architects in the US.
The fact that SHoP joined GOIAM is indicative that Architects in the United States are so far behind in unionizing that its impact on the market will be at best, a slap on the wrist. They joined the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, with no private sector architects ever - did you not even read what GOIAM wrote on their own website:
The Union Organizing Committee at SHoP is asking SHoP partners to remain neutral and formally recognize the union. This will be the first union of private sector architecture workers in the United States since the 1940s.
82 YEARS? It took architects in the private sector 82 Years to realize they can create and join a union? Great - they joined a union. Were these designers that naïve about what company they work for? That's like working for Apple and 5 years in- you want safer working conditions for the factory workers abroad. So these designers at SHoP want to work less hours but still want to work in a high design office that does high profile international work, competition work, and caters to clientele like Uber, Youtube, Google, and a myriad of greedy private developers. There's a reason why someone applies to work as a designer/engineer at SHoP, OMA, Morphosis, Ferrari, Google, Samsung, Mercedes, McKinsey Consulting, and it's not to do conventional everyday work or to have flexible work hours. You're going to have to put in the time at those places.
I think either 4 things will happen at SHoP moving forward - those designers who joined the Union will get pigeonholed into doing smaller tasks with limited growth, tensions will rise when one staff member is doing more design work while the other is doing more Revit monkey work while another is slacking off - yet they are all paid the same, some will end up quitting because they don't want to pay union dues, or SHoP will most likely pushback at the Union with either creating a shitty contract or finding some random excuse to fire (at-will employment) those who initiated the Union, thus them going into strike. I guess we will all have to wait and see the amazing ripple effect this will have on the private sector!
sillybillyboy, it's clear you worship at the altar of the invisible hand. you can stand on the street corner and ramble all you want, but the ball is in motion. per your own words, time to wait and see.
"You're going to have to put in the time at those places."
But what if ... and hear me out on this ... you didn't because the union would be able to collectively bargain for better treatment.
The US Constitution was effective starting in 1789. The demand for women's suffrage began to gather strength in the 1840s.
51 YEARS! It took women 51 years to realize they should have the right to vote?
The Nineteenth Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution on August 18, 1920.
80 MORE YEARS? It took men 80 more years to realize they should let women have the right to vote?
sillybilly, your arguments sound just as ridiculous.
---@Everyday Architect, I am so flattered that you are directly responding to me. Let me point out some things that you fail to see because you are so enamored by your own subpar quips and GIFs.
---First, women's suffrage was something that many women had to fight for. Before the 19th amendment, only certain states allowed women to vote (do your homework). Hence, there wasn’t equal access to voting. This not the case with unions. Unions have been around for well over 150 years in this country. Every American has had equal access to unions for decades upon decades. No one was or is stopping architects to join unions. Architects did/do not need to protest to join or create unions. Architects did/do not need legislation to create or join a union. So your naïve comparison to women’s suffrage is obtuse and hyperbolic. Are you in an architecture union? How many people in this forum are in an architectural union? I would say probably less than 1%. I am assuming you’re not in a union given the fact that you spend so much time on this forum – or maybe you are in a union given the fact that you spend so much time on this forum making posts and comments during working hours.
---The fact that it’s been 82 years since a private architectural practice DECIDED to join a random union speaks volumes that this profession is beyond repair via union membership. The fact that only 6% of the private sector are union members is indicative that union membership has been on the decline and barely has any leverage in the private sector. The fact that 99% of large, medium, and small architecture offices do NOT have union membership is proof that unions simply do NOT work in the vast majority of private architectural practices. Any private office can at face value say on their contract they support labor organization, but we forget that at-will employment can easily fire any of those staff for any random “cause” or make their life a living hell if they protest.
---ShoP designers / architects already receive all the normal compensation and benefits that you find in the vast majority of private practices. They want a change in culture. You cannot regulate culture as easily as you can regulate quantifiable things like compensation. You’re not going to change culture with better pay if you’re still working long hours or have a shitty principal or unmotivated employees. So it’s OK to pull all-nighters at school, but at work you should be paid fairly for your all-nighters? That’s really gonna change the culture for good!
---Again, for the 10th time, this is a cultural issue that stems much deeper than your crappy boss. Why are those designers at SHoP? They're there because they were exposed to their work at school or on architecture websites like Archinect/Archdaily/DeZeen. They want to work at a well-published office. They’re there partly for the glory and to say “I work at ShoP” and trauma bond about the shittiness of the work with their other designer friends who also live in an overpriced city. And the cycle will continue because we glorify their work. Are they really that emotionally passionate to do youtube/uber headquarters and developer towers?
---If you do not want to work for long hours or crappy pay, then do not work at an office that prioritizes competition work and high-end demanding clientele. Simple as that. You do not work for McKinsey consulting to have work-life balance, for example. You do NOT decide to become a Line Producer on a movie set if you want to manage less things in your life. Go into family medicine if you do not want to be on call at 3 am for surgery. Not all great movie directors have the same work-ethic and they surely do not produce the same types of movies. Designers do NOT design equally if given equal amounts of time and compensation.
Holy shit the cynicism. There's no saving this one.
sillybilly, you've been shown how your arguments don't really merit a response because they are really only worthy of ridicule. I'm glad that none of what's happening is really up to you or needs your input.
Take care. Be good to your employees.
Cynicism? Merit? You are so steeped in your own naivete and some utopic vision of the world that you guys are so detached from reality.
Did you even read what they're bargaining for? They want a better "work life balance" and "better working hours. " They want their principals to tell the clients "No. "
They're not bargaining for overtime pay or for benefits. Which is what you guys have been crying about the whole time in this forum. It's all spelled out there in their own letter that they have posted both on their Instagram page and on their website. They're bargaining for how to tell the principals how to do their job. They're bargaining for culture, again, something that you cannot quantify or regulate. So the employees at SHoP want their principals to interact with clients based on the employees standards, yet their entire employment is contingent on the acquisition of those very same clients. Pathetic.
They say the problem is "not unique to SHoP. " Every office has its specific work culture, so yes - these working conditions are unique to SHoP. There's thousands of architectural practices where people are not working 12 hour days. No one is forcing them to work 12-hour days. They could easily in unison just leave the office at 5:00 pm.
Keep us updated if or when SHoP begins to negotiate with AWU and what the actual terms are. Based off of their official letter to SHoP, they literally gave SHoP leadership the easiest bargaining chip - office culture / work-life balance and telling the principals when to say "no" to the client. These requests can easily be manipulated and will change over time. The fact those are their bargaining chips is indicative of the fact that they come from privilege and are egotistically driven. "I want to work at a very well-known architectural practice, with demanding clientele, but I only want to put in 7 hours of work. I would rather not work for a lesser known architectural practice with higher pay, better benefits, and better hours because it's harder for me to show off to people that I work at a well known office. This is such a struggle let's form a union. "
Absolutely pathetic. This union has nothing to do with better pay or better benefits. They just want to work at a fancy architectural practice with regular hours. It proves my point from the very beginning that this has to do with glorification, and that the architectural profession and many Architects are incredibly hypocritical about that point.
Let it go, let it gooooo!
every time i think there can't possible be more axe to grind..
Unions are socialism, which is of course evil, so they must be eradicated.
It's better to have 12 hour shifts at minimum wage with no bathroom breaks and part time employees subsidized with Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance.
No bathroom breaks? That's when I get my best archinecting done! This calls for a revolution.
Gives new meaning to "shit out a couple options."
That's hilarious. So instead of unions being able to negotiate for wages that allow them to get by, the taxpayers should subsidize them?
Garth, why resurrect this 2y old discussion?
An interesting alternative way to look at it/ question for the firm owners and partners here:
Would you rather retain your best employees, albeit as part of a union and paying them higher wages, better benefits, better hours, or would you rather lose them to other firms or other industries that will offer those things?
Many firms would rather constantly complain about their staff and how schools aren't preparing grads for the workplace while fostering a turnover culture due to their unwillingness to pay people what they are worth.
...or give even the slightest hint of mentorship and skills improvement concurrent with the actual work at hand
^I go well out of my way to help mentor staff in my office and I even have a few mentees outside of the office (some who contacted me through archinect). I'm never too busy to help someone out... just don't ask me to pick out carpet colours.
If you ask me to pick colors for something, you're either getting orange or teal.
I don't mind teal... but I always default to hot pink when colours come up. Sure, I could put together a good combination of colours... fuck I do it for my own house, but I sure as shit ain't taking more than a few minutes on this. No need to sit down and contemplate life over decoration.
If you ask me to pick the colors I'll either put in black, white, or "as selected by architect from manufacturer's full range." Then you can deal with it during CA.
Beige or charcoal if I'm feeling spicy
The earth is flat. People the world over have known this for thousands and thousands of years. This idea that the world is round makes no sense. If the world is round why hasn't anyone come up with this idea before? Take trains for example. If the world is round the rails would have to be curved. They are not. The rails are straight. Isn't the shortest distance between 2 points a straight line? If the world is round this could not be. Simple deductive logic. What about property lines? If we were to believe that the world is round wouldn't that make all existing maps inaccurate? What would happen to property values? If you want to believe the world is round go ahead. There is nothing stopping you. I just don't know how you could ride a train or own land.
"What would happen to property values? "
I don't know if it's because it's past 1am or if it's the 9.5% imp stout I just drowned... but that was fucking hilarious.
+1 on the property values comment as it reflects the true concern for any good capitalist
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.