A unionization effort at SHoP Architects that drew attention from across the industry has now been defeated after organizers officially withdrew their petition with the National Labor Review Board (NLRB) to form a labor union within the office.
After a push toward unionization was first made public by the New York Times in December, staffers at the 26-year-old firm are now abandoning the effort, citing a “powerful anti-union campaign” from within and decisions amongst the petitioners to pursue “alternatives” to address some of the abusive workplace conditions that the effort has brought to the fore.
In a statement posted to an Instagram account associated with the group Architectural Workers United (AWU) on Thursday, organizers cited a dissolution of the unity which had carried the effort thus far, claiming that the newfound lack of a quorum was born out of an effort lead by several of the firm’s associate principals to persuade employees to pull the petition. The firm has denied any such action, saying the allegations are “unfounded.”
“We strongly feel that exercising our rights should not be this difficult,” the organizers’ statement read, “but this is a reality shared by workers across all industries in the US today. To form a successful union, we must not only gain support but also retain it. Throughout the past year, the majority of our office was in support of these efforts, which propelled us forward. However, with no existing architectural union precedent in our country, we have seen how the fear of the unknown, along with misinformation, can quickly overpower individual imaginations of something greater than the status quo.”
Reporting from NYC-based outlets Curbed and The Architect’s Newspaper indicate that the firm went out of its way to stop the effort, privately counter-organizing against it and retaining an unnamed law firm (the service is fairly common) to aid in its attempts to prevent the measure from taking hold. At least one member of leadership went on the record to outline SHoP’s opposition to their employees' desire to collectively bargain, saying that they have received feedback from potential business prospects who made it clear that a union would negatively impact the ability of the firm to compete for new contracts.
“We’ve had clients threaten to stop working with us if we unionize,” associate principal Shannon Han told Curbed reporter, Isabel King. “I also just don’t think a union is right for our industry and our problems.”
Social media exploded at the news, with several members of the architecture community expressing support and solidarity with AWU's announcement. From Instagram to Twitter, responses were filled with fervor.
There is no clear indication as to what plans are for the group moving forward. The statement posted Thursday mentioned that there was uncertainty as to how to achieve the changes first set out by the union when the push began in the fall of 2020. Organizers have said they remain optimistic that the effort will not have been in vain, reiterating that they hope the issues raised in the process will affect greater change in the industry writ large.
“We still believe in the capacity for unionization to make architecture more equitable, the profession more just, and our built environment more resilient,” the group said finally.
Archinect will have more updates on the story as it progresses.
58 Comments
Serious question looking for rational answer. If you are working at a firm and experiencing an "abusive workplace" why would you not just leave? I am left wondering that if you are so hard pressed to unionize, you likely hate a few things about working there (hours, pay, benefits, etc.) and there is a built up tension between partners/ownership and the employees. If a union is won, you still work in a shit environment but get paid more and better benefits? but the burn is still there that you had to unionize to be treated fairly. Likewise, from management you now have a legion of workers (some pissed off about conditions there) that are banned together (for good) still working there, likely infuriating ownership that much more.
Looking for a level headed response. I am 100% for everyone getting their slice of pie and paradise but at surface level it looks like the best route to go is quit working there or management to sack up and treat everyone better. Thoughts?
*I would press federal mandates to disclose all financial workings of the firm to its employees so that everyone has a formal understanding of fees, overhead and profit.
I don't think the grass is greener at most arch firms. With a proper amount of support one could make one's current situation better and increase the visibility of the problem at the same time. Of course it do esn't always work.
Unionization is a method of collective bargaining between employees and employers / management. It sets up an explicit hierarchy. Unions almost always bargain for quantifiable things like better pay, over time pay, better health benefits, and other quantifiable things you can measure. What SHoP was bargaining for was not quantifiable and was actually already in their control. They were literally bargaining for better "work life balance" and "better working hours. " They want their principals to tell the clients "No." How do you quantify that? Who regulates how "management" should to talk to the client? Were they forced to work weekend or long hours? Were they literally forced? I don't think so.
They were not bargaining for overtime pay or for benefits. Which is what half of the people on Archinect were arguing about in the previous forum about SHoP and missed the point completely. It was all spelled out in their own letter that they posted both on their Instagram page and on their website when they initially announced their efforts to unionize. They were bargaining for how to tell the principals how to do their job. They were 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. It literally makes no sense whatsoever.
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. Also, they work in NYC. So let's do a basic formula Work in NYC + Work For Major Corporate Office + Work for Mutli-Billion Dollar Clientele + Work on Multi-Million Dollar Projects = Intense Client Demands + Schedule. They will pay them, but you are going to work your ass off. No one was forcing them to work weekends or leave late from the office. They could easily leave after their 8hr shift.
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. " SHoP isn't doing ethical work. Their clients are Uber and YouTube. Their clients are Private developers. They're not trying to better society here. They're trying to make attractive and "innovative" architecture and infrastructure.
This union effort had nothing to do with better pay or better benefits. They just want to work at a fancy architectural practice with regular hours. It was a fantasy. 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. Everyone thought my previous posts in the older thread for this topic was "cynical" and "without merit". I literally pointed out how this will not work because half of the architects in the profession are so enamored by their own status as architects that they will sacrifice their own self-worth. Just look at half of the idiots on this forum who talk about how they pulled all-nighters in their office or for their client. Pure stupidity. This stuff stems from the schooling environment. It needs to change at the schooling environment. Unions will not work for private architectural practices. It's too competitive, entrepreneurial, and cultural to have a very strict hierarchy that unions typically follow. There are plenty of amazing architecture practices that have good pay and work-life balance, but some people naively choose to work for these starchitect offices just to show off only to realize they are ruining their mental, physical, and financial health. Starchitect offices do NOT define the profession, we just allow them to.
"half of the architects in the profession are so enamored by their own status as architects that they will sacrifice their own self-worth."
I think you're low.
Really Sneaky, I am the low one? Just look at what YOU said:
I don't think the grass is greener at most arch firms.
Let's compare that to what I said as my closing remark:
There are plenty of amazing architecture practices that have good pay and work-life balance, but some people naively choose to work for these starchitect offices just to show off only to realize they are ruining their mental, physical, and financial health. Starchitect offices do NOT define the profession, we just allow them to.
You literally just proved my point.
That is not what SP said. Maybe your problem is reading comprehension.
I think he meant low as in your estimate of "half" was low. He agrees with your point, don't get so mad at him.
I think your estimate is low.
"They just want to work at a fancy architectural practice with regular hours. It was a fantasy."
This, to me, seems like a problem worth fixing.
Interesting to see the number of people (based on thumbs up) who agree with sillybilly now that they've attempted to make a coherent argument, rather than simply dismiss unionization efforts at face value because (I'm paraphrasing here), "there's no precedent for it, and the profession would have done it by now if there was going to be any benefit from it."
I'll admit, I agree with a lot of what sillybilly identifies in their post above as problematic in the profession and even problematic with workers in the profession. However, I still fundamentally disagree with how sillybilly is framing the effort and I disagree that a union would not be able to address many of the issues. That's why I said sillybilly's arguments didn't merit a response back then.
And while it seems that perhaps they are more coherently stated, sillybilly is still making quite a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions and there's not really going to be a way I, or anyone else, could convince them those assumptions are flawed. That's why I still say it doesn't merit a detailed response. Also, I've got a project deadline.
Everyday. You have not offered one viable solution to any of SHoP's requests. You have not offered any practical solution of how a union could or would regulate and oversee that SHoP's demands are met and kept in line. I highly encourage you to offer how SHoP's requests can be regulated. How does a union regulate how a principal should talk to a client? How does a union regulate burn-out? Their union effort failed because they were not practical. Why are they even talking about George Floyd on their website? Why are they talking about the "Environment" yet their own firm designs massive skyscrapers and million SF development. Why are they talking about minorities and Visas. It's like when candidates promise so much in a campaign, they end up losing because no one knows what's truly achievable and what's talking points.
Below is SHoP's official letter to their leadership:
Dear Bill, Chris, Corie, Gregg, Angelica, Dana, and John,
We write this letter to inform you that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, ---District 15, AFL-CIO (IAMAW) has been aiding us as architectural workers in our endeavor to form a union at SHOP. This will be the first union of architecture workers in the United States since the 1940s. Today, hopefully with your support and understanding, we are ready to do what SHOP has done so many times before and make history.
We have grown accustomed to unsustainable practices such as endless overtime and deadlines which result in burnout and a lack of work-life balance. We have accepted the lack of value of the architect within the building industry. We have normalized the exploitation of our time and our talent.
Many of us feel pushed to the limits of our productivity and mental health. These conditions have become detrimental to our lives and in extension the lives of our families. These concerns are the product of larger systemic issues within the discipline of architecture and are in no way unique to SHOP. From the moment we begin studying architecture we are taught that great design requires endless time and effort, and in turn demands the sacrifice of personal health and relationships. We are taught that architecture is a greater calling and regardless of how the client is willing to compensate us, we will perform our duty because it is critically important for the greater good.
I Would like to post their quotes from their webpage and Instagram:
"Willing to tell the clients no..." Who regulates this?
"Because the environment deserves better care than my exhaustion." What about those sky scrapers and million sf development? I guess those are helpful for the environment.
"Because iterations are not free." Who regulates this?
"Because even though buildings are machines. I am not." Correct. And?
"Because three weekends in a row does not equal one comp pay." Why are allowing yourself to work weekends to begin with? Are you saying you don't mind working weekends as long as you get paid?
And for the record, My original comment on this thread was 95% copied and pasted from the previous thread. I am not sure how these thoughts are somehow "more coherently stated."
You're only proving my point that you're not framing the effort accurately, and that you're assuming a lot with no real substantiation. I've mentioned elsewhere I'm working on a blog post that will likely address some of your criticisms (generally ... probably not specifically, but it's still a work in progress). You're welcome to wait patiently for me to get around to finishing it.
In the meantime, feel free to review some of my other writings on the strange phase of the profession between graduation and ... I'm not sure to be honest, for now let's just say ... whenever it is that we think an architect knows what they're doing.
https://archinect.com/arch-ellipsis
Oh, and "for the record" even if 95% of what you stated above was copied from the other ... you condensed it down to one post here instead of the 16 or more you made in the other as you rambled on and on. So yes, more coherent.
"Better work life balance" is quantifiable, and just because you can't parse through the prose, doesn't mean it's not viable.
Second, if you follow IG, then you must be following dank.lloyd.wright, they've been posting so dank memes about the shitty practices of SHoP leaders, specifically GP.
Everyday, I literally quoted every single thing from their website and their Instagram page. I'm using their own words. I am verbatim presenting what they are saying and here you are saying I'm not presenting what they're saying accurately? You still haven't even provided one response for a practical solution via Unionizing based on SHoPs demands. And I literally copied and pasted what I said from ONE POST, not from a multitude of posts. Which clearly shows that if anyone any here has been avoiding the issue, it's been you. I'm not sure why you need to create a blog post that no one's going to read, just use this forum.
b3ta, can you please define what work-life balance is? Is work-life balance universally agreed upon? Can you tell me how a union will regulate better work-life balance?
Work-life balance is in the control of the employee to begin with. Work-life balance is in the control of when the employee decides to leave the office everyday. Work-life balance is not dictated by your employer. When your employer gives you the company manual, they tell you what the required work hours are. You choose what type of work-life balance you want. This idea that all architectural practices all have the same type of workload is impossible because all architectural practices have different project types, client types, and design methods. You decide your trajectory. That's why you have some architects who go work for Starchitects, other architects who go work for developers, other architects who go work for Ryan homes to build cookie cutter suburban houses, other architects to go work for corporate firms, other architects who do public works, and other architects who only do high-end residential. The work is too varied to be regulated.
If your employer is in on the grift, uses "salaried" labor to keep overhead costs low, while benefitting from coercive labor practices, and over working staff, to build cool shit, that they are invested in through shell corporations, then yeah, that's fucked. Not sustainable. And leads to shit show work life balance. In other words; if your family's well being, and whether or not you can put food on the table, and pay rent in NYC, depends on your working 60-80 hours a week, for the benefit of the named partners, then yes that is easily quantifiable.
If you are trying to suggest that work life balance is controlled by the employee, because they choose to work there, that's shit and you know. Climate Change is caused by humans, you don't see me going around arguing for mass extinction.
Were it not for the exploitive labor practices, there would not exist SHoP.
You may be using their words, but you're not framing the effort accurately so their words are out of context. Makes it easy for you to justify your position without dealing with the actual meat of the argument. More simply put, that's a nice strawman you've created there.
Here's a very obvious example: "Work-life balance is in the control of the employee to begin with. Work-life balance is in the control of when the employee decides to leave the office everyday. Work-life balance is not dictated by your employer. When your employer gives you the company manual, they tell you what the required work hours are. You choose what type of work-life balance you want."
It's not that simple and you should know that. The employer benefits from an enormous power imbalance that allows them to simply ask an employee to work harder, or stay later, or to be a "team player," or they casually remind them that they are exempt employees and they are salaried to do the job, not clock in and out at certain times. You'll probably also find some form of this later language in the employee manual. I know I can find it in mine. The consequence if you don't agree to do what they ask? They could fire you, withhold a discretionary bonus, give you terrible projects to work on, tell other firm owners you're not a good worker, etc.
Yes, the employee can find another job, but that's unlikely when they have debts and other financial obligations. It's also about the only card they have to play. So they suck it up, stay later, work through lunch, etc. That doesn't lend itself to the employee being in control of their work-life balance because they don't have much control over the work side of that teeter-totter.
But you know what can shift some of that power to make it perhaps a little more balanced? A collective group of employees with common goals and the power to collectively bargain. Yeah, that's right, a union. Despite your protests, a union can help preserve work-life balance. How am I so sure? Well, I've benefitted from it.
I worked at a union grocer in undergrad and one night I worked a shift until closing. The morning manager called me up early the next morning asking me to cover someone's shift that had called in sick. His phone call woke me up, and while I was groggily trying to figure out if I could adjust my schedule to come in to work in the next hour or so, I mentioned that I had closed the store down the night before and that's why I was still so groggy. He immediately retracted his request and said he'd find someone else. Turns out the union contract had stipulated the number of hours employees were obligated to enjoy between shifts and his request would have violated it in my case. So yes, a union can definitely help preserve work-life balance.
I also chose that example because it's something that could 100% be included in a union contract for an architectural worker. You want me to stay late and work on those drawings? Fine, but don't expect me back in the office tomorrow morning at 8 am because the union contract says I get at least 12 hours between leaving and coming back. Or it could be 15, or only 8. It could also include a minimum of 'x' hours of notice that I have to stay late to work on those drawings so I have time to find a babysitter for my kids (maybe it includes a provision that the firm reimburses me for the cost of the babysitter). The details can depend on what gets negotiated. All of them helping to reinforce work-life balance.
You guys are having a very interesting debate from two very different points of views.
I like EA's nuanced take on implicit power imbalances and a union's potential to put employees on an equal footing. This is a systemic problem that pervades not only white shoe firms but also smaller practices. The constant stream of architecture graduates, from home and abroad, also puts junior employees at a weak bargaining position.
At the same time, I agree with SB's argument that at least some folks working at bigwig firms did sign up for poor working conditions in exchange for either a shiny resume, the opportunity to work on pretige projects, work visa sponsorships, or whatever kind of non-monetary satisfaction they are seeking that is only available at such practices. However, I don't think everyone working there signed up for such a deal, even if the ones that did are helping to perpetuate these conditions.
Some numbers and facts would be fabulous in shedding more light on what could be considered, say, fair in terms of wages. If everyone including the principals are starving, then it's a poor business for the whole firm! Dank Lloyd Wright has been digging up some of SHoP's finances these few days. Not all of them are slam dunk finds, though they certainly are attention grabbing - should SHoP's founders hand the money used to buy their own villas to their employees as bonus? They did found the company after all with their equity back in the day. I'm more interested in the compensation structure and the firm's operating margins.
It's a profession where you need real money to make real money (or lose real money, depending on if you are any good at it). Doctors and lawyers, once they pay for school, have the potential to go out and bill as much as they can, only being held back by their skills. Architects are at the mercy of stingy clients. When was the last time you hired a doctor or lawyer and then knocked their fees down by 40%?
Comparing Architecture to other Professions is flawed.
Indeed, there is a power imbalance at the macro level - between clients and architects. It doesn't help that some firms choose to compete on price (and effectively, time), thus contributing a race to the bottom.
Perhaps AEC conglomerates like Jacobs don't face such challenges? Their contracts and projects are far larger than even the largest of pure play architectural projects though. And they do provide a full suite of in house engineering, design, and sometimes even construction.
Everyday
---Work-life balance is always a moving target. It's culturally framed and always changing. That's why it's not quantifiable. We first thought 40 hour work week was sufficient full-time work. Now people are debating that 32 hours is the ideal. Others would rather work 5 hours a day 5 days a week. Others believe 4 days a week 8 hours a day is the ideal. Others are saying that health benefits (public option) and 6 month maternity / paternity leave should be government enforced not employer enforced.
---I'm going to point out how somehow enforcing parameters to establish a "work-life balance " via a union contract will not work in an architectural practice. With practical examples.
---You say: The morning manager called me up early the next morning asking me to cover someone's shift that had called in sick. His phone call woke me up, and while I was groggily trying to figure out if I could adjust my schedule to come in to work in the next hour or so....
---Again, this is highly indicative that your grocery environment did not care about work-life balance given the fact that they were scrambling to find someone to fill a shift. They weren't even aware of what hours you worked. You and others in a similar situation had to work late, which meant that they had to sacrifice plans that they probably had. Maybe you didn't have plans that night, but someone in your position could have had plans that they had to sacrifice.
---How would this play out in an architectural practice where you only have two team members working on a private residential project, for example? How will a union protect you in this scenario where one team member is out sick and now you have to work either extra hours or have to delegate a large swath of work to a new team member who has never seen that project ever before. So now you're working twice as much or twice as long. You have a temporary co-worker who's never worked on that project before, they're now probably pulling extra time and workload as well because they're also balancing another project. Yes, you both may be compensated, yes your hours may be shifted to compensate for your extra time, but what about all that extra time that you're going to work and sacrifice meaningful social or personal events. You will most likely need to sacrifice a good swath of personal time until your coworker gets better and healthy. We have all been there during CDs or CA when a coworker leaves for vacation or they are out sick and you have to pick up the work on their project. Sometimes it's a project you've never worked on. You don't know all of the communications they had with the GC or client, or they might have horrible file protocol, and you are there spending extra time trying to piece information together. What would a union do in this scenario? Are you telling me that somehow the union will pressure the employer to tell the client or GC that they need to push the schedule back? How is the work-life balance salvaged by a union in this scenario? Wouldn't that affect your work-life balance? I think it does. And although I said initially that work-life balance is in the control of the employee, and I still stand by that premise, you are going to have these scenarios in an architectural practice. And I don't think a Union contract is going to somehow make those scenarios any better.
---You say: You want me to stay late and work on those drawings? Fine, but don't expect me back in the office tomorrow morning at 8 am.
---If you are using this logic where you are trying to quantify an experience, then you have lost the "work-life balance" goal. Because if you are in a scenario where you have to work late, that means mommy or daddy can't come home to spend the night with their kids, that means mommy or daddy can't come and see their child's recital, that means Mommy or Daddy won't be there to see your baseball game because they have to work late that night, that means you have to cancel your hinge date, or your dinner with friends. This 12 or 15 hour rule until they can show up until the next working day is meaningless because work-life balance is not quantifiable, it's not only about the number of hours you work, it's more about experiences than anything else. So let's say someone does work late for a project deadline, but then they don't have to show up until 15 hours later the next day, yes their working hours have been salvaged, but they could easily miss a very important event whether it's a date, a children's recital, a family gathering, or reading bedtime story to their child. That's why I find it so comical when people complain that they want to be compensated for working weekends (which was one of SHoP's demands). Sure, you can get compensated for working weekends, but when are you going to live your life? Again, if this is how they define work-life balance, then fine.
---For the love of unions, stop using non-comparable things. You and others were doing it all the time in the previous thread with public versus private sectors. Why are we comparing shift work at a grocery store to a private architectural practice whose clientele are billionaires? Literally, billionaires. For once can you or anyone else in this forum use an actual comparable example in our profession? Don't talk to me about grocery stores, don't talk to me about plumbers, don't talk to me about government workers, and don't talk to me about public school teachers. Give me a real concrete example of how this works in a private architectural practice. Give me an example of a private practice whose main income and profit is generated from clientele.
---You say: The employer benefits from an enormous power imbalance
---What is this enormous power imbalance? Architectural work is highly specialized. These employers can't just simply and easily fire and replace an employee who has been working on a project for a year and a half without suffering internal and external repercussions. This isn't a grocery store.
---Why are you having lunch at your desk? What's next, are you going to start defecating at your desk because you really need to finish a project deadline? These are habits you find in many practices because society has conditioned people to think that their work defines their worth. They will sacrifice basic human decency like giving yourself a moment of peace to enjoy a meal without working, or sacrificing personal plans because you need to work late for a deadline. Some people like that type of work atmosphere, but as I said before, a lot of people realize that it's not for them and they move on, while others do not realize that they have the capacity to move on - but it doesn't negate the reality that they can.
---You make it sound like people who are working at SHoP have such limited choices. Architecture is a highly specialized yet saturated profession, let's not make it sound like people who work in a very bad architectural work environment are somehow trapped. I have colleagues who have worked at six architecture practices in 9 years. I worked in a Starchitect office in Asia. Clientele were incredibly rich, projects were aesthetically complex, which meant standards were incredibly high. That breeds a certain type of work environment. Which is probably why high-end cuisine also doesn't have any unions. I am being both facetious and serious, but there are people at SHoP who are passionate about designing headquarters for Uber and YouTube. I know the type of people that come out of those offices. Many of them jump around to other starchitect offices. Many of them come from privilege. Some of them get out and go work for a small boutique office. Some go corporate. Some move laterally into exhibition design or other design professions. I got out and actually worked for a firm that only did public works before starting my own practice. I got out because their entire life was only about architecture. Their only friends were architects. There was no work life balance. It was only architecture. It's not healthy. Architecture is a byproduct, not a catalyst.
sillybilly, calm down dude. Unions aren't the end of the profession as we know it. They might be the end of some exploitive practices, but architecture will survive.
Work-life balance is a moving target? Great, so are contract negotiations. One office wants everyone to work 32 hours and another one wants 40? Great, that can be negotiated by union representatives with the firm management for their collective groups. You make it seem like one contract is going to govern all of practice. It won't. One contract will set the terms for one office. Another contract for another office, etc. You should be happy for that because you say the concerns of SHoP employees are unique to that office.
We don't need to get into how the grocery store was being run (it was fine btw, better than the other grocery store in town anyway). Suffice it to say, the union negotiated the ground rules of the employment relationship so I could have a work-life balance. Could it have existed without the union contract? Sure. Could it have been taken away without the union contract? Sure, all it would take is for the employer to write a memo or something and update the employee manual. Could it have been taken away with the union contract? No. At least not until it was up for renewal and renegotiated, and the workers wouldn't be likely to agree to those terms. Bargaining power is a bitch isn't it?
Make up whatever hypothetical scenario you want to as a strawman for how it might work in architectural practice. It's not worth debating it with you. I'm confident that smart creative people will be able to figure it out when push comes to shove and they're negotiating the contract. Again we could sit here trading hypotheticals all day and never get anywhere. I say a union could be helpful, you insist that it wouldn't. Agree to disagree then I guess.
LOL at you saying "for the love of unions, stop [comparing] non-comparable things," and then later comparing the profession to high-end cuisine and making a statement about why unions won't work in architecture from it. LOL
I never said it would be easy to replace someone. That's also just one option an employer has, but it's not the only one. I outlined a few of them earlier. There are many others that I didn't enumerate. How many options does the employee have? I also touched on this ... it's usually just one: quitting. Even you keep coming back to that over and over again because it's about the only thing an employee can do. You're not in a very good bargaining position when you've only got one option. If the employer doesn't like what a potential employee is asking for, they'll find someone else to hire. It might cost the firm some profit, but I'm sure they'll figure it out. You said yourself the profession is saturated. There are plenty of us to go around.
Whether or not the people at SHoP are limited in where they can find the next job isn't really the point. The point is they have to leave SHoP if they want something better. Is it that hard to conceive of employees wanting to stay at a firm and change it from within? Don't employers want some type of employee loyalty? I agree with you that no, these employees aren't trapped in SHoP; they could quit and find a new job anytime. But they are trapped if they want to stay there and have better working conditions because they have no bargaining power. A union could have helped change that because it would have given the workers more bargaining power.
Look, I really don't expect to change your mind on this at all. It's pretty clear you benefit from the current arrangement and you're not going to let any of that go willingly. That's fine. I'm not even saying you have to. What I am saying is that a lot of the arguments you've presented here as to why unions and architecture just won't work are pretty thin and worthy of ridicule. I ridicule them because I want someone who is reading this to know there's another point of view. I want them to know that someone else might have their back if they want to stand up and push to form a union to collectively bargain for better conditions. I want them to know that their employer is going to use a lot of the same arguments you're using to convince them that they won't benefit from it, and I want them to know to look past those empty threats and stay the course.
Out of curiosity, is it possible to have only a portion of employees unionized in practice? Say, 50/50 across the whole organization vertically - so half of everyone from middle management to junior employees. And somehow the owners/principals agree.
The ones who'd rather not join will have to stomach longer hours and probably lower wages while the ones who did join the union enjoy the benefits won. The former group refused to sign on because they either want to keep their jobs (They were afraird - wrongly - that they'd be fired) or are on the hook for some other benefit (The firm will not sponsor their visas/green cards if they join the union - probably as a good an example of power imbalance as one can find!).
You kind of see some version of this arrangement in reality already, where international employees keep a low profile because their very ability to stay in the US depends on the employer. Plus, having a Western "star" firm on one's resume could be a big career boost when they do return home.
The AIA remains toothless throughout of course!
At my only job at a place that was union, the union represented all workers, even the ones who chose not to join.
There are 4 basic options for union employment arrangements established by federal law. Closed shops, union shops, agency shops, and open shops. Closed shops, in which union membership is a condition of employment, are no longer legal in the US. Union shops require new hires to become union members within a certain period of time (e.g. the grocer I worked for). Agency shops allow workers to chose not to join the union, but must pay for representation by the union. Open shops cannot require you to join a union or to pay for representation. About half the states now have passed right-to-work laws which further outlaw union shops and agency shops beyond the closed shop ban at the federal level. So it's conceivable that yes, you can work in a firm that has been unionized without needing to join the union or to pay for the representation. It's also likely that you live in a state without a right-to-work law and you could be compelled to join the union or pay for representation. In all cases I think, as SP points out, the worker still benefits from the union representation.
What I honestly see as a very viable alternative for some worker who really doesn't want a union who might find themselves being compelled to join, is to simply become an independent contractor. You can negotiate your contract as you'd like on your own. I also see this as a potential pathway a firm could take if they want to break up unionization. Stop hiring employees and start hiring independent contractors. Of course, I could also see a union negotiate a limit of some type to a firm hiring independent contractors too.
I'm currently playing Disco Elysium. It's got some interesting things to say about unions and companies.
Man, this looks tough to pull off industry-wide without some kind of very broad leadership. That SHoP rep's argument that unionization is frowned upon by developer clients have some logic to it, as distasteful as the reality is. This assumes that SHoP unionizes and its competitors do not and also that SHoP's ability to compete is impeded as a direct consequence of its unionization. Two very big assumptions.
'We can't do a project right because someone else will do it wrong for cheaper' seems to be pretty common in the building industry.
I don't see this as needing to be industry-wide. To assume otherwise is also a very big assumption. I could see it quickly turn to something that is localized across the industry (e.g. maybe NYC offices all start to unionize, but no one in Chicago does). It may end up being industry-wide at some point if other workers see the benefits in the first offices that pioneer unionization in the industry. It might also simply be a handful of outlier firms that unionize and no one else follows them. I think it's too early to make that call either way. Doesn't stop us from speculating though.
@monosierra
---It will most likely never happen industry wide. I think there's a certain amount of naivete in these threads that's disguised as optimism and hope. You need to be very realistic and "on-the-button" when it comes to this profession. You can't depend on these emotive ideas in a profession that is highly individualistic, competitive, and entrepreneurial. If you want to unionize in this profession, you need to be cunningly strategic - you can't depend on pathetic memes on Instagram and abstract or vague demands like "I am not a machine" or "Tell the clients NO" or mention racial identity as woke talking points.
---You need concrete parameters to bargain. You are collectively bargaining and negotiating with a multi-million dollar company in one of the most capitalistic countries in the world. Some companies go as far to hire consultants to talk and "scare" employees out of joining a union. Since this is a bargaining effort, you need to know exactly what your union efforts need and what you're willing to compromise on. Some people in your union effort might want only one condition, and if you're not on the same page about what you're willing to compromise on, the union effort typically starts to crumble if the majority of members are not willing to compromise.
---How do you get architects passionate about joining a union, when a good number of architects starting out in the profession do not see themselves working at a single office for more than 1 to 5 years, see themselves moving to another type of office or project type, or see themselves starting their own practice or moving laterally. The vast majority of architects who do not start their own practice or leave the profession, jump around from office to office before settling down and invest in a company to become an associate principal or a principal, which is highly competitive in itself. So of course the resolve is going to be flimsy, especially since many Union efforts are delayed.
---This unit effort will also not happen at a local level between a conglomerate of offices. Why do we keep ignoring how competitive this profession is? If you're a New York architect, or a DC architect, or a Los Angeles architect, you know how competitive this profession is in those cities, for example. They all know one another, and many of them are actually friendly towards one another, but when it comes to winning a project whether it's for an RFP or for a high-end competition, I don't think they're going to think about equity or a level playing field. They want that project.
---As I said in the previous thread, why are some of you Archinectors not starting a union effort? Why are you not joining a union? If you think this profession is so screwed, where is your union effort? It seems like many people in this thread are just spectating to see what happens with nominal support. You just spectated a failed Union effort by SHoP. What's new? Go start a union effort. If you are an employee not in a supervisory role, you can start a union effort.
---People need to acknowledge the legitimate criticisms of unions. You can't always paint these criticisms of unions as union busting or scare tactics. It's a fact that some unions breed mediocrity, establishes an even more troublesome hierarchy, creates a loss of clientele, and creates conflicts with union dues. There's also factual pros like better pay, reasonable working hours, and better benefits.
---Starting a union is one thing, negotiating a union-contract is a whole other effort. If you're chest thumping over some vague slogans, and the employers/managers you're trying to negotiate with is more persuasive, then your union effort was a waste. You can call that persuasion, union busting, or scare tactics, but there's a reason why union busting is so hard to regulate and punish, because at the end of the day these employees are basically changing their minds about joining a Union.
---Everyday Architect thought my reference to high-end cuisine was a dichotomy to my criticism of false comparisons. Working at a high-end cuisine restaurant is very similar to working at a Starchitects office: both professions emphasize the creative pursuit, yet both professions are bound by constraints, both are highly "cultural" and international, both are catered toward a specific affluent demographic, both working environments are brutal and highly competitive, both vie for accolades and awards, and finally, neither of them have ever unionized and most likely never will. Yet somehow comparing SHoP's standards to a grocery store is more apt? You can find the same work atmosphere at high-end consulting like McKinsey. Or high-end design like Apple (except for their suicidal work atmosphere in the Chinese factories, that's a whole other level).
Your point about high turnovers is an important one that hasn't mentioned here before. One needs to have a stake in the organization to invest in a union. But when a good chunk - say, half - abscond in 5 years, it's damn hard to sustain any union effort. And there's a endless stream of young grads hungry for a shot at a big name firm who are all too happy to sign up for terrible hours in exchange for prestigious projects (Not that they are quiet about their dissatisfaction!). A zero-sum game unfortunately, between the workers themselves.
That said, such competition isn't limited to the big names in my experience. Even some of your run of the mill commercial practice - the AORs, the multifamily specialists - do have conditions comparable to the star offices. These guys offer more or less commodified services and compete on price/efficiency so their employees (At least some of them, such as the ones who need work sponsorship) contend with long hours and low wages too.
"One needs to have a stake in the organization to invest in a union."
There's a lot of things that haven't been taken into consideration in this thread. I went above and beyond to present many realistic scenarios, but were dismissed as baseless. Another item that has not been discussed is the fluidity of "supervisory" roles in the architectural profession. There are many architects at all firm types (small, medium, large) that take on the supervisory role of delegating work, making assessments of employees, interviewing potential candidates, guiding the owners or principal in the decision making process about the firm. Those people in that supervisory role cannot start a union, they are on the other end of the bargaining unit.
I don't have any hatred towards unions. What I am criticizing is the lack of acknowledging the realistic constraints and how you respond to those constraints in a profession as complex as architecture. It seems like many people in here who support unions in this thread do not want to acknowledge any of the realities in this profession and how it is antithetical to a typical union set-up. It needs to be approached differently. If people keep ignoring the realistic constraints of a functioning union in architecture, then there will never be a legitimate union in an architectural practice like SHoP.
Architecture, isn't that complex. In fact it might be one of the easier professions to organize around.
b3ta, do you even work at a private architectural practice? Can you please share with us the stage of your union effort organization at your practice? Did you reach a negotiated union contract? Or is it because you haven't organized whatsoever in a private architectural office? If so, Is it because you don't feel like it or because you don't need to because you work at such a great practice? Or is it so easy to do so but everyone in the profession except yourself are so brainwashed to understand how easy it is?
“We’ve had clients threaten to stop working with us if we unionize,” associate principal Shannon Han told Curbed reporter, Isabel King.
It would be interesting to know who those clients are and why anyone would continue to have a relationship with such clients.
Probably the condo developers whose projects SHoP is competing for? They have a series of residential projects with JDS in NY and a burgeoning portfolio of commercial properties in the DC market. Their portfolio has always featured more commercial projects than prestige institutional work, unlike some of their other "starchitect" peers. In fact, SHoP is much closer to SOM and KPF than, say, DS+R or Studio Gang when it comes to being a "starchitect" firm. There are no stars at SHoP - they are not known for their artsy projects. They are a commercial practice whose bread and butter are high end commercial and prestigious residential projects - not museums or galleries.
Scare tactics: unionize and we will lose clients, so you will get laid off. The reality is it makes no difference to the client whether the firm is unionized or not - it only makes a difference to management and employees. Gotta wonder how much associate principles are paid compared to staffers.
I don't think you want to get into a position where you start to determine whose work is more "artsy." All the architects you listed in your example all have worked for multi-million/billion dollar private developers and multi-million dollar private projects. None of them have unionized. How many times are we going to see a swooping/undulating tower facade from Studio Gang (5 or 6 so far), or a faceted cantilever from DS+R (lost count). Whether you like those firms or not, they all have their strengths and weaknesses when it comes to design methodology, aesthetics, program, and context. And they all have shit working environments depending on who you ask. Some people love working there, others realize why the hell are they working there but don't want to leave because for some reason they think this is the only job they will ever have. There's great repose in knowing you can get the fuck out anytime (you can be courteous with a two/four week notice). The problem is that many people in those offices are the only ones holding themselves back.
@sillybilly "The problem is that many people in those offices are the only ones holding themselves back." Fucking profound, and applicable at all firms, not just the starchitects.
After 60 years of working in a field which Buckminster Fuller described as a "slave profession" one can question whether this occupation can be called to that level. A most arrogant cousin once sniffed at me there are only three professions: Medicine, Law and Clergy. Presumably because there is an oath involved. It is very clear where the administration or reciting of an oath stands in validation of that claim.
Licensure of architects and engineers is only to protect the: "life, health and safety of the general public". By that same guide Roman architects/engineers were required to stand beneath a masonry arch as the falsework was removed. In Roman law the code of Hammurabi carried over should a death result from construction failure.
I have personally known a dozen or so job captains and project managers who were mainstays of their firms and were not licensed. Moreover they intended never to become so believing that licensure was no guarantee of competence and only enhanced liability. The first is acknowledged; the second begrudgingly admitted.
Having taught for over 20 years at both the graduate and undergraduate levels in both disciplines I am convinced the level of professional integrity being communicated is about 5th down the line. Issues of technical, aesthetic, social and administrative concerns (depending on the institution) are the first four. Engineering does not have the overall complexity of concern architecture demands.
Education of architects is so diverse and complex that the old 5-year degree is completely obsolete. Like law, medicine and engineering architecture "education" must begin at the undergraduate level and then proceed to a mandatory 3-1/2 year graduate program with close ties to the profession which monitors an internship developing necessary professional skills. Still, the matter of specialization in practice requires the utmost in discretion where the mythos of design must be realized for what it is.
There are too many "architects" produced (graduated) on a professional track in this country (Others ?) where a coterie, or class, of technical employees is, perhaps, justified. This is where the question of Union becomes valid. A well-structured industry with specific functional positions and assigned responsibilities can contribute to more efficient project management and completion.
As things stand today, with IPD differentiation and implementation in 50 years, or less, there will be no "profession" of architecture. This has to do with: Competence, responsibility and subsequent authority. There is an old (ostensibly true) story about William Zeckendorf (New York developer - early Trump- when asked by a reporter whether he gave his architects much leeway in the design of his projects ? Zeckendorf snorted back: "Does your secretary dictate your letters? " Masons and plumbers do not design buildings nor do they direct (administrate) their construction. Construction management has proven to, by in large, be a failure or, at best, a promoter of mediocrity. It has been demonstrated, on the other hand, that only about 4 percent of construction is actually controlled by architects. (Verification needed.) This may be a call for industry recognition hence unionization of a "working class" with appropriate dignity.
No graduate degree in architecture is worth the paper out is written upon. The field has very little return on investment. A friend who sells suit at the Ralph Lauren store made $130k last year. My architect peeps are to embarrassed to admit what they made.
So your brilliant solution to an already scarce workforce is to raise the barrier of entry even higher? Your entire premise: "Licensure of architects and engineers is only to protect the: 'life, health and safety of the general public'." is flawed. Licensure was NEVER about that. That was the syrupy mixture they gave to the bureaucrats so they could get the bitter pill of reality through. The reality was that licensure was to keep as many people out as possible. Anti-competitive machinations, the true lifeblood of the "free market."
Union busting practices should immediately disqualify a company from bidding on government contracts.
Union busting is one of the primary goals of government, for example NAFTA.
I don't disagree. But we should press Democrats like Biden, Schumer, Hochul, Adams, etc. who want to be seen as pro-union to take a stand and refuse lucrative contracts to companies like Shop where employees are complaining of union busting tactics. I realize that this would mean that Amazon Web Services would probably be the biggest target of such a policy. This would be a big boost to pro-unionization efforts within Amazon.
You can "press" all you want but if you want a politician to do something you need deep enough pockets to outbid all the people paying the majority of politicians to do the opposite.
the government is like a blockchain...
I'm reminded of a section in ODA's book where the principal describes how they mananged to design a full multimfaily project in a week (It later became 420 Kent in Williamsburg). Lot's of all-nighters of course. The developer client was very happy with the outcome, as the book proudly noted. The reason for the rush was because the developer was trying to meet some kind of government development credit deadline, and it only just managed to assemble the financing for the project. As for why it came down to the wire, I have no idea. Could ODA have been given a month's notice before this deadline? Perhaps. But they built their reputation among NYC's cut throat developers by being able to produce work faster and probably cheaper than competitors - besides their uncanny ability to mimic BIG's greatest hits on a smaller, lower end scale. That bit about them churning out a full-fledged SD package in a few days left an unnerving impression.
The real question is how big were the drafters' bonuses?
It's a good question. If they were not paid extra for the crunch job - and that includes the firm itself - then that's really poor form from the developer, even if the "compensation" comes in the form of more work down the line and a better reputation (better being subjective) with developers. Say if they were all paid for their time, I suppose that's fair.
I'm really curious what kind of profit margin is SHoP operating at, and what its compensation structure is across its organization. Competition is fierce in some markets but surely a premium outfit like SHoP shouldn't be working at the edge - to the degree that billing more hours for junior staff would send the firm out of business?
With public companies, union organizers could point to publicly disclosed financial filings to help press their case for higher wages/better conditions. I should note too that construction workers manage to unionize pretty well too despite also working in an AEC sector not known for financial transparency. But I guess construction workers could more easily walk out the job than their architect peers.
I don't know the history of how trade unions got started, but it seems like a better model for what architects should be doing. Something like the plumbers union, or the screen actors guild. Organize throughout a geographic area and function somewhat like a guild to set rates for all levels - don't make it an issue of owners vs staff. It doesn't make sense to focus on any single company when these problems are widespread in the industry. If anything, the problem is worse at high profile firms.
I agree with all your points. This Owners vs Staff dichotomy doesn't work as well for the small to medium sized private firms that dominate the architectural business. Local organization is key.
But wasn't there like a Supreme Court decision that essentially banned architects from setting prices? That decision pretty much robbed architects of pricing power.
Yes, the AIA got in trouble (twice) for obstructing free trade by setting price tables for members. How this is different from trade unions... I don't know. It's something anyone serious about this should be considering though.
In order to get admitted to the Screen Actors Guild you have to have acted in something. But in order to act in something you have to be a member of the Screen Actors Guild.
Ah, the classic Catch-22.
yes, and no, but mostly yes. https://www.sagaftra.org/membership-benefits/steps-join
That's the way it is in firms like that - It comes with the game - if you don't like the the workload and hours, then work for a firm where can keep banker's hours. I worked for a major firm, doing major projects that took a major amount of my time - but it was my choice, then I " downsized" to a regular office to 9-5 it
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?