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.
24 Comments
“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?