A survey of architectural professionals conducted by a U.S. union coalition has revealed widespread dissatisfaction with pay, hours, and agency in workplace decisions. The survey of 436 professionals was led by the Department for Professional Employees, whose 24 affiliated unions include the IAM union which oversaw the recent unionizing effort at SHoP in New York City.
The survey, launched in April, found that architecture workers are eager for reforms in their workplace, with 90% wanting to see changes to working conditions. 63% of respondents report having little or no voice in policymaking at their firm, while 55% fear retaliation for speaking out about issues at their firm. 39% of respondents also believe their employers have not taken any steps to address diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace.
Despite several high-profile developments in the union movement in 2022, 83% of respondents said they have at most 'only some knowledge' of unions of architectural professionals. However, 83% also said they would approve of a proposal to have a union at their firm.
When asked how likely they would be to recommend that others join the architectural profession, 66% of respondents would either strongly or somewhat caution against joining. However, 72% of respondents plan to stay in the profession for five years or more, while 70% report feeling either very or fairly secure in their jobs.
Many of the survey’s core findings center on issues of compensation and working hours. 51% of respondents reported feeling dissatisfied with their salaries, while 55% felt either dissatisfied or neutral about workplace benefits. 28% were forced to take a pay cut during the COVID-19 pandemic, while 21% were promised a raise before or during the pandemic that did not materialize. The survey also found that men were twice as likely as women to receive raises in salary either sporadically or every few years.
62% of respondents told the survey that their free time had been interrupted either sometimes or most of the time by their job; interruptions which became more pronounced during deadline weeks. 12% said that they have worked 90 hours or more in at least one week, while 20% have worked between 60 and 64 hours in at least one week.
Overall, the average typical work week across all correspondents was 46 hours, rising to 56 hours on a deadline week. 46% were told by their superiors to under-report hours on time sheets at least once, while 18% are frequently told to do so.
“The architectural professionals who participated in our survey want to see change in their workplaces,” Department for Professional Employees AFL-CIO President Jennifer Dorning told Archinect. “Many were dissatisfied with their pay, long hours, and lack of a say in workplace decisions, to the extent that they would caution others against working in the architectural industry.”
“We’ve seen time and again the best way for professionals to improve their workplaces and industries is by joining together in union with their co-workers,” Dorning continued. “Employees at Bernheimer Architecture recently formed a union, and as more architectural professionals follow suit, they will gain a say in workplace decisions and benefit from rising standards in the industry.”
While painting a striking picture of the profession, DPE note that as a non-scientific online survey, the data cannot necessarily be extrapolated to the profession as a whole. The age of respondents was also skewed towards a younger cohort, and when compared against the Bureau of Labor Statistics, includes a slightly over-representative sample of female and Latinx respondents, and a significantly under-representative sample of Black and African American respondents.
The survey investigation is the latest in a series of grassroots responses to labor conditions in architecture. Earlier this week, we reported on a worker-led organization in the UK recently launched to improve salary transparency in the profession, while last month, workers at London-based Atomik Architecture announced that they were preparing to ballot for strike action over pay and conditions.
In the United States, September saw workers at New York-based Bernheimer Architecture form the first functioning union at a private-sector firm in the country, after the early months of 2022 saw a high-profile unionization effort take place at SHoP.
You can learn more about the story of the union movement in architecture through our in-depth feature article on the subject here, or by following our rolling news coverage of the topic here.
4 Comments
Isn't that was the leaders want? Less competition.
This reminds me of a funny bit from Orhan's interview of Thom Mayne frm a few years back. One of Mayne's sons was studying to be a doctor and Orhan wrote that it was assuring for an architect - even a celebrated one like Mayne - to have a kid in that business what with healthcare costs so high.
Turns out Mayne's other son is a developer - he just did SO-IL'S 405 Warren with his partner.
"Architecture" is now, and has always been, an elitist occupation. Of the third-tier social set. What we consider Architecture is very different from (A)architecture as defined since World War I; but the topic of "Architecture and Democracy" has been bandied about from the late 19th century on. One could frame the subject as resulting from the second industrial revolution onward when the rise of "worker's rights", unionization and the elevation of craftsmen / tradesmen into the so-called "middle class". (A)architecture - as differentiated from buildings - is a reflection of social values and social position. Along with the diminution of landed aristocracy and elevation of the "Common Man" (This and the 18th century romantic notion of the "Natural Man".) architecture has been demoted to a functional commodity. Which is asserted here, not the mythology of architecture at all. At least not the Egyptian-Greco-Roman version of the "art". The suggestion is: If you want to celebrate the concept of absolute human equality and social integration drop the epithet "architecture" from your vocabulary. Eliminate the license to practice architecture leaving only engineering as the sole entitled construction profession to protect the life, health and safety of the general public. Above all start with eliminating the architecture curriculum from schools as a professional degree. Then the license must follow. Most so-called architectural programs today are actually teaching "architecture" as either fine art or sociology. You ain't goin' no where widout de money no how. Even with sufficient money to build without the ideological framework you may produce adequate buildings, with a 25-year life span, but not Architecture. Moving from T-squares to CADD will make no difference. It is the attitudinal grey matter that counts. Ask Serra or Heiser, they think they are !(A)! architects.
Do you even architect bro?
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.