Status Check
Labor in Architecture
by Andrew Daley
The architecture industry has long been a fascinating mystery to the general public. One of the frequently used professions for lead characters in romantic comedies, admired or rued as the taste-makers, singled-out as the interesting person to talk to at a party. The perception is of a learned individual who has the ability to make built reality from imagined concept. While that is true, there is a lack of knowledge of the working conditions within the industry—namely excessive hours and inadequate compensation.
As a licensed architect having experienced all of the above, having practiced in four separate states in a multitude of types of practices, and now as a labor organizer within the architectural industry, I have a vested interest in the question of our labor and how we value it. Unpacking the structures, myths, and realities that underpin the industry, I explore the genesis for—and current status of—unionization efforts of workers within the profession.
The Myth
Architecture has long been considered a calling. Something for the greater good, far beyond a job. Something we do for passion. That the intensity that is required and expected of us only fuels our creative output. Compensation is a bonus but not the point or the reason we do it. The main reason for this is that architecture as a discipline was and is historically a “gentleman’s profession,” largely for rich white men, serving richer white clients.
The understanding of architect as “master builder” has long given the perception that he is the individual genius—the one who creates that at which all others marvel. This is a myth, perpetuated for as long as architecture has been a profession. Frank Lloyd Wright, for instance, has been lauded as a prolific generator of innovative buildings over the course of half a century. But, what is often ignored are the hundreds of Taliesin Fellowship workers. These individuals paid for the right to work under Wright and to be subjected to extreme working conditions.
The Reality
The “gentleman’s profession” is arguably still in effect today. According to NCARB, 76% of licensed architects are men even today (49% per the US Census). Further still, the profession is predominantly white with a meager 2% of licensed architects being Black, while a slightly higher 5% are Hispanic/Latinx (12%/19% per the US Census respectively). If representation were the only issue, we could find solutions. And yet, female architects make 18% less than their male counterparts. How can we achieve equity and access, when these are the active conditions?
Complicit in these structures is the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the major professional organization of architects in the United States. While the AIA once advocated for higher fees via standard fee schedules, Supreme Court cases in 1972 and 1990 brought by the Department of Justice against the AIA resulted in Dissent Decrees that deemed these fee schedules were in fact price fixing, violating antitrust laws. As part of the agreements, “The AIA must refrain from prohibiting competitive bids, providing discounts, or providing free services”. While members vehemently disagreed with the decrees—with the AIA’s own counsel refusing to admit guilt—the AIA accepted the decrees, issuing them to all of its members. The AIA’s Antitrust Compliance Statement currently recommends that members “do not have discussions with other members or competitors about…your prices for products or services…[nor] prices charged by your competitors…[nor] costs, discounts, terms of sale, profit margins or anything else that might affect your prices or your competitors’ prices…[nor] limiting production…[nor] whether or not to deal with any other business”. They go as far as to say “do not stay at a meeting…if any of the above discussions are taking place”. In other words, firm owners are explicitly not to discuss fees with each other.
The Rationale
In order to sidestep this restriction, many architects and architecture firms talk about adding value, mostly through increasing scope. What this fails to realize, is that there is inherent value to architectural work. The issue is not breadth of work, nor supply of work, but that the work being performed is not recognized by clients or the public and is thus not compensated accordingly.
The architectural industry lives on value propositions that are the exact opposite. Part of that is of our own doing—free labor, inadequate fee projections, not upholding client contracts. Some of it is institutionalized from the Beaux-Arts tradition of competition—everyone competes, and the best idea wins. The paradigm of meritocracy is, then, ceded in a battle to undercut competitors to win a contract.
The way to alleviate this is not to fight over the crumbs to which we currently have access, but to make the pie bigger. Not to increase services, but to reward the work we are already doing. But, if we can’t fix the fee structures from the top-down due to antitrust laws and collusion, we can fix it from the bottom-up through organized labor.
Action, Now
The workers at SHoP Architects who were attempting to unionize began this conversation. Citing “endless overtime and deadlines which result in burnout and a lack of work-life balance,” there was recognition that these were systemic issues to the industry and not the product of any one firm. The intention of these workers, then, was to establish that their efforts were not about specific policy demands but broader issues of the culture of the industry—defined as “organizing toward making architecture more equitable, the profession more just, and our built environment more resilient”.
Ultimately, the workers pulled their election petition seeking union certification, but the state of the profession became an international conversation. Workers were yearning for a space to have discussions in public and share their misery. To confirm they were not alone, but also to assert that it wasn’t just them, that these issues were in fact systemic. One person even commented, “I'd love to be able to go out to drinks and not complain about architecture”. That really cuts to the heart of it.
The goal of any unionization effort is to lift industry standards through worker collective action. To set new minimums that cannot be undercut. We see this with the entertainment industry, where long entrenched standards create a robust system, where the creative process and the best ideas are considered first. This is due to established minimums that all production companies have to abide by—preventing a race to the bottom or undercutting of fees. What also results is that schedules are down to the minute with hyper-efficiency in mind. Going overtime is not in the best interest of the project due to increased costs. In other words, everyone who walks on set knows exactly what to expect and, if things go awry with shifted schedules, labor is compensated accordingly.
While the SHoP workers are no longer actively organizing, roughly eight different groups of workers—at firms all over the country, with a vast array of profiles—are actively organizing as a direct result of the efforts started by the workers at SHoP. Some have hundreds of employees, some are smaller. Some are architecture specific, while others are urban planning or landscape architecture or interior design focused. Some are international firms with many offices. Some have one office in the United States. The diversity speaks to the current situation: these problems don’t exist in any one kind of firm; they exist in all kinds of firms.
As these workers have come together, their interests and potential demands are not dissimilar from the workers at SHoP: uncompensated overtime, higher salaries, flexible hours, return-to-work policy transparency, increased paid family leave, among others. But, beyond individual demands is the interest and desire to be recognized as workers first and foremost—who have federally protected rights—rights to organize, to information, to collectively bargain, to be free from unilateral changes. But, as important, is the aspiration, very simply, to have a say in their workplaces and how their work is performed. By requesting the rights given to all workers by the National Labor Relations Act—the federal legislation that protects workers’ rights—they gain an equal voice in their workplace.
The Future
The promise of a bright future in the architecture industry doesn’t match the crushing reality of how it is to practice. Workers—especially those just entering the workforce—are seeing this reality for what it is and are refusing to accept it. With unionization, we—as workers—have the ability, through organized labor, to establish minimum standards for the industry. We have an imperative to do better. For the profession, yes, but more specifically for the workers, especially for those who have been left out. To face these issues head on. To not shy away from them.
Andrew Daley is an organizer, activist, and licensed architect living and working in Brooklyn, New York. He is working currently with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) on organizing efforts within the architecture industry. Passionate about the implications of equity, privilege, and access as they relate to social structures, Andrew is interested in how organized labor can mitigate the gaps. He has worked extensively in prefabrication and off-site manufacturing at multiple companies including when he was a Project Director at SHoP Architects in New York working on US embassies worldwide for 7 years. Prior to SHoP, he worked with Jason Fleming and Peter Muessig developing a prefabricated kitchen/bathroom unit for residential use called Mod Pod, and was a Lecturer in Architecture at the University of Michigan. Andrew received his Master of Architecture degree from Rice University and his Bachelor of Science in Architecture at the University of Virginia. He has practiced professionally in Virginia, Texas, Michigan, and New York for numerous firms, both traditional and not.