Labor Day

 
Photo by Evan Wise on Unsplash

 
Tomorrow is Labor Day. I should not have to remind myself or you about what the holiday is meant to celebrate, but I will anyway. Rather than regarding Labor Day as marking the unofficial end of summer, an occasion for steep retail discounts and backyard barbeques, or the kickoff of the college football season, we should primarily acknowledge Labor Day’s importance as a tribute to the contributions and achievements of workers in all industries. We should also take a moment to give thanks to the workers’ rights advocates, enlightened lawmakers, and organized labor, who during the late 19th century acted to guard the common interests of those toiling in the industrial sector. The labor movement fought for better wages, reasonable hours, safer working conditions, health benefits, and more. Because of their efforts, most workers today possess essential protections from exploitative and predatory employment practices.
 
Many who enter the architectural profession do so because it “called” to them. That was certainly the case for me at the start of my working career 40 years ago. I accepted the reality of necessarily long hours in return for creative satisfaction and (at best) modest material compensation. I was fortunate: I enjoyed what my employers asked me to do. I learned from talented, senior coworkers. My work blessed me with the opportunity to make significant contributions toward the success of projects I was proud to be a part of. On the other hand, why did I and the others in my office so often find ourselves there well beyond the limits of a reasonable workday or toiling at our desks weekend after weekend? For my colleagues who were raising young children, the burden was especially pronounced. Work-life balance was not something we talked about then. We simply regarded the long hours as “normal” and unquestionably accepted them. Deadlines were deadlines, and we did what we needed to get our jobs done and done right.
 
Not much has changed on this front since then; if anything, the pressure to complete complex projects within shorter timeframes has only increased. Clients compel architects to deliver projects faster and faster, in return for progressively inadequate compensation. Understandably, financing burdens and market forces weigh on limited budgets, so I do not expect demands to do more in less time abating anytime soon. Architecture remains an undervalued profession highly susceptible to the vagaries of the economy and competitive pressures. Any single firm lacks the means to move the needle by itself. The problem is systemic, and it is exacting a costly toll.
 
A group of employees at the prominent New York-based firm SHoP Architects made headlines last year by announcing their plans to unionize. The group—under the banner of Architectural Workers United—sought to institutionalize norms of fairness and equity, and narrow pay divides along lines of race and gender at SHoP. They believed unionizing would assign them legal rights they lacked as individuals, such as the ability to collectively bargain with their employer over wages, hours, and working conditions. The New York Times, Bloomberg, and other media outlets picked up the news, bringing to light for those unfamiliar with modern architectural practices the realities of work at many firms.  
 
Architectural Workers United withdrew its petition this past February, citing a powerful anti-union campaign that drew upon “fear of the unknown, along with misinformation” to sway SHoP employees toward an alternative means to address the issues that prompted the unionization drive. The group remains committed to changing the underlying structure that has stymied efforts to correct the historically prevalent, unhealthy workplace culture in many firms.
 
If unionization proves an impractical path, what options remain to make architectural practice more just and equitable? We will not find answers to this question in the status quo.
 
One way architects can take control of the costs of project delivery while at the same time ensuring decent compensation and work-life balance for themselves and their employees is by taking matters into their own hands—that is, by becoming their own clients and assuming the roles of developers and builders, as well as designers; however, this presumes access to the necessary capital to underwrite significant projects, the willingness to accept the associated and not insubstantial risks, an understanding of real estate finance, the business structure of development, and a working familiarity with market trends. The promise of lucrative returns has lured some to take this path, but those that do remain a minority among architects.(1) I cannot envision practices along the lines of architect-as-developer occupying other than a limited segment of firms; consequently, they will not serve to address the workplace issues endemic to the rest of the profession.
 
Architectural Workers United noted that improving conditions and the value of architecture from the top down is difficult in this country due to the existence of antitrust laws that preclude the establishment of industry-wide minimum fee schedules. In the absence of such schedules, an office that raises its labor costs to more fairly compensate staff risks losing work to rivals who are willing to undercut its fees. When times are most competitive and fees are tight, a “race to the bottom” ensues, and firms imprudently rely on fewer staff than necessary to complete projects. Architectural Workers United argued raising standards from the bottom-up is necessary to contain these pressures; hence, their call for a union representing architectural employees. While a bottom-up approach may still gain traction, I also believe real, substantive change must come from the top-down.
 
Enacted in 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act limits monopolies and other restraints on commerce. Its aim was to ensure competition in all forms of business, including the architectural profession. The Act declares any restraint on trade in the United States by means of price-fixing to be illegal. Nevertheless, individual chapters of the American Institute of Architects developed fee schedules for jobs of various types (as well as prohibiting their members from discounting fees), arguing that the “dignity of the profession” rested on its united front of expertise and not the cheapness of its competing members. In response to subsequent complaints, the Department of Justice issued injunctions against the AIA, resulting in the 1990 mutual consent decree stipulating that any individual firm, acting alone, can set its own prices.
 
An effect of the consent decree has too often been that “race to the bottom,” keeping fees constrained. Competition for private commissions based on fees has compromised the profession’s charge to protect the public from harm.(2) It has impaired the ability of the profession to provide the entirety of its workforce with adequate levels of compensation and protections against abusive practices.
 
Because I first entered the profession in Canada, I am familiar with the use of a standard Tariff of Fees for Architectural Services there. The Tariff of Fees is similar to the schedules of fees previously developed by AIA chapters prior to the enactment of the consent decree. The Tariff of Fees does not limit firms to utilizing the prescribed fee amounts for respective project types and sizes. Instead, it serves as a guide for the benefit of clients, helping them understand the magnitude of architectural fees they can expect on their projects, accounting for such factors as size of the job, the type of project delivery method, and so on. The Tariff of Fees explains how architects need to be able to function properly and profitably, why architectural services are not products bought off the shelf, and why adequate allowance for careful study and design are necessary.
 
Would reinstatement of a schedule of fees, one that does not oblige members of the profession to adhere to it, be problematic from the perspective of the Sherman Antitrust Act? Would it violate the spirit of antitrust legislation? If not, such a schedule might serve to educate clients about the value of architectural services, in turn helping to address the labor-related concerns that prompted the unionization effort by Architectural Workers United. It is worth noting that the Sherman Act exempts unions from the pricing of services because “the labor of a human being is not a commodity.” In any event, implicit collusion is legal and permitted by the Sherman Act because a voluntary, universal schedule of fees implies no discussion between agents. A client instead infers from the schedule professional consensus about a range of reasonable pricing for a specific suite of services.
 
Though most architectural firms today do their best to fairly compensate and respect their employees, there are some bad apples who do not. If the profession is to survive and thrive in the future, such bad actors need to change their ways.
 
The grassroots impetus to organize architectural firm employees, whether wholly successful or not, is accelerating the move toward healthier and more equitable work environments. Conversely, a top-down strategy (orchestrated by the AIA, NCARB, and legislative operatives) to raise awareness of and appreciation for the value of architectural services may likewise yield positive results for industry workers. Perhaps those of us who work in architecture will remember this Labor Day years from now because 2022 marked an important change of course for the profession, one which squarely addressed longstanding, difficult issues associated with employee compensation, fairness, equity, and inclusion. I do feel the ground shifting.
 
 
(1)    Jonathan Segal, FAIA, is one architect well-known for designing and developing his own projects, fully reaping the rewards of doing so. He has eliminated the need to cultivate a client base.

      (2)    The Brooks Architect-Engineers Act, enacted in 1972, requires federal agencies to use qualifications-based selection procedures—as opposed to fee-based selection—when procuring design services. Forty-six states, including Oregon, have also implemented QBS laws.