Understanding the Architecture Labor Movement

A I'm Evelyn Lee. And I'm Janine Chastain. We're collaborating on curated conversations to explore how the industry of architecture is changing.

B Together, we'll find ways to create new solutions to current challenges while elevating the value of architects. Welcome to Practice Disrupted. Hello, listeners. Hello, Janine.

A Hello, Evelyn. Hello, disruptors.

B So today's conversation is 1 that Janine and I have been interested in addressing for a while, and I hope it proves to be as educational for our listeners as I believe it will be for me because I have a lot of questions and am a firm believer that the culture of architecture in school and in practice needs to change.

A I think the subplot to this episode is really about a difference of opinion of what studio culture should be in an academic and professional setting. There are many inherited behaviors that we have just accepted as the norm in the way that architects practice. They come from historic models of how we teach and how we train our employees. But there is a big gap of opinion between if studio culture should evolve or if we should be continuing the legacy of some of these ideas that perpetuate unhealthy behaviors in practice. So I think we're gonna be digging into some of that in a deeper and more detailed kind of way.

B So whether it is the pandemic and the resulting great resignation, this she session, or if you wanna call it the reimagination, however you want to put it that in a pretty little box, There's been a lot of focus across industries on the reprioritization of mental health and wellness at work. But within architecture in particular, this has begun to play out more publicly with articles in The New York Times about SHOP, the SIREC video on how to be in an office, and now the most recent REBA candidate president election of the worker candidate. So today, I'm happy to have organizer, activist and licensed architect, Andrew Daley join us and assistant professor of RISD Jess Myers to talk about the architecture labor movement.

A So welcome to the show, Andrea and Jess. We're so glad to have you here to help educate our audience on some of the finer points about the work that you're doing. So why don't we start by having you both tell us a little about yourselves and your relationship to the architecture labor movement?

C My name is Jess Myers. I'm an assistant professor of architecture at the Rhode Island School of Design, and I would say that a lot of my questions around architecture and labor definitely started in school, like many other people, where you're working long hours in studio, and you are sometimes a bit frustrated because it feels like you're working just to work as opposed to, like, to advance something in your project. But it didn't really sharpen into anything like organizing until I started working with the lobby, but also started with the architecture lobby, but also started writing about it and reading more about the legacy of labor movements in architecture in the United States, but also abroad as well.

D Yeah. And in in my case, actually, Jess's writing and and Peggy Diemer's writing and and the work of the architecture lobby, I think, was kind of informative for me. But I'm I'm an architect. I've been, in the profession for 12 years. I'm licensed in the state of New York. I was at CHOP for 7 years. And and towards the end of that, as we started thinking about, you know, the idea of organization and and unionization, I was a part of that effort and was really passionate about it. Ultimately, I decided to leave a little bit before the the campaign went public.

D And I was looking at, you know, things in the public sector and sort of getting back to a lot of the things that, you know, Jess was talking about about school and kind of what are you really passionate about actually. And in that process, the organizer that we were working with at the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, reached out to me to see if I would be interested in coming on full time as an organizer, working with other groups as the shop campaign was getting ready to go public. And I really saw it as a opportunity that I couldn't pass up. And ultimately, it was a moment that I think our profession and allied professions, other design professionals, we would never potentially see again, for positive or negative reasons. And and so it's something I really jumped at.

A The Architecture Workers Union is relatively new, but it certainly caught the attention of people all over the world. And I think I can't I mean, at every office that I know of, people knew what was happening in this conversation. But I think maybe we should start with framing the history of, where this movement comes from and perhaps even if if you can even tap into some of the historic trends of of the inherited norms that I mentioned at the top of the episode.

D Actually, I'm I'm sort of curious, Jess' take in terms of, you know, how how a lot of this started with the architecture lobby. And I I say that not just to kind of, kick it to her, but but I think so much of what we were thinking as a group when when we sort of started that was really influenced by a lot of those conversations and and the work that the lobby had been doing for years at that

C point. Yeah. I mean, I can I can speak a little bit to the lobby's history? So the architecture lobby really was kind of spearheaded by Peggy Diemer, who's coming out of Yale University, is an emeritus professor there and and had a career as a professor there. But, also, a large group of young, sort of engaged students who are really thinking about how do we engage, especially with, I will say, the resurgence of an interest in socialism in the United States, which we have to recognize was not something that you could really talk about openly even, like, let's say, 20, 25 years ago. That was really a conversation no go, which is a leftover for us from the McCarthy era that really and, you know, are, again, the resurging politics of the Cold War that really put questions around socialism on the back foot as they were being associated also with authoritarian regimes. The architecture lobby really formed in, if I remember correctly, 2014. I myself didn't join until 4 years after that. And, really, as I was saying, I think that a lot of the organizing or the formation of that group was really, sailing on the the wings of a resurgent interest in, socialism.

C And 1 of the tools of socialist practice, of course, is unionization. So not long after the, architecture lobby was founded, although, of course, yes, there is an interest in, cooperative models of work 2, sort of national working group formed around this question of unionization and how how would that be applied to, architectural practice in the United States, and how had it been applied in the past? So and I know, Andrew, I mean, we can both give this history in our sleep, but just to give broad strokes is that the unionization in architecture is actually a really fraught question if you look at the history. So the last time architects had a union in the United States was around 19 fifties, and 1 of the chief organizers of of that movement was actually Olmstead. Although he did negotiate very poor wage taxes in that in that unionization drive, and that actually that union, the FEACT, dissolved, like, less than 10 years later. And then from that point, the next even drive towards unionizing, which is not a union in and of itself, but a sort of campaign towards towards it in the private sector and architecture. Wasn't until the 19 seventies when SOM in San Francisco made a pitch for, an a unionization election and then ultimately lost. So, really, what we're seeing now and what we saw at SHOP was is the first time in the 21st century in the United States wherein a private architecture firm moved towards, and organized towards unionization. So the lobby's role in that was really setting up, 1, educational materials that spoke specifically to architects.

C So really tailoring that to the way that architects work, the way that architects think about work, and also using the network of architects who are already connected to the architecture lobby to kind of build up what are the chief concerns, chief labor concerns in architecture in, today, and how can we build sort of campaign language towards those concerns that really connect unionization as a tool to address them. I was then a part of a local unionization group that was founded, in part by Ria Morales, who's a member of the New York chapter. And really what it started to do, like, we just called all the people who had ever given me us their information, like, to the New York chapter of the architecture lobby. We just called them and asked questions around, you know, what are your concerns about work? And a lot of the people that we spoke to had connected concerns and were also working at the same firms, often at at different levels. So we started with the, local unionization group as a space for those people to talk to each other. And from there, there were organizing efforts that began to happen within firms. And from that, we saw, like, oh, my goodness. Like, this could really build up into a movement.

C And in order to do that, we need to find partners who have done this before. So we were speaking to other unions and also other types of workers, let's say, not the typical faces of unionization, to give us a little bit of information about, you know, what they had experienced. We're talking about, like, kick starter and Vox, those sort of more techs and tech and, media based unions. And then also, ultimately reaching out to the machinist union, David, who, Andrew already talked a bit about, to really provide the resourcing and the know how for how do we take this to the next level. So that's really where the involvement was, was really in this effort of both education and connections, sort of building connections between workers to really discuss a subject that hadn't really been approached for years.

B I I had no idea about the history of Olmsted or SOM, so that's super interesting. Just at the top of this, you also kinda mentioned, it's a global thing. It's not necessarily a US thing. So there's obviously, and I don't want to go super deep into it, but could you give us some highlights of, you know, some other movements around architecture, labor, and unions that are happening elsewhere? And I do know enough to say that I believe Portugal, like most of their architects are 10.99 contract labor. Like, it's they're not set up in firms the way that we are necessarily. So so I realized the structure around creating a union in a different country might be different.

C It's a very fair sort of, framing to put on it is that organizing, labor organizing outside of the United States is very different. The US is very much a structure that has thought about the relationship between governance and corporations in a very different way. So really thinking about, let's say, you know, the sort of machinist age or industrial age or thinking about, like, Ford, for example, and the idea that actually, oh, it's your job that's gonna provide certain social resources for you. Things like, you know, Ford is is providing things like worker villages where not only you have your job, but you also have your health care, you have food. You have, housing that's really coming from your employer. So the idea was, like, oh, your employer is going to be this sort of social safety net that steps in wherein in many other countries, those services were thought of as things that were tied directly to governance. So, like, the way that the labor movement works in the United States is very different. And, you know, that's not even touching on the fact that the US' like, you know, initial labor force, if you're thinking about the beginnings of the United States, is also slave labor, which is I'm not gonna go into the movement like, peasant movements and, like, fiefdoms in in other countries.

C But, yeah, like, that's very that would be that is very specific where the United States, like, actually couldn't have been founded without this free and coerced labor. So I think, really, that question or that position towards labor has rested within the United States for a very long time, since its founding. So if we're looking internationally, we're actually seeing countries that have, you know, in many ways, a longer history of worker movements that do stem from peasant revolts, revolts in, in in, the structure of fiefdoms, as well as many other, questions about how to structure work as an aspect of society. So if we're looking at different countries' approach to unionization, often we're we're also looking at countries that have much more of their workforce unionized or in sort of worker, collectives or cooperatives than the United States has or is familiar with, and there are many different types of unionization structures. So for example, in Sweden, there is a sort of dual structure of unions where workers have their own unions that are to create a set of protections between them and their bosses, but then bosses also have a union to create a set of protections between them and clients. So there are many different models, but 1 thing that I do want to say is, like, having a union does not guarantee that you're also gonna be satisfied with your work life. You know, a piece of that is American sort of cultural hedge money, where we're exporting our cultural sort of norms internationally. So like if architects in the US are working like this, then in a way it forces other architecture offices around the world to have a position towards us, right? That's how I kind of want to say that the United States is not the only country that has a very intense and in many ways harmful work culture and its architectural firms.

C I think you can also look to, like, firms in Japan, for example, where we see lots of stories around really intense labor expectations that really actually conflict with expectations of, like, being in your cultural like, sort of being being a figure or leading a life that's also culturally connected. So it's as if work is this thing that's sort of siphoning you off from the rest of of the world. But, yeah, that's I feel like that was a little bit all over the place in terms of history. So I also wanna, in terms of that question, kick it over to to Andrew for anything that I likely missed.

D Yeah. I mean, you know, I think to the the secondary question, Evelyn, of, like, other groups, you know, there's UVW, SAW, the section of architecture workers in in the United Kingdom. There's, the Portugal group, as you mentioned. There's some groups in Italy. There's groups all over Scandinavia, like, really, really strong, actually, kind of, like, industry wide unions where it's sort of like, hey. This is a standard contract that you can kind of tap into. And and some of them, you know, still go workplace by workplace, but it's it's this bigger network that you're tapping into. Some of them are just you know, you can go into it as an individual, so that gives a kind of different level, as as Jess is saying, a kind of different level.

D There's also and I didn't know much about this, previously, but, there are, unions in China, right, and and in other Asian countries. They don't necessarily have the same sort of power or or kind of, like, social cache either way, right, positively or negatively. And they're sort of just seen as, like, a thing that's there. This exists all throughout the world. Right? And and the United States, I think, Jess' kind of history of this is is really perfect. I think the thing to kind of add to the discussion is, you know, in the thirties and forties, we had a a sort of union density throughout the entire country of, like, all workers of I think it was, like, in the thirties or forties in terms of percentage. Right? And now we're at, like, 7 or 8%. Right? So that what that what comes with that obviously is way less power ultimately.

D Right? Like, the more workers that are organized, the more power that you actually have. And I think, you know, that was a huge message that we heard very explicitly from the architecture lobby, in terms of their research and education and outreach. I think, as we were starting our effort, a lot of this came out and this is not unique. You've heard this from Starbucks workers. You've heard this from REI workers. You've heard this from so many other folks, that a lot of this came out of the summer of 2020 and, you know, the assassination of George Floyd and what that kind of meant for, how we think about our offices and our social structures and how we, you know, operate as a society. And, you know, it was in the backdrop of the pandemic and working from home and and also having that luxury, in a lot of cases, to do that, but thinking about it as, okay, we want to reevaluate our and and, you know, I'll I'll give most firm owners credit that, you know, they allowed the conversations to really kind of flourish and happen. I think when it came to kind of results, that's a much different discussion, obviously.

D But what that allowed was this kind of network of of talking about these things and sort of, saying, is this right? And and could we actually tweak some things in a really minor way to increase access and representation? And I think that was sort of a start, right? But then we started thinking about this and thinking about kind of all the things that we're sort of alluding to and and probably gonna talk about a little bit more, that, okay. If we're gonna do that and we're gonna increase access, what kind of profession and what kind of environment and workplace are we allowing, or are we fostering these people to come into? Right? Is it is it supportive? Are we setting them up to fail? Are we, you know, putting them in these abuse structures that they're just gonna leave quickly anyway? Do we need to address the root issues in a lot of ways? And I think that's that's when we started seeing a little bit of pushback. And and so we just started having conversations on on our own on the side. And, you know, some of us that that had been, you know, going to lobby meetings started thinking about, okay. Well, what what what are other ways? What could this look like? And and and I won't count myself as as, you know, the the the originator of this at all. I don't do not take credit of that. There were some other people that were really pushing this and had been pushing it for years in different ways that ultimately, you know, made the connection with David, at The Machinist and and kind of started those conversations. And, you know, the reality with organizing is that it takes a long time, and that's because there's no shortcuts.

D There's not a whole lot of power at the beginning. Right? And what you have to do is not only hear from everybody, but you have to kind of meet them on their own terms and not assume you understand what their issues are. So you have to actually, like, kind of hear that and be like, okay, cool. Let me take that in. Let me readjust my own thoughts on this. Let me give you information too so you can potentially, you know, reevaluate. But it takes a lot of kind of 1 on 1 conversation to make that happen. And, you know, just frankly, that that takes time.

D And, you know, all of this, again, was was about we love what we do. We love who we work with. We we love the projects that we get to work on. You know, Shop has an incredible amount of talented people that are driven, that are focused, that are all of these things. We just wanted to feel, you know, fully supported and and that the job was ultimately sustainable. We had we had a lot of research too of of, you know, people hitting a burnout at like 3 years or 2 and a half years or, you know, whatever it was that kind of like, and and sort of at like the age of 30 and sort of looking at this. And and I don't think data was all that different from other firms. We didn't have it at the time, but but sort of then you kind of get this, like, okay, do I have to move to, you know, a more corporate firm where I can work 9 to 5, or do I have to, like, just go out on my own, or do I have to take out a loan because eventually I'm gonna, like, have to buy into this firm.

D And it's like, alright. Well, those decisions are ultimately only really available to a certain set of people anyway. Right? So really thinking through all of that, I think, pushed us into these conversations.

A I do think a lot of the switching that that firm owners have seen and firm leaders have seen from people going from 1 firm to the next has been in search of this question that, can I get away from this culture? And what a lot of people realize is it's kinda embedded into every firm in some ways at different degrees of severity, but I think a lot of people are trying to figure out, are are there firms out there that operate in a way that are different than the way that we've inherited this profession? And my early exposure to some of these I I don't know much about unions, but my exposure to this topic really was through the lens of an academic studio setting where we would talk about studio culture, and it was perpetuated by this idea of we're asked to work very hard on our projects to the point that there were accidents recorded where people drove home from studio after not sleeping and got into a car accident and died and all kinds of weird things happen in studio because people are not practicing healthy behaviors where they take care of themselves. And then they go into the profession, and we there's a lot of firm owners out there that just don't question some of these ideologies about the way how hard we should work and how much time we need to give to the project and that you're never gonna have a final product. You're just gonna keep iterating to the point. It's, in pursuit of an endless idea of perfection. And so I guess I wanna ask a couple of questions in this comment, which 1 is, did your research take you into topics on the pedagogy of architecture, including references to the Bauhaus and also in the movement where we had architects and we had draftsmen at 1 point. And then now we're at this, like, crazy point where architects are the draftsmen or the people that are training to become architects become the draftsmen because of the technology. So that's 1 question. And then I wanna also dive deeper into kinda these just systemic cultural issues that are being raised.

A What are they? What do we need to be talking about?

D Yeah. So many so many thoughts. Right? I mean, 1 easy jump in, I think, in a lot of ways, you know, thinking about kind of going back on this too and and and always reexamining the history, which I think is really critical, and I think Jess gave a really good summary of that earlier. I think 1 of the examples that I use all the time is is this kind of idea that we've always been taught that, you know, the architect is this sort of, like, creative genius that is working alone in the attic by themselves, right, like the fountainhead and all of this stuff, right, that is frankly just mythological. Right? And not real. It's not the real story. And and, like, the easiest 1 to kind of unpack is is Frank Lloyd Wright. You know, this this person that we're always referring to, good and bad, right, but, like, ultimately, generated so much of how we think about architecture, how we think about practice, how we think about pedagogy.

D And what we don't ever talk about and we talk about him as a as a singular figure that, you know, created all of these things on his own, was incredibly prolific. What we don't talk about is that, ultimately, those studios were filled with 100 of people. Right? And it was a machine for production. And most of those people, at least that were executing on things, were not only unpaid, were paying for the ability to sit in his studio and be educated, right, and kind of learn because they were they were ultimately students of, Taliesin. Right? And so, like, those kind of and we're coming to grips with that. I think we're I think, you know, people like Jess and Peggy and other people are kind of actually teaching these things in a different way. Right? And I and I think you're seeing other folks unpack a lot of that. And and it's like, okay, we can we can reference these works of architecture and also reckon with that history.

D But that's not something even when I was in school in the early 2000, that that's not something that we did. Right? Like, that's not it was just, let's refer to the masters and that's it. Right? And even using the the term master, right, as, like, how fraught that is. Right? Again, side conversation that we don't have time for necessarily, but, like, it's an important 1. And I think, you know, this connection, we talk about it all the time with with AWU that, like, sure. We can change the profession, but we need to change the the academy at the same time. Like, they they go hand in hand. And if students are graduating with these kind of ways of working and ways of thinking, then it's harder to kind of get them to understand that they're workers, understand that they're labor, to actually value their time.

D And and it's like grooming almost. Right? Like, throughout school that, like, you you undervalue yourself, your time. And so, you know, if you're working hundreds of hours in studio and then all of a sudden you get a job that's paid, even if it's underpaid And even if it's less hours, it's like, well, I'm getting paid, and it's not as bad as school. So this is amazing. And I get to work with such cool people and and all of these things. Right? So they're they're inextricably or they're so linked, and you can't kind of delaminate them. That being said, you know, our work, thinking about professional organization, it is sort of focused on that. And obviously, there's a lot of really great unions that that focus on grad student unions.

D And and we're also interested in kind of helping because, you know, unionization is 1 thing. Right? But, like, the idea of organizing around topics and issues is another thing. And I think students have the ability to do that. They sort of just need to be pushed in that direction. And and you're seeing that with, like, SCI Arc and and kind of other things and a lot of letter, writing efforts that happened in 2020. And I was sort of a part of a couple of those as a as an alumnus, at a couple of different institutions. But that that's a critical part of it too, that even if it's not necessarily labor organization, it's it's organizing around critical kind of and not even political topics, but just social issues. Right?

C I just wanna jump in from a from just a teaching side, from, like, the the actual, like, in

B inside of schools and talking about pedagogy. So I think that sometimes

C we don't reflect on, schools and talking about pedagogy. So I think that sometimes we don't reflect on where does our pedagogy come from? What is the lineage of our our pedagogy? So I am gonna go on a little bit of a history spiral here. So 1, of course, is the Bauhaus, right, where you're designing towards industry. Right? And, also, there are, in the Bauhaus themselves, to your point, very strict gender roles as well, right, even as it's calling itself, like, a a more radical institution. Now what is the Bauhaus reflecting or even reacting against is Bozard, right? So, Bozard tradition of atelier learning, where you're sitting at the feet of an expert, right, and it's your privilege to be there, you know. It's not a question of how they're treating you or how not. The idea is how you show that you're a good student is by having the grit and the resolve to remain at the feet of your sort of atelier head, right, and respond to every demand that they have of you. Right? And it has to be said that the values of Bozard are not completely absent from the Bauhaus.

C Right? Because it still is about this kind of identifying the master, identifying the head, and kind of following in their footsteps. So, of course, we have all of these stories that are, you know, very attractive around, like, oh, this rebellious student who's, like, doing the opposite of the master and all that stuff. But they're still working within that frame, right, of, like, I'm gonna kill myself in work to do this. And there are also, you know, other experiments in pedagogy that are coming from the United States as well, like, let's say, black Black Mountain School, but those models are not necessarily those experiments in sort of pedagogy are not necessarily taking on in a broader range. And also those experiments are not self reflective about the way that they import the value system about x about output into their own models. So you have to sort of have this understanding of, like, what are you what are we reacting against? What is the question here? But also, the thing about those other models too is they were taking place in a completely different paradigm around education. So now in the United States, which is unlike anywhere else in the world, in that you must, if you're going to these kind of fancy liberal arts, 4 year schools, or in my case, you know, 5 year, undergrad programs, if you're a professional track, at, like, minimum 50 k a year. Right? And that's seen as normal.

C So, we have students who are graduating with architecture degrees, wherein they can be 6 figures in debt and starting a job. Right? So that puts an even further constraint on where and how you can work and whether you can move around or hop around to different jobs. Right? Because you have this, you know, what, 1, 000 or $1500 is to pay a month, this additional, basically, rent bill that you're paying a month for your education. And on top of that too, with the US's, you know, reliance on international students to pay full ticket fare for these programs, what happens after that? Then students need visas. Right? They only get OPT for a couple of years, and then they need their job to sponsor them. So what does that do? It traps you within a certain firm where you really can't advocate for yourself because your entire residency is reliant on your job. Right? So, as the school is also wrestling with pedagogy, we also have to understand how we're wrestling with the economic position that we put our students in as well. So when we see conversations like the SCI Arc, conversation around, like, really going back to that model of, like, grit is what's going to get you through to, you know, succeeding in your career.

C It's talking about a completely different paradigm. Folks are not drowning in debt when those, speakers, when that panel was graduating and getting into their their careers. Right? And at the same time, coming through how many recessions? So I think understanding the political context, which I know is like, ew, ugh, this is architecture, we hate it, is very important to understanding, you know, what is the, why are students reacting in this way and why should we be questioning the pedagogy that we're importing from different sort of cultural expectations that very much could not even imagine the way that we are managing education in our time. Basically, like, just to just to conclude these points, I would love, and this is something that I'd really like to write about, for professors to really think about where their value system comes from. Right? What do you consider to be rigorous? Why? Where did you get that idea from? And it's not to say that, like, oh, your ideas about rigor are totally wrong. It's to say that, do you have a command in your own pedagogy about why you are judging a thing in the way that you're judging it, or why you're asking for an iteration? And that that was the thing that I wanted to talk about actually is iteration. So I think that this idea that, like, doing something over and over again, creates excellence is something to explore, because it the way that it translates into architectural practice is actually terrible business. Right? It and I'm not saying that as a joke.

C I'm saying that that if we are in this sort of practice of iterate at infinity in school, we don't give space for students to look at what they've actually done and make critical judgments about what falls in line with what they are trying to do in the project and what isn't. If we're just saying, like, oh, redo redo redo redo, redo, where is there space to develop the expertise in order to judge what you would recommend a client moves forward with? Right? Rather, what we're doing when we come into practice is consider iteration, what our expertise actually is, like, the extent of it, to the point where what we're putting in front of clients is like a McDonald's menu of options and just saying, look what I did. Choose. Right? And we don't have that additional layer of expertise of saying, hey, this is what you said your problem was. This is what you said you how you said you wanted to approach it. This is why I think that 1, 2, and 3 are responding to that option. Right? Are responding to those needs. We are not training that.

C We are training these sort of like the the endless iteration in the 13 weeks that we have in the semester, and that is what's gonna show us hard work. Right? We really do need to reevaluate the way that we are training critical skill into our students so that when they come into practice, they can apply that to their own work.

D And, I mean, a lot of this relates to sorry, Janine, to your your point about sort of, like, these incidents, right, in in school. And it kind of like ties a lot of this together, especially with Jess talking about the kind of like literally kind of dying for your your expert. Right. And your your kind of teacher and like thinking about the kind of history of unions. Right. Like the founding of unions are all about health and safety. Right. And child labor laws and working 100 hours a week and working 7 days a week and, you know, going into coal mines and air quality and all of these things, like all of those reforms come out of organized labor ultimately.

D Right. And I think what you're starting to see with professionals who are organizing is sort of like, Okay, what's actually unsafe about our conditions? Right? And I think this goes back to the pandemic of, like, you know, I heard a a quote recently from from a friend of mine that it's like, okay, if I was working 60, 70, 80 hour weeks, you know, that sucks. But, like, I was at the office. The office is really nice. There's a beer tap. There's a ping pong table. We have all these social events. So it, like, distracts me from that.

D If I'm now just sitting in my bedroom with the tiniest of rickety desks and I'm going between that surface, not even desk, really. Right? Like, that surface and my bed and back and forth, and that's it. And I'm still working 60, 70, 80 hour weeks. What is that as a life? Right? And, ultimately, like, is that safe? And and thinking about it in school, where it's sort of, like, people, as you said, getting having accidents, in in the, you know, shop or or, with X ACTO blades or, or car accidents, ultimately. Like, that's coming from, brains being fried and fully burnt out and not functioning properly. And it's something we don't really consider as unsafe because it's like, okay. Well, I'm not doing I'm not on a factory floor, and I'm not, you know, working heavy machinery, which is ultimately, like, a very classist way of thinking. But we have to understand what is healthy and what is not.

D And I think we have to go back to Jess's point from from much earlier, we have a, like, completely horrible way of thinking about, you know, our relationship to our work and what is safe and not.

B Yeah. So I wanna, so, wow, there's there's so much to unpack in that, and I know, like, Janine kind of dropped a lot too in her questions. So I wanna take the time that we do have left to kind of pivot a little bit towards, work and out of the university context. I will have to say that, you know, I was 1 of those people that constantly talked at 1 point about the late nights that I pulled. And it and it wasn't until recently that I was just like, well, why why am I perpetuating that stance? Just because I went through it doesn't mean it's the right way to go through it, and, it definitely wasn't wasn't healthy. And in some plays ways it continues to play out in my own way that I approach my own work. So just hearing that breakdown was, was a really interesting perspective. You know, for me and what we talk so much about on the podcast is also the need for evolving business models.

B So I do know that there are relatively young and new firm leaders that are trying to do things different Lee. But then when they look at the fact that in order to give anyone parental leave, for instance, I have to be able to support the overhead of that individual and they are not billable against the product like project. Like for me, part of it is, independent of of unions, the the business model has to evolve to provide the the financial means to be able to support our employees the way they want to be supported. So so I guess looking at the work that you're doing and unions, like, what is what is that action in play relative to kind of also the archaic need for the business model to evolve? And and how does the union still exist within this model where we're so focused on on billable work, which if you I mean, there's so many things wrong with that. Like we are anti incentivized to actually be more productive. But anyways, like, what does that cross section look like?

C I think this is a very good question because it's not just a question of, oh, it's a differing of opinion. I want to this person wants to conduct their business in this way, and this person just wants to conduct their business in the other way. The standard practice, in architecture right now business wise is profoundly unsustainable, and it will not hold. Do you know what I mean? We are running I

B mean, you're you're preaching to the choir here, but yes.

C But, no, I'm not I'm not saying this as, like, even a rallying cry. I'm saying this as, like, look at look at the numbers. If we're charging as a percentage of construction, right, and we're not factoring in time, right, and we don't get these sort of bonuses based on how long or how, you know, construction costs evolve over time, right, then what we're doing is just whittling and whittling and whittling away at our own fees. Right? So when that happens, what gets relied on, of course, is unpaid overtime. Right? In order to meet these standards, we need to we we cannot pay for overtime, which makes, you know, going back to what Andrew was saying about teleessin, is essentially just donating to your firm. Right? You're just you're donating your wages to your firm for them to meet a business model that fundamentally does not work. Right? So, what I think needs to happen is a more open conversation about what the sort of global, condition of business in the practice and in the profession is right now, and how it's sort of leading towards less and less competitive sector, right, like, more and more firms, small firms, even if you do manage to have an independent practice, are being bought up, right, are being acquired if they're not folding, you know. So I think that this is why I found the sort of Sweden example interesting because not because, you know, Sweden is a perfect example.

C I'd like to push back against sort of Scandinavia as, like, this sort of socialist wonderland, but the idea that bosses also need to consider where they need to organize as well, you know? You have an office filled with people, if they're lucky, making, what, 65 k, that are trying to save money for people, developers, who are making, what, 900 k? You know? How does that make sense? And all of this in the model of sort of the gentlemanly gesture of I want to maintain my client. I want to perform above and beyond for my client. Right? Because I want to do business with them again, but at a cost where you're almost paying to bring those buildings, you know, into fruition, which is what goes back to my question around iteration because this the the thing about iteration is it takes up

B a lot of

C time. Right? And then in order to have that time, you have to rely on unpaid overtime. So I think that, you know, in order to start an architecture firm, there's no requirement to have any kind of business knowledge. You know what I mean? So at the same time, when, firm owners are saying, rely on us, we know better, we have the relationship with the client, the next question is, what relationship with the client? What expertise are you referring to? It's, it's much more than just being nice to your client, than giving them things for free. We have to have that conversation with firm owners about what they think of as client management in order to sort of move beyond, these really unsustainable models.

B Right. Like, the question of, are you actually delivering enough value that you don't have to continue to give work away for free to keep someone on as a as a client.

D Well, no. I mean, I think the an interesting kind of, like, tie to this too is actually I think everything that Jess said is totally right. I think there's also some constraints that come with this. Right? And the reality that, you know, we can't overlook, And, again, to give firm leaders a little bit of credit here, we can't we can't overlook the 2, DOJ cases against the AIA, that led to dissent decrees in 1972 1990 that ultimately ham hump hamstrung, hamstrung, ham hamstrung, for promoters from being able to both sort of, like, set fee schedules, which they had which the AIA had been doing for years. And frankly, effectively, like if you read the AIA antitrust compliance, you know, directive, it basically says if 2 firm owners or if if you're in a room with another firm owner and they start talking about fee structures, leave the room and contact, you know, AIA's legal immediately. And I'm not saying that that's wrong or bad legal advice. It's probably decent legal advice, but it's, like, the most conservative reading of that possible. And the reality is that those 2 Supreme Court cases, like, that case law affects all professionals.

D Right? And lawyers don't necessarily have the same problems, apparently. Right? And, like, doctors don't either. And obviously, those are very different, you know, kind of professions with different constraints, and it's not necessarily the same thing. But, like, there's other ways of kind of dealing with those decisions ultimately that we can actually kind of think about. If you're gonna take those at face value, again, fair difference of opinion, and there's lots of legal things that I don't necessarily I don't proclaim to be any kind of legal expert. But even if you do take them at face value, 1 thing that is not bound by antitrust laws and and kind of collusion is organized labor. Right? Unions are exempted from the Sherman Antitrust Act, like, plain and simple. And that that has so much backing in kind of case history, and that's that's not gonna change any time soon.

D And, you know, right now, we have the the most pro worker, National Labor Relations Board since it was, you know, founded in in, like, the thirties. Right? And and frankly, that that those laws haven't changed since the thirties. So there there's lots of things associated with that. But point of all of this is that, you know, if if firm owners are kind of crying poor and basically saying we can't, you know, we can't demand more fees because unless everyone does it and we can't collude to do that, then there's no way that, like, us individually can kind of survive. Well, labor can fix it from the bottom up then. Right? And so, ultimately, firm owners actually should be supporting this effort because we can because, again, even if you don't necessarily support the idea of organized labor as a firm owner, what you can actually say to your client is like, hey. Sorry. I don't know what to tell you.

D Like, this this is I can't. Like, this is set. This is in their contract. This is organized labor. There's union density in this field. That's just what it is. And that's frankly what you see in the entertainment industry. Right? Like, the way the entertainment industry works and to be clear, there's many problems there.

D But, like, every actor, every grip, every PA, like, people that are working on sets every day of the year with, like, very minimal kind of, you know, ultimate sort of, like, on screen time or anything like that, they know exactly what they're gonna get. Right? There's a base minimum contract that everyone abides by. And, ultimately, what that leads to is call sheets that are insanely efficient by time because they know they can't go over time. And if they do, it's exponentially expensive and everyone knows what that is. So that comes with 2 things. Right? Either you walk on set and it's like, cool. I'm walking off set exactly when I know I am. And if I'm not, I get paid quite a bit to still be there.

D And so why can't we have the same sort of structure, right, where it's like we're not gonna rely on uncompensated labor if we can't afford it. And if we think it's right and good for that project or that project has, you know, specific kind of capital behind it, whether that's public sector or private sector, whatever it might be, and it's good for the project or it's good for r and d for the firm, then we're gonna compensate it. Those 2 outcomes are both good for everybody.

B So my, I guess, my pushback only there, Andrew, as as in, like, this is something that everyone wants to get aboard, is I essentially see the notion of the firm completely disintegrating, especially with the way that some VCs are coming and playing in the space, And and they're gonna find a way to deliver for faster, cheaper, better by hiring architects to work in this bigger, different type of machine than by having architects exist in the firm traditional firm structure. So there's this other competitive marketplace that if you still can't deliver on value and if you still don't know and aren't able to talk about that value to demand those higher price prices, there will be definitely There will be other places to go outside of your traditional architecture firm structure. But I but I don't wanna derail this conversation either. And I do wanna kind of focus it back on the work that you guys are doing. So there's obviously a lot of misconceptions about unions out there. So, why don't you maybe drill down into some of those misconceptions or those myths and and talk about the realities of what it actually means.

C Yeah. For sure. I'm gonna speak about this from the perspective again of the teaching work that I do since I'm no longer a co steward of the New York chapter of the architecture lobby. So what I did take over, in my, let's say, 2nd, 3rd year of teaching at RISD was the professional practice, course. So I, co taught that this last year with Handy Better. And the way that we decided to restructure, that course is by moving away from sort of the the traditional sort of AIA structure of proprac where what you're doing is preparing students to start a firm and sort of having them play act as a principle, and instead think about, like, what is it to prepare them to enter the field? And a part of that is addressing, the labor movement in the United States within architecture firms. So I believe we were the only, group of students that were able to arrange a conversation with the shop organizers, and Andrew, spoke to the students as well, really frankly about what that experience was like and also what unionization is. In a way, that was just like, this is a part of labor.

C This is something that you can do within labor. Just as we also talked about and gave workshops around, negotiations, financial literacy, had a really in-depth conversations about portfolios and CV's and and cover letters and what they're for in the same way that we talked about licensure. So really bringing that on as not this sort of, like, boogeyman. Right? Or not this sort of, like, fantasy. Right? But just something that is a part of working within the sector. You know? These conversations that are part of working within the sector. So I think, again, demystifying them to that extent is very helpful. And then talking about them at their base.

C So, you know, 1 of the largest misconceptions around unions is that they're this third party beast that's just coming into a firm and making it so you can never have the perfect relationship that you already have with your principal, so that you can't, talk to your coworkers, so you can't no. Really laying down and simplifying the fact that the union is the workers. Right? And the contract negotiation is what workers within the firm are asking for and often should really not surprise principals at all because they've likely been approached on individual levels. So sort of the the way that these accommodations typically happen within firms is that you go and you rely on some sort of leverage that you have with your principal, and you ask for a special treatment for you individually that does not map out to your coworkers. Right? So this unionization structure is ensuring that any accommodations that are made are made for all workers. Right? And that is also something that is, you know, helpful in avoiding, you know, let's say, class action lawsuits.

B So what I what I try to do with

C my students and what I try to do when talking about unions is really talk about them in these in a matter of fact way And at the same time, really talk about the fact that unions are also not a cure all. They're not like a special tool that's gonna solve every problem. They are a way of consolidating power within the workers of the firm, But the way that workers themselves organize and the way that workers themselves make demands is going to have an impact on what accommodations you're able to get. Right? So, really thinking about that as, like, this is my, this is my tool, this is my hammer, this is my wrench, and the way that I do that, I work with this, is an expression of my skill at organizing. So, oftentimes, folks aren't reflecting on the relations that they already have within their firms. Are you the person who's constantly interrupting someone in meetings? Are you the person who's always favored in talking to clients? Are you the person who's sort of taken all these special accommodations without really talking to your coworkers about it? If that's true, you're probably not the best organizer for the firm, right, or for the for the workers of that firm. Right? Because you've already established a way of working with them That's that creates difficulty within those relations. So, really thinking about in your organizing, what have I already built up as my relations with my coworkers anyway? And how does that position me to do organizing work within this firm? And then after you win your union, how does it position you in terms of the way that you are leadership or not or sort of speaking up towards, different, negotiation aspects of the contract? Are you someone who is a bit older and therefore doesn't have the same concerns as your as your younger colleagues and then would go to bat a bit more for things that they, you know, that don't actually impact them.

C Like, really thinking about that. Right? Because that is going to be a part of the way that you you you think about strategy towards organizing in your workplace. So III don't wanna want to represent unions as this thing that is just like an absolute net positive good and always, always, always going to be this sort of magic wand that you wave over your workplace, and then all of a sudden it's great. I really want to, as Andrew was saying earlier, also talk about the work of organizing and also the strategy and the craft of organizing as well.

D Yeah. It all really critical. Right? That it's it's not like, oh, cool. You're gonna connect with me as an organizer. The IAM is gonna come in, gift you a contract that's gonna double your salary overnight, and then you don't have to think about it ever again. Like, there there's some there is really so much work that comes into it. And, you know, to address the question directly, sort of misconceptions. Right? Like, 1 of the biggest ones is that, like, unions only protect lazy workers or whatever.

D And not only is that sort of, like, ableist in its own right, to kind of use the term on its head, it's like I I just don't like, I don't think I've ever really met a quote unquote lazy architect. Right. Or designer. Right. Like everyone works incredibly hard that I've ever worked with and under and, like, is putting all of themselves in it. And and, ultimately, as as we've both been saying, the work of organizing is really difficult. It takes time, it takes effort, it takes dedication, it takes compassion and empathy and all of these things. So like anyone that says that has just never tried.

D Some other things to kind of just like run through quickly, like you can't reward high achievers. Again, that's that's a myth. You whatever you want in your contract, we advocate for floors and sort of like base like brackets of things where you don't necessarily have a top. Right? So if people want to go and still negotiate more than that, go for it. Right? And again, entertainment industry, perfect example of that. You can't talk to your PM anymore. Right? Because you've set up this sort of division. Frankly, in in the case of architecture, most PMs are gonna be in the union.

D Right? So it's like, you can still talk to them because they're actually your your collective bargaining mate. Right? But even even if you're thinking about management, it's like nothing prohibits you from talking about how you do your work. Right? There's actually structures set up for some of this stuff in terms of grievances and and things like that. But, like, in terms of everyday communication, the contract is not supposed to prevent you from being able to do work as a business. Right. So so again, just misconception. You'll have to go on strike is a really great 1. That's, like, the only tool that you have.

D The the reality is, like, I think 0.5% of our campaigns wind up going on strike, 99 plus percent don't. It's that strikes get more immediate attention. They're very effective as a tool. But, you know, as Jess said, with unionization being 1 tool, strikes are 1 tool in your toolkit, and you can use it. And often, the threat of a strike, not even actually having to go on strike, gets you what you need. And it's sort of a last resort. It's they're they're ultimately hard on workers, so we don't usually recommend them. The 3rd party 1, Jess, thank you for bringing that up.

D That's a great 1. The the workers are the union. We are the representation. We provide legal backing and negotiating power and all of these things and and advice. But it's like if if the workers are not organized themselves and sort of doing the work themselves, then there is no power there ultimately. Right. They're corrupt. They're militant.

D Like, all of these things. Right? And and I think they come like, all sort of misconceptions, they come from, you know, a kernel of fact that might have been true at some point. But it's like, you know, at this point, being militant or being corrupt doesn't actually help anything. And and frankly, again, there's there's so little power right now because of those percentages that we were talking about before that it's, like, corrupt to what? Right? And militant to what? We have to actually grow, kind of power to get there.

C I think the last thing that I want to add is just for people to stay curious, right, and really seek this information out because it's your right to know it. And talk about it with your coworkers as well. You know, not everything, as Andrew and I have said a few times, like, happens right away. But the more informed you are, I think the better position that you are to move in the direction that you're looking for.

A Hi, disruptors. If you like the content from today's show, you can find all of our past episodes over on practice of architecture dot com/podcast.

B Be a part of the conversation by joining us, our speakers, and others in our community at practice of architecture.com/community. Our social media handle is at practice of arch. That's at practice of ARCH. We love to hear from you. Drop us a note to say hello.

A This show is part of Gable Media. You can learn more about other podcasts and video channels in our community by visiting gablmedia.com.

B Thank you for joining us on Practice Disrupted, a podcast by Practice Architecture. Tune in next week for a new conversation on change in the profession.