The young architects who conceived the Section of Architectural Workers (SAW) two years ago are not only looking to improve the well-being of all employees in the architectural field, they are also planning to fight against the negative impact of architectural activities, for example, against unethical, harmful projects. of various kinds, from irresponsible development to anti-environmentally friendly objects. They are planning their first "announced" meeting with potential members this coming Monday. Contributions range from six to ten pounds a month, depending on the salary. In return, members receive legal assistance, various organizational support, educational activities on the topic of labor legislation, and so on.
The founders of the union have spent the last two years studying the situation: polls, all kinds of meetings and discussions. The information they received amazed them, although they knew from their own experience about the unhealthy climate in architecture firms: regular unpaid overtime, non-indexed wages, various forms of discrimination and harassment, as well as a general atmosphere of constant competition between everyone and everyone and acute stress that lead to emotional burnout. and mental and physical health problems.
But the fact that some well-known British bureaus are forced to work 60 overtime hours a week and do not think to pay for it, or turn both days off into weekdays for four months, has been an unpleasant revelation. At the same time, employees, long before Brexit, were forced to sign a waiver of compliance with the EU labor legislation when applying for a job, which sets a limit of 48 working hours per week, the right to an annual leave of 4 weeks and restrictions on work at night. Another effective weapon against architectural workers is a probationary period, which is often unnecessarily long. If, within its framework, a new employee tried to go home on time, and did not "burn" at work almost around the clock, they parted with him in the final.
Naturally, this is not a British, but an international problem: the architectural journalist of The Guardian Oliver Wainwright shared his experience of practice in a very famous Dutch workshop, where it was required to be at work from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m. seven days a week, and not at all before the deadline. leave the office. As a result, he changed his field of activity to journalism.
However, in Britain, the situation is exacerbated by the high cost of architecture education (over £ 100,000), combined with relatively low wages (£ 20,000 per year before taxes). Very hard physically and psychologically study, which lasts 6-7 years, does not lead in the end to prosperity (which, in the first place, would allow repaying the loan for this study). Moreover, simply by changing the profession of an architect to a technical consultant, people immediately find themselves in a much more advantageous position.
However, many architects remain in the profession for life, despite unfair and “opaque” wages, meager social benefits, and outright exploitation. There are several reasons for this. Many hope to eventually grow to a partner, and when the hopes are not met, it is too late; yet - compared to the severity of the study, work may seem bearable.
But the main thing, apparently, lies in the ambiguous position of the architectural profession: on the one hand, it is quite clear and precise work as part of the "construction complex", with an understandable business and financial component, as well as considerable responsibility. On the other hand, the creative component allows us to consider work as a “vocation” and thereby gives the employer the opportunity to exploit employees in the name of art, according to the well-known schemes of affective labor and precariat (more on this here). Quite profitable for a pragmatic owner, "production" is disguised as an almost Renaissance "creative workshop" of architects, leaving out of the brackets other employees: both representatives of related professions and managers, accountants, PR specialists, administrators, cleaners, who are often operated no less (but should be glad of their indirect involvement in creativity).
Related to this is the problem of authorship, which is often attributed to one or two partners at the head of the bureau, and even in the extended list of people who worked on the project, far from all are indicated. This rarely bothers journalists and colleagues reading reports on new projects. In general, there is little that can spoil the image of a bureau, especially a stellar one, even if its operational practice becomes widely known.
A similar situation and plans to reverse the new British trade union SAW. The task seems extremely difficult, but in the United States the situation is even worse, including due to the historically different trade union and social situation. But there are ascetics there, in particular, the "Architectural Lobby" association.
