AIArchitect

Mr. Walker, I am sorry for your experiences in Architecture. I too have worked hard, in which I was promised to advance to Associate after I became licensed.

I had worked for this company for 8 years. I worked hard, sacrificed many nights and weekends for the office "common good" and to help advance my career. For the most part it was an eccentric office and we had fun and we were like a family. I worked there from the ages of 27 to 35, but eventually the eccentricity of the office wore me down and the lack of professionalism convinced me to eventually leave.

I sat by and watched my boss bring in two of his friends and make them partners. I who had worked my tail off, gave 110%, trained interns, earned my license and put out the best work that City Officials told me they had ever seen, all of this before and after I was promised a promotion. I never had trouble getting permits, and my change orders were less than 1% in any given job. I am a damn good Architect.

I was passed over for promotion for two men that were brought into the company four years after me. I had to put up with being pushed into corners by one of my married bosses, constant fondling and grabbing by the same person, and constant drama that you would only hear of in a Soap Opera. One of the other partners diddled with the secretary, then she had to leave, then he gets the next secretary pregnant, marries her then divorces her. The last I heard, he knocked up an Intern and married her. All this resulted in low morale for the entire office, especially when the secretary was threatening jobs because she was married to the boss. It is stuff Sexual Harassment Lawsuits are made of, and the reason why none has been put forward is that all of us were too exhausted to go any further and we just moved on. It is in my past. It was injustice for a long time, but now I'm 40 years old and it just doesn't matter any more. Karma is a bitch, and it will happen sooner or later.

I realized that all the hard work and harrassment that I put up with, was indication that the promotion would never come, so I moved on. Now the firm I used to work for, is one of the largest between Louisiana and Alabama, and is very prominent, so go figure and the drama still lives on from what I hear. My naivete was shameful, but I thought all women in the profession had to deal with that sort of "business" to get promoted especially since it was a "boys club" in the partnership. I know now that we do not. but the love of my profession kept me plugging along. I don't need a union to help me still NOT get a promotion. A union couldn't and wouldn't prevent bad behavior, because those who run the unions have plenty of bad behavior themselves, like descriminating against women who are construction workers that may come to the union for jobs. Numerous movies have been made about these situations in mines and plants all around the country. The ultimate result is that one still has to sue on their own to get anything done and that takes resources that most people do not have.

I've been around sexist pigs all my career, but I know I do much better work than the pigs. I love Architecture and no one was going to push me out of it. They haven't and they won't.

I chose to leave the places that were not so good because they weren't my companies, I took no financial risk working there, and I believe differently how to run a business. I took due diligence to find a great place to work and now work in the best place that matches my career goals. I came into the firm as "Number 3", which is what the Partners call me, and I have the respect that I have earned, all the while having a really good time with my interns and co-workers. I just don't have to deal with stupid drama.

Some of us have been treated really unfairly, but we don't need a Union to tell us what we need to do, we need the AIA to make the 800 dollars a year I pay to them, lobby better on our behalf and insist that the Architecture Boards in each state sets forth rules to which we all need to abide. That includes labor guidelines. In order for a firm or Architect to practice in each state, legal documents, like a W2, should be filled out stating work ethics and rules that everyone can abide by and if not, then a remedy for complaints.

Solutions do not have to be complicated, but Unionization will do just that. The AIA needs to get back to basics and represent us, and not worry about all the lobbying it has to do.

Your view of business, Dale, is from employers perspective and it is very funny. There are issues that you ignore.

Washington is a work for hire state and employer believed the cost of litigation made him safe to do this. He did risk a lawsuit and I did eventually file suit. I did get paid a settlement, not close to the level of the loss, from the employer.

After refusing for a year and a half to retract the lies, denial that he owed me money and refusing to compensate me, he filed for bankruptcy and then turned around and named me as a creditor.

As an unsecured creditor in the bankruptcy that followed a year and a half after I was fired and falsely accused of fraud, I was finally able to file suit, but forced to do so without an attorney.

The cost of legal council which is about 250 to 300 dollars an hour, precludes any option to file suit, unless you have substantial financial resources. That is not fair, to be paid so little that you cannot afford an attorney when you need one, but it is common.

Unfortunately your belief that attorney's are ready and willing to work for 33% of the take and so forth, is false, Dale, that is a dog that will not run, because work for hire legislation makes it extremely difficult to win a case. Attorneys have plenty of work, as demonstrated by the hourly rate and no reason to gamble. Why would they, where are all those starving attorneys?

The civil justice system is not on tap for employees at all! The cost of legal representation alone pretty much precludes any employee who worked for wages, who is also unemployed for a year and a half and pretty much rendered unemployable by false accusations of fraud, from filing a law suit. In reality it is very unfair.

If you think unemployed persons can hire an attorney, you are not thinking clearly, or simply thinking wishfully. Each of the attorneys I interviewed as a damaged unemployed person also billed me for the interview.... the myth of affordable attorney representation is absolutely false! The problem is that it really is important to make enough money to have access to the courts and clearly if employees do not have access because of price to legal services then something is seriously wrong!

I think unions fill the void.

So, I had used my time to search for work and read the law myself. I acted as my own attorney in the bankruptcy. I filed an adversary complaint with 11 causes of action, it was ordered to trial without a hearing, the court advised both sides to settle, and we achieved a court mediated settlement. In a bankruptcy you do not realistically capture your losses. I filed suit just to get the retraction of the lies that this employer had refused. You see Dale, there was not any money left to fight for, by this point, it had all disappeared.

I had a copy of the original agreement but the physical original had vanished, somehow. The employer claimed he had never seen it. I had an email between employers attorney and the employer's office manager that established that the employer had destroyed some of the documents in the personnel file after I had left the firm.

Employer had refused to give me copies of the personnel file upon exit and there were no previous warnings or complaints. Employer had also agreed in a subsequent additional agreement to keep all the agreements between us in the original agreement and I had that original.

The issue is not one of evidence anyway, but simply that the cost of legal council is beyond the capacity of any employee to pay. That alone makes the case for exploitation. Even though there is more.

There is no "fight a lawsuit money" embodied in the wage rate. So civil justice for employee's is a myth. That is a huge issue that drives inequities of substantial scale. there is also no start your own company money embodied in the wage rate so that option is a myth of epic proportion.

Your problem is that you believe employers are paying fairly because they are paying the market rate for labor. That is funny logic.

The truth is labor does not enjoy the luxury of choice you suggest and pretty much must take what they can get, or they have to get out. Like a man with a gun to his head they must do what their told, take what they can get, to survive. Employees are all chained to debt which constitutes a form of indentured servitude. Most employers are too. They cannot afford attorney's so they cannot fight back when they are cheated. There is also of course no money to start your own practice.

There is little or no profit without the labor, and if we are all honest, that is where the profit comes from. Management typically does not create the profit by some act of genius. Management adds small value compared to the labor it leverages with dollars. Genius can create an opportunity but not the profit.

If each employee were paid for the value they actually produce as embodied in the profit generated there would not be much of anything by way of a profit at all. Owner exploits labor in the context of opportunity to make a profit.

Capital and management simply does not accomplish profit of significant scale without labor to exploit. Employers therefore exploit workers because the philosophy of business is to maximize profit. It is all exploitation by definition because we are all chained by debt.

Employers do not pay more for labor than they have to pay, that would be bad business, and they pocket the difference between the gross in flows of cash and the taxes, cost of labor, and overhead of the business. Employees therefore are not paid for the value they actually generate with their labor because that is the intent of business activity.

Your last paragraph is ridiculous! The problem with your "concept" of the market rate for employees is that it fails to capture the costs of living, the aggregate debt with interest that must be paid each month, transportatin and job loss among other things. Realistically you must know that this market rate is a number driven by competition for the job and has nothing to do with whats fair, actionable or reasonable. You probably take on jobs priced competitively. CAD drafting outsourced to CHINA goes for as low as 6 dollars an hour. Economic forcing shapes the market rate. Competition has the effect of limiting how much money you can make and it is less than optimal. That holds true for your employees.

Do you think that someone has figured out what is actually fair and reasonable? Has the system been balanced by design or hammered into it's current form by competitive forces of the market? Price driven competition iterates to lowest acceptable rate of compensation. It is designed to work that way. It does work but also creates inequities of great significance.

The market rate for labor is driven by competition for the job to rock bottom! Business does not pay for labor anymore than they must pay because business must also compete on the basis of price in their market niche. Labor competes and you compete, for price. It is not fair to all the stakeholders because of the inequities.

It is hard to compete with big corporations for example who can buy the merchandise they sell at significantly better prices than the mom and pop owned store. Big corporations can eliminate small competitors by pricing or discounting strategies. That happens to architectural employees too.

Employees often do lose the job and that is a hidden cost to them that employers do not consider. You never get back the dollars lost if you get laid off.

In architecture each licensed employee should be a potential competitor, as in capable, technically as well as financially to leave and start theur own firm. Strange that somehow the employees can never earn enough money to become your competitor. Looks like exploitation, feels like exploitation, and is exploitation. Your employees make so much less than you do, some are possibly just as good an architect as you, but for them the choices that you imagine they have, do not exist. They have no opportunity other than the next job, just competition at work.

Exploitation is the only word that applies. In the context of the business competition; the business exploits it's labor resources and opportunity for profit.

In response to Mr. Walker, a few points.

Clearly there is no excuse for and employer’s false accusations of fraud, and we need not go further with that point. However, if you were in a right to work state, both you and the employer can part ways for any reason, or no reason at all. That is freedom of association, and is not something to be distained. So it seems odd that your employer would risk a defamation lawsuit when unnecessary. Did you have anything in writing about the promise of a partnership? Something that could have justified a breach of contract lawsuit? On that point, we in the US never lack for lawyers willing to sue an employer on your behalf, with the prospect of a 33% share of any proceeds. No cost to you up front, just a reasonably solid case that makes it worth the investment by the attorney. Did you pursue that?

On the issue of your view that “employers are out to exploit the worker to the max”. Have you ever hired an employee or worker, in any capacity? Even to shovel your driveway? Did you instantly turn into an evil and exploitative boss? I’ll bet you did not. Is it really a given that every employer is evil and only a union can stop them? I think you overstate the case. Consider also that some unions themselves have a less than stellar record of exploiting their own members, while taking a portion of the wages. Careful what you wish for. Is a Union Boss going to be somehow different than any other boss, according to your view?

Finally, you express the idea that it is somehow wrong for an employer to pay the “lowest competitive wage rate”. There is a market rate for employees, just as there is a market for goods. Do you willingly pay more for new tires or a Big Mac, or do you pay the market rate? What are “surplus dollars”? Where do they come from? Our worth to a client, or “employer”, is a measure of our time, service and creativity. It is directly related to the value they obtain from our services. Wages will reflect that, not the other way around.

To someone who posts regularly, .....

With all due kindness it sounds like you had a bad experience, my experience with my last employer was vile.

I was falsely accused of fraud and fired. I was innocent and the employer was lying. I complained everywhere and to everyone.

Nobody helped me because in a work for hire state you can be terminated by employer at any time and for any reason. That includes lies that employers just make up!

There was a motivation to lie. This employer wanted to escape the partnership he had promised me. The law allowed that escape. I was not willing to leave empty handed, I had earned my role as the senior associate there, I was almost fifty years of age, there was no replacement job for me anyplace.

I am a very good architect. I was cheated out of a great deal of sweat equity by a dishonest man. With a belief set so very much like yours. That belief set is just self serving crap.

Leaving voluntarily as you seem to believe anyone can do, is a joke, in a professional climate over run with age discrimination. It takes money, and lots of it to start your own practice. Employees never get a chance to earn that kind of money. The law does not recognize that truth and ethics are essential mandates, so this employer was allowed by the state, by the police and the profession here, to just manufacture cause, false accusations of fraud, then circulate the lies all over town. This employer was allowed to fire me for fraud and never asked to defend the accusations with facts. There was no penalty for deliberately destroying me as a professional at all.

I was and I remain outraged. There was never any viable path to justice for me. The philosophy you currently hold is only true if it is actionable and it is not something that can be acted out in real life. It's a lie.

This employer substantially destroyed my career with false accusations. Nobody did anything to help me.

There is no agency that can deal with this kind of employer "criminal" conduct. There is something wrong with the ideology when employers get to do this kind of thing. I was told by the state that my only recourse, as an unemployed person, with no money, was to file a law suit.

Now I ask you how stupid is that? The logic that unemployed people who work for wages when abused this way as an employee, would have the resource required for a law suit, is beyond ridiculous. The cost of litigation, is so high that no wage earner who was still working could pay the legal fees, let alone a victim of this kind of smear job with years of damage from the resulting unemployment.

I think our profession would be better off with unions, to stop this particular brand of evil.

It is a well crafted evil that says everyone takes care of themselves, while simultaneously exploiting employees so that they can never achieve that economic capacity.

The same person who speaks to this ideology inevitably actively believes and practices the business management doctrine of compensating employees only the lowest competitive wage rate they have to pay in the labor market. Labor at market rate receives no such surplus dollars.

The philosophy itself is bankrupt! This kind of thinking is just self serving crap so that the few with money can optimize profits for themselves at the expense of their exploited employees.

It is outrageous hypocrisy in the raw!

The imaginary world you describe does not exist in my experience. I have always been exploited by my employers. I experienced that employers are out to exploit the worker to the max. That is what they do in my reality. I can not take your philosophy that pretends in the existent of options for employees exists. Your view is proven to be outrageously false in my experience.

The choices and options you are describing are not actionable. Your world view of the profession is simply false. It does not exist beyond your imagination.

You are obviously a person with financial resources and completely without a clue.

We need unions in architectural firms to shut down the outrageous exploitation of employees.

Stop the protracted deliberately extended IDP process and the age discrimination.

Unions may be part of the solution to the professions problems and we do have problems!

WOW! Apologies for ruffling some feathers out there. In my defense useful exchanges of ideas and opinion are not well served by eschew obfuscation and the massive intrusion of irrelevance.

First let me point out the truth is that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer and not a news source. You do not need to defend him. Science includes people who do disagree but there is a consensus and denial of the consensus is not good thinking or good rhetoric. Coal is dirty and it kills people. In my view taking deadly product to market is EVIL and letting people get sick from it because it is good for profits is an EVIL decision. The fact that it is cheap does not make it good. The Automobile has given form to the city and is the agent of CHAOS responsible for the destruction of human scale and generates a huge cost and associated taxes. That is foundation theory set forth in "The New Urbanism". The heat island effect exists, (not a hoax)and formed over our cities because of the concentration of heat produced by the city, that exist as they do because of the automobile. The Auto gave form to the city. The above, written here is not dogma just history and fact and education. Denial of history, fact and education, and replacing that with big lies is the foundation of propaganda.

People do read what I write and they do care they also disagree sometimes and I listen and I learn. But dogmatic babble is old, stale and boring.

Employees in architecture may need unions, but I do not think that check card is necessarily good.

Funny how William Beyer is concerned about the tone of other posters. Interesting.

Generally, I have been disappointed with many AIA advocacy positions because they have tended to be reflexively leftist. I would prefer that our organization keep its focus on the direct needs of the profession, and take a conservative approach to meddling in issues tangential to our own interests. In our relatively free nation, we can all join other groups at will to press our other agendas. But I fully recognize that there are numerous linkages in our society, financial, cultural and otherwise.

That being the case, if the AIA is going to continue to involve itself in these topics and put our reputation on the line, we should clearly and unambiguously oppose this legislation.

There is no excuse to support a bill that restricts freedom, is anti-competitive and overturns the right to a secret ballot in the pursuit of pro-union goals. To those who say this element is a distraction or a red herring, I say: Why not take it out of the bill? It won’t be removed, because it a core aspect. Don’t like the election results? Change the election process. Same old story….

We should have higher standards.

Correction to my last line above: "fee" is "free".

To anonymous above: I would hate to work in your office, it sounds very boring. I'm glad you like your unionized office, but your office sounds stuffy to me. I have a question: Is everyone forced to be in your little Union? If they are not, does discrimination against non-union workers occur? Are they excluded from certain activities? There is no such thing as a utopian work place. There are problems in every office. But unions do not have any risk involved in running a business. If I were to choose to open a business with non-union employees, then that is my right. It is my money being used, my hard work, my capital, not the union's. If some interns wanted to create a union, I'd fire them all and hire those who sign a release form stating that they abstain from unionization. It's rediculous.

All the comments on this subject are nice and wonderful, but my comments are a little less finessed: Hell NO to Card Check!! I have first hand experience with Unionization, and those experiences were not good. It is merely a ploy for the AFL-CIO to garner more money to give to Democratic Candidates. Face it: Unionization is not a democratic idea. it is more of a socialistic one, and the employees under their umbrella are forced to pay money to an organization who supports things they may not agree with. Unions are notoriously Democrat supporters, even when the Dems run things into the ground, they still support them. Card Check is a politcial gathering machine, that will hurt businesses by increasing costs. Is anyone familiar with the unionized car companies up north? After finding out about how Ford, GM, and Chrysler cow towed to the Unions in this farce of a bailout, with our tax dollars paying to keep workers pensions alive, I refuse to ever buy a car from any one of those comapnies. I buy non union things as much as I can, because the items are cheaper. I come from a right to work state (Louisiana) and when the unions were "busted" up, it meant that more people like myself, were able to obtain jobs, instead of having to know someone who knew someone to get that same job. It also broke the connection of the unions to the politicians, who always have their hand in the destructiveness of our country. As a woman who worked as a pipe fitter to put myself through Architecture School, I would have never even been allowed to go to the ABC school to learn my trade in the first place, much less walk through the gates to the construction site, with a union in place. You could always tell the union workers apart from non-union: They were the ones who took breaks every hour on the hour, and if you needed something, then by God you had to wait until the break bell rang for them to do their job! Just go to the Post Office, you can see the same thing. The Teamsters were huge in Lousisiana, and several members of my family belonged to that organization. Believe me, the cooercive, decietful, criminal way in which they ran the operations were horrendous. My uncle served time in jail, because he was one of the "enforcers" of that organization in the 70's & 80's. His job was to see that when votes were to occur, the minions towed the line and voted the "right" way. He is now deceased. Then there is my cousin......Seeing first hand how unions do nothing but strong arm to be able to get outrageous benefits that are not proportional to the job done is destructive. Big business is to blame as well: They need to call the Unions' bluff, let them go on strike and fire every last one of them. Hire non-union and save money. Business does not exist to hire people and keep them employed. Business exists for profit. Period. The AIA needs to support a Right to Work inniative that enforces that Architects must pay interns a decent wage and must give credit to anyone that works on projects. The copyright laws should extend to those who use sweat equity on a job. Interns are treated like crap in many instances, but like every job situation, no one is forcing you to work at certain places. Go get a job somewhere else. So will Architects be fine with intern's forming a union within their office? What if Overtime was not in the contract? How on earth would you get a job out? What about illegal alien contractors who work everyday on every job site in America? Will Card Check apply to them? I would think it would, since they get free education, medical care, etc. when they come have their babies here. Will we as Architects be forced to have to deal with a Laborer's Union on every job, and when some condition isn't met, then the work stops? The AIA needs to have a strict policy against Card Check. Unions have no place in a fee society. If abuses happen report it and get another job.

I am an Architect and a union member and can tell you that the Union has made this job the most civilized environment in which I have ever worked.
I have worked for appoximatley six other offices in my 20+ years as an Architect. Except for this latest job, I have always woked overtime without compensation, often at the whim of clients or due to the lack of efficient management. In most cases my managers have been at home while I have spent long nights at the office. In this latest job, I am paid a salary and am expected to work a normal 40 hour week. If I work overtime, I am paid for overtime.
My performance reviews and not whether the principals
like me personally are the primary means used to determine whether I get salary increases or advancement.
If an associate or fellow worker disagrees with my behavior or vice vesa, there is an unbiased method of filing greivances. The high school antics I've seen occur at some architecture firms are nowhere to be seen under this civilized umbrella which the union provides. Respect for colleages and the team spirit thrives when each person is not constantly trying to stab the other in the back to climb the ladder to associate and then principal status. No,
competition is only good to an extent. When it gets out of hand, socialism takes it's place. Ithink Obama's election comfirmed that capitalism and it's disrespect for human dignity sometimes can overstep it's bounds.
Yes, despite all the bad press those auto workers give unions, this is by far the best workplace I have ever been in.
Ideally the balance lies somewhere between socialism and capitalism, but with this profession a broadd step toward the former (albeit temporary)is needed to correct the abuses of the latter.

AIA should oppose this.

1. support the secret-ballot.

2. support retaining AIA as the voice of the profession.

It appears that those who oppose the secret ballot do so because it has not produced the results they desire. A different form of voting is now proposed to expose how employees vote, as if this is the only way to right the wrongs businesses have imposed on employees and prevent Wal-Mart from exploiting its workers.

Sadly, this discussion has focused upon how is the best way to assist unions organize, and apparently it is critical to their success that employees be stripped of what has been a sacred right in America––to be able to express their views at the ballot box while preserving the anonymity necessary to prevent retaliation for voting the wrong way.

Is the secret ballot really necessary to prevent undue pressure, intimidation and coercion? Can open voting produce a genuine will of the people? I believe to ask the question is to answer it.

This should not be a question of pro-union versus anti-union, as this discussion indicates it has become. For myself, I proudly claim former membership in both the carpenters’ union and the cement finishers’ union. I know what good the unions have done for the common laborer and craftsman, and how they have helped to raise the standard of living for millions. But I also feel shame whenever I observe sabotage on my jobsites: every sheet of glass broken because carpenters installed glass where wood stops held it in place––work claimed by glaziers; every piece of 1-1/2” thick armored glass in a federal reserve bank ruined with acid because they were installed by the security products manufacturer instead of local glaziers; concealed plumbing not connected causing substantial damage later because of labor strife. Every union official I have ever known has been upright and honest trying to be responsible citizens. Yet, stuff happens. Sam and Helen Walton were the very best in treating their people honorably. But all of this is beside the point.

My suggestion to the AIA: Stay on the side of protecting the individual’s right to vote in privacy. Voting results should not be tainted by public pressure to seek conformance, nor should the voting procedure be altered to change results. Let all have a right to their own individual opinions. Then let the chips fall where they may. Regardless of the merits of union representation, above all else the voting system should be the very model of fairness.

Vernon Reed, FAIA

I have trouble taking seriously someone who thinks Rush Limbaugh is the source of the body of scientific work that does not substantiate AGW. It is an attack on the integrity of the many sincere scientists who undertake their endeavors with great care. For what cause are they impugned? Because their work product does not lend support to the vision of the world some mean to impose upon us all.

I also have trouble taking seriously someone who makes the following statement:
“Unclean coal and fossil fuel power plants are the agent of EVIL, just as the automobile is the agent of CHAOS in this nation”
D-D-D- Dogma, I posit.
blog.aia.org/aiarchitect/2007/10/stop_coal_now.html
or
arch.designcommunity.com/topic-18637.html

You forgot to mention the pressing urgency of a coal moratorium and the glory of the impending neo-luddite revolution.

Everyone, ready your sabots.

psst, no one cares who YOU OR I take seriously.

As a matter of principle (you may call it dogma), I find it inappropriate that through the process of unionization, other workers may usurp my ability to negotiate directly with an employer. Conventional majority-union exclusivity bargaining means the NLRB (the omnipotent and BENEFICENT federal government) recognizes the union as my representative in collective bargaining whether I consent or not. I have lived it. I find it improper. I do not view the interests of an employer as necessarily adversarial to my interests as an individual employee. I have more faith in myself and my performance (I could be wrong, but I doubt it) than in the collective bargaining process. I prefer not to have it foisted upon me. I do not consent. BEYOND THAT, UNION LEADERSHIP, MEMBERSHIP, & OTHER SUPPORTS CAN DO AS THEY SEE FIT, FREELY. I care not. Perhaps advocates for unionization should focus on changes to the law that facilitate the expansion of minority union bargaining as a method by which to achieve a benefit for union members only (no free riders). In truth though, minority union bargaining is only an intermediate step to majority-union exclusivity bargaining that is the ultimate goal some seek, an admission made freely by labor.

“Even after the adoption of the Wagner Act, the first union agreements with U.S. Steel and General Motors recognized the Auto Workers and the Steel Workers as representatives only of their members and no others. It was only later that the unions won the exclusive right to represent all employees. Morris emphasizes that today, just as in the thirties, wining the right to minority representation can be the first step toward winning the majority.”

bensonsudblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/blue-eagle-reviving-old-legal-weapon.html

The profession has problems that need to be solved. Unions may be a useful option.

Changing laws that work pretty well may not be a good idea. I do not know if the proposed change is actually good now that I have spoken with some union members.

It is hard to take someone serious who actually believes that the Rush Limbaugh explanation of global warming is the truth and that Rush has captured the reality of the science and it is equally absurd to believe that anyone in the context of a union vote is being intimidated by the union.

It is in my personal experience almost always the company that does the intimidation and the disinformation.

Despite the amusing selected quotes made under headings of entire branches of the federal government, as if some consensus has been expressed, some of the posts here are well expressed on both side of the point and arise from genuine thinking not political brainwashing.

There is a presence that would replace thinking with dogma, that is not actually healthy.

I believe in unions and their importance for our society. That’s why I think HR 800, the Orwellian-titled “Employee Free Choice Act” is an abomination. (not a play on Obama's name) It is my wisdom that change in this case is not good for unions.

Unions function effectively when they can build a mandate of support from their members. EFCA would make it possible to organize unions without such a mandate, and thereby destroy the basic legitimacy of a union’s claim to represent a majority. You and I know that legitimacy is important.

HR800 has passed the House and is waiting in the Senate for a filibuster-proof Democratic majority to pass it and President Obama to sign it. That is a big step in my opinion, go slow and be careful!

EFCA contains four changes to long-standing labor law. The one receiving most attention would require the National Labor Relations Board to certify unions without elections, solely on the basis of a “card check”. This idea sounds good but may open the door to abuse by both sides.

The second would require interest arbitration, having an arbitrator set the terms and conditions of employment, for first contracts that are not bargained within four months. Such arbitration tends to distort and atrophy real negotiations, and result in an “arbitrator’s award” rather than a mutually-agreed-on contract. Legal quagmires are expensive and this sounds like it has that character. The essence of all labor law on enforcement of agreements flows from contract law; without a contract, enforcement becomes arbitrary indeed. It’s like having judges create the law. Too much of that already.

The other changes would expedite investigation into unfair labor charges made during a certification process, and increase penalties for employer violations. These are good changes, exactly what is needed to make election campaigns more fair; they ought to be passed.

But eliminating elections amounts to de-legitimizing unions even where they exist. It may look like a kind of affirmative action, but in fact it is far worse. The reverse brand of this kind of thing leads to employer corruption and we might anticipate the potential for labor to be tainted by corruption too.

Under current law, unions can only be certified by majority vote in a secret-ballot election (unless the employer agrees to a card check). Existing unions can also be de-certified through the same process. EFCA would upset this balance, making it easier to bring a union into a workplace than it would be to throw one out. That is not cool in my opinion.

Currently, union de-certifications are rare (though unhappy union members talking about it are more common). When a group of workers get cards signed to de-certify their union, they then have to go through an election campaign, and the union has a chance to defend itself. This is only fair, and it promotes stability.

If unions could be de-certified by card-check alone, labor officials would be in for some rude surprises, as anti-union organizers might be able to run stealth campaigns and get cards signed (through fair or dubious methods), and Bingo! You’re out!

That is of course why the union-drafted EFCA has no provision for de-certification by card check. But how likely is it that labor would be able to hold off a push, sooner or later, to re-even the scales by including it?

This may invite erosion of the collective bargaining process despite the laws affirmative action intent.

And even if the Democratic sweep is big enough today to get EFCA passed as it stands, the loss in legitimacy for unions will be devastating. Most Americans think of labor unions as legitimate voices for workers, even though few belong to unions. That level of legitimacy will be lost if the House of Labor becomes a kind of Roach Motel where workers can check in but they can’t check out. that is bad for both sides

The underlying problem is that unions have shrunk somewhat n the private sector. Union leaders admit that they pursue EFCA because they cannot organize under the present regime of effective employer campaigns and interminable legal delays. The batterry of legal delays and the cost of defending against them should be dismantled by new laws. It looks exactly like an act of desperation.

There is another path labor could take. It could ask itself why so many workers find unions so unattractive, and it could make changes to become more attractive. The problem on the union side is limited resources compared to big business to fight the court battles. But they are unwilling to face the central fact of their difficulties: workers have come to see unions as political organizations. They are not.

This constructs a view that Democratic Party victory is more important than workplace gains. Unions should have less company induced friction when they organize and the civil court system should not be so expensive that working class people can not process legitimate claims of abuse.

In the 1930’s when the AFL proved unable to organize industrial workers, far-sighted union leaders built a new type of union for the purpose: the CIO. We could use some similarly far-sighted leaders today. EFCA will just delay the day. Real government solution that are fair and workable for both sides are better that this proposal.

Labor’s best hope is that it be denied the kind of protection it seeks. The law should be changed to make elections fairer, not to eliminate them.

The idea of eliminating election is as outrageous as using the expense of the court system to prevent organization and de-certify unions that the employee's want. Elections and fairness are consistent with existing law, this proposal engages a host of expensive problems we should avoid.

THE LEGISLATURE
"we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose."

read the letter:
www.employeefreedom.org/downloads/mexico_letter.pdf

THE JUDICIARY
Some benchmarks (or red herrings):

"It is beyond dispute that a secret election is a more accurate reflection of the employees' true desires than a check of authorization cards collected at the behest of a union organizer." (NLRB v. Flomatic Corp., Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 1965)

"It would be difficult to imagine a more unreliable method of ascertaining the real wishes of employees than a 'card check,' unless it were an employer's request for an open show of hands." (NLRB v. S.S. Logan Packing Co., Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1967)

"We would be closing our eyes to obvious difficulties, of course, if we did not recognize that there have been abuses, primarily arising out of misrepresentations by union organizers as to whether the effect of signing a card was to designate the union to represent the employee for collective bargaining purposes or merely to authorize it to seek an election to determine that issue." (NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., Supreme Court of the United States, 1969)

"Workers sometimes sign union authorization cards not because they intend to vote for the union in the election but to avoid offending the person who asks them to sign, often a fellow worker, or simply to get the person off their back, since signing commits the worker to nothing (except that if enough workers sign, the employer may decide to recognize the union without an election.)" (NLRB v. Village IX, Seventh Circuit, 1983)

"Freedom of choice is a matter at the very center of our national labor relations policy, and a secret election is the preferred method of gauging choice." (Avecor v. NLRB, D.C. Circuit, 1991)

Source: www.unionfacts.com/articles/democracyElections.cfm

THE PEOPLE
Perhaps the reason why AIA Arkansas has seen fit to lead the way has to do with principle and the state's history not Walmart...

" In 1943, the Christian American Association (CAA) convinced the legislature to make it a felony to use force or threats of violence to prevent individuals “from engaging in any legal vocation of their choice.” This measure had the potential to transform picketing into a felony—strikebreakers could claim that the mere presence of picketers constituted a threat of violence. The next year, the CAA joined with Arkansas Free Enterprise Association to circulate petitions to enact a law forbidding labor unions and companies from signing agreements requiring union membership as a condition of employment. The state’s voters approved the so-called “Right to Work” initiative in the fall, 105,300 to 87,652."
source: www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=4235

Nearly 15 years ago I was a member of UFCW Local 400. In the intervening years I have worked for a number of other non-union companies, including four architecture firms. I have no use for unionization. I find it inimical to individual liberty.

AIA should support the "card-check" legislation.

I agree with the comments of William Beyer, above. The "secret ballot" argument is merely a distraction from all the other aspects of these union elections that are very much biased toward employers. How about a law that actually protects employees from being pulled into a room by management and intimidated into voting against the union? Please carefully read the quotation Mr. Beyer provided above, from the 2005 study. Why does the "secret ballot" suddenly rise above all those other factors? It makes no sense.

It's important to recognize that workers don't organize into unions willy-nilly for no good reason. Forming a union takes a lot of work, and organizers in the workplace take big risks when trying to form a union. It's done when workers have serious grievances that management has refused to address, often for many years. I wish people would stop bashing unions and start demanding fair and reasonable behavior from employers.

Any architectural firm that is afraid their workers will organize needs to take a serious look at their workplace practices and have the backbone to make some changes. Don't look to the government to protect your "right" to exploit workers. Start treating people properly and you should not need to worry.

AIA members will not all agree on any policy stance. No group of people so large ever will. But if AIA wants to be relevant to our society, they need to take a stand on issues that affect people's lives.

It is good to see passion in most of thoe who wrote above. I oppose neutrality for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is just "luke warm, neither hot nor cold". We seek as Architects to be leaders in our profession and comminities, so let us lead as a collaborative and cohesive unit by concensus. I support the arguments for the significant impact of privacy in voting. If there are other issues, as presented by Mr. Beyer and others, let's correct them and not get rid of what is "right" trying to fix what is not fair or "wrong". I am for iindividual freedom, but only if those exercising them are also held accountable by society to act responsibly toward society while exercising them. Public or open votiing will increase intimidation and retribution by those inclined to use them. If you don't know how I voted, how can you react against me as you may otherwise choose? I have worked in unionized states and jurisdictions and non-union. I will pick non-union until there is overwhelming evidence that union influence is more beneficial and liberating than controlling, restrictive and manipulative, and that they are more efficient and productive for society as a whole, and the companies that help make our economy strong, than non-union environments. When union organizational heads are more concerned with their membership at the employee's living level than in winning wage battles or maintaining power and control of negotiations, workers and business sectors than are "employers", then I might support them more.
As a side comment, our form of governance is an imperfect "republic", not a "democracy". There has never been a true, pure, and theoretically sound democracy of any size in the history of the planet, and as long as societies continues to decay morally and ethically, there never will be.

The AIA is increasingly involving itself in political issues which may at some point result in the factionalizing of its membership with indeterminate results. A perusal of the comments indicates this might be one of those issues.
Generally speaking, I am suspicious that emanations from foggy bottom tend over-time to make one susceptible to the idea that centralized planning seems reasonable and that the use of federal power is not only necessary in every facet of our lives, but desirable, an idea I find personally repugnant, not to mention insulting to all citizens. From my perspective as a citizen I do not see how doing away with the secret ballot in any situation increases the likelihood that people will vote their conscience. In making that statement I find myself in rare agreement with George McGovern.
The fact is that card check is contrary to institutions upon which our republic is founded and upon which it depends. I do not agree with the premise that card-check will reduce intimidation and make it easier to vote without coercion. In point of fact, if this faulty premise were to be followed it would result in the increase of threats, intimidation, coercion and, not coincidentally, union membership.
The consolidation of the power of unions all in support of one party has resulted in the use of union dues to support candidates which do not necessarily espouse the views of the entire membership. If I see that the union, association with which is being urged upon me, supports candidates with whom I do not agree, how am I more likely to vote against membership in that union in the face of the factions that support it if I must face their ire? Or how to face my employer should I decide that the union does represent my best interests? I must vote my conscience in the face of zealots with agendas antithetical to my own or lose my right to express myself. This is an untenable position.
Our rights do not come from government, but from God, our Creator, and among these is the right to be secure in our person no matter what our opinions may be. My opinion is that as citizens we should resist any attempt, no matter how well intentioned, to reduce our liberty by ceding our individual rights. The secret ballot is one of these. Can an organization that serves professionals that serve the public take a position that is in contravention of the rights of the public?
Rumor has it that one of the more prestigious firms where I live tells prospective employees that the hours are terrible and the pay is worse, but working for them will look great on their resume. Who can resist such candor? Not many of the best and brightest around here anyway. I am not being callous or flippant when I point out that we can all vote with our feet, or start our own enterprise, where at least we have the ear of the principal!
We all know that the work can be overwhelming, and have longed for an advocate with clout on occasion, but we have a system in place, and it works as well as any other man-made institution. There is no challenge, no condition, no issue so bad, so urgent, so compelling that government meddling cannot make it worse (ADAAG,UFAS etal versus ICC/ANSI A117.1 anyone?). No card-check please. That's my two cents and you have received that for which you were willing to pay. My best to all, especially those whose opinions are in opposition to my own.

I must contend that unionizing architectural employees would be "Good" not "Bad" for the profession. Based upon personal experience I would prefer a secret ballot because employers will retaliate, the truth is they can and they do and in work for hire states they will get away with it.

My employer falsely accused me of fraud and I was forced to file suit just to get a retraction. The state has no recourse for employees to address the employers abuse except the civil court system. The AIA needs to raise the standard of conduct for employers, unethical conduct regarding intellectual property and basic rights is extremely low.

It makes me sad that this is true, but I think collective bargaining agents may be necessary to stop the exploitation and wage discrimination in the profession.

AIA should strongly oppose this legislation for the following reasons: It preserves our democratic right to a secret ballot, it protects our profession against another increase in the cost of running a business, and it keeps the decision making step out of the hands of the minority group in the office. Maybe we don't want to admit it, but the owners of the company we work for do have the right to make the business decisions for their company. The questionable business practices and hiring and firing methods should be fixed by some other means than federal legislation. AIA should weigh in and strongly oppose this legislation.

As I noted above, the secret ballot argument is a fraud, meant only to direct our attention away from the real issues. A 2005 study by University of Oregon associate professor Gordon Lafer, Ph.D. came to the following conclusion:

“At every step of the way, from the beginning to the end of a union election, NLRB procedures
fail to live up to the standards of U.S. democracy. Apart from the use of secret ballots, there is not a single aspect of the NLRB process that does not violate the norms we hold sacred for political elections. The unequal access to voter lists; the absence of financial controls; monopoly control of both media and campaigning within the workplace; the use of economic power to force participation in political meetings; the tolerance of thinly disguised threats; the location of voting booths on partisan grounds; open-ended delays in implementing the results of an election; and the absence of meaningful enforcement measures — every one of these constitutes a profound departure from the norms that have governed U.S. democracy since its inception.”

While Walmart has done many things that are unconscionable, their violations have nothing to do with the privacy of voting. I reiterate that our current system for organization has problems that must be resolved: however, a private vote is inherently safer from coercion than a voted that is in effect forced to be made public. I would not want to be the one or even one of the few persons in the room who wanted to vote against unionization or the one or one few persons in the room who wanted to vote for it. There are many people who have been beaten, coerced or threatened by both sides of this argument with a private vote. An open vote only makes people easier to target, intimidate and abuse. That is to core issue here, not whether or not the executives at Walmart are abusive. Walmart and their actions are a matter of enforcement. The voting situation needs to remain private and threats and coercion need to be severely punished when they happen and more needs to be done to control and regulate the process to create equality and protection for all parties.

Thanks for the chance to weigh-in on your article about The Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 (Union Card-Checks).

I am seriously concerned by the tone of the Pro/Con arguments presented by Mr. Bergan. While attempting to appear “fair and balanced”, the selective and misleading information provided and the implicit threat that architectural firms could potentially suffer harm from union organizing smack of warmed-over Chamber of Commerce propaganda.

The Chamber’s claim that the current NLRB election process is fair and free from intimidation or coercion is demonstrably false. The “secret ballot” argument is a classic red herring. The rights of employers under current labor law are so disproportionately stacked against union organizing as to make any imagined threat to AIA firms laughable.

And what a surprise that AIA Arkansas has chosen to become a shill (pro bono?) for what is almost certainly the biggest client of its members - Wal-Mart. Perhaps the members of AIA should be reminded that in December, Wal-Mart, (the largest employer in the world), settled - for $640 million - 63 lawsuits representing perhaps the largest attempt in U.S. history to cheat workers.

Similar lawsuits are pending in other states. Last year in Minnesota, a judge found that Wal-Mart broke wage and hour laws more than 2 million times. The corporation avoided potentially $2 billion in liability by settling the suits here for a measly $54.3 million.

The $640M December settlement represents one-tenth of one percent of Wal-Mart’s 2008 revenue. With economic deterrence of such supreme insignificance, it is no wonder that corporate America continues its relentless union-busting.

Let’s not forget to also remind our members that Wal-Mart is currently under investigation by the Federal Elections Commission for allegedly violating federal election laws by engaging in intimidation of its employees on this issue in advance of the November elections.

If the AIA Federal Relations team worries that AIA Public Policy 29 fails to provide clear direction on this issue, I recommend reading AIA Public Policy 31, Civil Rights:

The AIA supports the protection of the human dignity and self worth of all persons and calls for fair, impartial, unbiased, and non prejudicial treatment of all persons in every employment, social, and business transaction.

I sincerely hope that the AIA Board will not allow our organization’s reputation for promoting sustainable communities to be hijacked by the shameless shills for Wal-Mart and its ilk. If the AIA has any role in this fight, it is on the side of economic and social equity, critical elements of a sustainable society.

William Beyer, FAIA
AIA Board Advocacy Committee member, 2004-2006

I respectfully address all members of the AIA, my colleagues and all those in the industry of design and construction when I implore your consideration of the matter. First, for all of those who believe we must remain neutral. I must disagree. Regardless of what our different opinions may be, it is critical that we as part of our society, our industry, and our country form a collective opinion. This is not to say that we will agree with each other, but that our opinions are critical and necessary as we are not one side of the coin and those who build the other, but we are in fact two lungs that must breathe together for the life of the being.

I will be open with you that I am for the freedom and privacy of voting. The open vote is nothing more than an attempt to remove privacy and freedom from voting. What national, state or local election have you been to where you have stood in front of the waiting crowd and publicly declared your vote? The exact opposite, great pains are taken to insure the privacy and in turn individual sovereignty of a persons vote so that no person may feel pressured or coerced to vote for any political party. This is plain wisdom. You can be pro-union or anti-union and understand this. I have seen both sides the union and the non-union and neither is perfect. The unions are struggling and this is an attempt to strengthen their position, and that is an understandable desire. But I have also seen unions picket jobs where union sub are working for non-union contractors. I have seen unions harass and pressure non-union employees. So do we do nothing and say nothing?

No. We need to realize that there is a place for unions and a place for non-unions. That unions and non-unions can and should be in the market place. That both have their place in serving our clients and our society, and that each individual employed by a company should be free to decide whether or not to be in a union regardless of what other employees choose to do. The very foundation of our country is based on individual freedom and our freedoms are directly protected by the privacy of our votes. There may be other legislation we can support to help the unions in these difficult times, but this in not it.

Legislation that strips away privacy in voting strips away an individual’s freedom to vote as they wish without coercion. This is not to say that changes may not need to be made to the process of labor organization, but that removing a voter’s freedom is not the way to correct any faults in the current system. Again, to all my colleagues and the AIA I would ask that we not stand by in neutrality as though we are not a part of this body, but that we take part in this discuss to improve the process while protecting individual freedom and privacy.

Sincerely,

I think it is a good idea to empower employees to form unions and make that process easier because checks and balances will be good for our profession. The abuse by employers in our profession is not acceptable.

The man who made the following statement is a LIAR and is hereby challenged to provide documentation that proves that unions engage in such practices as if this were a matter of routine and that this is an accepted fact.

"We elect the President and almost every other government official and decide almost every other issue by the secret ballot. There is a reason it is secret. If there were an organization that could be accused of intimidation and extortion, it would be labor unions. Employers come in a close second, both absolute proof that we need to KEEP THE SECRET BALLOT SECRET!"

The profession is composed of owners and employees. The widespread and unchecked age discrimination experienced by employees who are 50 and older is more than enough to convince me that unionization of the architectural profession is necessary since the AIA will do nothing about this problem.

Employees are under paid in our profession and after they get licensed they remain underpaid but worse they are cheated of the credit and accomplishments they achieve as architects because they are employees. Employees are not allowed to get credit and acknowledgment under work for hire copyright law that makes their intellectual creation the property of the employer, automatically, with no tangible agreement ever being discussed or agreed to by the employee. There is reason to unionize the employees of the architectural profession.

Exploitation of architectural employees is outrageous, this includes the failed IDP program that shortchanges architectural graduates, sometimes of a decade of career time. The AIA has done little to force a correction in the architectural office of career suppression by age discrimination and deliberate choices to extend the IDP process beyond reason.

Most firms are clearly engaged in both of these activities to the extent that restraint of trade is the natural conclusion. The age cross section of our firms is not a natural profile and the complaints about the artificial extension of the internship by unnatural stretching of the IDP program is already legendary and known to every intern working.

Organization engaging in the practice of constructing terminations should be subject to criminal prosecution. Unfortunately work for hire employment legislation allows companies to get away with manufacturing the terminations of employees.

The profession needs to be organized by union who will bargain collectively on behalf of the employees if we continue to fail to clean up the mess.

As a victim of the above I am an advocate of improvement of the profession. I want my career that I worked for back, don't you?

I believe that the AIA should remain neutral.

I am particularly unsupportive of AIA advocacy efforts. I find the expanding participation of the institute, premised on relevancy to the profession, into broader policy debates an unseemly approach for a professional organization. The membership consists of individuals with varying and opposing philosophies of government. The institute, by its decision to enter the fray on questions of unionization, eminent domain, and the theory of anthropogenic global warming, renders itself a ‘special interest group’ of a political nature like so many non-governmental organizations, non-profit organizations, and other political agitators. Consequently, I think the institute risks (or has already lost) its claim to be THE voice for the architecture profession. I offer that the appropriate decision is and should be to take no position on this and other governmental policy matters.

Since a segment of the citizenry has no respect for the principles of enumerated powers or limited government and since the institute perceives (accurately) that the results of proposed legislation and regulation (that result from this lack of respect) have bearing on the profession and since the institute seems intent on premising its participation in the political process on the notion of advocacy on issues important to AIA members, I suggest the AIA actively oppose the legislation.

Twenty-two states have right-to-work laws. Thankfully, Virginia is one of those states. If the legislation is passed and leads to increased unionization, it will be a development that will, over time, contribute to the detriment of the economy in forced unionization states and to the benefit of right-to-work states. Think of the auto-manufacturing industry in Michigan versus Alabama (In 2007, 9.5 percent of Alabama workers belonged to a union) in the recent senate debate of aid to GM and Chrysler. Think of the economic vitality of Texas compared to the degradation of Ohio. Unfortunately, no individual can lay permanent claim to a job or a certain level of compensation. No region can lay permanent claim to an industry. To attempt either, by legislation, is an artificial, temporary, futile, and ultimately an unsuccessful effort.

Tony ( listed above ) has it exactly right. However, In our current economy, outsourcing our architectural production work to Asia is a growing solution to meeting tight / profitable budgets and fee schedules. Nick ( also above ) makes a good point for environmental justice and sustainability as desirable American design goals. Will the Unions attempt to legislate some kind of control over our outsourcing ? At what expense do we achieve any type of social justice for our overseas counterparts ? Tony's comment about our Auto Industry is also "dead-on". Are we applying make-up to our own faces in our ivory towers as we drive ourselves down the long and painful road to the morgue ? Vote NO publicly .

We elect the President and almost every other government official and decide almost every other issue by the secret ballot. There is a reason it is secret. If there were an organization that could be accused of intimidation and extortion, it would be labor unions. Employers come in a close second, both absolute proof that we need to KEEP THE SECRET BALLOT SECRET!

We need to strongly oppose this legislation.

I believe the AIA should support the card check proposal because the present system in practice is very heavily on the side of the employer. The proposed system will try to level the playing field to allow a more equitable chance for workers to decide whether they want to organize and allow this to take place without intimidation.

Architects are often better at comprehensive thinking, and most know environmental justice and social justice are the same thing: we don't get one without the other. Call it sustainability if you like, but know the future economy will not be the past economy for three reasons: more people, fewer KW per capita, and more awareness that everything comes from Mother Earth. AIA should be the leaders in supporting environmental & social justice issues, and we should support this legislation.

I concur with the comments of Richard Pallone and George. The issue is more of taking away the right of a secret ballot and that of government interference.

Absolutely NOT

AIA should definitely take a stand against this legislation. Regardless of how it directly relates to our own businesses, this legislation could have a very negative impact on our economy. Just look at what has happened to the auto industry in our country!

As another firm owner,I agree, word for word, with Al York's comment of Jan 8. Let's stay out of it.

Oppose this legislation which is anti-business and counter competitive. Defund the Left!

AIA should not take a position. This issue does not relate to the vast majority of archtects or their business. Personally, I am opposed to government interference and believe the legislation is anti business.

Peer pressure amoung the younger people is a tremendous force to oppose. The right to a secret ballot has always been American. While I agree that unions are not an issue for the AIA, the AIA is made up of individuals who have God given rights in this country and should stand up for those rights. If we don't stand up for the small rights, what will we do when they come to take the big rights away.

Architects also run a business and should take a stand against government interfernce in the way we operate. We should oppose the legislation.

AIA should not take a position on the Card-Check legislation because there is no position that follows directly from the values that we uphold as an organization. If, however, AIA must take a position, it should be to support the Card-Check legislation because we, as Americans, believe that everyone should be free to form associations as they see fit and to advocate for their interests. The fact that union formation may be made easier is in no way a valid reason for our orgnaization to oppose this legislation. We are not the American Institue of Architectural Firm Owners. I say that as a firm Owner myself.

I agree that we as architects should remain neutral.

My thinking is that the AIA should remain neutral for the reason that there are states that have right to work laws that might be impacted by the new law. Also, architects deal with union contractors and non-union contractors. By remaining neutral, it preserves the neutral position that architects should have between owners and contractors. An active position might lead to more active unionization of more architectural firms which would compromise the neutral position now in place. Opposition might preserve the present status but it might create a backlash of efforts to further unionize architets.
As architectural firms do not create products that can be sold while a strike of workers is in progress, it seems a strike could paralyze a firm until it is settled, usually at the firm's expense.