In an article entitled, "You're Fired", they go into detail about the touchy subject of how the owner of an architecture firm can "protect themselves" in case they have to fire an employee. It is classic because every architecture firm deals with this issue and some do it better than others. Most of what the article points to is standard stuff - you should do reviews of employees, keep records of their performance, blah blah blah. Incidentally, we have worked at in a number of architecture firms and none of them have been particularly good at this so I guess this article is telling architects something they obviously don't get.
The classic case is my current office (which I must honestly say is better than most). We hold these reviews (that are often joked about on this site). They begin around February and drag on until the week before Christmas. It is classic. By the time most folks are being reviewed, a year has passed since they have filled out their self-review. How the hell are we supposed to remember what we wrote about and did over a year ago??? This also sucks for the folks that don't "make it" for a year, which brings me to the next point in the article.The part where we think that the "helpful information" in the article really falls apart is when the article insinuates that an "at will" policy infers that architecture firms hire employees on a temporary basis. For those of you that aren't familiar, the "at will" clause usually has wording that says something like"we can part ways at any time for any reason that is not illegal" we are sure that many firms hope and even insinuate that this relationship is not intended to be temporary. Unfortunately, there are many, far too many, that take the other extreme and use this clause as an excuse to "bulk up" when they have jobs and to fire at will when work slows down.
Shouldn't a person owning a business have any responsibility towards their employees? Since when should we "reasonably expect" that we would be treated like crap and that people are expendable? Is this yet another place where the architectural profession has failed in terms of ethics? And why the hell is an architectural journal publishing about how to fire architects??? Maybe it's because the registered architects aren't the ones that will lose. The interns are the ones getting screwed here. At $34K a year, they get a "temporary job" to boot. Hey, maybe THAT"S why they get paid so little: they are temporary.
This article seems all wrong. Unless it is trying to pander to the lowest common denominator scum-bag architects, perhaps problems in our profession can't be solved by creating legal protection for architectural firm owners but instead could be addressed if architects had better training with how to run a business. If you do not have a sustainable office, then maybe you shouldn't be in business in the first place. Or if we we want to be completely truthful, then perhaps suck it up and admit you are hiring your employees as "temporary" and label them as such from the beginning. It is almost as offensive but at least you aren't hiding your scummyness behind legalese. Then again, this might not get you many takers when you start handing out the "temporary" job offers.All of this is moot, of course, if you hire blacks, women, and people in wheelchairs. The article also informs that you're fucked if you try and fire those folks. There is a catch 22 to that situation. Wouldn't we all expect and want to add diversity to the profession but at what cost? You would end up keeping them around in the fear that you'd be slapped with a law suit? Thank God there are only 2% black women in this field (as stated in yet another brilliant Architect Magazine article) so the chances of getting people with these characteristics walking (or wheeling) in your door are pretty slim in the first place.
The best part is that all of this mumbo jumbo gets packaged nicely in your "office handbook". Boy, we wish we had smuggled a few of these out of the offices we have worked for. They really are classic. Maybe employees are naive. We thought these things were guides for how the office should be run, how to make them more productive and professional. NOT. They set up the case that they can fire you for any reason no matter what. The "at will" policy combined with the "guidelines" and "change at any time without notice" disclaimers give the partners zero responsibility to employees.
Well, that seems like enough of a rant. The laughable note of all of this is that our office subscription to Architect Magazine is to an architect that was only with us for about a year. He got fired and never got his review.
The flaw of the magazine is that it is all about focusing on the architects not the architecture. Who the fuck cares about what architects wear or how they look or whether they are a nerd or not? Your buildings and designs should be your connection to people, not your picture in GQ. We are all for celebrating the newest, cool design to be done by someone but lets allow the architecture ego to be enlarged through that and not through you looking cool in a black suit. Besides, there are no hot chicks doing cool architecture so who would want to look at the photos. Could you imagine the next issue: Zaha Hahaha naked in a hot tub except for a couple of artistically placed bubbles? That’s the crescendo that magazine seems to be building towards and it’s just wrong.
Maybe this is the point of the magazine and why it is called "Architect" and not "Architecture - something". If so, then we think this point is all wrong. It not only exacerbates the problem we have with the image of the architect as the all-knowing savior but it simultaneously pushes the point that image is more important than anything else when it comes to architecture. Personally, we not only find this inaccurate but a disservice to what we do as a profession.
