One article in last weeks architectural press struck me as particularly depressing. Our friends at Building Design have reported that a London practice, Parritt Leng, have been advertising for part 2 and part 3 architects for a two week stint. Those who replied discovered the rate of pay to be 5.71 an hour, and the expected working hours from 8am to 10 pm. A quick calculation makes that 80 for a 14-hour day.
When you consider the minimum-working wage for adults in the UK over 22 is 5.80 an hour the whole affair seems downright disgraceful, if not potentially illegal. Architects pay is one of my major irritations in life. It is paltry in comparison to other professions, a nagging dissatisfaction compounded by an expensive, 7-year education, and perpetuated by the arrogance and presumption of practices like Parritt Leng evident when they make statements such as this: We are essentially a young practice with several projects of varying sizes. The hours and work ethic are going to be very intense indeed. We would expect you to start work at 8am and to finish work at 10pm.
Back in 1998 during the summer holidays I worked for a scaffolding company in Yeovil for 6.00 an hour. I was an unskilled labourer working outdoors in the sunshine. Work started at 8am and finished on the dot at 5pm without question – a similar working day to most workers in the country, presumably because it gives you time to relax in the evening and wake up fresh and prepared the next day.
How on earth, then, can architects working for below the minimum wage be in anyway creative or motivated when they are expected to endure a 14 hour day, six days a week? Commitment to one’s calling is admirable but this arrangement seems soul destroying in the extreme. Furthermore, I can’t understand how this sweatshop environment and disposable resource would actually benefit the quality of output, raising questions about the architects’ duty of care to their clients. (A quick look at Parritt Lengs website did little to ease my concern).
Mark Shaw-Smith is one of many who are vigorous in their condemnation of such behaviour (see the comments section in the BD article, well worth a read). He recognises that times are admittedly hard, and a survivalist attitude understandable, but finds asking students to subsidise their ambition to be unforgivable. And quite right to – it demeans the profession entirely and will surely discourage genuine talent from following the architectural career path. The pay, the hours and the attitude stink of exploitation.
Unfortunately, most architects I know are masochists when it comes to working hard, and no doubt the vacancies will be filled by desperate job seekers. But this is still no excuse to abandon our ethics. In behaving like this, we are cheating young architects of the reward they deserve for their professional qualifications, we are de-valuing the profession as a whole by undercutting our neighbours, and we are tarnishing the professional image of the industry. (Does a client really want to think desperate graduates earning less than a burger flipper in McDonald’s are developing his multi-million pound scheme?)
My thanks to Building Design for publishing their article and highlighting this particular problem.
