25 10 310 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/c064efa845e939528ae056ed02d7f844.pdf 1e008b977637354348fcb8e095f66c73 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter seeking legal advice re Clean Up Report on improper constitution of ARCUK, enclosing report Description An account of the resource A REPORT BY ELECTED COUNCILLORS OF THE ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION COUNCIL (A.R.C.U-K.) at‘—I f;a ; — Fem AGndt Rarbuck . 25 NE Georges Aronia . W~Dry, Nee | Akxs Craw, <99, |Vos ant “Pack (4° oa wae Ze aCape 2MPRMR Cry 7z7IrS CR AREA, haQsee)euee. 42lhecteahARK, ]Connrecions : Loa 4alsin box ea matey meets SALWMG |foo AL AQ 420 o ARK iy Ypposttect 4 |4s ABACure Qwoe es |ee &QchibckeuwmeCakyenaALLK& RALSH TH Gobwa Lear Achar aS IQMuchGAOtoorteheae Bowes wea_s 104 Aarcl.. 1980 ESA SA| ElL# WeYO ANO|OD ; Ga Gslae Yar mas oo. 4a Adheees Omar! COeeyOleaneeegowbeens)tasConeAG.CN & Prvenin Se QypeQecnAck ia | Gs Wsk @oluie @ & ben Ader aa.he eee ae Gus Q-fake & ae = CeorlAuce an hsaa) . Aap WAG CremCLOTee 2. b. Qkockso( olecm 2.5 @-© “4. ARQeWr,K B5ow ‘paper,he Cscw(hRtGeR Gechee: SOGCCLORaieersoa)aCue GeAQhoLesh youCoe GeonomeKune G CRCa Oc Cnet hemaCoy Clones Niemen Tne Coke CG Qu nko coveAnta) Q@ wow 1 OME ONOCNtn hg Soe frum : Loo Dhertt “Qo Ajgarcak tu Golreg A, Sk, iae Akot Oe Go eae Oo 4 shor orola. eyEASI CreeOS re On foe GQ Kok. Sarl C2 4 ne :oa avs Su. Gols LO CaG a) wa TL > G GodoneQusol,meAyrewel6450.60 bm Qleck La Acten gt Dootet uo Detunmye@);OifraseorkUuuwat vl, CO. | Y ,Grdue, Ge Ca Pavole an, Ants, peforGets GQuradactAmtOe {mae fe RokerMatte(Sto~Fos)286)\RuAlla.(P54 $572) er Js) (637 - C685) \ Vunconn ae Bowes wea_s S out | OOD Wd Caml grade yr Colre2 on Hey A0nG p Lack, El # WeYOD ANO|OD Lek of Confe-ts. —Uce £ ALCirk 912 DE aarEyig Combrred slahskeof implicahoro of L TfT Sa mem Conca Ny Areas” —— Bowe awea_ aay CTe feuo>) ‘ Peatle Pulte) Hews‘seatsor.POEIED,POPS apporhored: in accordance ifs fre Avch tet’ Begichaten fet ef 193/. HawsACR TYEEZE)cnchhnfedCL). Has A2euUkeo a By cImplcohoredf parven P_SPOOR. a) Lee APEC mopreply constrhtad CHE) rege" Tspple re - Flea APCUE is empropert, corchhitedcz) -'bhr does on LIBRA eo é a eee, anshAtlea Zl Frepesed sycters ty enero eae ALCUK, PeeLy Less £ De brine nt enfferad &4y ’ Unattached Archlet® aca reef of fre imprope- Censhtutes ofACU. Nis er puuheo ef ARCH a7s ree =comchtr:te d. Ca Zk a Speafe hamed induritlielos arch. techs Cheviced fe Atchtectsee. 5C1931). Arch tect { Gag Kchahor 1 At’ C1988) ArchteetbBapenonCrendreont-)Act(1965) Beogulahsns asspprndby fh a, Arscaphins. ag. &hons SS = PRG a ae ey ARCAIK Shanckag orleans C73/25) « Ge-k lewen's Azyree rant _ conshtrhon ef Comnsttaz> C254f04). Nihee A. 23. feck Coe of Profesor! Cra ch- 4 CGuwdence fo Nes Gude. Boe ACHE Code. 2e- 3. Arnucetl Reports 1973/4, (974) 9S, 1975,(2&, (976/77, 1977]78, 1878/79, ed Oo tt Complants en Spe=hon of Canes RIBA Chote 4Bie fos 1971. FIBA Cota of Prof Corot PIBA Seoles of Charoes Conch tee fo rule a > March 1922, Conch tisbhen Crresponckenca— in Comrachon cihy FIBA subseriphens. EIGA "Becorbung an Acchilect! Bxckack fr Ly ARCUK Cerves POM cLercoe_ Report (2H) 72 29m feeG Leotle— Se Li # Registrar (C;— aportes sp, Ae. BA Connie Mong of hich gees 87/2/97) 4b. fy fredle ty PzdAchin en 47. Arhreles om BeesCCN peLPsse eciges Pricer “fo frG.,- ac ins hucley Foy ey)te blue)(er9) OPOKAsshererre 4].32-/-1230. Belrect frev~ PUA Annnol Reyort C1974-) . Bevel fre P2IBK Ayaie/ Reperr (19 2) ee 09 Gegn (S-4-/475 rHehon7Ah, #2exis Grower Seilert, Sealey & Lo. 14 Jooks Gourt London EC 4 = d4 nolmdale hoad 4cngonu Wa 6 11 march 1960 vear bir Grower, Iwproper Constitution of «iCUK further to our Jetter of yesterday with attached aocu. wents, foliowing our conversation, 1 enclose the remaining documents listed as “to tollow" on Document 2, List of Contents. i enclose also two further documents: 48 - Counsel's opinion in Keyte case 49 —- Notes on the apportionient of seats...etc. No. 48 was recently sent me by the khezistrar of ARCUK and concerns a case which AKCUK is considering under Sec.7 of the act. You night tind it of interest in its discussion of the act. I thought the discussion of literal interpretation of the act night be relevant to our case regarding the no lon-er existent "icllows, associates and liceutiates" o1 the kiss ana the Fisst Scheuule, var. 1 (i). (see vocunent 1). No. 49 contains no aduitional iniormation bat is incluueu as a very briet suniary o1 the situation. vocunents ob waltz E14 WeUD ANO|OD seats on AKCUK should be properly apjoitioned in accordance with the architects hegistration Act 1951 The Architects kegistration Act 1961 requires the Council to be constituted in accordance with the First Schedule of that act. The Scbbaule proviues for appointment of menbers by various bodies and Gov't. winisters as well for the direct election by architects of architect abers. There is no explanation of the intention of the constitution, no systematic approach. The members nay, however, be broken down into 5 groups (1) Those appointed by the Councils of a nunber of named rganisations presumea to have architect nenbers, in propoition ol one appointee ior every 500 (o1 part thereof) of s kinds of their architect nenbers. Appointees nay, but need not, be architects See Far. 1 (i-vi) subject to 0 (a-c). Those elected by sone architects not considerea by the Act to be some kinas of architect members of the above organisations, again on a 1:500 basis. Those elected must be architects. See Par.1 (vii) subject eo One member appointed by the Council of another organ- isation of architects, who may, but need not, be an architect. See Par. 1 (viii). Five menbers in total appointeu by various Gov't. entities, who may, but neea not, be architects. Se area Ct) One member appointea by the Council of each of 7 organisations connecteu withthe building industry, who may not be architects. See Par.2. ots] a | | | 2 | | | El # WeYO ANO|OD they are menbers (f). (a) Account is to be taken only of "teliows, associates & licentiates" of the bodies citea in Par 1@i) ana (ii) but no such qualification appiies to the bodies cited in (iii-vi). Account is not to be taken of stuaent members of the body cited in Par 1(iv) but no such qualification applies to the bodies cited in (iii) (v) and (vi). Architect members of nore than one of the bodies cited in (i-v) are taken account of in all the bodies of which they are members. (Accordingy to AC figures as of 31-i1U-79, there are 21406 individual architects reckoned for the purposes o1 the Act t be members of the boaies citeu in (i-V), but seperate totals ada up to 22196, thus 792 multiple nenber ships. Honorary, corresponding or retirea members of the bodies citeu in (i-v})#NkxxBk are to be taken account of under (vii) and not under (i-vi). Par 3(c). E-g-, although ARCUK's Regs. refer to those architects taken account of under (vii) as "unattached", they may well be membe! ot one of the hodies citea in (i-vi). The "anomaly" of (3) above. although seats on ARCUK covered by (1) and (2) above appear to be on a basis of 1 seat per 50U people, the Act clearly does not establish a consistent system of 500 architects = i AR€UK member. note for example that {aj as below, some architects are not to be represented (a) (b), some architects are to be represented more than others (c)(a), only some architects must be represented represented and not represented by the body(s) of which by architects (c), and some architects are to be uirectly Eye SYP lily) as non-architect booklet published arch 1976, attached, and note total absence of elected Councillors. See also “aaverts" on )---is that ARCUK is composed of architectural “constituent bodies" (a term of ever-changing meaning which appears nowhere in the act or kegs) of which the RIBA is "the leading constituent body" (see p.15, draft AKCUK Annual Report for 1979-80) if not the only one of any signilicance. (Note that despite AkKCUK kegs lo and 14, nenbers of AKCUK appointed under Far.1(ix) and 2 are never (£) The varying qualitications for Councillors, architect or not under (1) (2) and (3) above. ») Only architects ordinarily resident in the UK are to be taken account of although the appointing Councils of the bodies cited in Far 1 (i-vi) pre- sumably represent architects resivent abroad as well being fellows, associates or licentiatesS," while the Notice and licentiates)." The notice also makes no distinction between the bodies cited in (i-vi) regarding (a) ana (b) aiscussed above. (see attached docunents) it should also be noted that the Act definitely gives no special importance to any Councillors as opposea to any others. Ali are equal. The mouel of ARCUK'S constitution aspropounded by the KIBA---and even AKCUK see "Composition" on p.3 of peach-coloured AKCUK info. it may be of interest to note that the wording, and thus the meaning, on the ofiicial notice calling for nominations sent out to "unattached" architects by AKCUK departs trom the Scheaule in some way , the Schedule under Par.l(i) and (ii) states “...architect members reads "Corporate member (including fellows, a ciat PESTice Blire[ere) elected to the Council's important Finance & General Purposes ana Professional Purposes Com) ittees.) When the Council was first constituted in harch of 42 members there were 12 appointed by the KIBA, 15 by other "arch." bogies, 5 "representing unattached architects," 5 appointed by gov't. and 7 appointed by eae g] tae | | (mot merely of the so-called "arch. constituent bodie nay have a member of that body apvointes to a viscipline Comittee ot ANCUK hearing a case oi "disgraceiul conduct against him or her and (2)that those archs. not considered tor the purposes of the First Schedule to be menbers of one of the bodies referrred to in Par.1 (i-vi) may elect members of ARCUK. =| Finally. it should be noted that in no way does the Act sugpest that akCUK should be composed largely of architects, should be controliea by organisations with architectmenbers,orshouldservetheinterestsofarch- |EE | itects. ‘| -E | other construction industry organisations. (see attached). | By March 1940, by which time the 1958 Act had made regis- tration mandatory for architects, the figures had changed to 15 KIBA, 15 other "arch." boui x "unattached", with the remaining unchanged. (see attached). he only ways in which the Act appears to treat one architect differently trom another are (1)that any arch. who is a member of any boby reierreu to in the Schedule Pye STNe Blile)|er0) xx Zi tow K is improperly constitut ( The electea Councillors believe that AKCUK is allowing the xk&#K RIBA Council to appoint more members of AKCUK than callea tor by the Archs. Keg. Act 1931. proviaes {or AkCUK to include "one member appointed by (1) The First Schedule, Par. 1(i), of the 1931 Act the Council of the KIBa in respect of every 5UU architect wembers of that Institute, being tellows, associates or licentiates thereof." (our underlining) About ten years ago the kIBA amended its hoyal Charter (with Privy Council approval) to create a single class of “Corporate Member" ( a term not found in the Act) and eliminated all "fellows, associates and licentiates.” Although the Act seems clear that only architect members of the KIBA who are fellows, associates of licentiates houla } taken account of under Par.1 (4), ARCUK, ignoring the change in the kIp/ Charter, takes account of architect members 01 the KiBA under Par.1(i) who are not fellows, associates or licentiates. it should be noted that at a similar time, the K1IBA also amended its Charter to eliminate the class of ketired Members. hetired members since then have been classed as Corporate Members". (Figures supplied by the kIBA to an kkIbA member confirm that the hiBa now has between 1000 and 1500 such retired members classed as Corp. Members who pay reduced sunscriptions because they are retired.) Although the Act is very clear that Ketired henbers are not to be considerea as architect mewbers of the PIRA but shoula be taken account of under Par.1(vii) as "unattached architects, AkCUK has ceased to do this since the change oveEv I-lUroel are)(ole) in the hi#bsA's Charter. It may also be noted that although the Nat. Feu. of Building ‘raves Operatives (more recently known as the Nat. Fed. of Construction Unions) is entitlea to appoint a Council member under Par.2, since it dissolved (although its member unions still exist) its seat has remained ant, Annual Keports of AKCUK indicating “Not entitled noninate" rather than “not nominating.” | The electea Councillors believe, therefore, that | according to the Act, | (1) The RIBA Council has at present no right to appoint any AKCUK Councillors (and should not have been | allowed to do so since it changeu its Charter to | elininate teliows, associates anu licentiates). | Those architect menbers of the kibA who are ordinarily resident in the UK and who are ueened not to be architect wenbers of kIBA because they are honorary, cori esponuing or retired menbers--and only these--should be taken of by AKCUK under Par 1(vii) and be "represen- accordingly as "unattached" architects, as Par (vi) and (vii) excludes from reckoning all architect menbers oi the k1BA, not merely those who are iellows, associates or licentiates (subject of course to the proviso in Far 5 (c)). The Act should be applied to Par 1 (ii-vi), covering other organisations with architect members, in the sate way as it should be appliea to the k1BA. Assuming that ii the KIBA were not alloweu to appoint menbers of akCUK as per (1) above it would make appropriate changes in its Charter to make such appointments again legal, action should also be taken i EL# WeYO ANO|OD to insure that at that time seats on ARCUK are apppr- tioned strictly in acco:aance with the act. ‘here is good reason to believe that AKCUK at present considers as members of the RIBA many arch who are not kKIBA menbers and considers as "unattached" fewer architects than required,. The consequence o1 this is that there would still be more k1BA-appointed Councillors than called for by the Act and too tew “unattached". ihe evidence for be- lieving this is presenteu below, I1-1i1-I Sib, 4 Das How _AkC improperly constituted Gi In response to a questionaire published in the architects Journal of 30-1-80 (see attached), 28 (that “< ‘> tl | 25%) of the 112 architects who said they were "unattached" and answered the question whether or not they had received | | architects should) said they had not. (Obviously, 112 architects responding is a small sample of the presumably over 5000 unattached. There is no 1eason om the face of it to believe, however, that the sample is nec rily biased regaraing the giestior Of these 28, 16 gave their nanes on the questionaire official nomination papers from ARCUK (as all "unattached" SyEvI-re lave)(eye) and the elected councillors have checkea their staterents against AKCUK records. Oi these,16, SNCUK records showed 6 claimed by one o r more of the bodies cited in First Schedule, Parl (i-v) incluging 5 claimed by the bIE Three were clained by no body but were not included in the unattached total (!). Une TM listea as unattached but was not shown on the list of unatiached voters (')- It has not yet been possible to ascertain whether he has been included in the total of unattachea used for appor— tioning seats on ARCUK. The other 6 are indicatea by AKCUK as being unattached (presunably a postal problem). Thus, | | not being considered by AKCUK as unattached, a coniirmation rate of 60%. Applying, this rate to the total of 2& who said they had not received papers, suggests that 16.8 of | | \ Pe a | | ot 1G traceable, 9 or 10 can be considered confirmed as the 28 might be confirmed, 15% of the tw 112 respondi i At the sane tine, ot 4K, 4391 +737 traceable, be elected and 40, not 41, appointed by the RIBA. it should be noted that the kegistrar oi A\CUK has papers in Nov.'79 returned them (as requested on the form) because they were members of one oi the relevapt bocies and were thus mistakenly considerd unattached. Assuming that AKCUK considerea then only 4815 (allowing for 66 istakes) as unattached, the above figures would be modified to 5076 unattached, 19790 KIBA. No change in implications ror seats on akCUK. It should also be noted that in addition to those responding to this questionaire, some of the elected coun- ciliors know personally architects who claim they resigned from the kiBA several years ago ana are still classilied by AnCUK as hIBA. They also occasionally meet architects who say ARCUK regards them as kKIBA althoush they have never been menbers oi the kKIbA. (One case vavid Heath, ym r= q E| | This implies that rather than there being now 4381 "un- attachea" archs. as claimed by AKCUK, there may really 5 were attributed to the RIBA, a confirmation rate of 51.25%. Applying this rate to the 28 oi 112 who said they had not received papers suggests that 8.75 might be confirmed. Thus, ARCUK may be attributing 8.75 to KIBA for each 16.8 | it may be wrongfully denying the "unattached." This implies that rather than there being 20090 KIBA members on the kegister (for Ist Schedule purposes), there are only 19719. The implications for the apportionment of seats on AKCUK of this alone is that 11, not 9, Councillors should pointed out that 40 os tue 1 supposedly sent nomination | 3 | be 773 nore, or 5154. / HL= 18 433] 5) S yeBTL eBlile)[<re) still regaraea as il#a by AKCUK even though he has never been a hibA member and has written expressly to akCUK to say so apd to ask to be properly consiuered as "unattached".) The iigures includea here o1 people wrongly classi- fied by ARCUK could include some of the architects who had been expelled by the KIBA, or resigned, after the Oct. 31 ARCUK "cut-off" but before the jan/Feb 1980 survey date. See(ZI) for how K1IBA uses Regs. loophole by admitting and reinstating members just before 31 Oct. and expélling nembers just after. The figures would not include people who still consiaerea themselves K1BA members, despite not having paid their subscriptio perhaps for several years, because they had not bee expelled by the k1Ba. See 625 (Vv) iow AKCUK is improperly constituted (111) One reason why the KIBA Council has been allowed by ARCUK to appoint more members than the Act calls for is that the kegs. of ARCUK (made under Sec 15 of Act, by K1BA-controlled akCUK, with Privy Council approval) call ior the membership submitted to AkCUK to be that on a single day only, 1 Uctober annually. ‘the k1BA Council conveniently admits new menbers ana reinstates ex-nembers annually just before that date but expells members annually just aiter that date. Thus, once a year%at Oct.351 the membership of the RIBaA for ARCUK purposes is higher than during the rest of the year. For the past three or four years these expulsions have averaged ahout 750 per year. As about 76.3% of the k corporate membership is consiuered by AKCUK to be architects resident in the UK, one may assume that of those 75U, £ 76.0 or 570, are creaited by AKCUK to RIBa. The tigure which AnCUK uses to apyoition seats tor appointment by the kIA Council thus ought to be 19520, not 20090, on this assumption alone. Fresunably most (95y0, or 545) of thes O should be added to the total of those considered by AKCUK to be “unattached," with the renainder still members of another body enabled to appoint members of AKCUK under Ist Schedule, Par 1 (ii-v It s pointed out by the fegistrar that in 1977 the kIBA Council considered that it had by error not enployed this aevice. Apparently, the ‘true" menbership was thus for once reported to AKCUK. 4 figures for Y, Use of AkCUK Regs. "loophole* by kIBA (Oct.51 date) eL# WED INo|OD the "unattachea" reitlect this: in 1975, 2707; in 1976, 3128; in 1977, 4120; in 1978, ,4s64. ELE -a5999- 6 bey ce CQyeayorn) ) sedieci?, ery Bs SAVEie h Fproewa4y)eyoey Arnab mo How ARCUK is improperly constituted CV When aoes an RIBA member cease to be a member for WhendoesanKIBAmembercesseoore AKCUK purpose: the guestion of KIBA arrears. Having heard continued stories of architect members of the RIBA resident in the UK who had not been expelied by the K1BA despite long subscription arrears, the elected councillors were also struck by what appeared to be an annual discrepancy between the number of corp- orate members clained by the k1bA and the subscription De 4-42 income actually received from those nenbers. According to the RIBA's treasurer, this apparent [Doe.38] discrepancy is due to the fact that many RIBA members pay subs at reduced rates, thus accounting ior the apparent rortfall in subs income (compared to the total to be expected if all corporate members paid full sub). In recent years this apparent discrepancy has been the equivalent of 550U members (approx.) not paying any sub out of a total of 26500 if the remainder paid full sub. It is difficult to find out the nunbers ot members atfullandreducedsubsandinarears. KIBArefusesto givesuchinfotonon-members andevenmembershavefound it so far inpossible to secure the info fron the kIBA. Fion seme figures recently supplied by the kIBA to a menber, account can be taken of those who pay reduced subs and the apparent discrepancy described above brought down to a more realistic figure. kIBA full sub for 1979 was £50. an assumed apparent discrepancy of 5500 members (it was 5811 in 1978) would 7 Document @ EL# WeUD ANO|OD 488 "semi-retired" to account for It is known, however, that of the RIBA's approx. 5500 overseas corporate members (5522 in 1976), those in BEC countries are expected to pay full sub and all others, half. We have not been able to obtain a breakdown into these categories from the k1Ba, but examination of several pages selected at randow trom the kIbA Direct of Menbers suggests that roughly 9 (say, 500) are irom other EXC countries, principally Mire. An examination of I membership figures at the time (1970-71) when Eire members ceased to be shown in kIBA's UK figure and begar to be shown in the overseas figure confirms this estimate. Thus another 5000 members wust be reckoned at a reduction of£25, accounting for£125,000 #191,075 (4rom above) -{125,000 =£66,075 still unaccounted for. This could be accounted for if 1322 members on full sub were completely in arrears haa not paid any of 1979 sub. But menbers at full sub are expected to account for only 62.6% of the total expected sub income. So it is really more likely that there are 1601 members in arrears, if TEES 7 fas -fes925 =f191,075 still account for a shortiali of £275,000. 3335 newly-qualitied members 1026" o 53 "semi-retired" ove 219 retired members © reduction it 922 "fully retired" members & Peay eBlaTe arrears are assumed spread evenly aniong all members regard— as "mewbers." income. we think it safe to assume that of the architects whom AKCUK presently counts as h1Ba members for the purpose of apportioning seats on AKCUK, approx. 1500 of 20090 are in arrears and that the great majority of these, 95j or 1 (since les than 5y of KIBA menbers so counted by AKCUK are also members of one of the other bodies mentioned in the Ist Schedule, par 1 (i-v}), should be considered as "unattached." Ii this were done, on these grounds alone the kIBA Council shoula get 38 (not 41) seats on AKCUK and 12 (not9) councillors should be elected. It possible that there may be another explanation for the discrepancy in the RIBA's membership and sub income 2 less of sub level they are on, li these arrears are then distributed proportionally among those KIBA members on the Kegister of Architects and resident in the UK (76.3% of total), and those who are not, one can assume that 1222 are people whom ARCUK counts as RKIBA members for the purpose of apportioning seats on AKCUK. However, it is probably correct to assume to assume that this figure should be higher, for two reasons: (2) It can be assumed that a higher percentage of the people being kept on as menbers despite arrears are on the Register and resident in the UK since the K1ba has little to gain by keeping others on Pye stale PUlere) Presunably, some people have paid some part of their sub, so the total number of people in arrears must be increased to account for the same shortfall in described above. 1t could not, however, be fully accounted incone. > less of sub level they are on. li these arrears are then (76.3% of total), and those who are not, one can assume that 1222 are people whom ARKCUK counts as RIBA members for the purpose of apportioning seats on AKCUK. However, it is probably correct to assume to assume that this be increased to account for the same shortfall in ve think it safe to assume that of the architects whom AkCUK presently counts as k1Ba members for the purpose of apportioning seats on AKCUK, approx. 1500 )0$0 are in arrears and that the great majority of these, cele (since les than 5y of kiBa members counted by AKCUK are also members of one of the other bodies mentioned in the lst Schedule, par 1 (i-v}), should be considered as "unattached." grounds alone the kIBA Council should get 38 (not 41) seats on AKCUK and 12 (not9) councillors should be elected. It is possible that there may be another explanation for the discrepancy in the RIBA's membership and sub income If this were done, on these distributed proportionally among those KIBA menbers on the kegister of Architects and resident in the UK figure should be higher, for two reasons: (2) It can be assumed that a higher percentage of the people being kept on as members despite arrears are on the Register and resident in the UK since the k1ba has little to gain by keeping others on as "mewsbers Fresunably, some people have paid some part of their b, so the total number of people in arrears must EYPETL-WOBIT(-ro) described above. 1t could not, however, be fully accounted tor by short term (one year) arrears, since tre sub income from members in arrears one year would be largely compensated for by members paying off their arrears of the previous year. There seems to us to be only two logical conclusions: (2) as described above, that there are many members in long-term arrears who ne pay off their arrears e.g., "terminal" arrears, or (2) the number of people in short-term arrears is already very large and is growing at an ever so that those paying off their arréars can never make up for the ever larger nunbers just going into arrears. This seens implausible. E1# WeUD INE|OO A. “unattached “architects laisse _e 425° Ame |29390 2440 The combined stehstical eerie TTBeDouments4-7+ “towPROUAKU6 aecoed“) |. Totad acording teARCLK 31-l0-74 = 4351 ; | scbsequerbyonvmodwsahached’byMOKnom () Z. (EL ie om a Assum Ft wleryreked m 1336 | | Spunk(wotti), Feler,sna Heantiates ley Members. but R160 I \ i OF 1131 w UK assume YaonRefs =505 “vetived” cout ag “unattached ae 3.(E) [en re ees 4.() Add hecaure4 eas ole+54S ¢ J“i(240|| Deduct est.240 fou =240 | \ (O00 151000 \ | Yoceclep’ of iandIE 6.(BL) Ade becauseoflangle Ores PIP Sco lirclcre) FST. REAL porat“unarTAcuen'= 73 26 THIS SUGGESTS “UniaTiacHeD “ swoucp BE ENTITLED To ELECT I5 Counaiees (NOT 4 AS | 3 a FRESENTLY AUD ATED.) | - THis SUGGETS AREUK S18ULP AeeeepioN 35 SEATS Fee APPOINTMENT BY The RIBA Count. (NET 4) AS PRESENTLY ALLS ceTED) 2 RIGMMoccia a eae of eae Seals on CUR [, Tetel accercling 4 ARCUK 3(-107R = 20040 assumedslestoycfrmaARALMC +40 ( ; ZO\ZO A (Z) See prenens 3,(qs) ct n page 565 mA -300 My Ley O70: 870 | Deduct est. (Fofer x72 | “oeclap” ofTardI 6.Gf)SlotrectCe -.Foo ounvea<S Esp RAL yerac “eIeA” = 17365 =/S00 suetrncr 2765 =27b5_ Peetlow litelco) ie AKCUK not constit qd) There is no outside agency to insure that ARCUK really is the ARCUK aescribed in the First Schedule of the 1951 Act. No person or body is held responsible for so ensuring. ARCUK, under Sec 15(1)(£) may make Regs. "generally for carrying out the purposes of this Act," but apparently is not obliged to. It should be noted in passing, howeve: that the ist Schedule did provide for such a responsible agency for the first constitution of the Council (the Secretary of State and a committee appointed by him), and that Kegs. made by ARCUK must be approved by the Privy Council and that "any person aggrieved by the hemoval of his name from the kegister Recon t appeal to the High Court or Court of Session, whose “order shall be final." (Sec 9). (2) The Regs. (43-45) made by AKCUK under the Act to prescribe the manner of the election of members under lst Schedule Par 1(vii) are not adeguate to insure that seats on AKCUK are apportioned in accordance with the Aét or may even tena to prevent their being so apportioned. (a) In a nunber of ways, hegs 45-45 do not strictly follow the Schedule (eg, compare Par 3(b) and(c) to delinition of "unattached" in keg 43). (b)The use of one day as a reference point for determining the relevant members of various organisations provides a loophole preventing the ist Schedule fron being properly inplemented. (see III) (c) The kegs do not proviae for an outside and impartial body to administer the appo1tionnent of seats ed by eye yey InojoD those with a vested interest in the outcone o1 the apportionment , their control of akc (dG) In oraer to determine the nunbers of "unattached" archs. and elected councillors---and, in practice but not according to any keg., coincidentally the number other Councillors to be appointed by bodies in Par 1(i- keg 45 allows for, but does not require, those bodies to supply the Clerk of the Couicil with a list of their members. In the case of those lists not being supplied, the Clerk is to use the "last published list" of such boay. At a time when the relevant UK memberships of all those bouies are apparently declining, while the “unnattached" are increasing in number, this provision is clearly insufficient to carry out the act. im any case, there is no provision in the hegs as to how the Clerj is to use or interpret these lists in determining the nuiber of unattsched archs. (e) No keg provides explicitly tor determining the number of AkCUK members which each of the bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) may nominate. (£) The kegs provide that the only infornation to be used to deternine the number of votinig archs. under Par 1 (vii) shall be proviuea by the bodies cited in (i-vi), rather than allowing for or providing that into be supplied by the indiviaual architect regarding his or her membership o1 such bodies. And when AiCUK has asked individual archs. for info (Ann. heport 71/72, par 27, attached, and attached Form A), it has only asked "unattached" architects whether they night be attached, without ing attached archs. whether they might be unatt, el# Mello) AINOJOD ‘ibere is no mechanisi Lor reiuting a claim by one of these bouies that an arch is a menber. the system is clearly one-sided and open to abuse. (eg) There is no system for determining the validity of such menbership claims by such bodies. (h) The lists of members called for by the kegs are not required to specity the class of membership, thus giving AkCUK insufiicient info, to apportion seats aetermine the number of "unattached" as per the Scheaule. (i) There is no explanation 01 who (akCUK or the body concerned) is to determine what tor the purposes oi the Act constitutes being a meuber of such an organi- sation and on what grounas that determination shall take place. For exanple, the ketention F_e which each arch. nust pay AKCUK under 13 (1)(a) is due Jan. 1 of each year in advance and AkCUK normally strikes off the ister the following Lecewber 31 all those who owe any The various bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) may keep tembers in arrears on their rolls ior varying amounts of tine. AkCUK goes not appear to question any claim by a body that an arch. is a member oi that body for any reason. Like AhKCUX, KIBa memb. subs. are due Jan 1 annually in aavance and the kIBA's Charter allows it to expel] menber after only 7 w.onths in arrears. It appears to us (see IV) that the kIBA claims for AKCUK purposes many architects in long-term, terminal arrears and others who have resigned or were never members at all and that AiCUK accepts theese claims. (1t may be noted that the Faculty of Architects & Surveyors, seePar. 1(iii), currently claims as menbers for AhCUK purposes only"those whose subs. were fully paid and with whon we were in contact." See attached document.) 2 1t is also open to question whether the purpose of the Act can be servea when seats are apportioned t appointing bodies based on memberships totals which those bodies can inflate (gaining extra seats on AKCUK) with architeets who are members under duress. Employee architects probably couprise at least 75% of those on the kegister resiaent in the UK. Although the kIBA publicly claims to be a voluntary body (see attached), many employee architects are members of the KIBA only because their employer requires them to be so, in violation the Employ. Protect. Act and TULRA, as the kIBA is not an indepenuent trade union (being enployer-aowinatea) and because k1bA menbership is in no way’a higher qualilication than kegistration with AlCUK. be estimate that 4000 01 the #Kis k1Ba's UK arch. members are required by their employers to be hiba members, ana it is probably sate to say that at least 2UUU are probably k1BA members for that reason only. 1 should be notea that many other arch. members of the kIBA who are employees are "encouraged" to join the kIbA by their employer, usually an KIBA member, paying their kIBA sub. This is probably as widespread as invol- untary membership. It should also be noted that Inlana }evenue permits *ke KIBA subs to be an aliowance against income (eg, public subsidy of Kiba) but does not vo this in respect oi all the bodies in Ist Scheaule Par 1(i-vi) who are entitled to appoint members of AkCUK on the 1:500 basi Ea evel Blircl(cre) (3) Though AKCUK'S Kegs are clearly totally inadequate A) sure that the Council is properly constituted in accordance with the A€t, it appears also that they are not being properly implemented. Thé lists provided for in keg 45(1)(b) are not being supplied to the Clerk. Nor are the ast published lists", as required by the Act, apparently used. (4) e believe that human error and fraudulent intent hate been given free rein because of (i)(2) ana (3) above. Given the political complexion oi AhCUK as it is presently, and apparently wrongly, constituted, it is very unlikely that this AkCUK will make ana inplempnt any kegs which could ensure that the Council is properly constituted. For the sane reason, it is also very unlikly that tkehibA & ARCUK will proauce and make public the info wich would indicate exactly to what extent the Council is wrongiully constitute €1L# weUD INE|OD oposed tem to ensure properly constituted AR ARCUK for what at present pretends to be ARCUK) needs to be obliged by some outside agency to amend its Regulations under Sec.13 of the 1931 Act, as well as taking equivalent short-term measures despite its present kegs., to, (1) require apportionment of seats on ARCUK in accordance with the First Schedule of the 1931 Act to be the responsibility of an external, impartial, lay (non- architect) agency which would each year tell ARCUK what its constitution would be for the following year. define membership of the bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) of the Ist Schedule to discount menbers in arrears longer than AKCUK itself permits and to discount members who affirm that they are members only because they are obliged to be as a condition o1 enploymen plug up the "one day of the year" loop-hole so that menbership for AKCUK purposes is a realistic 1epre- sentation of the organisation's membership. consider an architect not to be a relevant member of one of the bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) unless confirmed annually by the architect (not the body) that he or she is a member of such a body in accordance with the definition of membership in (2) above and in full accordance with the provisions of the Ist Schedule. (ARCUK already writes to every architect twice a year.) if (4) is not acceptable for any reason, require bodies cited in Par 1 (i-vi) to furnish ARCUK such information at it requires in order to ensure that the Council is constituted in accordance with the First 7d | | ese | >| g| = 2| — -| EYPETB (oro) the proper nunber of eected councillors Scheaule, in abseuce o1 which alleged mewbers tor whose "case" the into. is requireu would be considered "unattached" ana voting. Furthermore, in the tirst instance, we propose that it be required €G) that persons improperly appointed to the Council by the RIBA Council be imuediately removed trom the Council, that any election by the Council 01 persons to serve on the Board of Arch. Education, Admi ions Cttee, biscipline Cttee, F&GP, PPC, other Council boards, panels, delegations etc. as well as the Council's ana their chairpersons, anu Council appointments, be considered void it held while the Council is improperly cousituted ana provision maae for new elections ana appointnents by the properly constituted Council. (8) that as soon as practicable a special election be that those bouies, incl. AkCUK and FIBA, which have information which could clarify the extent of mal- apportionemént of seats on ARCUK should make freely available that info. (40) that the legality o1 acts of the Council carried ELi#WUD sNo|OD held to elect adaitional councillors so that there is out while it was ivproperly constituted be clarified. LOSS AND DETRIMENT SUFFERED BY ‘UNATTACHED' ARCHITECTS SEE AS A RESULT OF THE IMPROPER CONSTITUTION OF A.R.C.U.K. oO 1.01 It was clearly the intention of The Architects Registration Act 1931 to provide equal rights of representatiom to all those persons who, though registered, choose not to become members of those bodies referred to in Schedule I, 2. (4) = (vi), and that such persons should enjoy equal benefits and likewise be equally subject to the Council's disciplinary powers as provided im respect of all registered persons. persons. entrance qualifications. / yeBTL eBlile)[er0) 1.02 To the extent that correct representatiom of registered persons under Schedule I, 1 (vii) is currently not acheived, both the spirit and the letter of the Act are being thwarted. To be denied their due representation in the Council's affairs in itself constitutes a fundamental grievance of this category of registered 2.01 The primary functions of A.R.C.U.K. as enshrined in the Architects Registration Act 1931 are the establishment of a Register of Architects (1,(3)), the admissioomf names thereto (1,(3)), and the removal of names therefrom (1,(3a & b),7 &11). The recognition and holding of examinations suitable to qualify successful candidates for admission to the Register is made the explicit duty of The Board of Architectural Education to recommend to the Council, (5, (2a & b)). In this way, through their representatiom on Council; tunattached! architects were intended to participate in the determination of EG 2.02 However, by its undue dominance of the Council, the R-I.B.A. bas removed the exercise of this duty out of A.R.C.U.K. into its own system of Visiting Boards, im which BsA.E. representation (invariably by R.I.B.A. members) is merely a token gesture. (See A.R.C.U.K. Annual Reports 1974/5 (101/2), 1975/6 (49), 1976/7 (71), 1977/8 (62), 1978/9 (60/ 61). N.B. the latter Report in which the B.A.E. is actually referred to as "a wide ranging assemblage of educationalists .. called together LOSS AND DETRIMENT /2 atconsiderablepublicexpenseforamereformality.") The‘unattached' architects have thus been denied their due part im establishing the quality of those eligible to enter the Register. 3.01 In the matter of removals from the Register, the Discipline Committee is appointed (1931 Act, 7(2)) to examine cases where a registered person may have been guilty of conduct disgraceful to him in his capacity as an architect. The criteria employed in considering such cases are as embodied in the A.R.C.U.K. Code of Professional Conduct. 3.02 However, the disproportionate representatiom of the R.I.B.A. on Council has enabled the Institute to extend the applicatiom of its own association rules beyond its own membership to all registered persons. This illegitimate extension of R.I.B.A. control is clearly evident in the content of the A.R.C.U.K. Code, which is substantially identical to that of the R.I.B.A., and indeed is published with the R.I.B.A. Notes appended. to practice in ways which the Registration Acts do not prohibit. continued defence of the Conditions of Engagement in defiance of the Ze 3-03 In this way ‘unattached’ architects may be disciplined to the detriment of their livelyhood for breaches of a code not freely determined in their own Council, but emanating from a private associatiotmo which they do not belong. 4.01 Equally, this illegitimate protection of the R.I-B.A. Code by the identical A.R.C.U.K. Code curtails the freedom of non-R.1.B.A. architects 4.02 Thus ‘unattached' architects are, for example, obliged by Rules 1.1 and 3.2 of the 'A.R.C.U.K. Code' to apply the 'recognised' Conditions of Engagement of bodies listed in Schedule 1, 1 (i) - (vi). (A.R.C.U-K. Code of Professional Conduct. p.5, footnote.) 4.03 These Conditions of Engagement (in fact those promulgated by the R.I-B-A.) require that an architect's fees are charged in accordance with a fixed Scale of Charges, thereby denying ‘unattached' architects their proper freedom under the Acts to enhance their livelyhood by quoting fees in competition with other architects. The degree to which A.R.C.U.! thus improperly controlled by the R.I.B.A. is evident in the Council's LOSS AND DETRIMENT /3 Monopolies & Mergers Commission's conclusions and recommendations (accepted by the present and previous Governments) that such fixed Scales of Charges be abandoned in the public interest. (See "Architects' Services — A Report on the Supply of Architects' Services with Reference to Scale Fees", The Monopolies & Mergers Commission, H.M.S.0., 8th Nov. 1977, paras. 285 & 286.) 5.01 Likewise an 'unattached' architect's freedom to carry on his practice in the form of a limited liability company which isnot proscribed by the Registration Acts is nevertheless denied by Rule 2.4 of the (R.I.B.A.surrogate)A.R.C.U.K.CodeofProfessionalConduct. Inthie way the R.I.B.A. bas improperly used the 'A.R.C.U.K.' Code to protect its own members from what "unattached" architects may consider to be more advantageous forms of practice. 6.01 Another constraint in the manner of practice that the R.I.B.A. is at liberty to impose on its own members, but which is extended to all registered persons by means of its improper inclusion in the 'A.R.C.U.K.! Code, is the prosziption of advertising. (Rule 3.6) In this case, moreover, while through A.R.C.U.K. the R.I.B.A. prohibits 'soliciting' by registered persons, it simultaneously engages in vigorous advertising on behalf of its own members. Here again the improper constitution of A.R.C.U has prevented ‘unattached architects in their enjoyment of equal rights | in pursuing their means of livelyhood. 7.01 Lastly, and again by virtue of illegitimate R.I.B.A. representation | and dominance in Council, the equal opportunities in obtaining employment that are envisaged in the Act's single level of registered persons - (ise. equal qualification conferred by entry to the Register) - are prejudiced by the the widespread imposition of R.I.B.A. membership as a pre-requisite for job applications. Although A.R.C.U.K. has frequently been advised of this practice it remains negligent in informing employers of its injustice. (R.I.B.A. membership entails no higher qualification.) 8.01 In sum, through the improper constitution of A.R.C.U.K., ‘unattached’ architects are seen to suffer loss and detriment in the equal treatment and right to livelyhood to which under The Architects Registration Acts they are entitled, tee elaOecd ese) / at © me notes on the politics of AKCUK as it no! D: uted (b) 6 persons appointed by the Councils of certain other i | 6 non-architects appointed by certain other bocies involvea in the construction industry Since 1977, nearly all of the elected councillors have been enployee-architect nembe of the New architecture Movenent, a group aiming to make the profession more accountable to the public ana more democratically con— a trolled at ali levels. These NAN. members elected as | are all members of the relevant trade union, TASS or NALGO as the case may be. Although probably of its own (non-retired) UK member ship are employee architects, the K1Ba Council regularly appoints 90) management architects to AlCUK. The RIBA Council and its committees are similarly dominated by employers, whose interests the KIBA is widely seen as pursuing y | Es xcept for the elected members, other akCUK councillors generally rally behind the kIBA appointees' position, with one or two exceptions. sl ARCUK at present (1979-80) consists of 66 members, (a) 40 persons appointed by the RIBA Council bodies because they have architect member | (c) 9 architects electea by architects one person appointed by the Council of the koyal Society of Ulster Architects (part of kIBA) 5 persons appointed by gov't entitie < | Those under a, b, d and e need not be architects but invariably are and are with at most one or two exceptions per year, nembers of the k1BA as well. 6. Previous to the passage of the architects hegistration Act 1931, the K1Ba had sought trom Farliament a monopoly on the use of the title "architect" for its own members. When Parliament refused this and set up ARCUK and the Register instead, the RIBA Council apparently resolved to control AKCUK (see Loc. 46) as an RIBA puppet in its own interes and to prevent its proper functioning as an independent, public interest boay. The present situation can be compared to a classic "banana republic" (AKCUK), with the United Fruit Co. (i1BA) manipulating the puppet with little attempt to apply a veneer of derocracy over all the usual procedures of a tin-horn dictatorship or one-party state. (see voc. 14). {he agministration 01 AKCUK is carried out by a kegistrar and h taif. The present Kegistrar was selected in secret by a committee of KIBA members, some of whoni were no lounger members of AkCUK, and presented to the Council for reatification only, two years ago. The RIBA's UK membership, after increasing for man years, has been in decline since 1975, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of UK architects. Ihe nuiber oi UK architects in other boaies entitled to appoint persons to AKCUK on that basis is also declining. A recent survey published in the Architects Journal (see boc. 37) indicated that 70 of 294 KIBA members responding (anu 99% of 153 "unattached" architects) thought that RIBA control of AKCUK was not in the best interests of the public. 66% of the KIBA members (and 95% of the “unattached") also thought it w not in the best interests of the proiessior = Pye staleBll cre) A.C.Drysdale of Architecture Guildhall Portsmouth Hants .David Heath Levitt Berstein Assoc. 30 Oval Road London NW1 WSreertve Named (ncindvar Cazes o Hsontranchsement ot “vuattachoA ’Archdtcely Evidence of disenfranchisement of "unattached" architects. In response to a questionnaire to the profession published in the ARCHITECTS JOURNAL of 30 January 1980, 21% of a sample of 150 "unattached" architects claimed not to have received nomination papers for the 1980/81 Council elections. If representative this indicate assive disenfranchisement of "unattached" architects and a loss of at least 2 seats on council if these 21% are excluded from the ARCUK list of ache a to the "unattached" would be made worse if the 1% were attributed by ARCUK to one of the 6 nominating bodies thereby increasing their representation on Council at the expense of the "unattached". € es yweuo Tatel[oto) vespondents(14%) gave their name and that the elected councillors were able to r statements against ARCUK records The results of this eck are as follows:- A.-Registered architects considering themselves "unattached" but listed as 4a member of one or more of the 6 nominating bodies. Name & address Registration No. Body J.S.Dodd 23271 AA 37 Braemar Road Worcester Park Surrey Ian Redford Lowden 44945 101 Turnbert Avenue Ardler Dundee Martin Goodwin 38515 Dept. of Architecture London Borough of Southwark L.Tek Ong 41849 ; | Architects Dept. London Borough of Hammersmith Roger Thompson Sevenoaks Kent W.J.Wintle Dawn Dartington Totnes Devon TQ9 6HE 30144 The RIBA has informed ARCUK that thi are their members. ARCUK accept this despite at least one written request to ARCUK (from David Heath) to be listed unattached. David Heath is not and never has been, amember of the RIBA. L.Tek Ong Roger Thompson and Martin Goodwin resigned from the RIBA in 1978. Sworn statements to this effect can be obtained. Dept. of Architecture and Civic Design Civic Offices Guildhall Portsmouth PO1 2AT B.1.Patel Dept. of Architecture and Civic Design 7 1 | ; | | Saale ] Civic Offices Giuldhall Portsmouth P01 2AT . M.G.Watts Directorate of Architecture Telford Development Corporation Priorslee Hall Telford Salop TF2 9NT had walker toAe inae : architects Kxaned RIGA 1 ] A| Bayleys Hi Registered architects not attributed to any | of the nominating bodies and yet not included on the list of "unattached", and therefore not sent nomination papers. z oyeeele telre) P.Lowendon 31348 C. Registered architect listed as "unattached" but not included in mailing of nomination papers. D.W.Olden 35906 28 Bell Place Edinburgh EH3 SHT Bey LOE mus is on the arch itect to inform the Registrar of any change of addr and failure to do this mi account for those sent to old addresses. No explanation was given by the Registrar for groups A,B,&C above. This short investigation was only possible because a sample of names was available and the elected councillors were prepared to devote their time to checking them. It is alarming that this should reveal 12 architects wrongly disenfranched and the fear is that there are many more as yet undisclosed. There is at present no intention within ARCUK to carry out a thorough scrutiny , nor to allow an independent scrutiny ofmembership status. CTE tLe bluaicre) Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource NAM Unattached Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource March 1980 Subject The topic of the resource Letter seeking legal advice re Clean Up Report on improper constitution of ARCUK, enclosing report https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/23f4096ebf6b38a1ef9555a21685feea.pdf e2b79863e64dbb8859846f6691e27d4a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Trade Unions and Architecture Description An account of the resource Themes included action on asbestos and Health &amp; Safety, and involvement with Direct Labour Organisations and Building Unions. Following comparative research of possible options, NAM encouraged unionisation of building design staffs within the private sector, negotiating the establishment of a dedicated section within TASS. Though recruitment was modest the campaign identified many of the issues around terms of employment and industrial relations that underpin the processes of architectural production. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter Subject The topic of the resource Open letter with blank pledge forms to join a union Description An account of the resource Dear (Unionisation)Organising Committee The New Architecture Movement 143 Whitfield Street London Wi 28 january 1977 We have now begun the second, and hopefully decisive, round of talks with the four unions (UCATT, TGWU, ASTMS, TASS) who were considered to be potential vehicles for a serious trade union organising drive amongarchitecturanld allied workers, beginning in the totally unorganised private sector. We hope to complete this round of talks by Feb.. 13 and to have by then afairly clear idea of the most real-. istic course tofollow._ ig ats or We have been considering all reasonable alternatives: going into one (which one?) of the four existing unions, obtaining some form of . joint backing from two or more of them for a new union, or going it clone by starting a completely independent’ union on our own. Thereafter, please continue to gather "pledges" and return any ' additional ones to us before March 13. But we must emphasize the ‘critical importance at this possible committed before Feb.13. time of getting as many people as In the meantime, interest in trade union organisation in architecture is, not surprisingly, increasinga,t least as far as we Can ascertain from increasing discussion in the press and from increasing expression - of interest in it to N.A.M. by architectural workers. Atthesametimeascarronydiiscunssgionsandnegotiationswith. therelevantunions,wearealsoinvoilnvreveisdionoftheDraft— Report, "Architectural Workers and Trade Unionism," and in developir: plans for the conference "on organising and co-ordinating trade... unionism among architectural and allied workers." The conference should take place sometime this Spring. We hope to launch the organ- ising drive, itself, which we are beginning to plan, shortly after that. . It is emerging in our talks with the unions concerned that before a union is willing to make the kind of commitment we believe is neces- sary to launch a serious organising drive aimed at building a unified trade union organisation of architectural and allied workers, that union expects. some tangible evidence of committment on the part of such workers. (And should we decide to launch a completely indep- endent union, such a committment is even more necessary.) In any case, we on the Organising Committee require tangible. indication of wider committment for us to continue our work. Wearethereforedependoinnygoutosigntheaccompanyingformand to gather as quickly as possible as many signatures (with the relev- ant information) as you can. If, and only if, it is impossible to reach someone in person but they have confirmed their committment (by> phone, for example) please print their name but sign your name . Please return them yourself to reach us no later than Feb.13, and ~girlier if possible. : Please consider that for organising purposes it is better to have several people in one office than scattered individuals, so try especially hard to get several pledges from each office. Pledges from anyone wishing to join are obviously most welcome; we are, however, particularly interested in workers in private sector firms or dep''ts. where the union would be free, under T.U.C. arrangements, actively to recruit members. This must be emphasized. PLEASE take EVERY precaution to insure that these forms do not come into the wrong hands and consider carefully the pledge of confiden- tiality that we have made on it. We want to discuss with you what we are doing and we waht to keep - you informed. We need your advice, participation, and support. Please keep in touch with us. and try to attend our next meetings, at which some key decisions will have to be made. We meet Feb.13 at Ip.m. at 76B Loveridge Rd, Kilburn, London NW 6 (LT=Kilburn, Bakerloo Line;. BR= Brondesbury, N. London Line). We meet again March 13, venue as yet undetermined, In any case, please get as many "pledges" as you can back to us before Feb. 13, Every single person counts. Even if you have only one or two, please send them in and continue to try to get more after then. It seems certain that the more people we can get to commit themselves now, the better organising drive we will be able to launch, and the better union we will have. It's up to us to start building our union now. Yours fraternally, (Unionisation) Organising Committee tel.contact, Bob at 01~794-643' p.s. If you need more forms, xerox them or get in touch with us and we will rush you them. And remember, we want all workers in architecture and related building professsions in the union. This includes, taking architectural employees as an example, salaried architects, technicians, assistants, year-out students, . Secretaries, administrators, telephonists, receptionists, librar- ians, printing and repro staff, "tea ladies," ETC. NAME (block letters) HOME ADDRESS -OCCUPATION (signed) POSITION IN FIRM NAME OF EMPLOYER Approx. no. of EMPLOYEES in firm® If you are now a member of Comments a trade union, indicate which notes: 1 surveying, quantity surveying, services engineering, landscape ior design, etc. 2. There will probably be wages, students and trainees, structural engineering, building company, etc. 3. or in arch. and allied R prof. dep'ts. if in large architecture, town planning, a reduced rate for workers and unemployed. inter- with very low I commit myself to join a bona~fide trade union for ALL workers in architecture and the allied building professions! as soon as it has reached an agreement with the (Unionisation) Organising Committee of the New Architecture Movement and begins a serious organising drive among such workers in the presently unorganised private sector, where for maximum effectiveness organisation should be limited to one union. I understand that the union will be open to all workers (professional, technical, manual, clerical or administrative...but not management ) in such offices and that the level(s) of monthly subscription will aventually bg set (for the present) at not less than 80p nor more than £1.50, I understand that my name (and related information) will be kept in the strictest confidence and, without my express permission, will be passed on to no one except the eventual-union organisers. ETURN THIS FORM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (by Feb. 13, 1977, if you can) TO: (Unionisation) Organising Committee The New Architecture Movement 143 Whitfield Street London W2 publ. 28-1-~77 NAME (block letters} HOME ADDRESS -OCCUPATION (signed) POSITION IN FIRM NAME OF EMPLOYER Approx. no. of EMPLOYEES in firm” If you are now a member Comments of a trade union, indicate which structural engineering, building ior design, etc. 4. There will probably be a reduced rate for workers with notes: “LTMsurveying, quantity surveying, services engineering, landscape architecture, town planning, wages, students and trainees, 3. or in arch. and allied prof. inter- very low and unemployed. dep'ts. if in large company, etc. I commit myself to join a bona-~fide trade union for ALL workers in architecture and the allied building professions! as soon as it has reached an agreement with the (Unionisation) Organising Committee of the New Architecture Movement and begins a serious organising drive among such workers in the presently unorganised private sector, where for maximum effectiveness organisation should be limited to one union. I understand that the union will be open to all workers (professional, technical, manual, clerical or administrative...but not management ) in such offices and that the level(s) of monthly subscription will eventually bg set (for the present) at not less than 80p nor more than £1.50, I understand that my name (and related information) will be kept in the strictest confidence and, without my express permission, will be passed on to no one except the eventual-union organisers. RETURN THIS FORM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (by Feb. 13, 1977, if you can) TO: (Unionisation) Organising Committee The New Architecture Movement 143 Whitfield Street London W2 publ. 28-1-77 NAME (block letters) HOME ADDRESS -OCCUPATION POSITION IN FIRM NAME OF EMPLOYER Approx. no. of EMPLOYEES in firm® If you are now a member of a trade union, indicate which Comments notes: L surveying, quantity surveying, structural engineering, building services engineering, landscape architecture, ior design, ete. 4. There will probably be a reduced town planning, inter- (signed) rate for workers with very low wages, students and trainees, and unemployed. a. or in arch. and allied prof. dep'ts. if in large company, etc. I commit myself to join a bona~fide trade union for ALL workers in architecture and the allied building professions! as soon as it has reached an agreement with the (Unionisation) Organising Committee of the New Architecture Movement and begins a serious organising drive among such workers in the presently unorganised private sector, where for maximum effectiveness organisation should be limited to one union. I understand that the union will be open to all workers (professional, technical, manual, clerical or administrative...but not management) in such offices and that the level(s) of monthly subscription will eventually bg set (for the present) at not less than 80p nor more than £1.50. I understand that my name (and related information) will be kept in the strictest confidence and, without my express permission, will be passed on to no one except the eventual-union organisers. RETURN THIS FORM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (by Feb. 13, 1977, if you can) TO: (Unionisation) Organising Committee The New Architecture Movement 143 Whitfield Street London W2 publ. 28-1-77 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource NAM Union Committee Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 28 Jan 1977 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/9cf65a33fb8c57e28519d8b1b2436a7a.pdf d2b3902d111a32e048d9561783441755 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/522dca0d3e2ff802ede065797e480825.pdf 31d4de7f01aa6c241a5d74eb212260e3 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Trade Unions and Architecture Description An account of the resource Themes included action on asbestos and Health &amp; Safety, and involvement with Direct Labour Organisations and Building Unions. Following comparative research of possible options, NAM encouraged unionisation of building design staffs within the private sector, negotiating the establishment of a dedicated section within TASS. Though recruitment was modest the campaign identified many of the issues around terms of employment and industrial relations that underpin the processes of architectural production. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Architectural Workers & Trade Unionism Subject The topic of the resource Draft Report on organisation of architectural and allied workers (32pp.) Description An account of the resource eS In an gee eagle to learn from the mistakes of more conventional practices, a few "enlightened" architects have tried to create small, fairly "respon- sive practices, more or less "democratically" run as cooperatives or mod- ified partnerships. As "one-off" cases they have been obliged to compete in isoletion for patronage, manpower, financing, etc.-in a completely -capitalist system whose business and professional structure has been designed for their more bureaucratic, hierarchical and profit-oriebted ‘copetitorsYe.tbecauseoftheirinternaladvantagesaswealsltheun- usual amount of talent, effort and committment which those involved have -brought to them, some of these practices have achieved limited success and have even been seized upon by the profession and media as signs of progress. Signs of hope they are, but it would be foolish to believe that in the present context such a course is realistically open to any more than a token number of practices. Others ina related vein sought to rectify the obvious lack of direct accountability to the community which has characterised both private 'and public practice and set up would-be “community architecture offices" in the wake of the "advocacy plarning" movement. These have been involved, with varying degrees of success, in fighting the planning and architec- ture establishment in the name of threatened local, generally: working- class, communities and providing them with architectural services to which they would not otherwise have access. It appears that while token, “scattered local successes may be tolerated, if not encouraged, in order to give the profession a slightly more progressive and dynamic public image and to keep busy and content some of the more committed young architectural workers while at the same time isolating them from the ‘"mainstream" of architectural workers in the offices "downtown," there is also reason to believe that this direction is hardly accessible as a "general solution" on any scale without major structural changes in the pbtofecsion. In the meantime, lacking a consolidated power base and with tenuous sources of funding and support, such offices may even run the tisk of competition from the professional establishment itself, seeking to move in on the new "market" they have opened up, #ESOUp some respect- ability” and ensure that."things don't go too far." “One. step. parther is. zane. by advocates of ‘Ngelf- build". ‘abe: LeeGhpt to | "drop-out". of the building industry and all its frustrations, :though (they. sometimes do reserve a continuing role for the architect. 6. Others have chosen to try to minimise their confections with the mar- ket system itself by setting up rural "communes." This again, though presenting a challenging model, is not an option open to large numbers of people in the present context. Some thoughtful architects, seeing no socially or creatively positive . Tole possible within practice as it now is, have retreated into archi- tectural education and theory. While there is no doubt that important contributions can be made in this field, even at times in isolation ‘from practice,©there can also be little doubt that there is a tendency among some of these people to erect a protective shelter of mystification around their somewhat vulnerable and isolated professional josition. 8. Seeing the need for basic changes in the professional structure itself, groups like the "New Architecture Movement" have begun to call for its reorganisation into a national design service of small, locally-based, democratically-run non-profit practices directly accountableto the community. But without developing the industrial and political power to begin to move in this direction. let alone to fully realise the. propo- .Sals,,how will they even’ be able to realistich&ly develop the concepts themselves? 9. In the late Sixties, some salaried architects began the latest attempt to gain influence within the employers! prganisation. The Salaried Arch- 2.5 erat -itects Group in the :RIBA was formed and the RIBA's electoral system mod- . ified in the hope of giving the salaried majority of RIBA members some control of the organisation. The group has subsequently spent four years “of Gonsiderable effort” achieving token recognition of the: salaried arch-. ~.itect.in.a by now. contradictory "Code of. Conduct" whose "enforcement" is still entrusted to the emplgyers. Meanwhile, involvment at Portland ' P¥ace has tended to isolate these articulate and committed architectural ‘.workers; from.their "constituency" while their token presence has perhaps , eheouraged the illusion that the RIBA might someday be made accountable to its salaried majority. How seriously would the RIBA's "democratic *- framework" be taken if it were placed in the architectural office itself rather than at Portland Place, given the absence of strong''shop floor" organisation of architectural] workers. We doubt whether the charade could continue.. By. removing the scene of confrontation from the work- place, where the conflicts are, to a so-called "professional institute," the illusion of democracy is sustained. Tactically, °by trying to deal “<with the employers. within: the RIBA framework, tather than at the place of work, the S.A.G, allowed themselves. to be separated from many of their fellow architectural workers who are not even eligible for RIBA membership, while allying themselves instead with some ‘salaried architac- _tural. management. it BS If,this,isbeginningtoreadlikea"ninleiv,esof.architectural:reformism," it's no coincidence. All the above-mentioned "tendencies". try. to. solve the problems facing architecture by a solution within the scope of action by the isolated individual. They’ demonstrate ‘an increasingly” frenzied attempt toavoidtheinevitableth:eneedforcollectiveactonitohenpartofarch- itectiral workers-‘to begin to transform the productive. relations within ar- chikentabsAbesne. It‘is our a that only when ee eemealies gin to ‘Wake!.e boeitive’ and significant contribution to architectural and social progress. The extent to which this. happens will. depend not only on whether architec- tural workers organise, but how they do..so. We thimk we. have shown that any sort of unionisation will be better than none. The real question..now is ‘what kind of trade union organisation is appropriate for architectural workers toda? Although we shall deal with this in more detail in Part Four, it-is°useful ‘to-outline a-general isc here. pc aaman Sees lle believe that the problem is to choose an approach to trade. unionism (from among the many) which will not only Facilitate arganisation. but will at the same time have the best chance of maximising, the eventual. benefits of organisation to architectural workers,» the . industry and the popmuni ty. _The. direction we would recommend wawk has: already been implied in.our anal- ysis of the situation in architecture could accomplish. It might be termed trade unionism. today and .our sketch of what a union the "yorkers' control" conception of 2.6 ‘The workers! control: ‘cofiception new a, long. history hich received laddad momentum from the ferment. ‘of 1968 ‘and 1969. ‘Unlike, some of ‘the more flam- " boyant manifestations of that period which have, withered “away* or been. bru- tally’ suppressed, it. has continued to develop. and. make. 4, stronger impact on 'the British trade union: movement, as.witnessed in the growing recagnition of they kay ‘rele? ‘oF “shop: stewards" in the union structure, in ‘the indus- trial occupations. and: setting “up! of self-managed cooperatives, in the Bx pected legislation for a beginning ‘of some formalised "industrial ‘domoc- racy" and in the far-sighted and aggressive. attitude toward, the scope of union activity typified by” the “Green Bans" pioneered by the Australian 4 Building Labourers! Union, -and. ‘the proposals for conversion to socially-use- ‘ful production which’ have been made by -the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards “combine committee. Even in the USA, where the traditionn of a stong but . Marrow. and essentially "defensive" ‘thread-and- butter" trade unionism is particularly well- entrenched, large unions like the oil, _Chemical and _Atomic Workers have recently pioneered the giant United ‘Auto Workers (which health -and safety agreements ‘and covers. much. heavy machinery and the aircraft industry as well) have begun to devote considerable attention to ‘environmental ‘questions. _Creasingly- unfruitful. 2.7 ‘This conception stresses the need for workere to ‘gain ‘full, “democratic: “‘eontral over all ‘aspects ‘of their: working lives, not. just wages, hours, job security and pensions. It does this not merely out of a fundamental “faith in, Memocracy , and egelitard amism, and their ability to mobilise’ , people's8 productive and creative capacities, nor merely: out of a recog- nition that low wages and insecurity are hot the only harmful and oppressive aspects. of capitalist control which need to be met head-on. It believes ‘that unless wprkers take the initiative and’ militantly fight and destroy that system of capitalist control where they work, replacing "management prerogative" with democratic self-management, the fight for even decent wages “and. job — will remain a Rear Guard, defen tie action, in- The workers! control approach sees strong, militant and. democratic "shop floor" trade union, organisation as not merely an essential means, ain: the struggle for. workers’ control ‘but’ the embryo as well for. the. end which is being sought. while at emphasizes the primacy of the ‘work. place as the scene of the ont eed wae between two mutually-antagonistic conceptions of social organisation, it stresses as well the complementary need. for militant political mobilisation on a broader plane to replace the market system and the institutions which perpetuate it. We believe that this type of trade unionism is the most likely to be rele- vant to the concerns of architectural workers about the nature of the prod- uct they produce and the use to which it is put, about the way the work of architecture is organised, and about the s&tisfaction they receive from doing their job. Its explicit call for self-management is pabtticularly relevant in architectural practice, where many of the"obstacles" to it which exist in industry are more easily overcome. Moreover, because of its broader appeal and its emphasis on strong "shop floor" organisation, it may also be most likely to achieve significant and lasting progress on “bread-and-butter" questions as well. We believe that architectural workers need a positive trade unionism whose aim is to combat both the material privations of the market system and the lack of accountability and requires a unionism based in the daily accountable to their wishes. Trade the "shop floor" will enable members they know best. In this way, to the oppressive and de-humanising humanity which it engenders. This experience of its members and union organisation firmly based on to formulate policies in the context too, the everyday opposition foroes of the market remains of workers undiluted 2.8 by remote hierarchies acting on their behalf. Whatever the advantages that the trade union organisation, per se, of architectural workers may have for themselves, the industry and the com- munity, and the significant additional advantages of a workers! control approach to organisation, the reality we are faced with is that architec- tural workers are, in general, not now either organised or in the process of organising. The next question, then, is whether architectural workers are really capable of organising. Part Three Sew MCHITECTURAL WoRXFeEe ORGANISE? Ie thers raaily any tsason ta believe that architectural workers actually 2 ert, ork orgenisad, metwithstanding the need to do se? The idea of a trade union fer architectural workers is not, in fact, entirely a new one. We _belinuwe it is inatrictive briefly to examine the history of organising in archita ture and te consider ita implications. “Tha Mare ritectst and Survayora’ salstante Professional UniowTM® (Acar) wes “gunded in 1919 amidet the Latense industrial unvest and unior activity- gee S2te-vim734“1918warstn1924,alrdady60%of;theprofedsicn- mal selarisd. ‘The “don grew in strength to 2ouc by the mid<Twentias,’ ‘at: Soe ope cae _ vers, only about 12s 069 "architegts. tn. 49249 the onane- WAS On anec oO PATESI ee at “schitects ,Surveyors: and Technical Ageis~ ho oe Oy tartel Cans °“By the mide Thirties, in tho, de-tha of: the Depression,» bhuugh 70% oF the profess.Lon wae by then. galoried,unemploymentw’as 30% and bog mambarehig wae ‘again pane, After. ths Sacand Workd War, the name waa changad again to the “ANesociation of Budlding Technicians.” Menhonehtn wot 3500, ,where At bee rereined, though tdday faw meibers are architecte aa 7Svebeene Candey Several huildine “a craft unigns ue wait the “inion of Construet Loy iLiad Traden and Tech- nicolenat (ucattek in the late.Sixties and this yeer was abacrbed into the — Larger, Neawly-forne 7d."Supervisory» Tachnical,- Administ rative, Managerial =F my gn tS foramp) section of UYCATTY “incorporating sll ‘saleried, Casb gorkere mtovss. ote irothe: vaphousrocsht sectionsof “UCATT. oa e ee. “ sepeicy 3 a' eleing ite heyday in the Twenties and Thirties, the union. consisted mainly” ofcrchitecteanddraughtsmanandeee itaenergyontryinetoget a m imum salary ecale. for the profession, to ge representation for ‘ealer- ied rehitects cn the RIBA Council and to limit she number of wartenne _ tariny arohitecture dy eettbing more stringent’ anc time-consuming duct ional etand ade. Its main. efforta.on these issiee were nede if “negotiations with” ‘ TRA. rather than. dingetto otth: theoamitayer: os thal’‘architectural ghhice, where it was never able. to reach a position 6f be ahg reciynibed: ‘aa the rep- resente:sive of its mambers in collective bargain~3:.-Itcollaborated with the RIBA in supporting the passage of the Architects Registration Actes, ~arently in "return for expected AIGA aqreamert to a minimum salary scale. atranges, . "veh, the RISA never did agres to ona. AASTA then adopted a some- what more militane ... and membership took an upturn. It didn't affiliate to the TUC, however, until Vues why, despite ite pioneering efforts and seme aignificant achievements, did tha ABT “fade acto obscurity" as a trade union for architectural workere? ee teresene is duo . “Am. t more detailed history of ASAPU-AASTA-ABT-STAMP. ite g We have identified four related factors which we believe are ralevant: 4. First of all, the union never achievad any real bargaining strength whera it counts, on tha “shop floar." Thi 8 may have been the rasult of several factora As historical context, lass of the profession was sal- atied in those days and small offices were mors nmumearcus, making effeotive organising more difficult. The legish ative and judicial situation then also made union recognition more diffi cult than it is now. Much of the union leadership at one time apparer aubsocribed to the then current ‘soolaliam in one country" line emanat ing from Moscow and was perhans not oriented towarde industrial mibit oy in 8ritain. Inste ad, several th rage to managerial pasitions in leeal authority Cand even private) prac- tice and te prominence in tne BISA, whether in pursuit of the party Line or oP persomal inclination it is diffi cult to judge. In addition, ea a Yeraft" union, it had too little inter est in organising all employees, including clerital ataff, in the offic 6. Selidarity at the place of work too oftan tooktke a Rack saat to dis cussions 3 - Yoraft"! issuas at Portland Place. In short, oc was never able te YVdaliver tha goods.' The attitude of trying to gat invited to dine with the amployers (in- stead of organising their kitchen atafFf} had anothar serious effect Fhe union was badly, if not mortally, compromised by its callaberation with tha RIBA. If fought for saate on the RiBA Council, halpead set up Ped the RIBA Board e5 Education, supported the Architects Registration Acts and devoted much of ites anergy in the Thar ies to joint appeals, with the RIGA and building contractors, to the gavarnmnent to get help for the industry. Same of its Leadersshin aven took an activa role in RIBA affairs. Yat it had never been in a position te deal with the employars® organisa~ tion from a nositian of strength. Lacking a strong organisational base FY the office, tne union structure came to revalve sround the or nehes andoumational axecutive rather than around "shop stawarde" directly repres anting tha organised worker. This may be O.K. for a "friendly society," but we believe it deas not make for a strong union, mey facilitate daminat lon by a bureaucratic minority, and resuits in the leadership gatting out af teuch with the rank amd file. 4, Finally, the credibility af the union aa the representative of the archi- tectural worker may hava been called inio question by the prominence in the union of salaried architectural maNagement, Gna can speculate as well on their effect upon union policy ane strategy, especially as some ware active at the sama time in the employa rs* institutions. More about this later, th thsABThasbeentheonlyattemptaLnAritainataaperificallyarchi- While tacturai trade union, architectural worke rs in the pigod} co aector, who now i 342 ~ fh comprise at least 40% of the profession, have in addition had the option af joining. the relevant public seatar inden. By now, throughout the pub- lie sector, trade unisns are pracognised as the amployees? representatives far collective bargaining. While there are extreme variations from office to office, we believe that between 50 and 75% of the architectural workers in the public sector are union membegs, though we have been unable ta sub- atantiate this. In any case, with the sontinued apread of the clasad shap this number will inavitably grow. At the moment, though, architectural mem berehip in the public sector is probebly lowar than among other public sec- tor workers. None af the unions concerned actually knaw how many architec- turel workers wete members or what per cant of their “architectural can- atituenoy" they had organised, Small wonder then that apparently few architectural workera take an active interest in their public sector union. Architectural workers have rarely Found thease unions relevant tn their day-to-day prafesslanal concerns, proh- ably because they are tiny minorities in unions otherwise having nothing to de with building and because the career structure in architecture may run notooniy through more than one union*s territory in the public sector but obviously through the unerqanised private sactor as well. Benause of i that it ig fairly unlikely that an architectural worker will basome active in and make a committment to such a union The public sector unions themselves have generally dene Little to encourage gank and file amtivity or grase roots internal damocracy, appearing some- times to be burasucracies aping the bureaucracy. They have tended to lack both industrial arid political militancy, too easily falling in etap behind their amployers® relatively benevclant paternalism. Hardly a good advertise- meant for trade unionism! Mopecver, because of the total lack of organisation’ in the private seoter, the employers there, thraugh their institutions, have been able unilaterally to dictata the shape of the profession, public seo- tor included. Thers is thua reason to balieve that organiaation in the pri- vate senator may be a prerequisite ta injecting some life blood into trada unionism among public sector archilestural workers. Public seactar unionism amang architectural workers may also suffer from another problem, one which we believe also contributed te the decline of the ABT. In tha public seotor, management is salaried. The public sactor unions, like the ABT, have slways allowed membership mot only to the archi- 4i. NALGO (National Association of Local Government Officers) in local authorities, regional haspital|boards, water authorities, ete. GLC Staff Aésociation in tne GLO/ILER. IPCS (Inetitute of Professional. ae Servants in the ONE, PSA and other organs of central government. Jad ‘SSA (Transport Salaried Staffs Association) in British Rail and ne Transport. faw yeara confirms this. 3.4 roles of the various dasign professions. cectural workar but also to the man who is the "boss" for the practical Purpeses of everyday working life. These architectural managers have at timas been able to influence ar sven dominate unicen activity (or inactivity) in their departments, Usually thay share the outlasck and concerns of arch- tectutal employers in private practice and aften take an active tole in the employers’ institutione. Given the career structure in architecture, it is not unknown to fallow a term as chief architect in public practice by a partnership in the private sector, nourished by connections (te aay the least) cultivated "in the public service." It is ebvious how such e situa- tion can not only hamper tha effective functioning of the union, but by calling inta question the union's credibility as the bona fide defender of the interests of the architectural worker it can prevent effective organ- ing itself. we believe that if the brief history of architectural union- isation teaches one lesson it is that the short cut to failure lies along the path of collaboration with management and its institutions. That is not the only difficulty to be encountered in organising architec- tural workers. One of the classic arquments againet the feasibil ity of organisation is that the incentives to join a trade union are lacking: architects are wallepsid; their employers are libaral; their work is neither back-hreaking, impersonal nor Wazardous and provides a high level of job satisfaction; and as "professionals" they anjoy a high level of control aver the organisation of their work. Without beginning a discussion af whether thie was aver an accurate picture, and for whom, we think we have altsady made clear that it is by now obvious that this no longer ape plies to the overwhelming majority of architectural workers, whose worries in the present crisis only thinly conceal a dseper uncertainty about the future of the building industry and the economy, not to mantion the future The other classic argument is based upon another aspect of the "professiona myth." The salaried architect, it goes, will eventually become a partner and not only sees his security in a partnership rather than fhrough the solidar~ ity of trade union action but already shares the employar's mantality. He has no long-term interest in building the union; quite ta the contrary, he already takes an active interest in the employers? inatitutions. Myths do die hard, but with 80% of even registered architects already salaried and the figure steadily maunting, the ‘oroletarianisation" of the profession is beginning te be understood. Reality can only so long be denied. The rapid growth of white collar and professional trade unionism in the past Others argue convincingly that trades uriionism can only be built upon solidarity and that architects will naver overcome the individualism and competitiveness which stems from their middle-class backgrounds and education, (And because of the employerst control of tha Architects Reg- istration Council and thus architectural education, the title, "architect," is by now virtually reetricbed to people with that background and educa- tion.) Fortunately, the education system is Less than 100% efficient and aven a middle-class background cen be overcome (with effort). A corollary to this argumant ie that the architect is anxious to maintain a social status which places him "above" trade unionism. If wefre to believe the results of recent sociological surveye, ther's apparantly not too mush | left of the architect's vaunted “status.” The currant form of this argument is perhaps that trade unionism isn*t trendy" enough for the architect, Un- fortunately, ons can’t pay the rent with “etatus," and “trandiness" is no substitute for a full stomach, fulfilling work, and self-respect. Thies is baginning to dawn on those who have’ hitharte been too easily satisfied for their own good. Likewise, we nave shown how architectural reformism is run- ning out of rope. We believe this is also becoming increasingly apparent, despite the frenzied efforts of the media to market the latest panaceae. Tha most sarious arguments against the feasibility of organising among architectural workers ara of another sert, however. They all hinge upon the extreme fragmentation of the profession, This Pregmentatian takes threa forms: 1. Tha employers? classic form of fragmentation divides architectural workers into several categarias, each of which is supposed to hava its own epe- cial interests which override common ones, This is done first of all by statutory divisian (aimed at reinforcing existing differences in class background) of architectural workers into those who are “architects” (and may on Occasion be invited to dine with the lord of the manor) and those who ara “architectural tachnicians," otherwise known as draughtemen. This type of division is carried further by the creation among salaried archi- tects in private practice of "associate" atatus (a sort of standing invi- tation to dinner with the potential of an eventual partnership). The tech- nician, of course, is one step above the clerical staff. This fragmentation has 4@ second form, which workers "horizontally" (though with a poorly concealed vertical component) into dietinct "crafts." (The distinctions &@ scramble for work.) Thus we have the intricate and cultivated division of building design into tasks for architacts or surveyors, town planners or urban designers, structural and services is"division of architectural tend to blurr easily when there's engineers, quantity surveyors, building control officers, etc. The division we are told is the result of maximising efficiency. No commant. tactural ‘minority? of their members. We believe that, given the situation in arehitecture today, exscerbated by the current employment crisis, a carefully designed organising campaign would gsueceed im convincing the 50,000 wnorganised workers in the building profesaiona that their common interests call for cammon organisation and that their fragmentation works only in their employers? interests. It has become apparent ta us, howsver, after meetings with high-level officers in aegeral "prospective" unions, that no trade union is at this point seriously interested in leunching in the building professians tha kind of organising drive that would have a realistic chanos of suecess, congidering the diffi- cubties wa have just outlined. We must nave no illusions abaut this. te should consider the possibility, however, that should an effactive argani- ging campaign gat started, hitherto luke-warm unions may show a sudden en- thusiasm for organising, encouraged by an equally sudden interest by amploy- ere in 4good induetrial relations." we have come to the conclusion that the organisation of architectural wore kers is feasible. In fact, we believe that despite all the abstacles, some form of trade union organisation is inevitable. To achieve really effective an inevitable historical process of spacislieation for the purpose of . The employment pattern in architecture, particularly in the private sec~ tor, is’ characterised by a great makes difficult not only organising what organisation hae been achieved, especially when combined with high staff turnover, another characteriatic of the profession, particularly whan times are good and in London, where probably half of the architectu- pal workers in Sritain are employed. 3. The "typical" career atructure in British architecture, when combined with the present form of the British trade union mayvement, adds a further obstacle to organisation. it's number of small offices. This always in the first place but maintaining not at all unusual for an architectural worker to move from local autharity to private practice, to teaching or _ research, to central qovernmant tractor's office or private industry, working lifetime, Ha may mot only pags through the territories of threa or four different trade unions ganised ta unorganised territory. an incentive to the architectural her trade union and make the kind ganisation depands. The corollary understandably discouraged by this ganising architectural workers or- quite or- archi-~ or a nationalised industry, inte and perhaps back again, all in one but may also pass back and forth Thie atate of affairs hardly provides worker to take an active part in his or of long-term committment upon which is that the trade unions are also fragmentation from either actively or paying mush attantion te a small a con- from or- fa UNTONISATION WORKING GROUP The New Architecture Movement, Central London Group November 4976 ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS AND TRADE UNIONISM Draft report on the organisation of architectural and allied workers PREFACE This draft rapart on the organisation of architeetural and allied workere has been prepared by the Unionisation Working Group of Central London "NAM for the New Architecture Movement conferante being held in Hlackpool, Ne~ vember 26-28, 1976, It is based on six monthe of discussion among ourselves, with officials of some of the relavant trade unions and with interested in- dividuals both ineide and outside of PYNAM," ae well as upon reading of + of the relevant Literature. Ita purpose is to bring inte Pocus and atimu- late discussion upon a subject which the Unionisation working Group believe requires urgent action by the New Architecture Movement and all workers in~ volved in the dasign of the built environment. CONTENTS pres Part One: INTROGUCTION: why is trede esa on the architectural agenda now? ... 6. ees Part Twot SHOULO ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS ORGANISE? 2eleos Part Three: CAN ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS ORGANISE? Setoe: Part Fours HOW SHOULD ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS ORGANISE? 6.de (includes "recommandat ions") Part Five: WHAT ARE THE FIRST STEPS? Be Short Bibligraphy - ADDENDA 6.1 oe BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY fn trade unionism: Gn the situation in architecture: 3.7 organisation, and to achieve it when it is really needed, however, those obstacles must be overcome. Wa belisve that this can be done by a care~ Fully considered stratégy and committment, hard wark and a willingness to take personal risks. Gniy architectural workers themselves can provide this, I? they do, we balieve that the trade union movement will contribute the essential support that only it is in a positien to provide. But the process will alec taka time. "Seize tha day! Seize tha hour!" Kan Costes and Tony Topham, The New Unionism: The Case for Workers! Control, Penguin Books paperback, 1974, FSSERTIAL READING. Tany Topham, The Droanised Worker, Arrow Booke paperback, 1975, Kan Coates and Tony Topham, Industrial Semocracy in Great Britain, Panther Books paperback, T9706. A Short History af the Architectural Profassion, by Adam Purser, 1976. Available from The New Architecture Movement, 143 Whitfield St., London Wt. Malcolm Mac fwen, The Crisis in Architecture, RIBA Publications Ltd., 1974. Edited extracts publiehed in RIBA Journal, April 1974. (See slec his long article, ‘what Can fe Dene about Competence?" in The Architects Journal, 19 November 1975, po 7083-1084,} Lauie Hellman, "Demacracy in Architerture," RIBA Journal, August 1973, pp 395-403, and "Professional Yeapresentation," Architectural Seaian, Merch 1976, op 156~4159, Paget Four HOW SHOULD ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS ORGANISE? From aur disevesioan of why architesturel workere cugnt to organise, it would appear thet the maximum hanafite of organisation will be reaned were all ware Kare involved in the deeign of the built environment to come tagathar in are coherent union within a larger union covering the entire building industry, which, indeed, cught to form mart ef a eatill larger union of all working pea- pla. Energy which would otherwise go inte censtant defensive eetion aosinst the unified institutions of the employere (including finance, madis, and the atate), net to mention the diversions of defending onate "patch" againat en~ eroscmmant by workere in another "eraft," industry or sector, could be dirac- tad to making real progress in the office, orefeesian, and cammunity. 1? there were ane union for ail architecture] workers it would have the human rasources and committimant not only to sneak for tham articulataly, coherantiy: and forcefully, but also to carry through to completion the task of organi-+ sing. Only such ea union would heve the meana and will’ te undertake the research and diecuseion, develon molicy and take action on vital iesues facing erchi- acture and the built anvirenment, in the office, orafessional structure, buiiding industry, and community. It ia neh only acchitectural woerkars but #iso the bullding industry and the camaunity that need such a union. Until architectural workers are cohearantly orgqaniasd, the big employers, though ea tiny fraction of the orofassion, will sontinus to claim, through theie inati- tutlene, that they ensak for the orofeseion...an we ehali all, workers end community, continue ta pay the price far thet voles, howaver garbled Lb may Sea. It is further ieportant that all workers involved in building design, not juet architectural workers strictly apaskine, Sut salen quantity surveyore, struc- turesl and services engineers, bullding surveyors, landscene architecte, etc., be organised inte ene unian and thet uniscn encemnasa both public and orivate sectors. As contributors te the same oroduch, mutual esunport in industrial disputes is essential. And sines one groun is eftean cepable of doing the fame work ag another fa.9., architects and surveyors, local authority archi-~ tecte or consultants, etc.}, common organisation is assential to prevent not anily explieit or de-facte "scabbing” on ane another but alse deetructive com- patition Por work at the other's expanse and Jealous guarding af possibly gubdated dalineations of sxclusive professionel spheres which prevent tha industry from develoning for the sammon good as datermineabdy ite workers as a whole and by the communities who use ite preducte. And it ig necessary that such a union in the building professions be nart af a union of all building industry workers, and indeed of all workers in 1. sae footnote 1, page 3.3 4.2 all industries, for similar reasone applied to the wider scale, to combat the power and flexibility which capitsl hes at ite command through its Such arguments ae thees have been out forward many times before in the hie-~ tory of the trade union movement and have hed and sontinue to have an impor-~ tant influence upon ite development. iis must face the Fact, howaver, that the historical development of trade unionism in @ritsin has not resulted in the formation of one bia union. Indead, in the building intuetry alone, af- ter numerous amalgamations, the most recent in the late 1960's, there are at least three unions of major significance: UCATT, TGWU (Transport and General Workers Unian} and the electricians and plumbere union. fe for are chitectural workers, because of the split inte privata and public sector am- ployment and the existence of s variety of unions in the nuhlic sacter mir- roaring ite manhagemant atructure, | and considering all the unions already with "a finger in the pieTM (that is, with architectural members, in the conatruction industry or engagad, Like APEX or ASTMS, in organising orofes- sionale from various industries), there are a good dozen unions which ari campanias, conglomerates, finence, state and media. architectural worker might find himeel? joining. If this diffuse situation ie allowed te continue, end uflase srechitectural workers take the initiative, it will, the result will be tnat the inevitable erganisation of architectural workere and workere in the allied profeseions will proceed slowly, sporadically and nesitantiv: will be unnecessarily oro- tracted; will remain incomplete, and will never be able to contribute to the workers, profession, industry and community what an effective, coherent union sould. Wheat then are the prospects of achieving one union for all architectural workers? We are immediately faced with certain orcblema. The unions who have at present the largest memberships of architectural workers are public sector unions like NALGO and the GLO Staff Association who have no interest in arganising workers outsida thair narrow and precisely-defined “constitu- encies." And while the CEI may be only too hanpy to recommend that prafag~ Sional engineers employed in the public sactar Join theese untens, wa avenect that they are among the least likely of the dozen or se *“srospactive" unions to satisfy our criteria for a suitable union far architectural workers, To propose that some other union could organise not anly all the unorganised architectural workers but also those now aither members of or tanresented by a "rival" union 4s alas unrealistic as = short-tarm proposition, thaeuogh such a development over the long term is perhaps more plausible. "RaidingTM of another union's membership would be counter-nroductive and in conflict with the TUCts "ridlington Princinles" qoverning relations between affili- ted unione. Nor is one union likely to be keen on actively arcaniaing on another's "patch," eapecially when that lies in the public sector. The formation, by architectural workere themselves, of @ naw, independent union hae obvious attractions. including the option af amalgamating in the future with e larger, more general union on terme orasarving sufficient autonomy, as the Medical Practitianere Unien did with ASTES. Unfartunately, considering the difficulties which an organising drive in this field will encounter, the likelihood of getting such a union off the ground witheut the back-un which anly an already powerful union could supnly is pretty slim. Organising requires funds for parsonnel, litersture, legal fees and overheads and to cover for inevitable atrikes, lock-suts, and victimisation.- in addition, the expertise which comes from coneiderable trade union exper- ience and the aceess ta trade union allies in case of disnutes area unlikely to be sasily svailable today to «= naw union, however gosnuine it may appear. The immediate mroenents for achievinn one bia union, even juet for atehi- « tectural workera, ate therefore not very encouraging. The only realistic alternative at this point would seam te be that architectural workers join one or more of the dozen or eo “proepectiveTM unienea. But ia that « aufficient recipe aither for launching a successful organising drive or for eventually eraviding an effective trade union orgabisation fer architesturel warkers that will reap the full benafite that cauld come from unionieation? The former may depend on the perceived Likeliheed of the latter. It is sassential at thia point te begin to axamins mare closely the situation regarding “eroanective® unions. Qver the yeare several different types of unions have develonad in Aritein. Thay can be distinguished by different conceptions of their "constituencies" as well as by differences in atructute and orientation. The early unionea de« veloped along "craft" lines {a.g., bricklayers, olumbers, etc.) raminiscent of the medieval guilds. More recently, “white collar" work has been organ- ised acroas industrial lines almoat ae a sort of “elite” craft, by unions like APEX, ASTMS and NALGO as well as by sections of large general unions like TASS (Technical and Supervisory Steff} in the AUEW amd ACTS (Admini~ strative, Clerical, Technics! and Supervisory) in the TCU. in order to match the power and flaxihility of capitel and te srganias hitherto unorganised workers ignored by the oraft unions, induetrial unions developed, grouping ell workers in an industry into one union, The Netional Union af Mineworkers is perheana the closest approach to thie in Britain, though amalgamations have made some headway. Im the linited States, the great erganising drive of the 1830's reeulted in the ecraation of the powerful in- dustrial unions of the ef0, like the Automeblie Yorkers and the Steelworkers, aed In industciss where the public sector haa « virtual monopely, like postal service, rail tranenort, madicine and education, the public sector unions could become industrial unions threugh appropriate amalgamations within aach industry. Gtherwiese, tha public sector unions area more analagous to the staff ageociation of e particular enterprise. Finally, cutting acreas all craft, industrial and sector linea are the generel unions, like the TGWU and the National Union of Senarel and Municipal Workers, on the model of “ane bia union" for sll workers. These "ideal types" herdly exist as such in practice, dua to amalgamations and ether histories] end practicsl circumstances, Lares general unione like the TGWU include craft unions like the plasterers, who amalgamated with it when the sarpenters, bricklayers and painters were joining toe make UCATT almost an industriel union. white collar unions may function as industrial ufiiane whera an industry ie simost exclusively white collar, like banking and ineurance. Perhaps the differances bewtesn unions in-terma of structure and orientation re more significant. Some tand to be like friendly seciaties while others set more forcefully in the inductrisl and political arenas. Soma unions are maneerned almost exclusively with “braad-and-butter® iesues of wages, hours aiid penagions, chile others Sake a broader view of their memberea’ intereste nthe workplecs and in the community. Some defend narrowly theit own inter- este with Little recari for thoee of other workara, while other unions eas their owt oregress «= insenerabla from that of the labour movement in ite broedaat cange and act accordingly beth on the ehap Plaor and in the commune ity. Some have a decile obtitude tewerde management while othere sara mili- tant and incosruptitie recreasentabives af their membere!t intersats. Soma ufiona era tun frow the ten down in a hierarchy mirroring that of capital, while othare function hy a democracy built up from the "orassa roots" and dependont ween an active rank and file, Seme unione Punection mainly by full- tine, permanent "nrofeseionel” trade union ‘adminisetrators,"® while others ars aasentially "amateur" operations, with the bulk of the task left te the "Lay" memberahip rather then ta the “sxperte,;" and officials, generally elected, returning to their old fobs after relatively short terme in union offica.e In the histery of trada unianiam all thase sontrasting positions — have existed, but teday in Britein the differences between end within unions, while significant, ara usually of dagree rather than of kind, can change in a Few years and ara not always easy to diecarn from without, 2H ‘ * WhewadTRANweekteenoantecogjain?Therearesixunionswhichere’ in a position to organises in the eseentially unorganised private sector, and they ate all inucived to some axtent in the public sectdr aa well. These six inslude thres large general unione, the TGWL, GMWU and AUEW: tuo white-collar~ only unions, ASTMS and APEX; and STAMP of UCATT, which ie active only in the building industry. for the purposes of thie dianueeion, wa ahall leok at one union from each of the abeve threa categories; that ie, TGWU, ASTMS and UCATT. why thagse three? It is our impression that, while similar in concantian, ASTMS mey be more effective, dynamic and politically-ceammitted than APEX. nea Fe oc es mas amellan thon RSTMS, although it ts etranger in the con- struction industry. The TGtt! is much larger than the GAWwL! and, in addition, is quite strong already in the building induetry. We have, therefers, nat aeriously considered the GMWU. The AUEW ia another very large union with a reputation for damocracy and militancy and has a atrong base in e¢ivil engin- 4.4 ree ft tee tel aering construction, where TASS Aas apparently elready orosnised same laroe firma of consulting elvil engineere. We ara not csonaiderinn them st this time only because we have not vet had e chance to mest with their officials and to study their literature, ‘fe shall mreesant here only the hriefeet des eristion, inevitably subjective, of thease thres unions. The TSU, ag a oe union, may ef first olanne lack the attraction of UCATT or ASTMS which may lie mainiv in their well-cultiveted imagas: UCATT as the building induetry union and ASTTMS as the union for orofeesionals. 4 The TGWu, though, is the laresst trade union in Oritain with nearly tuo million mambers, one in avery five trade umieniete,and still growing ranid-~ ly. Im addition to its obvious atrenath in road transport, the docks and the motor induatry, it has nearly 300,000 members in the Bit¥ aie industry. Half of thease sre in the production and transport of building materiale and the remaining 159,000 or so work in building construction proper, About a quartear.af those sre skilled trades and the ramaining, “sami-skilled."TM In additian to ite Canstructinn Section, the Téf's white collar section, ATs : hag about 400, 000 membare throughout industry. while there are at oresent few or na architects at all in the TAO, us undatatand thet architectural workers could probably form their own branches where numbers, orpotential numbers, seemad to juatify it. (Fifty is usually considered the minimum for ahranchintheT&S.)Theseoe wouldpresumablyfallintotheACTS meetion, though it might be possible to come under thea building eaction. We underatand that it would alse probably be possible to have senarate bran- shes fer architectural Wedeaee’dand fnr salariad architectursl management. The union emphasizes ite flexibility and raleative spenness te organisational innovation. In addition to the “trade orount structure, there is a parallel geagraphical structure, with tan regione in Britain end dietrict committees {and officials) natusen them and the branches. The rer tan dayote coneid- arable resources to organising, reasearch, publicity and esducation hut em- phasizes ite reliance om an active lay memhershin ena shop stewards. ASTMS (Agaoriation of Seientific, Tachnice!l and Managerial Staffa} was formad im 1668 oy the amalqamation of twa existing white-collar unions and hag grown quickly from under 100,000 members to some 350,006, by further amalgamations and oraanisinga in the fartile fielde of Llarosly private eector white-collar workers, The union prides itself om rapresanting professionals im many fields. Much of ite "nitech" is based on its claim to Help higner~ sclaried ataffe recoup differentials araded in the recent past by manual workere® gains: it hae thus bean acainst flat-rate wage increases im the current crisis. It amnbasizes alsa ite axnert and axtensive services te members: = prafessional union fer professional people, rather than estres- sing a unicn self-managed hy the “sorkers" themeslives. we have not yet been able to make & reasonably sccurate evaluation of its industrial militancy ar its internal damocracy, but it does anonear aften to take mronressive positions on brasdar political issues,nerhane surprisingly for a white- eollaer union. ASTMS would be unlikely to allow architectural werkera to have their own branches until more than i150 in an area had joined. We are concerned not anly about the possibility thet within ASTMS eslaried archi- tectural management might gore easily be able te influence the srchitectu- ral workers! organisation, but slsao ebout the oroblem of architertural workers getting "lost" amano workers from commlstaly unralated industries The Medical Practitioners Unien, whan it amalgamated with ASTMS, was wie to maintain = suitable deoree of autonomy, including “compiste autonomy in racard to all professional matters affecting Medical Practitioners in- cluding the conduct of disputes." In our view, it ig unlikely thet hitherto unorganised architectural workera entering ASTMS would aver be able te achieve such autonomy. Following publication of the CET rapart, &S7TMS has SAERCRA AOENREhnPRNNBet 1. see pagee 3.3 and 3.4 ey heen making an effort to recruit profeesional engineers; we hava no idea as yet what progress, if ary, they have made. We have alrsady discuesed STASP, the non-manual section of CATT, in rela~ tion to the history of the ABT. UCATT as a whole now includes nearly 309,000 conetruction workers, mostly skilled trades, though conetruction aa an in- dustry is still comparatively undar-organised. STAM! now numbera some 15,000 to 20,000 mambere, of which &,500 were former ABT mambers. Be got thea im~ oresasion that there are at present an almost ineionificant naumher of archi- hectural workere in STAMP. Tt anpeare that STAMP is sancentrating mainly on organising eite foremen; it has no plans for en orgenising drive among architectural workers. In sur view, it orabably doses not have the capability of indepandently oroaanising architecture] workers, either. Yet it fa unlikely that architectural workers could have their swn saction in UCATT sutside of STAMP. Surprisingly, the present architectural membershin of STAMP seeme to be dominated by = faw older, ATBA-orianted, mananement-lavel architents in the public sector, which may also explein how (or why} few architects or architectural technicians are actually in STAMP. Aa far es we know, the only architectural office with which STAMP has a collective bargaining agreement is (in canjunction with NALGOG) the Seottish Special Housing Association, a aublie seactar office which funetions in Scotland somewhat as the GLO does for housing in Geater London. cash of thease three orespactive unions has something to offer architectural wokets. Ye have emphasized, howaver, the necessity of having ona atrang un- isn far as many architectural workers es possible. It ja eesential, there- Fore, that architectural workers committed to organisation collectively de- cide as soon es pessible on-one union for the task. The alternative is hav- ing architectural workers straggling into all, of these unions, not to men- tion other prospective unions, baged on "personal orefarance.” Parhaps this is the first test af whether architacts can averceme the “bourgeaie individ. ualiemTM which has sondemnad to failure or inegtonificance ao many of their previous "reform effarte. Tha choice amona TGWU, ASTMS, UCATT ane TASS CAUEW) Le not an eaay one. Tha criteria we think ought to ba apolied ly apparent by now Prom what we have already discussed. We think it is im- portant, nevertheless, to make explicit the mere important ones concerning the union's etructure, its attitudes, and ite sotential rale in a drive to organise architectural workers. 4 b SRL Poa ere *StLuiniaaeioa 4.1 To what extent do tha rank and file run the union, or fia the union actually controlled from the ten down? 4.2 Is there a union “priesthoedTM or do the workers themselves sdminieter the union, returning to the "sehen floor® after brief terms in union offices? 1.3 How powerful are slacted “shon stewarde't in the union structure? Oo thay get full support fram unton officials? 1.4 To what extent does shop floor initiative and action gat smothered usdan the wedeht af union buresucracy and hierarchy? in making that choice sre probab- 4.6 fre union officials salected or easily subtest ta racall? Ys opposition within tha union te its present ia aha nci of Picisi olicies allowed frealy to sesociate and to aire tlatform for its views? ATTITUG Es Moss the union take a clear and urcomproami interests af workers when in conflict with institutions? £ee& will the union militantiy fight mot only for better wane control by workers af all sanects of their workine lives, by &e tant “shoo floor" oroanisation and breader nolitical act what attitude will the union take towards axiating oay and atetus -diffar- antials among architectural workera and what orierity dees it al raising the Lavals of the lowest paid, both in architecture and in the hroader economy? te the union sympathetic toe a broademindad aporoach te imoraving amploy~ meant orosnects in the buiidina srofeaseiongs and to enuviranmental issues as they concern the community (e.90., "Creen Bens," Lucas Aerospace shon steawards-typa proposals, davelopment af inetitutisne far community can- trol, etc.)? Doasa the union identify emnloymea: : Be ity with the oreser- vation of narrowly-defined “nositiaons” rather than with look on the division of lehour and cantinuinog educatio To what extent ia the union willing and able to Sevelon organisational solidarity amone all workers in the building industry? 2.6 To what extant does the union actively combat racism and male chauvinien among iis membere as well aa in diserimination by amployars and tha state’ When the union invests (or evan builds), dowa if taka an anviranmeantally, socially ened politically raspansicla ettitucde? ORGANISING ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS Ys the union willine and able tine ta organise kars in the building nrofsasis they work in nor whateeactor the: ‘office fells. san Will they organise all work re in such offices clarical and arminis ivea 3.3 What is the union's attitude toward organising salsried management in architecture? Wheat safaquards can it provide which ‘oti nravant their qeining eontrol of an organieation of architacturel workers? What degree of autonomy and how clear and coherent identity cauld workera in the huilding nrefeseions enjoy in the union? Would the unian suppert the eatablishment of a rank-and-file Level orneni-+ sation for "inetituteTM} bringing toasther architectural workears from all the relevant trade unions? 3.6 Wihatresourcescantheunionmakeavailablefaranarcanisingdrive? {a.g., financial, personnal, legal, research, publicity, etc.) Unfortunately we are not yet in a position te Fully evaluate the “orospective"TM unians acecarding te the ehoye criteria, though some tenmbtetive conclusions may be amarging. None of the unions, for axamnie, give a clear imnression of ace five and militant grass tonte democracy, unfettered by hierarchy and bureau} cracy. In any casa, it should be borne in mind that beyond the immadiate onrob- Wate a & hy mo it wm ine mo ont c ra ae = £4 o Py oe on at Ny wr} oe 3 ng | ve fe tat tae TM *** iS oe f> m we lem of launching an orgenising drive ie a lang-term committment to trade unlonism,. Unions do change, sometimes quite eiaqnificantly within « few yeare, and further amalgamations remaina poasibility even if none are on the im- mediate horizon. Not thet thie removes the neceesity of a choirs, ag soon as possible, daepite the orasesing need for further investigation. The only conclusion thet can ba reached at thie point, however, ia that none of the three ‘prospective’ unions we hava lonked at satisfactorily fulfille our otiteria. what than ehall we do? Wie cam make four clear recommendations already: 1. Architectural workers thangelves should tekea the initiative in organising all unorganised workers in architecture (tonsther with workers from the ather building professions} into one, and only ane, atrono, militant, demo- eratic snd brosd-minded trade union, preserying maximum autonomy and iden tity within it, The choices emone the TOW, ASTMS, UCATT and TASS (aALEY should be made se quickly ss possible after further research and discua-_ sion. A union with an established presence in the buliding induatry would be preferable. The nossibllity of qetting the four or five prospective unions ta jointly back a new, indenencdent union for the bullding profes- alone, while nerhape remote and unprecedented, should nevertheless be therouohly axploread. » The organising drive should be simed at sil the building profesaions. Just aa the initiative in organising in erehitecture will have to coma from the architectural workers themselves, the cther bulilcine professions. howavar, the same applies to 3. The Pirat tarqat of any organising campeion must be the unorganised expanses of tha privete seecter. 4. In order ta compensate for the ineviteble chitectural workers, architectum] workers should immediately eeteblish and build up a atrong “inatitute," or coalition, of ofaanieed architec- tural workers, open to and uniting at the rank-and-file level all erchi- testural workers regardless of their particular union membership. should also have a student section. Such an organisation could not only bring trade unioniste in archites- ture together to help organiee tha unorcanined but would aventually be able to epeak progressively, clearly, and coherently for 35,000 architec- tips.soniene.fietateeepokece,ondaquas_of:commonindustsial..atve. fessional and anvirenmantel concern where individual unions with small architectural minoritins would have naither the interest, the will or the means to do sa. Uniy them will the reactionary influence of the enployers® orqaftisation, cleiming in the present vacuum to spask for lack of one union for all are < It 4.8 eget fu ese eh a coalition, or "inetitute.," could assist the relevant trade unions in developing and implementing fat oraes raota rather than at haadnuarters level) co-ordinated policies and action campalans on wegen and working canditions, an industry-wide mension scheme, systems of workers’ control and acceuntability to the sommunity in the snecifie context of architec. tural practice, a professional code of conduct in the interests af the workare and tha community, orogressive design and specificetion guidance, on-the-job training and continuing eadunation, etc. Such cooperation is the only way te keep divisivanese between workere in different unians from playing into the hande of a management which is already well-coordinatead, Bavand that, it would probably te the only canceivable organisation which could oroduce an architectural workeral handbook, a progressive journal of architecture, and ba the "official" volee af architectural workers as We consider the eatablishment of such a body of organised architectural workers to be a pressing oriority. while its precise geals, membershins and structure remain, of courae, to be developed, wa mfopose that it be organised ag democratically as possible at local, regional and national levels from the rank and file up, based on 8 "caucus" of workere in every architecture office or department, their elected reotesentatives, and Wie whale orofession, be effectively counteracted, a whole before the community, the state, and fraternal bodies abroad. periodic congresses delegating central execution of policies as nacessary. Part One INTRODUCTION: why is trade unioniem 144 on the architectural agenda now? What ie the problem? Let ue very briefly review tha situation in architec- of architecture, with help from the media, ture todey. The "profeesional myth" perpatuated profession is still (if it ever was) with ap a partnership the eventual outcome of the typical peefeee architec- tural career. The profession is in fact made un of near equals ae fear as ability to do the work of architecture is concerned, which helps to keep by the RIBA and the echools would have us believe that tha a community of equals or near-equals, Nearly a yeer ago, the Council of Engineering Institutions, a sort of supereRIBA grouping the various institutes ef encompassing some 300,000 shartered profesional engineers, iesued a report entitled, "Professional Engineers and Trade Unions." The report moted that over a third of pro» fessional engineers are already in uniona but pointed out that in the pris vate sector, where over 60% of professional efgineere are amployed, only 10% are already organised, The report concentrated, therefore, on that area, Noting the bread~andebutter incentives for engineers to organise and seeifig the elosed shop end aome form of employee partigipation in management meta aging on the horizon, the CEI urged profeesional angineers in the private seator to join emall, elitist “pesudosunions" willing to sollaborate with the Chartered Inatitutione. This, it was hoped, would forestall the growth of the bona=fide, TUC«affiliated unions like TASS (of the AUEW) and ASTMS, who had already begun organising engineers, not to mention the possibility of afigineers organising their own union. Whatever the chances of the CEI pipe-dream bearing fréit, we can expect a similar effort to be made by the RIBA and RICS, if they san get together, assuming the RIBA can get itself together. For even the custodians ofPort- jand Place paternaliem will soon begin to think twice about trying ke once again to sweep the subject of trade unionism under the rug. Notwithstanding an economic crieis which is steadily cutting the real income of architec- tural workers and monumentalising thair lack of employment security, ptee~ sure for job satisfaction end industriel demacracy continues, slowly but surely, to grow. White collar organisation, right up to management level, ie the growth area in trade unionism now, and the virtual collapes of the short-lived and loudly~trumpeted "preeence’ of ealariad architecta on the RIBA Council can only be taken as the handwriting en the wall. Even Church of England vicars have begun organising now, and young lawyers ate starting to join the Traneport and Generel Workere Union. Having nearly recovered from the Modern Movement, and now passing on to energy conservation, his- torical conservation and maybe sven “pattern books," can architecture, we ask, teally be far behind. OF Part Five WHAT ARE THE FIRST STEPS? A, ‘ In erder far our four recommendations ta be carried out, we believe the Pollowing will be necessary: 1. An expanded "Oreanising Committees" should carry on the work of the Unienisation working Group by planning the organisinn campaian; dis- cussing, magotiatinn, and cooperating with the relevant unione;: and, generally, take up the committment to organising architectural workere. 2. The Committee should continues and speedily conclude the researeh into the existing aituation and into prospective sion with those unions toward a mutually acceptable eatretecy. We expect our network of personel contacts among architectural workers to be the = main organiaing tonl, backed up by literature, time erganisera, ete. The compilation of a “diractory of architectural workers, indicating smolovment and any union affiliation, ia an esseftial piece of research both for developing atrateagy and proceeding with aifoan:- purpose Of raising the iseuwe loudly and clearly. Funding and distribution must be arranged. 4 Based on the proposal eventually agread tiate with the relevant union or unione ‘ing which union(s) te work with (unless developed), upon, the Committee should nego- end make a final decision regard- a more suitable strategy can be unione and continues discus- maatings, full- or part- J s sation. It is s difPloult but feasible task. Se fg sbon as the resgerch and development of an aqreed strategy can hej S. The organising drive must bagin ag soon a8 possible. The subject is tanid- sibility of getting some or all the orospective unions to back a combined Moluded, the Committee should publish a convincing repert with the ly moying into the apotlight end if the architectural workers don't move, fast, the boasee no doubt will, making daals with as many ae possible of the moat decile unions thay can find aa asoon as they perceive the threat of a really affective unionisaticn. This ie another reason why the pos- organising drive in the name of a new union for workers in the building professions must be fully exolored, however remote it may bee bie believe that the organising drive itself must be in high gear within three to six monthe from now. { to architectural mansgament, whether partners or salaried. oe A .5 ladt the myth alive. The crucial reality, however , ie that over 90% of tha pro~ feesion is already salaried. The figure je ateadily inersasing. No coubt any amateur mathematician could quickly figure gut the probability of soma- one now beginning a career in architecture aver becoming a pattner. Itfa probably no better than one in six and hardly improved by the evan more remote possibility of bacoming 4 principal in the public sector, which hee by and large modeled its structure and methods on those of privata prec- tice. In the past, we are told, a young architect could ressonably Look forward to the day when he would gain central over hie work, win the res- pact of the community, achieve a level of economic well-being and fulfill his professional obligations by “becoming his own boes." Today, only © tare and aver-decreasing percentage of architectural workers will ever achisis thie status. Tha most thet the overwhelming majority can look forward to is a continuing life of drawing board drudgery, inascurity and slienecion. The fact thet is dawning on architectural workere with ever-increasing clarity and force is that architecture ia, firat and foremoet, a business, Like any other business. But what is an "architestett? ocho" ' other bueinees, the cornerstone of architectural practices ie a division of the “playara" into a small minority of businessmen and bureausrate, the management, on the one hand, and arehitectural workere, be thay acohiteats, architeotural assistants, technicians, draughteman, ate., on the. other Hed « ‘The situation ia slightly obscured by the Architacts Regist:otien Couneiite legal reatriction of the uee of the title, “Arehiteet." ARCUE aside, the term "architect" can be taken to mean, "designer of buildings: who prepares plans and superintenda sonatruction. "| This nanmmoniv accepted definitien obviously rulee out much of architectural management who neve .. _ ceased to be architects (if they aver were), despite thelr continued and legally-sanctioned use of the title. On the other hand, many who actually da the dasigning, draughtino, specifying and eupervieion of construction on site are prohibited by law from describing themeelvas as “architentsu.” In this report we are concerned:with the peaple who by and large de the work of architecture. These.aze tha "oreh*! The current economic crisis, which hae resulted in large-scale redundan~ cies throughout the entire building industry, has begun to clarify for many architectural workers a situation which persiste through boom ae weil as bust. Architectural employment in tha private sector, which com prises over half the profession, is now down 25% from ite level at the end of 1974 and this la axpected to reach 30% by the end of next month. 4. The Conciss Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Sixth Edition, 1975 In the public sector it ie already down between two and four per cent, and the expected redundancies have only just begun. The official Nungm~ ployment rate" among ARCUK's “architecte" is eatimated to be over 10%, and it is predicted in some quarters that it will rise to 25% in the coming year. The architectural worker, whether already on the dole queue or still at the drawing board and hoping that tha next round of redundan- cies will pass him by, 1s reduced to waiting (with the patience that has become expected of him) for the next building boom, though the fear is gaining ground that this may be a long way off if it ever does material- ise. In the masntime, architectural workers have seen their real incomes steadily declining during the past few years. This has been particularly marked in private practices, tha birthplace of ths profession. A deeper and broader dissatiafaction with the situation in architecture runs equaliy through both private and public practice. Taught to consider himael? (or hereelf) technically competent, socially concerned, and pro- feseionally independent, the architectural worker is forcad to work within a system that gives him, just as the workers in other industriesn,o control over his working lifs. His technical, creative and social concerns and cap- abilities are continually frustrated by the arbitrary and unaccountable power of the sane people who are making his economic position increasingly untenable: the architectural businessmen, who are more in sympathy with the bankers and bureaucrats with whom they play golf than with the workers in their offices or the people who must live in the buildings for which they are so quick te take cradit should the critics applaud. The architectural worker ie separated from his fellow workers in the of- fice by axcessive division of Labour, elaborate status groupinga and a competitiveness which owes more to the realitias of employer-employee ra- lationships in the profession than it dees to any artistic preteneionas. At the seme time he is denied the contact with the client, not to mention the people who will setuaily use the buildings he designs, without which it is impossible for him properly to carry out his responsibilities. Con- tact with the building workers who must use the drawings and specification he produces in order to build “his" building is hardly more frequent or profound. Set in this context, the architectural sorkerfe ultimate elisna- tion from the product itealf ia inevitable. While the "myth of the professional" has been waaring thin on the architec- tural worker, the so-called "crisis in architecture," a crisis of both con~ fidence and identity, has been brought closer to the ignition point by the unprecedanted collapse of public confidence in the architectural profession. 163 This has quite undarstandingly followed Ronan Point, Centrepoint, Summerland “Ff Lar 41.4 and Poulson, not to mention the profession's full-scele collaboration in the destruction of, countless neighbourhoods and towne whose only crime was to be out of step with the “demande of the market" and their replacameant with the shabby yet sxpeneive wasteland of arbitrary and oppreasive "ea- tates" and "blocks," motorways and parking.garages, shopping centres,: civic centres and cultural centres which (eave for central heating and indoor toileta) signify ‘modern architectures" for the man in what used to be the street. Communities want control over their environment and architectural workers It is becoming increasingly obvious to beth architectural workers and the public that architecture as it ia now practised serves only the inter~ es$s of the few and remains inaccessible and unaccountable to tha communicy, despite all thea committees, enquirias and reports, codee ef conduct, pilot projects and pious sentiments about participation and public service. - are beginning to realise the need for control over their working Lives, creatively and socially responsible architecture of which they are cepable. But how hes the architectural worker come to find himself in thie situation af exploitation, isolation and alienation? The relentless drive, which no enterprise in the market economy can avoid, towarde an ever-inereasina profit element and steadily declining labour element has resulted, in ar- chitecturs, in larger and more hierarchical practices. Thess are incress~- ingly bureaucratic and arbitrary, remote and unaccountable, unable to utile ise fully the human ekills and material resources made available to them. To eneaurs higher profits, ineluding the maans to pay higher interest and “Insurence charges, the ownere of practices have hed to out their lebour costs by reducing manning, outting salaries, beth proportionally and in real terms, and reducing the time ‘and resources which can be allocated not only to gach job but aleo to back-up Jike on-the- job training, contin uing education, research and other "labour casts," ba thev nenstanea. mbhem payments or social provisions. of course, this cost cuttieg is nat anly against the: interests of architectural workers. By praventing those who must do the work of architecture from doing a competent +d reaponsible job, this cutting of “labour costs" ia againat the public interast as wall. The collapses of public confidenca in the profeesion is no eoincidenca. Osspite the occasional feudal remnants with which we are all too familiar, it is cbvicus, then, that architecture has entered the ege of capitaliainsee or what some describe as “monopoly capitalism." what, then, ie thea seer” of the architectural worker? It le in thie context that we must consider forachancebothtosurviveeconomicallyandtapeesfheBehe? the question of trade unioniem in architecture. Part Two SHOULD ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS ORGANISE? +* demand, for examples: 2. Collective negotiation of salaries, hours, and all other conditiona. of employment,taenaureforallarchitecturalworkersaas aap aa of living. Thie would includes a. Raducing exceseaive and divisive raising the oqrosely oe tural workers. b.Stoppingthedeclineinrealwegeaendeee that by ellow architectural workers to maintain their atandard salary levele of living. pay differentials, particularly esleries of thea lawast-paid architec- We heave seen how architecturel workers are slowly and neinfully becoming aware that their employment security, their standard of living, and the what, how, and why of the work thay do, not to mention the quality of the environment which they shere aa membere of the community, are as much at the mercy of tha market syatem se those of any othar working people. with the "professional myth" going into "progressive collense" and their "pro- laterianieationTM coming home to roost, they begin to realise that they have more interaetes in common with other workers in the building industry, and indeed in all industry, than they have with their own amployere., Rut, lack- ing any organisation of their own, the responae of architecture] workers no far, sepecially in the hard-hit private sector where the problems are Workers thet wera "oroletarianised® long before hava for over @ century seen the answer in solidarity. The trade union movement is the inatitutionel fo rm which that eolidarity hes taken, Through their unione, working people have defended their standard of living and right to work sqainst the ravages Of Lapitcl, FY tke arma time, thay have bequn organising to overthrow the whole market syetem and eetablish democratic control aver all aspects of their working lives, so that the human, natural ene cultural resources af the nation may be used, rationally, for the benefit of all. what could trade fe in othar industries, the firat stan is to make rallebtive bargaining by the organised workers the mathed by which-all queetinne of amployer-employes relations are resolved. The architectural workers union would need to fight for racognition as thair representative and, through collective bergaining, most glaring, has been, not surprisingly, sunine. union orgsnisation secomplieh for architectural workere? 1. An and to arbitrary, unnecessary, and inequitable redundancies. To kean going in tima of crisis, excess nrofite end ag-called "management expen~ see" should be trimmed, not jobs, where any redundancies are agread ta de unavoidable, the "who, when and how" must be negotiated in deteil with the union and thoee made redundant given adequate notice and redundancy pay. (ue ve not renatdes the presant legal minimum at all adequate.) Em ployers should contribute to an industry-wide supplementary unemp Loymant insurance acheme. The use ef architecturel "lump" labour muet be ended. , ide A ‘minimum.of. one aonthi#: paid Oeabtten Poe all arehitectiral WOrKALEs e. One. unified: and adequate: menesn6 plan’ coverinrs ait axel‘itecturel wn, ee ployment. a .f., Adequate paid maternity (and paternity): Teave: aoe ptowlgion of day - Auresties at or near the of fire. : qe Safe cand healthy working conditions, including ‘senting, Lighting and Ti Pe precautions. 3, Sufficient time off with, pay. fon attendance at. releuant éduteens canfer~ ences and meetings, aa well as for - trade union activities: PEGlévence” to | be determined. by the union orhantaation ine the office. Of: ct. In order to.ehare equitably the work available, 9 maximum work week ae “94 houre and no overtime work as a substitute for full employment. I?overtimeworkteunavoidable,iteehepetaandatan<idaa ..,.:Pilaterate. |: 2 ; TpToLe “The ati Beate 9 architecture ‘today, However, makes Lt necasasry, for e “union: to 90) bayond these vital Nbroadaand-buttsr", theues. oe anrer could lydadaay ‘dah had an’ denies 44 An and to “praduction Line" manasemant. techniques, the’ erbitrary divi- sionofLabourandtheartificialseparationa ee “Gorkers into *nrofessionals" and |“technicians,” 2200s ‘ . .2, The opnartunity t6 do gach job opoeaieaenete ed ee SSS gaehge - af corners. _ oe 3. Adherance to a untonedeveloned Suis of conduct* whieh would prevent ' -arehitectural workers from haveing to collaborate in the destruction . Of our netural ‘and architectural heritage, the brasking, up of coherent “popular neighbourhedda, ‘and tha ‘diversion of valuable materiol and human . Tesources from socialiy~useful |pro jects to aneculative, monumental, pres tige, authoritarian and colonial ONGa. “"@. An and to secretive management and erbitrary ducieifone over the lives of architectural workere as well aa over the planning, dasign, construc- tion and management of the built environment. Architectural workere nead Not merely: “open booke,® but complete, damocratic paphon Over every aspect of architectural practices, 4 : 5.Employersto.contribute,parenitraveeptsUiHe CEROfundgetab~ lishing email, damocratically-organised. Locrlly=bes od Parmmind ty design cos emagyten would staff each office with architectural workera, whoea' ‘amp Loyets would be required to orant “lasve of: sbhaance.! Firms’ could he’ given theoptionofconvertingtovamall,moreppnPitymet2.wiganSeem under a suttable framevork eneurtrc atcountability to the communi ty Ril'tes _to-ordination with other community destior offices. Fither WEY, We would begin to. build, from the oraen roots ups a democratically-organiaed and locally-controlled "national cdesiqn service. Joe isu Solidarity dors not Just mean collective bargaining. thoes. famikier:: eith trade undone know hour, in. addition, they defend workers ‘against dscsimt. nation,unfatrdiamisaal eee eitherbytags)seprenaguerion SAVE. + hargaining sgreemente sre,clearly aa pndivany!sachet uranelly architectural offices" to provide an architecture) sarvice ‘accessible toca able to popular-based community: action: groups,” ‘tenants “assotiations, trades councils, ete. The -unton; in coblakoration with the ‘elient," workers. could. bangin to: take control at: their dwn destinies, their. trade Ped union could also act positively and effectively in other ways, in the office, the profession, the building industry and the community. For example: 1. If architectural workers were well-organised, they, together with other organised workers in the building industry, could exert the political influence that is necessary to stop the cuts in socially-necessary building expenditure and investment. The use of the building industry by successive governmants as a handy "economic requlator" (however in- effective) is partly a reflection of the comparative weakness of trade union organisation in the industry. 4. times when a reckless scramble and material resources, are wall reasonable employment prospects in the industry, architectural workers, if organised, would be in a position to campaign for an end to the use of the building industry by the market for bankers and speculators and cultural facilities for whole range of human, material construction sector be used the luxury of the few or to maintain elitist, oppressive available to the and not for institutions at home or are well-organised will ulate and forcefully present designed, well-built, cratically-planned buildings. gun to demonstrate that floor" as well as in the broader political and wasteful abroad. Only if they Its disastrous effects, even in boom for profits stretches inadequate known. But beyond merely fighting system to ensure profit and power instead of decent housing, the community. They could industrial, social demand that the and financial resources for the good of the community fascist and racist regimes architectural workers be able to develop, artic- their demand for the right socially-useful, environmentally=sound The Lucas Aerospace shop demands of this nature can arena. stewards have be- be made on the "shop to produce well and demo- human for 2.3 Collaborate with organised building workers not only in their campaign to end tne "lump," but also to ensure decent, healthy and safe conditions on site and to develop "Green Ban"-type actions blacking politically, socially or environmentally destructive projects. Architectural workers could also begin to refuse to collaborate on projects unless the workers who build them are ensured fair wages, decent conditions and trade union representation. Campaign for changes in the Architects Registration Acts to alter the composition of the Architects Registration Council in order to give it a lay majority representative of the population as a whole and an archi- tectural minority elected directly by workers and employers in proportion to their numerical strengths. Such an ARCUK, removed from control by architecturel management, should stop delegating responsibility for ar- chitectural education to the RIBA and should promulgate and enforce a "code of conduct" which is in the interests of the public and the workers in the profession, not those of architectural businessmen. The code should only permit among architects non-profit, self-managed forms of practice which provide for direct accountability to the community and complete internal democracy. Protection of the title, "architect," and control over architectural education should no longer be used to filter out those potential architects who come from working-class backgrounds or who otherwise fail to fit the mold required by architectural manage- ment to perpetuate the present system of architecture. Architectural ed- ucation should aim instead to produce socially, technically..and creatively competent architectural workers. This need is shared by all“ architectural = workers; a union could fight for an end to education without jobs abd jobs pelisok education by demanding on-the-job training ana@-continuing educa- ion Collaborate with trade unions in other EEC countries to ensure that FEC policies affectino architectural practice, the building industry and the environment are in the interests of architectural workers and the community. im at have not yet been stamped- out. With "modern architecture". discredited, designers have desperately’ ‘searched for more sophisticated and credible technical" answers?''for another would-be solution which avoids the need for changes’ in’ the! structure, of the profession (iva, neo- vernacular, historical ‘conservation, alternative technology, energy conservation, etc.). As consensus: is lacking, however , the latest hope appesars to be a sort of enlightened neo--eclecticism, Lee caramelaie He.gRieseg ‘forward for. the building industry and for the gommauntsy- We don't see or- ganisation. ‘in the work place aS a panacea. We see: it as one Necessary in- gredient, invan interdependent, three- Fold strategy for progress, alongside action in the community ‘to develop structures of direct involvment and .ac- countability and political action on a broader scale. ‘No. doubt there |are: some who are now thinking, "...but surely, there must bo some solution besides unionisation..." A brief look at the recent his- tory of. "progressive directions" in architecture will help provide: ‘the an- aResiers Here are nine. ways that Warchitécte ‘Df conscience". eave attempted, ig Eh ‘varying degrees OF. success, to find a:‘way out: i BIE Various "formalisms" and-other attempts to seek: "technical. solutions" to political problems have always been popular in the profession. (Cyrics might. say that is the profession's main ‘role.) From.the late Nineteenth Century. until after the Second World War, the gréatest en- ergy of many talented and dedicated architects went into the “¢rusade" fot "Modern Architecture," a style which lent itself better t6 a capital- “tintensive building and design industry than did more traditional styles but which acquired an air of social progressiveness because some of its . leading, exponents weré Sdéial Democrats or Communists (and some Social Democrats and Communists patronised the style), thus. encouraging’ the Nazis to attack the, style. This gave it great credibility after. the Second, World War until its massive shortcomings became so painfully and tnagically obvious - that. they could no.,lenger:be glossed: overs: This’ "move- ment" has by now all: but gone into. hiding, though' cits. influence ‘persists and though its simple- minded concern for "pationalissation" and ““indus-— trialisation" of “building continues ta obsess a few die-hards and make: : .headvay where traditional’ labour-intensive building methods and skills 2. Many who realised ‘that formalisms, “including ibdchnandabbac fetishism," would solve none of the underlying problems of architecture and only served: to.mystify the profession andthe public put their faith into ‘the extension of socialism=nationalisation into the. practice. of archi- .tecture. For them, the local authority architect's department was: to be the answer. The notion of a bureaucratic and centralised socialism, however, no longer has the "pull" it once had. The failuroef public sector architecture, modeled on private practice, to change the internal Telations in the production of architecture and its inabilittyo with- stand the forces of the market system externally have created broad disillusionment with local authority practice, as a solution in itself, both from within and from the community. rt a our ‘opinion: ‘that, there are very ‘tau problems facing architecture “today that trade’ union organisation and action could not come to grips with! and, make a real contribution towards resolving. We believe that union- i isation’ is “the only way that architectural workers can begin to gain con- i over ‘their working lives. at the same time it would be -a positive step, UNIGNISATION WORKING GROUP The New Architecture Movement, Central London Group November 1976 ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS AND TRADE UNIONISM Draft report on the organisation of architectural and allied workers PREFACE Thie draft report on the organisation of architectural and allied workere has been prepared by the Unionisation Working Group of Eantral London "NAM" for the New Architecture Movemant conferande being Held ih Blackpédl,y No- vember 26-26, 1976, It is based on six montha of discussion among ourselves, with officials of some of the relavant trade uniona and with interested in- dividuals bath inside and outside of "NAM," ae well aa upon reading of some of the relevant Literature. Ite purpose is te bring into focus and stimu- late discussion upon a subject which the Unionisation working Group believe requires urgent action by the New Architecture Movement and all workers ine volved in tha dasign of the built environment. CONTENTS Part One: INTROGUCTION: why is trade unionism on the architectural agenda now? Part Twa: SHOULD ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS ORGANISE? Part Three: CAN ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS ORGANISE? Part Fours HOW SHOULO ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS ORGANISE? {includes "racommendations"} Part Fiver WHAT ARE THE FIAST STEPS? Short Bibligraphy ADDENDA PAGE Tnloae 2slees Beteos Asteoe 5e7 6.1 Cel Part Une INTROGUCTION: why is trade ufiohiam om the arshitectureal agenda now? Nearly a year ago, the Council of Enginesring Inetitutions, a sort of aupereRIBA grouping the yarious institutes BR oncempassing some 300,000 shartered profeseiofial engineers, lesusd a ceport antitied, "Professional Engineere efd Trade Uniofie.” The report noted that ower a third of pros feesionel engimeere are already in unicne but pointed cut that im the pri# wate sector, where over 60% of profeseional efgineers are smployed, only 40% are already organised, The report concentrated, tharefora, on that areas Noting the bread=andebutter ificeftives for enginesrs to orgafiee and seelifig the glosed shop end eome form of employee participation in management mene eeing on the horizon, the CEL urged profeesional engineers in the private sector to Join amail, slitist "ysoudo-uniwoinllsi"ng to gollaborate with the Chartered Inetitutions. This, it was hoped, would foresatall the growth of the bonas?ide, TUC«sffilieted unione like TASS {of the AUEW) and ASTMS, who had already begun orgsnising spgineers, not to manbion the possibility of angineers orgeahieing their awn union. Whatever the chances of the CEL pips-dream bearing Fraélt, we can expact a similar effort to be made by the RIGA and RIGS, if thay can get together, assuming the RIGA can get itself together. For even the custodians of Port- land Place paternaliem will. soon begin to think twice about trying sa once again to sweep the subject of trade unioniem under the ruq. Nobwithetanding an enonomiec crisis which ia ateadily cutting the real income sf architece tural workers and monumentalising their lack of amloyment security, pree<- sure for job satisfaction and industrial demosreacy continues, slowly but surely, to grow. White collar organisation, right up to management level, is the growth araa in trade unlonism now, anc the virtuel collapea of the sharteLlived and loudly«trumpeted "presence" of ealaried architecte on the RIBA Couneil can only ba taken as the handwriting on the wall. Evan Church of England vicers have begun erganising now, and young lawyers are starting to join the Traneaport and Generel Workers Union. Having nearly recovered from the Modern Movement, and now passing on to energy consarvetion, his- tordeal coneervation and maybe aven "oattarn books," can architecture, we ask, faasay bo for Sohied what ia the problem? Let ue very briefly review tha situation in arohitec- ture todey. The "profeestonal myth" perpetuated by the RIBA and the echools of architecture, with help from the madia, would hava us believe that tha profeseion ie etill (if 14 ever was) s community of equals or near-equals,. with gg a partnerehip the eventual outcome of the typical paefase architec- turel caraer. The profeasian ie in fast made up of near equale as far as ability to do the work of architecturs ie coneerned, which helps to keep the myth alive. The crucial reality, however, ie thet over(209) of thea pro- feesion is alraady saleried. Tha figura is steadily increasing. No doubt any amateur mathematicien could quickly figure cut the probability of some- one now beginning a carser in architecture ever becoming a partner. It?s probably no better than one in six and hardly improved by the even more remote poseibility of becoming 4 principal in the public sector, which has by and large modeled its eteucture and methods on those of private prac~ tice. In the past, wa ara told, a young architect could reasonably look forward to the day whan ha would gain sentrol over hie work, win the res- pact of the community, achieve & lavel of economic well-being and fulfill hie professionsl obligations by “becoming hie own bose." Today, only a tiny and ever-decreasing percentage of architectural workere will evar achieve |this status. The most that the overwhelming majority can look forward to is a continuing life of drawing board drudgery, inaecurity and alienation. architectural assistants, technicians, draughtemen, etc., on the other hand. ‘The situation is slightly obscured by the Arohitacts Registration Council's legal restriction of the uee of the title, "Architect." ARCUK aside, the term ‘architect" can be teken to mean, "designer of buildings; who prepares plans and superintends sonatruction.'| This commonly accepted definition obviously rules out much of architectural management who have long since ceased to be architects (if they ever were}, despite their continued and legally-sanctioned uee of tha title. On the other hand, many who actually do the designing, draughting, specifying and supervision of construction on site are prohibited by law from describing themeelves aa “architecta." In this report we are concerned:with the people whe by and large do the work of architecture. These are the “architectural workers," aa opposed to architectural managament, whether partners or ealariad. The current economic crieis, whish has resulted in large-scale radundan- cies throughout the entire building industry, has begun to clarify Por many architectural workers a situation which pargsiete through boom as wejl as bust. Architectural employment in the private sector, which com- prises over half the profeesion, is now dewn 25% fram its level at the end of 1974 and this is axpected to reach 30% by the end of nmaxt month. 9 Tod The fact that is dawning on architecturel workers with ever-inoreasing clarity and force is that architecture like any other business. Hut what is an “architectural worker?" As in any other bueiness, the cornerstone of archibeotural practice is a divielon of the "players" into a small minority of businessmen and bureaucrate, the management, on the one hand, and architectural ia, firat and foremost, a business, workera, be they architects, In the public sector it is already down between two and four per cent, , and the axpected redundancies have only just bagqun. The official “unam~ a uJ ployment rate" among AACUK's “architacte" ia estimated to be over 10%, WY panditiepredictedinsomequartersthatitwillriseto25%inthe Mud coming year. The architectural worker, whether already on the dele queue or still at the drawing board and hoping that tha next round of redundan- ko, Cies will pase him by, is reduced to waiting (with the patience that has ve becomeexpectedofhim)forthenextbuildingboom,thoughthefearis (ag asee ground that this may be a long way off if it ever does material- [gwibiog ise. In the meantime, architectural workers have geen their real incomes a“ steadily declining during the past few years. This haa been particularly marked in private practios, the birthplace of ths profassion. A deeper and broader dissatisfaction with the situation in erchitecture runs equally through both private and public practice. Taught ta consider himaelf (or herself) technically competent, socially concerned, and pro- feeaionally independent, the architectural worker ia forcad te work within bf aayetemthatgiveahim,justastheworkersinotharindustries,necontrol over hie working lif_—e, His technical, eraative and sacial concerns and cap- ‘abilities are continually frustrated by the arbitrary and unaccountable f \ power of the sama people who are making hia scenamic position incresaingly - untenable: the architectural busineasmen, who are mote in sympathy with the bankers and bureaucrats with whom thay play golf than with the workers in their offices or the people who must live in the buildings fer which they are so quick te take credit ehowld the critics applaud. The archit|ectural worker ie separated from hia fellow workere in the of- fice by excessive division of Labour, slaborate atatus groupings and a - competitiveneas which owas more to the realities of employer-employee re- SG lationshipe in the profession than it deas to any artistic preteneiona. At the same time he ls denied the contact with the client, not to mantion the people whe will actually use the buildings he deeigns, without which it is impossible for him properly to carry out his responsibilities. Con- tact with the building workers who must use the drawings and specification he produces in order to build "his" building is hardly more fraquant or profound. Sat in this context, the architectural workers ultimate aliena~ tion from tha product itealf is inevitable. While the "myth of the professional” has basen waering thin on the architec- tural worker, the so-called "crigis in architecture," a crisis of both con= fidence and identity, has been brought closer to the tanition point by the unprecedented collapse of public confidence in tha architantural profession. Thie has quite understandingly followed Aonan Point, Centrepoint, Summerland a 5s “= : = as 72 —_ 4 CO” 3 2 +) ? anal * hast the queetion of trade unioniam in architecture. 1.4 and Poulson, not to mention the profession's full-scale collaboration in the deatruction of countless neighbourhoods and towne whose only crime was with the shabby yet expeneive wasteland of arbitrary and oppressive "se~ tates" and "blooks," motarways and parking.garages, shapping centres,- civic centree and cultural centres which (save for central heating and indoor toilets) signify ‘modern architecturs" for the man in what used to be the street. It 1s becoming inereasingly obvious to both architectural workers and the public that architecture as it is now practised sarves only the inter~- ee$s of the few and remains inaccessible and unaccountable to the community, deepite all the committess, enquiries and reports, codas of conduet, pilot projects and pious sentiments about participation and public service. Communities want centrol over their environment and architectural workers are beginning ta realise the need for central cvar their working lives, for a chances both to survive sconomically sreatively snd socially responsible erchitesture of which they are capable. Hut how has the architectural worker come to Pind himaslf in thie situation af exploitation, isolation and alienation? The ralentlase drive, which no anterprisa in the market economy can profit slement and steadily declining labour element has resulted, in ar- chitecture, in larger and more hierarchical practicas. These are increas~ ingly bureaucratic amd arbitrary, remote ard unaccountable, unable to util- ise fully the human ekille and material resources made available to them. To ensure higher profits, including thea means to pay higher interest and insurence charges, the owrera of pranticas have had to eut their labour costs by reducing manning, cutting salaries, both proportionally and in real terms, and reducing tha time not only to gach job but aleo te back-up like on-the-job training, contin- uing education, research and other "labour casts," be thay pensione, other payments or social provisions. Of course, this cost cutting is mat only against the intsreate of architectural must do the work of architecturs from job, thie cutting of “Labour costs" ia againat the public interest as wall. The collapae of public confidence in thea profession is no coincidence. and to praduce the technically, avoid, towarde an ever-increasing and resources which can be allocated Oeepite the ecoasional feudal remnants with which we are all too familiar, it is obvious, then, that architecture hae or what some describe as "monopoly capitalism." What, then, is the responee of the architectural worker? It is in thie entered the age of capitbaliames. context that wea muet consider workers. By preventing those who doing a competent and reaponsible Part Tiges necsteameletine seh emesaerNee damend, for axanple: SHOULD ARERTTECTURAL WORKERS ORGANISE? We heve sean how architectural workers are slowly and oainfully hacoming auere that their emoloyment security, their standard of Living, and the what, how, and why of the werk thay do, not to mention the quality of thea environment which thay share ag mambare of the community, are as much at the mercy of tha market syatem ag those of any other working peonle. with the "orofeestonal myth" notsG inte "engreaaive eollagseTM and their "nro- laterlanisstion® coming home to racet, they begin te reallee thet they have mote intersete in sommon with ether workers in the Building induehey, and indeed in all industry, than they have with thede owe amployerea,Fut, lack. ing any ordarieation of their own, the craanpanse of architectural workera ao far, sepaeially in the hard-hit orivate sector whare the probleme sre moet olearing, has been, not surprisingly, suoine, Yarkers that were “nroleatarianiaad® tone; before hava for over « cantury seen the anawer in solidarity. The trade unien movement ia the institutional Fore which that solidarity has taken, Through their uriene, working paanle have defanded thatr standard of living and right to work sqainet the rAayAgan of capital, At the eame time, thay have beaun argeniaing to overthrow the whole market ayatem and eatablish democratic control aver all asnerte of their working lives, so thet the human, amstural and culturel rasourcea of the nation may be used, cationally, for the benefit of all. that could trade union orasmisatian accomplieh for architechurel workers? Ae in other industries, the first satan is to make collective baroatring by the organised workers the method by which all qubetions of amoloyar-employes relations are resolved. The architectural workers union would need to finht for recognition as thair representative and, threuah collective bergaining, 1, An and to arbitrary, unnecessary, and inequitable redundencies, To teen going in tima oP crisis, excess orofite sid so-called “management expan see" should be trimmed, not jotsa. Where any redundancies ara agraad ta be unavoidable, the "who, when and how must be regotisted in detail with the union and those made redundant civen adequate motica and radundancy nay, (We do not conaidar the present leqel minimum at all adequate. ) Em nloyera should contribute to an industry-wide supplementary uneamnloyment insurance acheme., The use of architecture} “lump” Lshbour must be anded. 2 Collective nenotiation of salaries, hours, and sll other canditione of anployment, to enaure for all architectural workers « tassonable stan- dard of living. This would inelurte: a, Reducing axcessive and divisive pay differentials, particularly by raising the grosely inadequate ealariea of tha lowast-paid architer- tural workers. bs Stopping the decline in real wagae and ingurings that selery levale Sllow architectural workers to maintain their etandard of living. c. In arder to share squitebly the work available, a maximum work yaak of 324 houre and no ovartime work as a subetitute for full employment. Tf? overtime work ie unavoldsble, if should he osid, end at an annrape tiate rate. de A minimum af one month'e paid vacation for all ‘srohitectural workers. e. ting unified and avenuere pansion plan cavering all architectural am- ployment. /f,. Adequate paid peiweatey (and paternity) a and provision of day hurseries at or nsar the office. : f qs Safe and healthy working conditions: including senting, Lighting and Fire pracautionsa. 3. Suffielent time off with pay for attendance at relevant. courses, canfer~ “ences and meatingsa,a weil ag for trade union activitise: “"relavanceTM to be determined by the union oroanisation in the of fice.. The situation in architecture today, howaver, makes it necasaary for 2 unien to ao bayend theses vital "bread=and-buttert iasues. Aunton could damands 4. An arid to “‘sraduetion Line” management techniques, the. arbitrary divi- sion of labour and the artificiel separation of architectural workers OTP AEG *profaseionals® and "technicians." fsThaoppertunitytodogechjobreeponsibly!nespeed-upanednocutting of corners. “eo 3, Adhéranée to a unian-develoned "“oode of conduct” whieh would prevent architectural workers feem haveing to collaborate in the destruction ‘af our natural arid architectural heriteags, the breaking up of echerant popular neighbourheoda, and the divarelen oP valuable maherict and human resources Prom agcially-ueseful prejecta to apeculative, monumental, pres- tige, authoritarian and colonial onea. 4, Am and to: necrative management and erbditrary daciatians over the lives “ig architectural workere as well an over the planning,. design, sonstruc~ tian and mananament af tha built environment, Architectural workere need Fe " “not merely “open baoke,” but complate, danocratic control over every eapect of architectural oractics, Ewpleyertso contributepe,ar emnloyes, to a unien-administered fund setab- lishing small, democratically-arganised Locally-basead "community dasign offices” to provide an architectural service accesaible ta and account+ able to popular-based community ation qrouns, tenants associations, trades councils, ete. The union, in callahoration with the "cellent," would staff each office with architectural workara, whoee smoloyearts would be requitad to grant “leaveof absence." Firms could be oiven the option of converting to amell, nonenrofit, salf-mananad practices undet a suitable framework eneurine aeeourtabilfty to the community and en-ordination with other sommunity desion offices. Cither way, we would “ beoin te build, from the grasa roots up, a genaeretigastyse gansaay and ‘Lacally-eontrolled "national design service." Solidarity doea not: juat mean collective bargaining. Thove familiar with trade unions: know howe, in addition, Shey defend workers against discrimi - nation, - unfair diamiseaal or vichimisation, either by Legal renrasantation at tribunals ot by more ‘direct Sehon Floor" ection. And while ecallective “bargaining adreamente are cleerly the nrimary mathod wheraby architectural workers could begin to take control of their own destinies, their trade union could also ant positively and effectively in other ways, in the office, the profession, the building industry and the community. For example: 1. If architectural workers were well-organised, they, together with other organised workers in the building industry, could exert the political influence that is necessary to stop the cuts in socially-necessary building expenditure and investment. The use of the building industry by successive governmants as a handy “economic regulator" (however in- effective) is partly a reflection of the comparative weakness of trade union organisation in the industry. Its disastrous effects, even in boom times when a reckless seramble for profits stretches inadequate human and material resources, are well known, But beyond merely fighting for reasonable employment prospects in the industry, architectural workers, if organised, would be in a position to campaign for an end to the use of the building industry by the market system tc ensure profit and power for bankers and speculators instead of derent housing, industrial, social and cultural facilities for the community. They could demand that the whole range of human, material and financial resources available to the construction sector he usec for the good of the community and not for the luxury of the few or to maintain elitist, oppressive and wasteful institutions at home or fascist arid racist regimes abroad. Only if they are well-organised will architectural workers be able to develop, artic- ulate and forcefully present their demand for the right to produce well designed, well-built, sociaily-useful, environmentally-sound and demo- cratically~planned buiidings. The Lucas Aerospace shop stewards have be- gun to demonstrate that demands of tinis nature can be made on the "shop Floor" as well as in tine broader pelitical arena. 2. Collaborate with organised building workers not only in their campaign to and tne "lump," but also to ensure decent, healthy and safe conditions on site aiid to develop “Green SariTM-type actions blacking politically, sociaily or environmentally destructive projects. Architectural workers could also tegin to sefuse to collaborate on projects unless the workers who build them ara ensurec fair wages, decent conditions and trade union representatisn. 3. Campaign for charges in the Architects Registration Acts to alter the composition a? the Architects Reoistration Cfeuncil in order to give it a lay majority veotesentative of the population as a whole and an archi- tectural minerity 3lected cirectly by workers and employers in proportion to their numerical strengths. Such an ARCUK, cemoved from control by architercturai management, should step deiegatino responsibility for ar- chitectural education to the RIBA and shouid promulgate and enforce a "code of conduct" which is in the interests of the public and the workers in the profession, not those of architectural businessmen. The code should only permit among architects non-profit, self-managed forms of practice which nrovide for direct accountability to the community and complete internal democracy. Protection of the titie, "architect," and control over architectural education should no longer be used to filter out those potential architects who come from working-class backgrounds or who otherwise fail to fit the moid required by architectural manage- ment to perpetuate the present system of architecture. Architectural ed- ucation should aim instead to produce socially, technically and creatively competent architectural workers. This need is shared by all architectural workers; a union could fight for an end to education without jobs abd jobs without education by demanding on-the-job training and continuing educa- tion 4. Collaborate with trade unions in other EEC countries to ensure that EEC policies affecting architectural practice, the building industry and the environment are in the interests of architectural workers and the community. 20 It is our opinion that there are very few problems facing architecture today that trade union organisation and action could not come to grips with and make a real contribution towards resolving. We believe that union- isation is the only way that architectural workers can begin to gain con- trol over their working lives. At the same time it would be a positive step forward for the building industry and for the community. We don't see or- ganisation in the work place as a panacea. We see it as one necessary in- gredient in an interdegendent, three-fold strategy for progress, alongside action in the community to develop structures of direct involvment and ac- countability and political action on a broader scale. No doubt there are some who are now thinking, "...but surely, there must be some solution besides unionisation..." A brief look at the recent his- tory of "progressive directions" in architecture will help provide the an- swer. Here are nine ways that "architects of conscience" have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to find a way out: 1. Various "formalisms" and other attempts to seek "technical solutions" to political problems have always been popular in the profession. (Cynics might say that is the profession's main role.) From the late Nineteenth Century until after the Second World War, the greatest en- ergy of many talented and dedicated architects went into the "crusade" for "Modern Architecture," a style which lent itself better to a capital- intensive building and design industry than did more traditional styles but which acquired an air of social progressiveness because some of its leading exponents were Social Democrats or Communists (and some Social Democrats and Communists patronised the style), thus encouraging the Nazis to attack the style. This gave it great credibility after the Second World War until its massive shortcomings became so painfully and tragically obvious that they could no longer be glossed over. This "move- ment" has by now all but gone into hiding, though its influence persists and though its simple-minded concern for "rationalisation" and "indus- trialisation" of building continues to obsess a few die-hards and make headway where traditional labour-intensive building methods and skills have not yet been stamped out. With "modern architecture" discredited, designers have desperately searched for more sophisticated and credible "technical" answers: for another would-be solution which avoids the need for changes in the structure of the profession (i.e., neo-vernacular, historical conservation, alternative technology, energy conservation, etc.). As consensus is lacking, however, the latest hope appears to be a sort of enlightened neo--eclecticism. 2. Many who realised that formalisms, including "technocratic fetishism," would solve none of the underlying problems of architecture and only served to mystify the profession and the public put their faith into the extension of socialism=nationalisation into the practice of archi- tecture. For them, the local authority architect's department was to be the answer. The notion of a bureaucratic and centralised socialism, however, no longer has the "pull" it once had. The failure of public sector architecture, modeled on private practice, to change the internal relations in the production of architecture and its inability to with- stand the forces of the market system externally have created broad disillusionment with local authority practice, as a solution in itself, both from within and from the community. themselves? NO 3, In an attempt to learn from the mistakes of more conventional practices, a few "enlightened" architects have tried to create small, fairly "respon- sive practices, more or less "democratically" fun.as ‘cooperatives or mod- ified partnerships. As “None-off" cases they have been obliged to compete ‘in isoletion for patronage, manpower, financing, etc. in a completely capitalist system whose business and professional structure has been designed for their more bureaucratic, hierarchical and profit-oriebted copetitors. Yet because of their internal advantages as well as the un- -usual amount of talent, effort and committment which those involved have brought to them, some of these practices have achieved limited.success “bndvheavevneb:eenseizeduponbytheprofessionandmediaassignsof progress. Signs of hope they are, but it would be foolish ‘to believe that inthepresentcontextsuchacourseifrealistiopceanltol:yanymore than a token number of practices,.. Others in a related vein sought to rectify the obvious lack of direct accountability to the community which has characterised both private and public practice and set up would-be “community architecture offices" in the wake of the "advocacy planning" movement. These have been involved, with varying degrees of success, .in:fighting the planning and architec- ture establishment in the name of threatened local, generally wotking- class, communities and providing them with architectural services to: . <Whichthey’wouldnototherhawvei‘asccess.Itappearsthatwhiletoken, scattered local successes may be tolerated, if not ancouraged, in order _,to. give the profession aslightly more’ progressive and dynamic ‘public “image. and to keep busy. and content some:of the more committed young architectural workers while.at the same time isclating them from the “umainstream" of architectural: workers in- the offices, "downtown," there is’alsoreasontobelievethatthisdirecthairdloynac,cesisisbleas -g'Nggneral solution" on any scale without major structural changes in the “-pbofession. In the meantime, lacking a consolidated. power base and. with ‘tenuous sources:of funding and support, such offices may even run the risk of competition from the professional establishment itself, seeking “ ~*to move in on the new "market" they have opened up, recoup some respect- One step farther is taken by advocates of “Nself-build" who attempt to "drop-out" of the building industry and all its frustrations, though they sometimes do reserve a continuing role for the architect. “Others have chosen to try to minimise their connections with the mar- ket system itself by setting up rural: "communes." This again, though presenting a challenging model, is not an option open to large numbers Some thoughtful architects, seeing no socially or creatively positive role possible within practice as it now is, have retreated into afchi- tectural education and theory. While there is no doubt that important contributions can be made in this field, even at times in isolation from practice, there can also be little doubt that there is ai tendency among some of these people to erect a protective shelter of mystification ~around their somewhat vulnerable and isolated professional Sosition. ability and ensure that "things don't go too far." .Seeing the need for basic changes in the professional structure itself, groups like the "New Architecture Movement" have begun to call for its -reorganisation into a national design service of small, locally-based, democratically-run non-profit practices directly atcountable tothe community. But without developing the industrial and political power to _begin to move in this direction. let alone to fully realise the propo- sals,,how will they even be able to realisticaaly develop the concepts ‘In the late Sixties, some salaried architects began the latest attempt to gain influence within the employers! organisation. The Salaried Arch- of people in the ptesent context. itects Group in the RIBA was formed and the RIBA's electoral system mod- ified in the hope of giving the salaried majority of RIBA members some control of the organisation. The group has subsequently spent four years of considerable effort achieving token recognition of the salaried arch- itect in a by now contradictory "Code of .Conduct" whose "enforcement" is still entrusted to the employers.;Meanwhile, involvment at Portland Place has tended to isolate these articulate and committed architectural workers from their "constituency" hile. their:token presence has perhaps encouraged the illusion: that. the RIBA might someday be made accountable to its salaried majority. How seriously would the RIBA'S “democratic framework" be taken if it were placed’ in the architectural..office itself rather than at Portland. Place, given the absence of strong"s nop floor" ‘organisation of architectural workers. We doubt whether the charade — could continue. B8y removing the scene of confrontation:firom the work- place, where the conflicts are,.to a sa-called "professional institute," the illusion of demovracy is sustained. Tactically, by trying to deal with the employers within the RIBA framework, bather than at the place of work, the S.A.G. allowed themselves to.be-separated from many of their fellow architectural workers who are not even eligible for RIBA membership, while allying themselves instead with some salaried architec- tural Management. If this is beginning to read like a "nine lives of architectural reformism," it's no coinciderice. Ali the ebove-mentioned. "tendencies" try to solve the problems facing architecture by a solution within the scope of action by the isolated individual. They demonstrate an increasingly frenzied attempt... to avoid the inevitableth:e need for collective action on the part of arch- itectural workers to bagin. to transform the productive relations within ar- chitecture itself. _It.is our opinion that only when architectural workers” are _organised will these tendencies wgzyx cease to be "diversions" and be- gin. to make a posiitive |and significant contribution to architectural and social progress The extento which this happens will..depenncodt. only on whether architec- . Suen workers organise, but how they co so. we thimk we have shown sort of unionisation will be better than none. ‘The real question now.is whatkionftdradeunionorganisationisappropriateforarchitectural workers toda¥? Although we shall deal with this in more detail in Part Four, it is.useful to outline a general approach here. webéliavethattheproblemistochoanoappsroaech.totradeunionism (from among the many) ‘which will not only facilitate: organisation but will at the same time have tho: best chance of maximisingt.he eventual benefits of organisation to architectural workers, The direction we would recommend mem has already been. implied in our anal - ysis of the situation in architecture could accomplish. It might be termed the "workers! control" conception of trade unionism. the industry. and the community. today. and our .sketch of what a. union that any 2.6 environmental questions. This conception stresses the need for workers to gain“full, democratic: ‘control over all aspects of their working lives, not just wages, hours, job security and pensions. It does this not merely out of a fundamental faith in democracy and egalitarianism, and their ability to mobilise people's productive and creative capacities, nor merely out of a recog- s nition that low wages and insecurity are not the only harmful and oppressive aspects of capitalist control which need to be met head-on. It oelieves that unless wprkers take the initiative and militantly fight and destroy that system of capitalist control where they work, replacing "management prerogative" with democratic self-management , the fight for even decent wages and job security will remain a rear-guard, defensive action, ine creasingly unfruitful. The workers' control approach sees strong, militant and democratic "shop floor" trade union organisation as not merely an aasential means in the struggle for workers! control but the embryo as well for the end which is being sought. While it emphasizes the primacyo.f the work place as the scene of the confrontation between two mutually-antagonistic conceptions of social organisation, it stresses as well the complementary need for militant political mobilisation on a broader plane to replace the market _ system and the institutions which perpetuate it. 2.7 The workers! control conception has a long history which received added momentum from the ferment of 1968 and 1969. Unlike some of the more flam- boyant manifestations of that period which tally suppressed, it has continued to develop and make a stronger impact on the British Odie: Wine movement, as witnessed of they key role of "shop stewards" in the trial occupations and setting up of self-managed pected legislation for a baginning of some formalised "industrial democ- racy" and in the far-sighted and aggressive union activity typified by the "Green Sans" Building Labourers! Union. and. the. proposals a ‘production hich have been made ‘by the combine committee. Even in the USA, where narrow and essentially -"defensive" “bread-and- butter" trade unionism is particularly well-entrenched, large: unions. like the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers have recently pioneered health the giant United Auto Workers (which covers aircraft industry as well) have begun to devote considerable attention to have withered away or been bru- in thé growing recognition union structure, in the indus- cooperatives, in the ex- attitude toward, the Ssocmere? pioneered by the Australian for conversion to socially-use- ‘kucas -‘Aerospace shop. stauards the traditionn of a‘stong but and safety agreements and much heavy machinery and the We believe that this type of trade unionism is the most likely to be rele- vant to the concerns of architectural workers about the nature of the prod- uct they produce and the use to which it is put, about the way the work of architecture is organised, and about the sétisfaction they receive from doing their job. Its explicit call for self-management is pabticularly relevant in architectural practice, where many of the"obstacles" to it which exist in industry are more easily overcome. Moreover, because of its broader appeal and its emphasis on strong "shop floor" organisation, it may also be most likely to achieve significant and lasting progress on "bread-and-butter" questions as well. lle believe that architectural workers need a positive trade unionism whose aim is to combat both the material privations of the market system and the lack of accountability and humanity which it engenders. This requires a unionism based in the daily experience of its members and accountable to their wishes. Trade union organisation firmly based on the "shop floor" will enable members to formulate policies in the context they know best. In this way, too, the everyday opposition of workers to the oppressive and de-humanising forges of the market remains undiluted by remote hierarchies acting on their behalf. Whatever the advantages that the trade union organisation, per se, of architectural workers may have for themselves, the industry and the com- munity, and the significant additional advantages of a workers' control approach to organisation, the reality we are faced with is that architec- tural workers are, in general, not now either organised or in the process of organising. The next question, then, is whether architectural workers are really capable of organising. Part Three CAN ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS ORGANISE? arehitecture and’ ‘ta conaider ite implications, non-manual worker previously in the various craft sectiaong.of UCATT. Ie there raaily any resson to believe that architectural workere actually can get orgenisad, notwithstanding the need to do so? The idea of a4trade union for architeotural workers ip nob, in fact, antirely a new one. we believe at ie instructive briefly to examine the history of organising 3in The "Architects? and Surveyors! Assistante Profegetonal Union" (ASAPU) waa foundad in 1919 amidst the intense industrial unrest ‘and union eaotivity which Pollowad the 1914-1918 war. In 4924, alr3ady 60% of the profsasion was ealaried. The union grew in strength te 2500 by the mid-Twerties, at a time when there were only about 12,000 "architects." ‘In 4924, the name was changed to "Association of Architects, Surveyare and Technical Revio~ tante" (AASTA). By tha mid~Thirties, in tha depthe ‘of the Depression, » though 70% of the profeesion was by ther salaried, unemployment wes 30%and the membership wae agein 2500. Aftar the Seeand world War, the name waa, changed again to the "Association of Bui ding Yachniiniane.TM Membership . was 3500, where it has remained, though today Few members are architect a or atchitectural ‘technicians. The AST ginal gamated with eaveral building craft uniane to form the “Union oF fohsetruction, Qilied Trades and Tech- nicianat (UCATT) in the late Sixties and this yaar waa abeorbed into the Larger sy navly=formed nSUPELVAigory Tachnical, Administrative, Managerial- and Profesaional® (STAMP) section of UCATT, incorporating all salaried, During ite heydey in the’ Twenties and Thirties, the union consisted mainly of architecte and draughtsman and conéentrated ite energy on trying bo gat e minimum salary acala for the profession, to get Ne oeucontatian Par ealar- ded architects on tha RIBA Council and te Limit the number of workers en tering arohitectura by setting more stringent and timea-canauming educational standards. Ite main efforte on these issues were made in megotiatione with the RIBA, rather than directly with the employer in tha architectural office, where if wae naver able to reach a noeiiion of baing recognised aa the rep- tesentative of ite mambers in collective bargaining. It collaborated with the RIBA in supporting the passage of tha Architects Registration Acta, apparently in "return" for expected AIBA agreement to a minimuin gulary acale. Strangely enough, the RIBA never did agree to one. AASTA then adapted a some~ what more militant tone, and mambarahip took am upturn. It didn*t sffiliate to the TUC, however, until 1939,| why, despite ite pioneering efforts and some significant achievements, did the ABT "fade into obscurity" as a trade union for architectural vworkere? iesishiceenp aemasatnemmaneers 4s See addandum for more detailed history of ASAP. AASTA«RAT.«STAMP, ieee e pe syn gee We have identified four related factors which wa believe are relavant: 1. First of all, the union never achieved any real bargaining strength 2. Portland Place. In short, if was never able ta "deliver the gaods."” The attitude of trying to gat invited to dine with the employers Cin- stead af arganising their kitenan atat f) had another serious effect. The union was badly, if not mortally, compromised by its collaboration with tha RIGA. It fought for saats on the RIBA Council, helped set up the RIBA Board ef Education, supported the Architects Reaistratian Acts and devoted much of ites anergy in the Thirties to joint appeals, with tne RISA and Qullding canmtractors, toa the government to gat nelp for the industry. Some of its inadership even took an activa role in RIBA affairs. Yet it had never bean in a position to deal with the employers? orgqanisa~ tion from a pagitian of strength. Lacking a atrong organisational be in the offica, the union structure came to revelve around the branches and nmetional executive rather than around "ehap stewards" directly representing he arqanised worker. This may be OK. for a "friendly society," but wa believe it doas net make for a ebrong union, may facilitate domination by a bureaucratic minority, and results in the leadership gatting out ef touch with the rank and file. Finally, the credibility af the union as the representative of the archi- tectural worker may have been called into question by the prominence in the union of salaried architectural management. One can speculate as well on their effect upon union policy and strategy, especially as some ware active at the sama Lima in the employars?t institutions. More about this later, “- 3. 4, where it counts, on tha “Yahon Pfloar." This may have been the rasult of several factors. As historical context, less of the profession was sal- atied in those days and amall offices were mors mumerous, making affective organising mora difficult. The legislative and judicial situation then alao made union recognition mare difficult’ than it is naw. Much of the union leadership at ane time apparently aubseribed to the then current "soulaliem in one country" line emanating from Moscow and was perhans not oriented towarda industrial mibitanoy in Britain. Instead, several rege to managerial positions in lseal authority (and even private) prac- tice and to prominence in the RIBA, whether in pursuit of the party line or of personal inclination it is difficult to judge. In addition, aa a YeraPt"® union, it had too little interest in organising all amployees, including clerical staff, in the offices. Solidarity at tha place of ,!r wark too often took a back seat to discussions af “Yoraft*® issuas at While the ABT has been the only attempt in Britain at a spanifically archi- btectural trade union, architectural workers im the public sector, who now #}? 542 es" comprises at least 40% of the profession, have in addition had the optioen of joining. the relevant public sectar uniones | By now, throughout the pub- lic sector, trade unisns are racognised as the smployeesa® representatives Far collective bargaining. While there are extrems variations from offica to office, we believe that between 50 and 75% of the architectural workers in the public sector are union membegs, though we have been unable to sub- stantiate this. In any case, with the continued apread of the closad shap this number will inevitably grow. At the moment, though, architectural mem- bership in the public sector is probably lower than among other public sec- ter workers. None of the unions concerned actually knew how many architec- tural workers were members or what per cant of their “architectural con- stituency" thay had organised. Small wonder then that apparently few architectural workere take an active interest in thair public sector unian. Architectural workers have rarely found theae unions relevant to their day-to-day professional concerns, prab= ably because they are tiny minorities in unions otherwise having nothing to do with building and because the career structure in architecture may run not only through more than one union's territory in the public sector but obviously through the unerganised private sector as well. Because of that it is fairly unlikely that an architectural worker will become active in and make a committment to such a union. The public sector unions themselves have generally done Little to encourage sank and file activity or grass roots internal democracy, appearing some- timas to be bursaucracies aping the bureaucracy, They have tended to lack beth industrial and political militancy, too easily falling in step behind their employers? relatively benevolent paternalism. Hardly a good advertise- mant for trade unionism? Mogecver, because of the total lack of organisation’ in the privates secter, the employers there, through their institutions, have been able unilaterally to dictate the shape of the profession, public sec- tor included. There is thus reason to believe that organisation in the pri- vate sentor may be a prerequisite to injecting some life blood into trada unionism among public sector architectural workers. Public sector unionism among architectural workers may also suffer from another problem, one which we believe also contributed to the decline of the ABT. In the public sector, management is salaried. The public sector unions, like the ABT, have always allowad membership not only to the archi- 1. NALGO (National Association of Local Government Officers) in local authorities, regional hospital boards, 'Staff A&Sociation in the GLO/ILEA. IPCs water authorities, ete. GLC (InstituteTM of Professional Civil Servants in the DOE, PSA and other organs of central government. a Le I TSSA (Transport Salaried Staffs Association) in British Rail and London Transport. amployears! insti not unknown to follow a term as chief architect partnership in the private eee ultivated "in the ion can not only hamper in public practice by a calling inta question of the interesta of the ising itself. We believe isation teaches one lesson of the union, but by as the bona Fide defender Taw years confirms this, seeter, nourished by connactions (to say the public service." It is obvious how such a situa- the effective functioning the union's cradibility architectural worker it can prevant effective argan- that if the brief history it is that the short cut of architectural union- to failure lies along. f9% ° ms ct roles of the various design professions. teéctural worker but alee to the man who is the “bosstt for the practical purposes of everyday working life. These architectural managers have at timas been able to influence ar aven dominate unian activity (or inactivity) in their departments. Usually thay share the outlook and concerns of arch- tectural employers in privata practics and often take an active role in the whians,. Given the career structure in archit acture, it is the path of collaboration with management and Lts institutions. That is not the only difficulty to be encountered in arganising architec q “3 tural workers. Une of the classic argunents against the feasi bility of ¥ arganieation is that the incentives ta Join a trade union are Lackinas architects are well-paid; their employers are liberals; their work is neither back-breaking, impersonal nor Wazardous and providas a high Level af job satisfaction; and as "norofessionals" they anjay a high level of control aver the organisation of their work. Without Peginning a discussion af whether this was ayer an accurate picture, and For whom, we think have alrgady made clear that it is by now obvious that this no longer ap~ plies to the overwhelming majority of architectural workers », whose worrias in the present crisis only thinly conceal a deeper uncertainty about the future of the building industry and the aconamy, mot to mantion the future The other claseic arqumant is based upon anobher aspect of the "prefessional myth." The salaried architect, it goes, will aventually become a partner and not only sees his security ina partnership rather than through the solidar- ity of trade union action but already shares the amploayar's manbality. He has no long-term interesitn building the union; quite toe the contrary, he already takes an active intereat in the amployers* inetitutions. Mytha do die hard, but with 50% of evan registered architects already salaried and the figure steadily mounting, the “proletarianis n" of the profession is beginning to be understood. Reality oan only so long be denied. The rapid growth of white cellar and professional trade unionism in the past Others argue convincingly that trades unionism can only be built upon solidarity and that architects will never overcome the individualism and competitiveness which stams from their middle-class backgrounds and aducation. (And because of tha employers? control of tha Architects Reg~ istration Council and thus architectural education, the titla, "architect," is by now virtually restricted to people with that background and educa tion.) Fortunately, the education system is less than 100% afficient and even a middle-class background can be overcome (with effort). A corollary to this argument is that the architect is anxious to maintain a social status which places him “above” trade unionism. If wetre to believe the resulte of recent sociological surveye, thar's apparently not too much | left of the architect's vaunted "status." The current form of thie argument is perhaps that trade unionism isnt trendy" enough for the architect. Un- fortunately, ons can’t pay the rent with "etatus," and “trandiness" is no substitute for a full stomach, fulfilling work, and self-respect. Thies is baginning to dawn on those who have hitharta been too easily satisfied for their own good. Likewise, we have shown how architectural reformism is run- ning out of rope. We believe this is also becoming increasingly apparant, despite the frenzied effarts of the media to market the latest paneceas. The most serious arguments against the feasibility of organising among architectural workers are of another sort, however. Thay all hinge upon the extreme fragmentation of the profession, This fragmentation takes three forms: 1. Tha employers’ classic form of fragmentation divides architectural workers into several categories, each of which is supposed to have its own epe- cial interests which override common ones. This is done first of all by statutory division (aimed at reinforcing existing differences in class background) of architectural workers into those who are "architects" (and may on occasion be invited to dine with the lord of tha manor) and those who are “architectural technicians," otherwise known as draughtemen. This type of division is carried further by the creation among salaried archi- tects in private practice of "associate" status (a sort of standing invi- tation to dinner with the potential of an eventual partnership). The tech- nician, of course, is one step above the clerical staff. This fragmentation has a second form, which is “division of architectural workers "horizontally" (though with a poorly concealed vertical component) into distinct "crafts." (The distinctions tend to blurr easily when therets @ scramble for work.) Thus we have the intricate and cultivated division of building design inte tasks for architects or surveyors, town planners or urban designers, structural and sarvices angineers, quantity surveyors, building contral officers, stc. The division we are told is the result of maximising efficiency. Ne comment. tactural “minority! of thelr members. we believe that, given the situation in arehitecture today, exacerbated by the current employment crisis, a carefully designed organising campaign would succeed in convincing the 50,000 unorganised workers in the buliding profesaions that their common interests call for common organisation and that their fragmentation works only in their amployers’ interests. It has become apparent ta us, hewaver, after meetings with high-level officers in sogeral *oroapective” unions, thet no trade union is ab this point eeriously interested in launching in the building professions the kind of organising drive that would have a realistic chance of suecess, cormidering the diffi- cubties we have just outlined. We must have no illusions about this. te should consider the possibility, however, that should an effactive argani- ging campaign gat started, hitherto thusilasm for organising, encouraged are in "good industrial relations." We Nave come to the conclusion that kere is foasible. In fact, we believe that despite all the obstacles, some Porm of trade union ocrmanisation is inevitable. To achieve really effective luke-warm unions may show a sudden an- by an equally sudden interest by amploy- the organisation of architectural wore 6G an inevitable historical process of speeielieation for the purpose of . The employment pattern in architecture, particularly in the private sac- tor, is’ characterised by a great number of small effices. Thie always makes difficult mot only organising in tha firet place but maintaining what organisation has geen achieved, especially when combined with high staff turnover, another characteristic of the profession, particularly when times are good and in Landon, where probably half of the arehitectu- ral workers in Sriteain are amployad. 3. The "typical" career structure in British architecture, when combined with the prasent form of the Britieh vhstacle to organisation. it's nat at all unusual fer an architectural _ worker to move from local autharity te private practice, to teaching or research, to cantral government or a nationalised industry, inte a con- tractor's office or private industry, working lifetime. He may mot only pass or four different trade unions but may ganised ta unorganised territory. Thie an incentive to the architectural worker to take ar active part in his or her trade union and make the kind of Long-term cammittmant upon which or- ganisation depands. The corollary is that the trade unions ara alen quita understandably discouraged by this fragmentation ganising architectural workers or paying from either actively or- much attention to a small archi- trade unian movement, adds a further and perhape back again, all in one through ths territories af threa aleo pass back and forth from or- atate of affairs hardly provides ht BRIEF BIBL TOGRAPHY On trade unlonism: Gn the situation in architecture: 3e7 organisation, and to achieva it when it is really needed, however, those obstacles must be overcome. We believe that this can be dona by a care~ fully considered strategy and committment, hard work and a willingness to taka personal risks. Only architectural workers themselves can provide this. If they do, we balisve that the trade union movement will contribute the essential support that only it is in a positien to provide. But the process will also take time. "Seize the day! Ssize the hour!" Kan Coates and Tony Topham, The New Unioniam: The Case for Workers? Cantral, Penguin Books paperback, 1974, FSSENTIAL READING. Tony Topham, The Organised worker, Arrow Booke panerback, 1975, Ken Coates and Tomy Tephem, Industrial Democracy in Greet Britain, Panther Bocks paparbeck, 1970. A Short History of the Architectural Profession, by adam Purser, TI7G, Available fram The New Architecture Movement, 143 wWhit@iald St., London wt, Malcolm Mac Ewen, The Crisis in Architecture, RIBA Publicetions Ltd., 1974. Edited extracts published in RYSA Journal, Anoril 1974. (See alec his lang avticle, “what Can 8a Done about Competence?" in The Architects Journal, 19 November 1975; po 1063-1084. Louis Heliman, "Democracy in Architerture," RIBA Journal, August 1973, pp 395-403, and "Prefessional Representation," Architectural Besign, Merch 1976, on 156-459, Patet, Four HOW SHOULS ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS ORGANISE? From our discuseion of why architercturel workera ought to organise, it wavuld appear thet the maximum hsnefite of organigation will bea reamed were all wore kare involved in the design of the Built enviranment to come tagathar in ane coherent union within a larger union covering the entire building industry, which, indeed, cught to form mart ef a still larger union of all working peo- plea. Energy which would otherwise oo inte constant defensive esetion agsinat the unified ineatitutione of the employera (ineluding finance, madis,. and the etate}, not to mention the diversions of defending onafs "patch" againat sn~ creschmant by workers in another "erafi," industry or sector, could be dirac- ted to making teal progress in the office, srofeesion, end community. Tf there were one union fer ail architecture] workers it would have the human resources and cammittment mot only to soeak Por them srticulately, coherantly: and forcefully, but aleao te carry through to completion the task of organi- sing. Only auch se union would Mave the meane and will to undertake the research and discuseion, deveslon oolicy and take action on vital desuea facing erchi- hecture and the built environment, in the } office, orafessional structure, huiiding industry, and community. IF ia nob only sechitectural workers but also the building industry and the community that need such a union. Until atehitectural workera are coherently organieed, the bio amnisyers, though a tiny fraction of the mrofassion, will sontinue ta claim, through their ineti- tuitions, that thay speak for the orafesasion...an we shall ell, sorkers end community, continue to pay the orice for thet volee, however garbled it may SRR. Tt is further important thet ali workere involved in buiiding deafon, mat just architentural workers strictly speakine, Sut aleo quantity surveyore, ebruc- tural and services engineers, bullding surveyors, landscene architects, atc., be srashised inte one undan and thet union encemnasa beth nublic and orivate sectors. Ags contributors te the same oroduch, mutual sunport in induetrial disputes is essential. And sines one group is often capable af doing the Same work as another {a.9., architects and surveyors, lotal authority archi-~ tects or consultants, etc.), common orosnisation ia assantial to prevent not oniy exolieit or de-facta "aeabbinaTM om ane another but else daatrustive com- petition Por wark at the other's expanse and isalous guarding af possibly subgated delineations of exclusive professionel spheres which pravent the industry from developing for tha samman goad an determined by its workers as a whole and by ths communities who use ite preducte. And it ia necessary that euch a union in the building professions be part of a union of all bulldina industry workers, and indeed of all workers in iB or all industries, for similar reasons applied to the wider scala, to combat the power and flexibility which capital companies, conglomerates, finance, state and media. Such arguments as theses have been out forward many times before in the his- tary of the trade union movement and have tant influence upon ite development. We must face the fact, howaver, that the historical development of trade unionism the formation of ona big union. Indeed, in the building industry slone, af- ter numerous amalgamations, the moet at least three unions of major significance: General Workers Unien)} and the electricians chitectural workers, because of the and plumbere union. As for sr- with "a finger in tha pie" (that is, with architectural members, in the econatruction industry or sengacad, sionals from various industries), there ployment and the existence of a variety roring ite management atructure, ° and considering all the unions already union sould. 4, aaa footnote 1, peqe 3.3 has at ite command through ite had and continue to have an impor~ in Sritsin hae not resulted in recent in the late 1960ta, there sre UCATT, TGuWU (Transport end split inte orivate and nublic sector ame of unions in the public secter mir- like ABEX or ASTMS, in organising are a good dozen unions which an orofes~ 4.2 architectural worker might find himeelf joining. If this diffuse situation ie allowed to continue, end unlees architectural workere take the initiative, it will, the result will be that the inevitable organisation of architectural workere and workere in the ellied professions will proceed slowly, sporadically and hesitantiy: will be unnecesserily oro- tracted; will remain inconrlata, and will never be able to contribute to the workers, profassion, industry and community what an effective, coherant Wheat then area the prospects of achieving ona union for all architectural workers? lie are immadiately faced with certain oroblema. The unions who have at present the largest memberships of architectural workers are public sector unions like NALGO and the GLO Staff Association wha have no interest in arganising workers outsida their marrow and pracisely-defined "constitu- encies." And while the CEI may be only too hanpy to recommend that profas~ sional engineers employed in the public sector join theee unions, we suspect that they are among the least likely of the dozen or so "srospective" unions to satisfy our criteria for # suitable union far architectural workers. Yo propose that some other union could orgsnise not only ail the unorganised architectural workers but alec those now aither members of or reoresented by a "rival" union te alas unreslistic as a short-term proposition, thouch Ths formation, by architectural workere themeelvee, f 2 naw, independant union has obvieus attractions, inclucling “oroeanactive" unions, 4sedeaeFiFp omedaneoe 6? te the option of amalgamating in the union on terms oreserving sufficient Putute with a larger, more general autonomy, as the Medical Practitioners coneidering the difficulties which an organising encountert,he likelihood of getting such a uninan off the oround witheut the back-up which only an already slim. Organising requires funds overheads and to cover for inevitable In addition, tha expertise which comes ience and the access ta trade union allies in case of disputes are umlikely Union did with ASTMS. Unfartunstely, drive in this field will powerful union could supply ie pretty for oaraonnei, literature, legal atrikes, lock-nuta, and victimisation.- fees and from considerable trade union exper- i.3 Es such a development over the long term is parhans more olausifle. #Raiding*® of another union's membership would be counter-nroductive and in cenfiict with the TUCts "Heidlington Principles" anverning relations between sffili- Sed unione. Nor is one union likely to be keen on actively sroaniaing on The immediate mrospecte Por achieving ena bic union, even juet fer arechi-+ tactural workers, ara therefore not very encourecing. The only realistic alternative at thie point would seam te be thet architectural workers join one or more of the dozen or soa “prospective” uniene. But ie that « eaufficient recipe aither for launching a successful organieing drive or fer eventually praviding an effective trede unian orgabisation for architectural workers that will reap the full benefits that could come from unionisation? The former may depend on the parceived likelinoed of the latter. It is essential at this point to begin ta axamins mora closely the situation regarding another's "patch," sapecially when thet liee in the nublie sactor. to be easily available today to @ naw union, however genuine it may appear. Qvar the years saveral different typas of unions have develonad in Britain. Thay can be distinguished by different concestions of their "constituencies" as well as by differences in structure and orientation, The early unions de« veloped along "craft" lines {a.q., bricklayers, olumbers, ste.) reminiscent of the medieval guilds. More recently, "white collar" work has been organ= ised across industriel lines almoat ae a sort of “slite”TM oraft, by unions like APEX, ASTMS and NALGO es wall as by eectione of large general unions like TASS (Technical and Supervisory Staff) in the AuUEY and ACTS (Admini~ etretisea. Mlanisset Tashminal are fonarviegry) in the TG. In order to match the power and flaxibility o* cepital and te organise hitherte unorganised workers ignored by the craft unions, induetrial unione developed, grouping all workers in an industry into one union, The National Union of Mineworkere is perhane the closest epproach te this in fritain, shough amalgametions have made some headway, In the United States, the great arganiaingdriovfethe1930'sresultedinthecreationofthepowerfuline GUSeSio. UMSSns of Ina CIO, like the Automobile Workers and the Steelworkers, In industries where the mpublic secter hea « virtual monopoly, like sostal service, rail tranenort, medicine and education, could become induatrial unions through aporoorietea amalgamations within each industry. Otherwise, the publie eacter unions are more analagous to the staff association of e particular enterprise. Finally, cutting acresa all craft, industrial and sector lines are the general unions, Like the TGWU and the National Union of General and Municipal Workere, on the model of "ane bio union" for ell wotkers. Theee "ideal types" herdly sxist aa such in practice, due to amalgamations and other historical and practical circumstances, Largn general uniona like the Tew include craft unions like the plasterers, who amalgamated with it when the sarpenters, bricklayers and painters were joining to make UCATT almest an industrial union. white collar unione may function as industrial unione whers an industry ie almost exclusively white collar, like banking end insurance. Perhaps the differences bewtesn uniona in terma of structure and orientation are more significant. Some tand to be like friendly societies while others act more forcefully in the industrial and political arenas. Some unions are sencerned almost exclusively with “bread-and-buttar® issues of wages, houre and pansions, while others take a broader view of their members? intersate in the workplace and in the community. Some defend narrowly their own inter- este with little regard for those ef other workers, while other unions eae their own pregress as inseparable from that broadest senee and act sccordingly both om the shap floor and in the commun- ity. Some have a docile sttitude towards management while others are mili- tant and incorruptible renresentatives of their membsret interests. Some unions ara run from the ten down in a hierarchy while othare function by a democracy built up from the "qrase roots" and dependent upon an active rank and file. Somes unions Punetion mainly by full- tima, permanant "professional" trade union are essentially "amateur" operations, with the bulk of the task left to the “Lay" memberahip rather than to the "axnerte," and officials, mafnerally elected, returning to their old fobs after ralatively short tarme in unian office. In the hiatery of trade unioniam have existed, but today in Britain the differences while significant, are usually of degree rather than of kind, can change in a few years and are not always easy ta discern Prom without. What union should architectural workers join? There are six unions which ere’ in a position to scrganise in the assentially unorganised private sector, and they are all invelved to sone extent in the public sector aa well. These six include three large general unions, the TGWU, GML and AUEWs two white-collar- only unions, ASTMS and APEX; and STAMP of UCATT, which ie active only in the building industry. For the purposes of this discussion, we shall look atone union from each af the abeve threa categories; that is, TGWU, ASTMS and UCATT. Why these three? It is cur impression that, while similar in conceptian, ASTMS may be more effective, dynamic and nolitically-committed than APEX, APEX is also much smaller than ASTMS, although it is etranger in the con- struction industry. The TG) is much Larger than the SRuti and, in addition, is quite strons already in the building industry. ive have, therefore, nat setiously considered thea GRU. The AUEY da another very large unich with a reputation for democracy and militancy and has a atreng base in civil engin- the public seetor unions of the Labour movement in ite mirraring that of sapitel, "administrators," while othere all thease contrasting positions between and within unions, 4.4 firma of coneulting civil engineers. tie are not tonaidering them at this time only because we have not vet had a chance to meet with their officials end to study: their literatures, “fa ahall mresent here only the briefest des- erintion, inevitably subijective, of those thres unions. t9 & : nos ible te s3enarste brene We underetand that it mould alec orobably be ches For architectural workers and for salariad architecture] management. The union emohasizes ite fPlexisility and relative cpennecs to arqanisetiansl innovation. In addition to the “trade croup" at geographical structure, with tan reqiene in Briteir (and officials} between them and the branches. ghasizea its reliance on sn active lay membership anc shan i tate sega: ataneimastent, 1. 988 Dagee 3.3 and 3.4 daity ware is a oarallel sict committees devate cansid- oe ty oriva'te sector tir g procmfessionals :ih nai highear~ recent cast by manual 4,5 aering construction, where TASS has appsrently already organised some large The TCM, ss s ganerel umion, may plance Lack the attraction of CATT of ASTMS which may lia mainly in theirs well-cultivated images: UCATT as the building industry union and ASTMS ss the union fororofessionals. The” Towel, though, is the largest trade union in fritein with nearly twa million mambere, ome in avery Five trade 2, and still groawine ranide ly. In addition to its obvious atrancth in road transoort, the docks and he motor industry, it haa nearly 300,000 members in tre bullding industry. lalf of these are in the production and transport of building materiale and the remaining 750,900 sr se work in building construction proper. anal 8 quarter of those sre skilled trades and the remaining, "sami-skilled.” In additian to its Construction Section, the hite collar section, ALTs has sbout 400,000 mambers throughout induatry.’ while there are at oresent few or no architects at all in the TAC, wa undarstand thet archite ctural workers could orohably form their awn branches where numbere NUMDSLES » seamed to justify it. a branch im the T&S.) Theses branchae would presumably fall apetion, though it might be possible to came under the arable resources to oroanising, Fessarsh, punl earian hut arte (Fifty ie usually coneiderad ASTMS (Asancistion af Selanti and Manenerial Staffa) was Formad in 1968 ov thr amslgqar SeTSn of “a ‘eetettt 9 teenoilar unions and has grow quickly from under 490,000 Benner to some 350,000, by further aralogemations and orqant: white-collar workers, The union in many fields. Much of ita "pitch" salsried ataffe recoup differentials workers’ caing; it haa thus hesn against Flaterate uace inctaases in the current crisis. Tt amohasizes sisa and extensive servicas ta members: a orafagsional union far profession ai geoble, rather than strar- aing a union self-managed by the Wworkears® theaselves. We have mot yet been able te make & reasonably sceurate avaluation of its industrial militancy ar its internal democracy, but it does annear often to take progressive nositions on broader solitical issues, oerhaps surprisingly for a white pridss itself or ray is based an its lier union. ASTMS would bea unlikely to allow architectural workers to have their own branches until mora than 150 in an aree had joined. de are concerned not only about the possibility thet within ASTMS sslaried archi- tectural management might gore easily be able to influence the earchitectu- ral workers! organisation, but also about the problem of architectural workers getting "lost" among workers from complately unrelated industries, The Medical Practitioners Union, whan it amalgamated with PSTMS, ues able to maintain = auitable daorea of autonomy, including “comniete sutonomy in tecard to all professional matters affecting Medical Practitioners in- cluding the conduct of disputes." In our view, it ie unlikely thet hitherte unorganised architertural workera entering ASTMS would ever be able to achieve such autonony. Following sublication of the OC] report, ASTME haa aradead i: 4 vee ‘Act gactiaon. =e. cr et re] x om 1734 “sm et 4 bean making an effort ta recruit professional engineers; we have no idea as yet what: progress, if any, they heave made. We have already discussed STAMP, the non-manual section af UCATT, in rela- tion te the History of the ABT. UCATT «9 a whole now includes nearly 309,000 cenetruction workers, moahly akilled tradee, though construetian as an ine dustry ia still comparatively under-orgahised. STAMA mow cumbere some 19,000 to 20,006 membera, of which 3,500 were former ABT mambers. We got the ime oression that there are at present en almost insignificant number of archi- tectural workers in STAMP. Tt anpesra that STAMP ie sancentratina mainly on organising eite foremen; it has no plans for em orgenising drive among erchitectural workers. In our view, it probably dosa not have the capability of indeapandently croanising architecture] workare, either. Yet it le unlikely that erchitectural workers could have their own saction in UCATT outside of STAMP. Surprisingly, the present architectural memberahio of STAMP seems to be dominated by a few older, RIBA-criented, manacemant-lavel architects in . the public sector, which may also explain how (or why) few architecte or architectural techniciane are actually in STAMP. As far ae we know, the only architectural office with which STAMP has a collective bargaining agreement is (in conjunction with NALGG) the Seottish Special Housing Association, a public sectar offices which funetions in Scotland somewhat ae the GLO does For housing in Geater Londen. fash of thase three preapactive uniona has nomathing to offer arehitectursl wokers. te have emphasized, howaver, the necassity of having one strong un- ion for as many architectural workers es possihle. ft ig eegantial, there- fore, that architectural workers committed to organisation collectively de- cide as soon es possible on ona union for the task. The alternative ie hav- ing architectural workers straggling into all of these unions, not to men-= tion other proepective unions, based en "pereonal oreferance." Parhaps this is the firat test af whather architacts can avarcome the “bourgeois individ- ualiomTM which has condemned to failure or ineionificance ao many of their pravious “reform effarta, The choice amone Tou, ASTMS, UCATT and TASS CAUEW) ia not an easy ona. Tha criteria we think ought to be applied in making that choice sre probab- Ly apparent by now from whet we have already discussed. We think it is im- nortant, nevertheless, to make explicit tha more important ones concerning the union's structure, its attitudes, and ite sotential role in a drive to organise architectural workers. 4.0 STRUCTURE 4.1 To what extent do the rank and file run the union, or is the union actually contrellad from the tap down? 4.2 Is there a union “priesthood” or do the workers themselves sdminister the union, returning te the "shan floor® efter brief terms in union offices? 1.3 How powerful are elacted “shon stawarde" in the union structure? Se thay oet full support frem union officiala? 4.4 To what extent does shop floar initiative and action gat smothered under the weight of union bureaucracy and Rierarchy? 4.6 %he umianm ta iLisa aad freely io eseociete 2,4 Deaa the union take a clear and tuneomorc ard of ficial ‘opm for its views? 3imm pueition in deafenes of the interests of workers when in comPliet with those of management or ites institutions? 2.7 Will thea unten militantly fight moat only for better wanes but for Pull control by workersaf all napeets of their — ine lives, by beth mili- tant “ehoo PloorTM ‘orwandeetion and broader nolitical action? 2.3 What attitude will the union take towards axiating cay and atatue differ- antials amone architectural workers and what orierity dees it dive te reiging the lavels of the lowest paid, both in architecture and in the hroader economy? 2.4 fs the union symnethati agemifdad aporoach to imoravinn amolay~ mant orosnmects in the Fidina 6 ofessione and to anviranmental iseues as they concern the eikaeace {e.0., "Sraen Bans," Lucas Aerospace shan stewsarda-type propos Seth on te of inetitutions oe community con= trol, etc.}? foes aeHa idantifyF emniovmant sen: vation of seteweuiieisengs( “posits comet rather she loak on tha divieion of labour and continu 2.8 To what extent ia the union wil solidarity amone all workers in 2.6 To what extant does the union actively among iis mambere ae walk aa in diserimination t oretere ste 2.7 When the union invests (or evan builde}, does it take an anviranmentslly, socially and politically respansicla attitude? 3.0 QOASANISTING ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS 3.7 Te the union willine and able «x v to aroaniee all unarganisad wor kers in the buiiding profassions, no matter what typos aor size of office thay work in near whateestor the offices falls in? 3.27 Will they organise all workers in such offiees or danartmente, including clarical and administrative? 3.3 What is tha unionts sttitude toward oresnising s riedmanraement in architecture? What safequarde can it provide ee would oravenk their gaining control of an oraanieation of architectural workers? 3.4 What dedree of autonomy and how clear and coherent identity cauld weorkera i in the building professians anjoy in the union? 3.5 ould the unian support the eatablishment of = rankeand-file level ornani- sation (or "inetitute") bringing teqether architectural workers Prom sl) the relevant trade unions? 3.6 What resources cen the union make available for an orcanising drive? (e.g., financial, personnel, legal, research, publicity,ate.) Unfortunately we are nat yet in a position to fully evaluate the “orosnectiveTM umians accarding te the ahave criteria, though some tenbetive comelusions may be anarcing., None of the unions, for exemmis, give a clear imoression of ace tive and militant grass reote democracy, unfettered by hierarchy and dureau- cracye In any cage, it should be in mind that bayand the immediate orob- % ao is] my 2 im lem of launching an organising drive ie a lang-term committment to trade unionism. linione do change, sometimee quite significantly within « few yeare, and further amalgamations yemailn a noesiblility even if none are on the im-~ mediate horizon. Not thet this remeves the naceasity sf a choles, as soon as poseiblse, deepite the oreasing mead for Purther investigation. The only conclusion thet can be reached at thie point, nowaver, ia that none a? the three “proepective” unions we hava looked at satisfactorily fulfills our oriteria., that then shsil we do? 7 ie car make four clear recommendations already: 4. Architectural workers themeelves should take the initiative in organising all unorganised workerea in architecture {together with workers from the | ather building professions} inte ona, and only ons, atrono, militant, demo~ eratic and broademinded trade union, preserving maximum autonomy and idere tity within it, The choice among tha TOwU, ASTMS, UCATT and TASS (AUEL) should be made eas quickly as possible after further research and discus-_ sion. A union with an estebliehed presence in the bulidino induatry sould be preferable. The nossibility of getting the four or five prospective unions toa jointly back a new, indenencent union for the buliding profas- gions, while pearhape remote and unprecedented, should nevertheless be theraughly explored. 2. The arganising drive should be aimed at all the building profesaions. duet aa the initiative in organising in arehitecture will have to come from the architectural workers themselyes, however, the same applies te the other builcine professions. 3. The firat tarqat of any organising campaign must be the unorganised axpangses of thea private secter. 4. In order te compensate for the inevitebls lack sf one union for all ar- < chitectursl workers, architectuml workers should immedistely establish and build up @ atreng “inatitute," or sealition, of organieed architec- tural workers, open to and unitinn at the venk-and-file level ell archi- tectural workers reqardieas of their particular union membership. It ahould also have a etudant aection. Such an arganisation could not only bring trade unioniete in architec- tures together to help organiee the unorganised but would aventually be able to epeak progressively, clearly, and coherently for 35,000 architec- tural workers architectural workers on issues of common industrial, oro- fessional and anyvirenments!] ecancern whare individual unisne with emall architectural minorities would have neither the intereat, the will or the means to do so. Only then will the reactionary influence of the amployers' organisation, claiming in the preeent vacuum to anpaak for 4.8 the whale orofession, he effectively counteracted. Such a noalition, ar “inetitute,"” could essist the relevant trade unions in cdayeloning and imnlemantina (at grees roota thar than ab baad eanditions, am industry-wide nenalor echeme, ayeteme of workeral contral and ancaurtability to thea community in the snment tural oranticea, a ofofessianal code of conduct in the interests af the workere and tha community, orooressive design and specification guidance, on-the-job training and continuing sdumation, etc. Such cooperation is the only way to keep divisivensee between workers in different unions from playing into the hands of a management which is already well-coordinatad, Bavond that, it would probably be the only conceivable organisation which could produce an architectural workera' handbook, a prograssive journel of architecture, and be the "official" voice af architectural workers as a whole before the community, the state, and fraternal bodies abroad, We consider the satablishment of such a body of argenised architectural workers to be a otessing priority. hile its preciae aqeals, membershic and structure remain, of couras, to be developed, we mropose that it be organised as democraticaliy as possible st icecal, reqionmal and naticnal levels from the rank and file up, based on a “ecaucue" of workere in every architecture office or department, their alerted ranresentatives, and periodic congresses delegating cantral execution of policias as nacessary. 4.9 $ why wo fie oe vt? 4 9 level) co~ordineted policies and action campaigns on wegee and working Dart Five WHAT ARE THE FIRST STEPS? In arder for our four recommendations to be carried out, we believe the Following will be naceseary: 4. An expanded "Oraanising Committee” ahould carry an the work af the uUndonieation Working Grou by planning the organisinn campaian; dis- cussing, negotiating, and cooperating with the relevant unione; atid, generally, take un the committment to organising architectural workers. 26 The Committee should continua and speedily conoludea the research into tha existing aitustion and into prospective unions and continue discus- sion with those unions toward a mutually acceptable etratecy. We expect our network of persanel contacts among architectural workere to be tha = main organiaing tonal, backed un by literature, meetings, full- or part- time oraanisera, ete. The compilatian of 9 “directory of architectural workers, indicating employment and any union affilistion, ia an essential piace of reseateh both for developing atrategy and proceeding with argani- vation. i= is a difficult but feasible tesk. Be Ae sbon as the research and develooment of sn aareed atrategy can he comelucded, the Committee should publish a convincing repert with the purpoea of raising the iseuse leudiy and claarly. Funding and distribution must be arranged. 4. Based on the proposal eventually agread uoon, the Committse should nege~ tiate with the relevant union or uniena and make a final decision recard- ing which union(s) te work with (unless a more suitable strategy can he developed). Be The organising drive must baqin aa scan as poesible. The subject ie ranid- ly moving into the apatlight and i? the architectural workers don't move, fast, the bosses no deubt will, making deals with as many as poseible of the moat docile unions thay can Find aa soon as they perceive the threat of a really affective unionisation. This la another reason why the pos- sibility of gettines some or all the orospective unions to back a combined organising drive in the name of a new union for workers in the building profegsione must be Pully explored, however remote it may be. te believe that the orcanisina drive itself muet be in hioh gear within three to six manthe from now. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource NAM Unionisation Group Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 1976 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/8da2b76ecb64388a591ce0649706e944.pdf 437ff12b6e27186ec39255a3714df58d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Trade Unions and Architecture Description An account of the resource Themes included action on asbestos and Health &amp; Safety, and involvement with Direct Labour Organisations and Building Unions. Following comparative research of possible options, NAM encouraged unionisation of building design staffs within the private sector, negotiating the establishment of a dedicated section within TASS. Though recruitment was modest the campaign identified many of the issues around terms of employment and industrial relations that underpin the processes of architectural production. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource WORKING FOR WHAT? Subject The topic of the resource The case for Trade Union Organisation with Hellman cartoons Description An account of the resource | THE CASE FOR TRADE UNION ORGANISATION IN ARCHITECTURE AND THE ALLIED BUILDING PROFESSIONS WORKING FOR WHAT? i= Yn a NAM report 60 pence WORKING FOR WHAT? The Case for Trade Union Organisation in Architect- ure and the Allied Building Professions a NAM Report by the (Unionisation) Organising Committee of The New Architecture Movement Cartoons by Louis Hellman PREFACE This report grew out of the work of the “Unionisation Work- ing Group” of the Central London Group of the New Arch- itecture Movement,whichpresentedadraftreportonthe subject of trade unionism in architecture to NAM’s Second Congress, held in Blackpool, November 26-28, 1976, The draft report was enthusiastically received by the Congress, which set up an enlarged, national Organising Committee to develop realistic proposals for the organisation of the nearly 50,000 people prceetc in the almost totally uni ised private sector of the building professions and to co-ordinate and strengthen trade unionism among architectural workers in both sectors. The present report, then, is based on nearly a year of intense discussion among architectural workers and with trade union officials and activists, as well as upon study of the relevant literature. It’s purpose is to bring into focus and stimulate discussion upan a subject which requires urgent attention by all workers involved in the design of the built environment. As the experience of the authors is principally in architecture, this report concentrates on that field. We are confident, how- ever, that the present situation in the other building profes- sions (quantity surveying, structural and building services engineering, landscape architecture, surveying, town planning) is roughly comparable to that in architecture and that the proposals outlined in this report may, therefore, besimilarly relevant. The Organising Committee, in any case, welcomes comments and criticisms from people working in any of the building professions as well as from “lay people,” who, like ourselves, must live and work in the buildings we help produce. WHY ORGANISE ? Why are steadily increasing numbers of architectural employ- ces now seriously interested in trade union organising where they work? The present economic crisis in architecture, not to mention the more profound crisis of both confidence and identity within the profession and growing pressure for job satisfaction and “industrial democracy,” is merely bringing into focus a situation which people working in architecture share with professional, technical, scientific, creative and clerical workers of similar status and responsibility in other industries who have already begun organising. By now most teachers up through university and polytechnic level and journalists in the press and broadcasting are members of TUC.affiliated unions, as are some 5,000 doctors. Organisation is steadily growing among professional engineers and even Church of England vicars are organising now. The past year has also scen young lawyers beginning to organise within the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU). Staff at the headquarters architectural management’s of Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) are apparently already well along the path of unionisation. (Even soldiers — at least on the Continent and in the USA — now have their unions! Throughout al sectors of industry, the remarkable growth in “white collar” organisation, not to mention militancy, during the present periodof accelerated inflation and incomes policies, has been partly a result of the desire to win back salary and status differentials eroded by better organised manual workers, But it stems also from a growing realisation that only by collective action with the backing of a bona-fide trade union can the no-longer-so-benevolent paternalism which characterizes industrial relations in “the professions” be replaced with more democratic control over al aspects of working life. Architecture Today What is the situation in architecture? In the past, we are told, a young architect could reasonably look forward to the day when he would gain control over his work, win the respect of the community, achieve a level of economic well-being and fulfil his professional obligations by “becoming his own boss.” The “professional myth” perpetuated by the RIBA and the schools of architecture, with help from the media, would have us believe that the profession is still (if it ever was) a community of equals or near-cquals, with a partner- ship the eventual outcome of the typical architectural career. The profession is in fact made up of near equals as far as ability to do the work of architecture is concerned, which helps to keep the myth alive. The crucial reality, however, is that 90% of the architectural workforce (and even 80% of “‘architects’’) is already salaried. These figures increase steadily. The likelihood of somcone now beginning a career in architecture ever becoming a part- ner correspondingly declines and is hardly improved by the even more remote possibility of becoming a principal in the public sector, which has by and large modelled its hierarchical structure and bureaucratic methods on those of private practice. On the other hand, more and more architectural employees can only look forward to a continuing life of drawing board drudgery, insecurity and alienation. The Business of Architecture The fact that is dawning on architectural staff with ever- increasing clarity and force is that architecture is, first and foremost, abusiness. The cornerstone of architectural practice is, thus, a division of the people involved into a small minor- ity of architectural businessmen and bureaucrats, the manage- ment (“partner,” “chief architect,” etc.), on the one hand, and architectural workers, be they architects, architectural assistants, technicians, draughtsmen, secretaries, etc. on the other hand. We are concerned here with the people who by and large do the work of architecture — designing, drawing, specifying materials, supervising work on site — and those who provide them with essential clerical and administrative support. These are the “architectural workers.” SORRY OLD MAN, BUT THE S@UEEZE HAS HIT US ALL... /VE JUST HAD TO GIVE UP My THIRO ~ HOME For INSTANCE / two-thirds of the profession, is already down by about a third from its level at the end of 1974. In the better-organiscd public sector, the redundancies have only just begun. Tic official unemployment rate among all “architects” is estim- ated to be well over 10%, and it is predicted in some quarters that it will rise to 2 this year. The architectural worker already on the dole queue is reduced to waiting for the next building boom, though the fear is gaining ground that this may be a long way off if it ever does materialise. While the Partner may be deciding that investing in a third home just is not on this year, those employees still at the drawing board can only hope that the next round of redundancies will pass them by and are forced to look on helplessly while a growing number of employers unilaterally alter their contracts of employment to, for example, increase hours or discontinue payment for overtime work. Meanwhile, architectural work ers have seen their real income steadily declining during the past few years. This has been particularly marked in private practice, where trade union organisation is virtually non- existent. Alienation of the Drawing Board A deeper and broader dissatisfaction with the situation in architecture runs equally through both private and public practice. Taught to consider himself (or herself) technically competent, socially concerned, and professionally independ: ent, the architectural worker is forced to work within a sys- tem that gives him, just as the workers in other industries, no control over his working life. Ilis technical, creative and social concerns and capabilities are continually frustrated by the unaccountable power exercised, often quite arbitrarily, by the same people who are making his economic position increasingly untenable: the architectural businessmen who are more in sympathy with the directors, speculators and mandarins who deal out the commissions than with the workers in their offices or the people who must live and work in the buildings for which they are so quick to take eredit should the critics applaud. Each architectural worker is separated from his colleagues in the office by excessive division of labour, claborate status groupings and an individual competitivencss which owes more to the present harsh realities of employeremploy- ce relationships than it does to any creative pretensions. At the same time he is often denied the contact with the client, not to mention the people who will actually use the buildings he designs, without which itisimpossible for him properly to carry out his responsibilities. Contact with the building labourers and craftsmen who must use the drawings and specification he produces in order to build “his” building is hardly more frequent or profound. Sect in this context, the architectural worker's ultimate alienation from the product itself is inevitable. Additional copies of this report are available for 6 postpaid, from The New Architecture Marerant 5Rat Street, London W 1. Bulk orders of over 10 copies are available at 50p per copy, postpaid. The current economic crisis, which has resulted in large-scale redundancies throughout the entire building indusiry, has begun to clarify for many architectural workers i situation which persists through boom as well as bust. Architectural employment in the private sector, which comprises nearly Copyright 1977 (Unionisation) Organising C New p:rctitectine eorement We will sit happily et people we like reproduce anythin, mustfirstaskourperalanioeedSee aan Printed by Women in Print, 16a Iliffe Yard, London SE 17. While the “myth of the professional” has been wearing thin on the architectural worker, the so-called “crisis in architect- ure,” has been brought closer to the ignition point by the unprecedented collapse of public confidence in the architect- ural profession. This has quite understandingly followed from the Ronan Point, Centre Point, Summerland and Poulson scandals set against a backdrop of the profession's full-scale collaboration in the destruction of countless neighbourhoods and towns, whose only crime was to be out of step with the “demands of the market”, and their replacement with the shabby yet expensive wasteland of arbitrary and oppressive “estates” and “blocks,” motorways and parking garages, shopping centres, civic centres and cultural centres which signify “modern architecture” for the man in what used to be the street. It is becoming increasingly obvious both to architectural workers and to the public that architecture as it is now practised serves only the interests of the few and remains inaccessible and unaccountable to the community, despite all the committees, enquiries and reports, codes of conduct, pilot projects and pious sentiments about participation and public sery Communities want control over their environ- ment and architectural workers are begining to realise the need for control over their working lives, for a chance both to survive economically and to produce the technically, creatively and socially responsible architecture of which they are capable. But how has the architectural worker come to find himself in this situation of exploitation, isolation and alienation? The drive, which no enterprise in the market economy can avoid, towards an ever-increasing profit element and steadily declin- ing labour element has resulted in architecture, in larger and more hierarchical practices. Increasingly bureaucratic and arbitrary, remote and unaccountable, they are unable to utilise fully the human skills and material resources made available to them. To ensure higher profits, including the means to pay higher interest and insurance charges, the owners of practices have had to cut their labour costs by reducing manning, cutting salaries (both as a proportion of production cost and in real-income terms) and reducing the time and resources which can be allocated not only to cach project but also to “back-up” likeon-the-job training, continuing education, research and other “labour costs,"’ be they pensions, other payments, or social provisions. Of course, this cost cutting is not only against the interests of architectural workers. By preventing those who must do the work of architecture from doing a competent and responsible job, this cutting of “labour costs’ is against the public interest as well. The collapse of public confidence in the profession is no coincidence. Despite the occasional feudal remnants with which those in the profession are all too familiar, it is obvious then, that architecture has entered the age of capitalism, “unacceptable face” and al. What then, is the response of the architectural worker? It is in this context that we consider the question of trade unionism in architecture. AREAS FOR UNION ACTION Architectural workers are slowly and painfully becoming aware that their cmployment security, their standard of liy- ing, and the What? How? and Why? of the work they do, not to mention the quality of the environment which they share as members of the community, are as much at the mercy of the market system as those of any other working people. Not surprisingly then, they begin to look to trade unionism, not as a panacea, but as a way of beginning to come to grips with these problems, collectively, with the people with whom they work. Workers that were “proletarianised” long before have for over a century seen the answer in solidarity The trade union movement is the principal institutional form which that solidarity has taken. Through their unions, working people have defended their standard of living and right to work in the face of management's quest for more profit and power. At the same time, they have begun organising to replace the market system with more democratic control over all aspects of their working lives, so that the human, natural and cult- ural resources of the nation may be used, rationally, for the benefit of al, What could trade union organisation accomp- lish for people working in architecure? The Priorities THEYRE WORKING OUT NEXT Year’ PARTNG@S SUITE (KOE? ovr 8. andatanappropriaterate. d. A minimum of one month's paid vacation for all architectural workers. ¢. One unitied and adequate pension plan covering all architectural employment. f. Full implementation of equal pay and job opportun- ities for women and adequate paid maternity and paternity leave. g. Safe and healthy working conditions, including seat- ing, lighting and fire precautions, Sufficient time off with pay for attendance at relevant courses, conferences and meetings, as well as for trade union activities. XN 7 orrice StRuctuRE 7 EAR If overtime work is unavoidable, it should be paid, Beyond Bargaining: The Road to Progress in eH eCHEe 3 os Unionisation does not just mean collective bargaining. Those familiar with trade unions know how, in addition, they defend employees against discrimination, unfair dismissal or victimisation, either by legal representation at tribunalosr by more direct “shop floor” action. And while collective bargaining agreements are clearly the primary method where- by architectural employees could begin to take control of their own destinies, they could also act positively and effect- ively in other ways, in the office, the profession, the building industry and the community. For example: Beyond Bread-and-Butter Today, the situation in architecture makes it necessary for organised workers to go beyond these vital bread-and-butter issues. Through their union representatives they could demand, for example: 1. An end to “production line’ ig 7 2. 8. 4. 5. arbitrary division of labour and excessive separation of hi 1workers into “professionals” “technicians,” and “students.” The opportunity to do each job responsibly: no speed- ups and no cutting of corners. Adherence to a “code of conduct,” developed through the union which would prevent architectural workers from having to collaborate in the destruction of our natural and architectural heritance, the breaking up of coherent neighbourhoods, and the diversion of valuable material and human resources from socially-useful pro- jects to speculative, monumental, prestige, authoritarian and colonial ones. An end to secretive management and arbitrary decisions over the lives of architectural workers as well as over the lanning, design, construction and management of the Buite environment. Architectural workers need not mere- ly “open books,” but complete, democratic control over every aspect of architectural practice. Employers to contribute, per employee, to a fund which: architectural workers would administer through their union and which would establish small, democratically- organised locally-based “community design offices’ to provide an architectural service accessible to and accountable to popular-based community action groups, tenants associations, trades councils, etc. The union, in collaboration with the “‘client,”’ would staff cach office with architectural workers on “leave of absence.”’ Firms could be given the option of converting to small, non- profit, self-managed practices under a suitable frame- work ensuring accountability to the community and co- ordination with other such community design offices. Either way, construction from the grass roots up, of a democratically-organised and locally-controlled design service could begin. press demands for the right to produce well-designed, 1. If workers in architecture and the allied building profes- sions were well-organised, they, together with other organised workers in the building industry, could exert the political influence that is necessary to stop the cuts in socially-necessary building expenditure and invest- ment. The use of the building industry by successive g as a handy “ ic reg ” (howev ineffective) is partly a reflection of the comparative ik of trade union o} isation in the industry. Its disastrous effects, even in boom times when a reckless scramble for profits stretches inadequate human and material resources, are well known. But beyond merely fighting for reasonable employment prospects; architectaral workers,if organised, would be in a position to campaign for an end to the use of the building industry by the market system to ensure profit and power for bankers and speculators instead of decent housing, industrial, social and cultural facilities for the community. They could demand that the whole range of human, material and financial resources available to the construction sector be used for the good ofthe com- munity and not for the luxury of the few or to maintain clitist, oppressive and wasteful institutions at home or fascist and racist regimes abroad. Only if they are well-organised will architectural em- ployees be able to develop, articulate, and poreceny well-built, socially-useful, environmentally-sound and di ically-pl 9 buildi At Lucas Aerospace, a Shop Stewards Combine Committee representing all 14,000 blue-collar and white-collar employees in several unions at the 17 U.K. Lucas sites has begun to demon- strate that demands of this nature can be made “‘on the shop floor’ as well as in the broader political arena. After widespread discussions among the entire Lucas workforce, they have drawn up an alternate “corporate plan” to fight threatened redundancies by converting to the production of socially-desirable goods which make use of existing expertise and equipment and for which a need and a market has been demonstrated. Many of these incorporate “alternative technologies". An integr- ated energy system for housing, for example, incorpor- ates solar panels, windpower devices and pumping and switching equipment all based on past Lucas work (; The crucial first step is to organise and fight together to ach- teve recognition of their union as their representative and institute collective bargaining where they work as the means of resolving all significant issues of employer-employee relations. Depending on their priorities, architectural work- ers might then demand, for example: 1. An end to unnecessary redundancies. To keep going in time of crisis, excess profits and so-called “management expenses” should be trimmed, not jobs. Work sharing and early retirement should be fully utilised. Where redundancies are agreed in advance to be unavoidable they should be handled less arbitrarily and inequitably than at present. The Who? When? and How? must be negotiated in detail, and those made redundant given maximum notice, redundancy pay, and supplementary unemployment benefit, all in excess of the present inadequate legal minimums. n ° s Collective negotiation of salaries, hours, and all other conditions of employment, to ensure for al architectural Mone a reasonable standard of living. This would a. Stopping the decline in real wages and insuring that salary levels allow architectural workers to maintain their standard of living. .Reducing Pay differentials, where excessive and divisive, particularly by raising the grossly inadequate salaries of the lowest-paid architectural workers. - In order to share equitably the work available, a max- imum work week of 35 hours or even less and no overtime work as a substitute for full employment. There are other proposals in the areas of medical engin- ecring and urban transport. 2. Collaborate with organised building workers not only in their campaign to end the “lump,” but also to ensure decent, healthy and safe conditions on site and to dev- elop “Green Ban'-type actions blacking politically, socially or environmentally destructive projects. Archit- ectural workers could also begin to refuse to collaborate on projects unless the workers who build them are ensured fair wages, decent conditions and trade union representation, 8. To increase the accountablity of the profession, cam- paign for changes in the Architects Registration Acts in sive’ bread-and-butter trade unionism is particularly well- entrenched, large unions have recently pioneered collectively- bargained health and safety agreements and the giant United ion to envi Democracy at Work The Professional Myth The other classic argument is based upon another aspect of the “professional myth.” Again, itisusually applied to the “architect,” ignoring half of the workforce in architecture. The salaried architect, it gocs, will eventually become a partner and not only sees his security in a partnership rather than through the solidarity of trade union action but already shares the employer's mentality, He has no long-term interest in building the union; quite to the contrary, he already takes an active interest in the employers’ institutions. Myths do die hard, but with 80% of even “architects” already salaried and the figure steadily mounting, the “proletarianisation” of the profession is beginning to be understood. Reality can only so long be denied. The rapid growth of white collar and profess- dona’ trade union militancy in the past few years confirms this. Others argue convincingly that trades unionism can only be built upon solidarity and that “architects” will never over- come the individualism and competitiveness which stems from their middle-class backgrounds and education. (And with the employers’ control of ARCUK and thus of architec- tural education, the title, “architect,” is by now virtually restricted to people with that background and education.) Fortunately, the education system is les than 100% efficient and it has been demonstrated that even a middle-class back- ground doesn’t preclude the development of solidarity at work. A corollary to this argument is that the architect is anxious to maintain asocial status which places him in that increasing- ly select circle “‘above”’ trade unionism. How much remains of the architect's vaunted status today is another question. The current form of this argument is perhaps that trade who were sacked after publicly criticising, as professionals, a scheme being done by their employers in collaboration with a firm of property developers, were reinstated thanks to the backing of their union, NALGO. That is hardly an isolated example. Many non-union profes- sionals who have acted on their responsibility to serve the public interest have found themselves without a job and mysteriously unable to find a new one. Two cases from the United States may highlight the issue. A non-union professional engineer assigned by his very reput- able consulting engineers’ firm to supervise the welding in the construction of a nuclear power plant noticed many potentially-dangerous defects in the welding which could result in the release of radioactivity into the neighbourhood of the plant. He repeatedly tried to warn his employers of the situation. Finally, he resigned after being told by his employer that he was to be sacked for “lack of experience in welding,” an unusual charge against someone who had been a journeyman welder for 24 years and most of whose engin- cering experience was in welding. His court case against his employers floundered for lack of funds. He was unable to find another job and believes himself to be the victim of a blacklist. On the other hand, a quality control inspector at Gencral Motors car plant discovered a defect in the welding of rear- quarter panels which could permit exhaust fumes to leak into the car, After repeatedly pointing out the defects to his superiors, to no avail, he was transferred to another depart- ment. Finally, three years later, after at least four motorists had been asphyxiated, the company acknowledged the defect and recalled 2.4 million cars for repair. Subpoenaed as a witness in a trial involving the defective cars, the inspector found himself sacked upon returning to work. Through the order to remove control over the Architects Registration Council (ARCUK) from management and divide it between laymen representative of the people who use buildings and archi 1 employes and employers in proportion to their relative numerical strengths in the profession. A reconstituted ARCUK could promulgate and enforce a “code of conduct” in the interests of the public and workers in the profession. Such a code might permit among architects only non-profit, self-managed forms of practice which provide for direct accountability to the ity an I internal di . Protection of the title, “‘architect,” and control over architectural education should no longer be used to filter out those potential architects who come from working- class backgrounds or who might otherwise tend to upset architectural management's neat little applecart. Archit- ectural workers could fight for an end to education without jobs and jobs without education by demanding adequate on-the-job training and continuing education. 4. Collaborate with trade unions in other countries (part- icularly the EEC) to ensure that international policies affecting architectural practice, building and the environ- ment are in the interests of architectural workers and the community. There are very few problems facing architecture today that trade union organisation and action could not come to grips with and make a real contribution towards resolving, We believe that unionisation is the only way that architectural workers can begin to gain control over their working lives. At the same time it would be a positive step forward for the building industry and for the community. We don’t see organisation in the work place as a panacea. We sec itas one necessary ingredient in an interdependent, three-fold strategy for progress, alongside action in the community to develop Structures of direct involvement and accountability and political action on abroad scale. WHAT KIND OF ORGANISATION ? The real question now is, “What kind of trade union organ- isation is appropriate today for people working in architecture and the allied building professions?” An approach to trade unionism is needed which will not only facilitate organisation in the first instance but also maximise in the long run the benefits of organisation to both workers and community. The direction we recommend has already been implied in our analysis of the situation in architecture today and our sketch of what a union could accomplish. This direction has a long history which has continued to dey- elop and make a stronger impact on the British trade union movement. Witness the growing recognition of the key role of workplace representatives (“shop stewards”) in the union Structure, the industrial occupations and setting-up of self- ag workers’ peratives,” the exp d legislati for a b ig of some formalised “industrial democracy,” andthe far-sightedandpositiveattitudetowardsthescopeof union activity typified by the “Green Bans”pioneered in Australia by the Building Labourers’ Union of New South Wales and the proposals for conversion to socially-useful production which have been made by the Lucas Acrospace Strong, militant and democratic “shop floor’ trade union isation is not merely an essential means in the struggle for “‘workers’ control” but the embryo as well for the end which is being sought. While it emphasizes the primacy of the work place as the scene of the confrontation between two mutually-antagonistic conceptions of social organisation, it stresses as well the complementary need for active political mobilisation on a broader plane to replace the market system and the institutions which perpetuate it. This type of trade unionism is the most likely to be relevant to the concerns of architectural workers about the nature of the product they produce and the use to which it is put, about the way the work of architecture is organised, and about the satisfaction they receive from doing their job, Its explicit call for self-management is particularly relevant in architectural practice, where many of the “obstacles” to it which exist in industry are more easily overcome. Moreover, because of its broader appeal and its emphasis on strong shop floor organisation, it may also be most likely to achieve penis and lasting progress on bread-and-butter issues as well, The Shop (Office) Floor Architectural workers want a positive trade unionism whose aim is to combat both the material privations of the market system and the lack of accountability and humanity which it engenders. This requires a unionism based in the daily exper- lence of its members and accountable to their wishes, Trade union organisation firmly based on the “shop floor” will enable members to formulate policies in the context they know best. In this way, too, the everyday opposition of workers to the oppressive and de-humanising forces of the market remains undiluted by remote hierarchies acting on their behalf. CAN ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS ORGANISE? Is there really any reason to believe that architectural em- ployees actually can organise, notwithstanding the need to do so and the benefits which would accrue for organisation? joni: predating plastics, iP and iology, isn’t interventionf his union, the United Automobile Workers, Auto Workers (which covers much heavy machinery and the aircraft industry as well)have begun to devote considerable qT . “trendy” enough for the architect. Unfortunately, one can’t pay the rent with “status,” and “trendiness” is no substitute for a full stomach, fulfilling work, and self-respect. This is beginning to dawn on those who have hitherto been too casily satisfied for their own good. It is also becoming increas- ingly apparent that architectural reformism is painting itself into a corner, despite the frenzied efforts of the media to market the latest panaccas. Employers of course, have always argued that trade unionism is incompatible with “ professionalism.” Industrial action, or even mere union membership is unprofessional, unethical, irresponsible. In the past, many white-collar unions would bend over backwards to accommodate this vicw as the situation of professional employees changes and as trade unionism among them becomes more commonplace, these slightly degrading rituals have become less necessary. In fact, professional, scientific and technical employees are increas- ingly finding that management's version of “professionalism” often paysFittle more than lip service to the public interest it is supposed to serve and that they can better turn to their own trade unions that to the employers’ institutes for a defence of real professionalism. It was widely reported in the press recently how two architectural assistants in Scotland DONT worry, t'M LOOKING AFTER “THE PUBLICS INTERESTS he not only got reinstated immediately, with back pay for time lost in court, but eventually was able to force his employer to give him back his original inspectors’ job. Fragmentation at Work More serious arguments against the feasibility of organising among architectural workers hinge upon the apparent frag- mentation of the profession. The classic form of employer- encouraged fragmentation divides architectural workers into several categories, each of which is alleged to have its own special interests which override any common ones. To rein- force what is often a difference in class background, there is the statutory division of architectural workers into those who are “‘architects” and those who are “architectural tech- nicians,” otherwise known as draughtsmen. This type of division is carried further by the creation among salaried architects in private practice of “associate” status. And the technician, is then placed one step above the clerical staff. Then there is a division of architectural workers “horiz- ontally” into distinct “crafts.” (The distinctions of course, can blur easily when there’s a scramble for work.) Thus we have the intricate and cultivated division of building design into tasks for architects or surveyors, town planners or the tradition of a strong but narrow and essentially “‘defen- This conception stresses the need for workers to gain full, democratic control over all aspectsof their working lives, not merely over wages, hours, job security and pensions. It does this not only out of a fundamental faith in democracy and egalitarianism, and their ability to mobilise people's product- ive and creative capacities, nor merely out of a recognition that low wages and insecure are not the only harmful and oppressive aspects of capitalist control which need to be met head-on. It believes that unless workers take the initiative and fight that system of control where they work, replacing “management prerogative”’ with democratic self-management, the fight for even decent wages and job security will remain a rear-guard, defensive action, increasingly unfruitful. shop stewards combine committee. Even in the USA, where One of the classic arguments against the feasibility of organ- isationisthattheincentivestojoinatrade es lacking {at least among “‘architects”). Architects, we are told, are well-paid; their employers are liberal; their work is neither back-breaking, impersonal nor hazardous and provides a high level of job satisfaction; and as “professionals” they enjoy a high level of control over the organisation of their work. Without beginning a discussion of whether this was ever an accurate picture, and for whom, it should be obvious by now that this no longer applies to the overwhelming majority of architectural workers, (including most “‘architects”) whose worries in the present economic crisis only thinly conceal a deeperuncertaintyaboutthefutureofthebuilding industry and the economy, not to mention the future roles of the various “designprofessions.” urban désigners, structural and services engineers, quantity surveyors, building control officers, etc. This division, we are told, is the result ofan inevitable historical process of specialis- ation for the purpose of maximising efficiency. EF FICIENCY! Though the trend has been towards increasing centralisation, the employment pattern in architecture, particularly in the private sector, has traditionally been characterised by a great number of small offices. This usually makes more difficult not only organising in the first place but maintaining what organisation has been achieved, especially when combined with high staff turnover, a characteristic of the profession when times are good, particularly in London where perhaps half of the architectural employment in Britain is located. At this point though, with the economic crisis pushing many small practices to the wall and with large, bureaucratic pract- ices in public and private sectors under increasing attack both from within and without, trade union supported “shop-floor” initiatives to convert practices to self-managed cooperatives directly accountable to user groups may be the only way out. The “typical” career structure in British architecture, when combined with the present form of the British trade union movement, adds a further obstacle to organisation. In one working lifetime an architectural worker may not only pass through the territories of two or three different public sector unions but may also pass back and forth from organised to unorganised territory, not a recipe for active trade unionism. The corollary is that the trade unions are also quite under- standably discouraged by this fragmentation from cither actively organising architectural workers or paying much attention to a small architectural “minority” of their mem- bers. LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE The idea of trade union organisation in architecture is not, in fact, entirely new. It is instructive briefly to examine the history of organising in architecture and to consider its implications. The “Architects? and Surveyors’ Assistants Professional Union” (ASAPU) was founded in 1919 amidst the intense industrial unrest and union activity which followed the 1914- 1918 war. In 1924, already 60% of the profession was salaried. The union grew in strength to 2500 by the mid- Twenties, at a time when there were only about 12,000 “architects.” In 1924, the name was changed to “Association of Architects, Surveyors and Technical Assistants” (AASTA). By the mid-Thirties, in the depths of the Depression, though 70% of the profession was by then salaried, unemployment was 30% and the membership was again 2500. It emerged from the Second World War as the “Association of Building Technicians” (ABT) with amembership which reached 3500, though it never had more than a thousand architects. By now it has hardly more than 200 architect members anda similar number of architectural technicians or assistants. In the late ‘60's it was absorbed into the Amalgamated Soci Woodworkers. That subsequently became the “Uni Construction, Allied Trades, and Technicians” (UCATT) and last year the remnants of the ABT were absorbed into its newly-formed “Supervisory, Technical, Administrative, Man- agerial and Professional” (STAMP) section, made up largely of site foremen and other supervisory staff transferred from the manual craft sections. A “Craft Union” During its heyday in the Twenties and Thirties, the union concentrated its energy on trying to get a minimum salary scale for the profession, to get representation for salaried architects on the RIBA Council and, in the tradition of “craft unions”, to limit the number of workers entering architecture by setting more stringent and time-consuming educational standards. Its main efforts on these issues were made in negotiations with the RIBA, rather than directly with the employer in the architectural office. It collaborated with the RIBA in supporting the passage of the Architects Registration Acts, apparently in “return” for expected RIBA agreement to a minimum salary scale. But surprise, the RIBA never did agree to one. AASTA then adopted a some- what more militant tone, and membership took an upturn. It didn’t affliliate to the TUC, however, until 1939. Why did this pioneering effort “fade into obscurity” as a trade union for architectural workers? Probably because, despite its numbers it never achieved any real bargaining strength where it counts, on the “shop floor’ (ic. in the office) and thus could never “‘deliver the goods.” It was apparently never strong enough in any private sector firm to achieve recognition as the representative of itsmembers in. collective bargaining, the first step for any union wishing to be effective. Historical factors certainly played a role in this. Less of the profession was salaried in those days and small offices were more numerous, making effective organising more difficult. The legislative and judicial situation then also made achieve- ing union recognition in the workplace moredifficult than it now is, especially since the passage of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act of 1974, and the Employment Protec- tion Act of 1975. Much of the ABT leadership at one time apparently subscribed to the then current “socialism in one country” line emanating from Moscow and was perhaps not oriented towards industrial militancy in Britain. Instead, several rose to management positions in local authority (and even private) practice and to prominence in the employer- dominated RIBA, whether in pursuit of the party line or of personal inclination it is difficult to judge. Solidarity at the place of work too often took a back seat to discussions of “professional” issues at Portland Place. It is difficult to judge how the union was compromised by its collaboration with the RIBA. It fought for seats on the RIBA Council, helped set up the Board of Education, and supported the Architects Registration Acts. Yet it had never been in a position to deal with the employers’ isation froam position of gth Perhaps the key reason for the “failure” of ASAPU —AASTA — ABT was that as a “craft union” of architects, assistants and technicians it was unwilling to organise all employees, including clerical staff, in the office, clearly a necessary step in achieving any real bargaining strength. Union activity consequently came to centre around the branches and the national executive rather than in the office where people actually work and produce together and can be directly represented by “shop stewards.” This lack ofa strong organ- isation may be O.K. for a “friendly society,” but we believe it does not make fora strong union, may facilitate domination by a bureaucratic minority, and results in the leadership getting out of touch with the rank and file. Even in thepublic sector, where most of its members were, the ABT’s precarious position was gradually croded away by more general unions like NALGO which have the muscle to negotiate with em- ployers and deliver the goods. THE SITUATION IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR Nearly two-thirds of all architectural employment is in the private sector. At present, trade union organisation among these workers is insignificant, though nevertheless growing. In addition to the occasional “individual” member of ASTMS (Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs), STAMP, TASS (Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Section of the AUEW the engineering workers’ union), or TGWU, some people working in “in-house” architecural, Surveying or engineering departments in industry, commerce or the “voluntary sector” (e.g. housing associations) are represented by a union (typically ASTMS, TASS, Dissatisfaction, Apathy Many architectural workers in the public sector are dissatis- fied with the unions which represent them, and it is likely that the level of membership is somewhat lower among them than the average among public sector white-collar workers. None of the unions concerned could actually put their finger on the number of architectural workers who were members or on the percentage of their “architectural constituency” which was organised. Until recently, few architectural workers in the public sector have taken an active interest in the union which represents them. Perhaps part of the reason for this may be that they have rarely found these unions relevant to their day-to-day, “drawing board” concerns, as tiny minorities in unions other- wise having little to do with architecture. Yet the decline of the elitist, RIBA-endorsed “AOA” (Association of Official Architects) and of the “craft union” ABT (and the rise of more general unions like NALGO) confirms the undeniable fact that “the most appropriate union to join is the one that actually negotiates for your type of job” and which is broad enough to include the “industrial muscle” that must stand behind any negotiating position. As the cuts in housing, Social services, health, rail, etc. expenditure begin to bite and the rate of redundancies accelerates, it is inevitable that the importance to architectural workers in the public sector of the recognised unions will increase, as will the understanding of the need for close organisational alliance with other workers involved in the provision of these services. The lack of “craft” concern of the recognisedwhite-collar unions in the public sector is an obvious cause of the apathetic response of architectural workers to them. Yet it is also one which can very easily obscure far more significant causes. A typical white-collar worker in the public sector may spend his or her entire career within the “constituency” o! _one recognised union. The “typical career structure” in architec- ture, on the other hand, as has been indicated, may well pass through the territories of more than one union in thepublic Sector not to mention the unorganised expanses of the private sector. It has not been unusual for an architectural worker to move froma local authority to private practice, to teaching Or research, to central government or a nationalised industry, into a contractor’s office or private industry, and perhaps half-way back again, all in one working lifetime. This state of affairs hardly provides an incentive to the architectural worker to take an active part in his or her trade union and make the kind of long-term and deep-seated commitment upon which effective trade union organisation depends. What may be the most important reason forthe apathy of architectural workers towards the public sector unions which represent them has more to do with the general nature of those unions than with any special problems ofarchitectural work. Most of these unions began as paternalistic “staff associations” and were able because of this, and because of for the practical purposes of everyday working life. While the extent of union membership tends to decrease the farther up the ladder of salaried management one looks (though even the upper echelons are increasingly organised), some of these architectural managers have at times been able unduly to influence union activity (or inactivity) in their departments. They often share the outlook and concerns of architectural employers in private practice, within whose institutions they may take an active role. Given the career structure in archit- ecture, it is not unknown to move from a position of respon- sibility in the public sector to a partnership in private prac- tite, nourished by connections (to say the least) cultivated “in the public service.” It is obvious how sucha situation can not only weaken the effective functioning of the union in the workplace, but by calling into question the union's credibility as the bona-fide defender of the interests of the worker at the drawing board, it can prevent effective organ- ising in the first place. Public Sector, Private Standards Trade union organisation has a key role to play in the relat- ionship between private and public architectural practice. Because of the almost total lack of organisation in the private sector, and that sector's historical and numerical predomin- ance in the profession, thepublic sector employers, through their “‘professional institute” (and their control of ARCUK, the statutory body responsible for “regulating the profession” which has achieved recognition for or TGWU) dealing with a larger group of white-collar workers in the firm. = the “liberal” attitude of public sector employers, to gain Tecognition fairly easily and without the extent of industrial action upon which most unions with a consequent tradition for shop-floor activism and democracy have been built. Because of the procedure, now under increasing attack, of dealing with the employer through top-level “Whiteley” councils, there has been little involvement of rank-and-file members in negotiations or related industrial actions. And the historical development of these unions as “elite” non- manual unions has shielded them from organisation contact with better organised and more militant manual workers. This is only now and slowly beginning to be overcome (as with joint shop stewards committees) under pressure of common threats and with the growing “‘proletarianisation” of white-collar work which has made it increasingly difficult to get much mileage out of much-vaunted “professional” Status. continued spread both ofthe closed shop and of redundancies into the public sector, this percentage is bound togrow, There are at least eight unions which have achieved recogn- ition for representing architectural workers in the various arts of the public sector. The largest ofthese is NALGO, the ational Association of Local Government Officers, Sixty per cent of its membership is in local government and the rest is in regional hospital boards, water authorities, new towns, etc. The GLC Staff Association is limited to the Greater London Council and the Inner London Education Authority. IPCS (Institute of Professional Civil Servants) covers the DOE, PSA, and other organs of central govern- ment; TSSA (Transport Salaried Staffs Association), British Rail and London Transport; EPEA (Electrical Power Engin- cers’ Association), electrical power supply; and AUT (Assoc- iation of University Teachers) and NATFHE (National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education), architectural workers teaching in universities and polytech- nics. All of these, despite the names, are by now affiliated to the TUC. Most of the architectural membership of STAMP is apparently still in the public sector, but only at the Edin- burgh office of the Scottish Special Housing Association (despite the name, a public sector body) has it achieved bargaining rights, which itshares with NALGO. The “elitist” tendency of these unions has resulted notonly in this counter-productive separation from manual workers. The other side of the coin has posed another problem, even if less significant. While architectural work is structured more or less similarly in both public and private sectors, architec- tural management in the public sector (the “boss” to the worker at the drawing board) is salaried while his counterpart in the private sector is most likely to be the partner who owns the firm. The public sector unions, like the ABT as a craft union trying unsuccessfully to compete with the bosses’ RIBA, have always allowed membership not only to the architectural worker but also to the man who is the boss eS In the public sector, trade union recognition has come more easily. Membership in white-collar unions in the public sector is steadily growing and is now estimated to be over 75%. While there are extreme variations from office tooffice, probably between 50% and 75% of public sector workers in the building professions are members of the union which represents them in negotiations with their employers. With and controlling architectural education), have been able al- most unilaterally to dictate the shape of the profession, public sector included Their model of practice — excess hierarchy and bureaucracy, elitism and a “two-tier profes. sion, profit-oriented accounting, lack of accountability to users — has been imposed on the public sector as well. Their influence on the structure of the profession, its ethos, its codes and regulations, etc. is even more profound. Lack of effective trade union organisation among architect- ural workers in the private sector has no doubt encouraged some architectural workers there who are “fully-qualilfied architects” to become members of the clitist, anti-union RIBA (for the initials after their name, if fornothing else), despite their understanding that it represents primarily the interests of the employers. This bolstering of the “profes- sional institute” (often aided by the employer's insistence on his qualifiedstaff joining and sometimes by his willingnestso pay his employees annual and tax deductible RIBA subscrip- tion) inevitably increases its attractiveness to some architects in the public sector as well, considering the lack of a trade union there which seems relevant to their daily “drawing board” concerns. A Common Adversary There can be little doubt that the emergence of a strong, unified, effective trade union organisation in the private sector will weaken the hold of the private sector bosses over the entire profession and help to destroy the illusion of the RIBA as a “professional institute.” There can also be little doubt that the bosses will fight trade union organisation by al the means at their command, subtle and not-so-subtle. The support of public sector architectural trade unionists will be important in the struggle to organise in the private-sector, but they may give that support not merely out of solidarity but in their own interests as well, since organisation in the private sector (and the changes that could make in the prof- ession) will inevitably inject some fresh life blood into trade unionism among public sector architectural workers and help to weaken a common adversary: architectural bureaucracy, hierarchy, elitism and unaccountability. Making the Union Work This not to imply that improvement of the trade union sit- uation among architectural workers in the public sector must await organisation in the private sector. Increasing numbers of white-collar workers throughout the public sector are working within the unions which represent them to help transform them into stronger, more active, and more demo- cratic organisations, more responsive to the varying needs of the membership “on the shop floor."’ Shop stewards commit- tees are being formed and shop floor negotiation is gaining ground. The campaign against the cuts in housing, health and social services, rail services, etc., will accelerate the conver- sion of these unions into more industrially militant and politically active organisations while necessitating the devel- opment of stronger ties with blue-collar unions and other organisations of working people (tenants, claimants, squatt- ers, students, patients, etc.) who get hit by the cuts from the other side. It is important that architectural workers concern- ed not only about their job security but about what they produce and for whom they produce it should play their role in this process, Perfection and Purity It is often said that union members tend to get the union they deserve. As was pointed out in the excellent Autumn 1976 Case Con issue on trade unionism (referring to NALGO), “The union can be made to work. It takes time and effort, but it can be done.” In discussing organisation among social workers, it notes that “Faced with the immense task of building up a departmental organisation within NALGO, often in the face of hostility from right-wing members who control the branch, groups of social workers have turned elsewhere secking the Holy Grail of a trade union of perfec- tion and purity.” This has resulted in the launching of NUSW, a new “craft union” for social workers, apparently excluding al administrative and support workers. “NUSW may be able ultimately to negotiate for social workers, but it will never have any muscle worth flexing because industrial action by social workers cannot hit the power blocks of cap- italism where it hurts, by interrupting the productive process to slow the creation of profits.” “The supporters of NUSW argue that the strength and size of NALGO isoutweighed by the need for unity among different groups of social workers, and also that the diversity of NALGO membership means it is unable to do justice to the specialist concerns of social workers. But unity for what? Unity in purposeful action is the worthwhile goal to strive for, not the empty purity that NUSW offers. ...Leaving NALGO in search of the Holy Grail of perfection is copping out of the vital task of building a strong, effective trade union organis- ation, where officials and union policy are controlled by rank- and-file membership, and struggles can be generalised on an effective scale. ... During the past five years, there have been a lot of progressive changes in NALGO, mainly because an increasing number of people have come together and, build- ing on that solidarity, worked to make the union more demo- cratic, more forceful, and more meaningful to the majority of the membership.” Architectural workers throughout the various parts of the public sector, in the various unions which The Carve-Up To make recognition in the office more difficult, the employ- ers will attempt to encourage a vertical “‘carve-up,” with Separate unions for “‘clericals,” ‘‘technicians,” and “profes- sionals.” (With luck, they might even manage one union for architects, one for quantity surveyors, one for structural engineers, etc.) On the other hand, to further retard organis- ation and prevent the emergence of a unified organisation throughout the private sector, the employers willencourage a “hori: I" division, encouraging the employees in FirmAtochooseUnionXifthoseyes Bhaveorganised within Union Y. And the two tactics can be combined. These tactics have recently been attempted by the Council of ing conditions, an industry-wide pension scheme, systems of “workers’ self-management” and accountability to the com- munity in the specific context of architectural Practice, a professional code of conduct in the interests of theworkers and the community, progressive design and specification unions,” a process which has already begun in some of the larger multi-disciplinary practices. This is likely to be only a temporary setback and in some cases even astep along the road to isati More dination among loy would be Necessary in order to encourage the formation of a idance, on-the-job training and continuing education, etc. Such cooperation is the only way to keep divisiveness bet- ween workers in different unions (especially on issues of “work load” and in cases of possible industrial action), from playing into the hands of a management which is already well-coordinated. Beyond that, it could effectively lobby against cuts in socially-necessary construction and would probably be the only conceivable organisation which could produce an architectural workers’ handbook (and guide to architectural employers), a progressive journal of architec- ture, and be the “official” voice of architectural workers as a whole before the community, the state, and fraternal tame” trade union-in-name-only, as was unsuccessfully attempted by the RIBA in the Public sector. bodies abroad. s ee represent them, face a similar challenge. AN ‘ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS’ ALLIANCE” The logic of taking an active part in the trade union which actually represents one, and the utter futility of attempting once again to achieve an effective “craft union” encompassing all architectural workers, should not obscure the growing realisation of the need for some sort of “umbrella” organis- ation grouping all architectural workers, no matter in which sector they are employed nor to which union they belong. All architectural workers do share many common concerns, and if one thing is certain, it is that they are not, and never could be, adequately catered for by the employer-dominated, elitist, ineffectual RIBA. Architectural workers are small minorities in about cight public sector unions. A union in the private sector will add a ninth. The tendency for more and more architectural work to be done “in-house,” by architectural departments in industry, commerce, housing, health services, etc. in both Sectors, rather than by outside “consultancies” (private or public) may or may not continue, but in any case its exist- ence reinforces the “‘dual-industry”’ nature of much architect- ural employment. It also suggests the possibility that more architectural workers may join the appropriate union in the industry in which they are actually employed, which does not necessarily mean NALGO in the public sector nor the needed multi-industry union for architectural workers in the private sector. In order to compensate for the inevitable and understandable lack of one union for all architectural workers, and notwith- standing the pressing need for unorganised workers in the private sector to organise within one, and only one, union, architectural workers should as soon as possible establish and build up a strong “alliance” or “institute” of organised arch- itectural workers. Such a body could bring trade unionists in architecture gether to help ise the ised and to ag active trade unionism in a multi-industry, multi-union occupation where the career structure may make difficult a long-term committment to one particular union. It would eventually be able to speak progressively, clearly and coher- ently for 35,000 architectural workers on issues of common dustrial, professional and i " where individual unions with small architectural minorities would have neither the interest, the will, nor the means to do so. Only then will architectural workers be able effectively to counteract the reactionary influence of what is essentially an employers’ association dressed up as a “professional institute, the RIBA, with itsstranglehold over architectural education, qualification, and practice, and its claim, in the present vacuum, to speak for the “whole profession.” Coordination, Action, or Division? An “alliance” or institute’ of architectural workers could assist the relevant trade unions in developing and implement- ing (at gras roots rather than at headquarters level) co- ordinated policies and action campaigns on wages and work- Building up such an “alliance” or “insti architectural workers should bea priority of all trade union- ists in architecture and should win the support of al unions with a growing interest in public policy on the environment, housing, archi town pl land, energy, technical and professional education, etc. As architectural workers in the private sector will have their hands full in the next few years building an effective trade union isati the initiative must come, in the first instance, from the public sector. Workers in the other building professions may also feel the need to establish analagous bodies and develop close “inter-professional” liaison with that in architecture. THE NEED FOR UNITY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR How will private sector architectural employers respond to growing trade union organisation among their employees? There really is no reason to believe that their responses will differ significantly from those of employers in other areas of industry and commerce. Some will resist tooth-and-nail, using all the time-honoured methods of union bashing. Others will seek to delay and de-fuse organisation by encour- The “alliance” or “institute” should be constituted as demo- cratically as possible, with local, regional, and national structures organised from the membership level up, based on “shop floor” organisation in each architectural office or department. Periodic congresses could delegate central execution of policies as necessary. Research and publications facilities would probably be needed. Because of the relation- ship between practice, education, and training, membership should be open to d and hers (but not ag ment) in architectural education as well as to workers in practice. The most serious anti-union effort by the employers, acting independently as well as through their institutions, islikely, wever, to take the form of an attempt to encourage a multiplicity of unions in the private sector so that it becomes more difficult for any union to achieve recognition in an office and so that when recognition is finally achieved it will not be able to pose a unified threat to the employers’ claims to “speak for the profession.” aging the blish of “staff iations” or “ MANYUONIONS....2 pany 200,000 chartered professional engineers. In a report pub- lished last year, the C.E.I. noted that over a third of profes- sional engineers are already organised in bona-fide unions but pointed out that in the private sector, where over 60% of professional engineers are employed, only 10% are already ganised. The report d, therefi on that area. Pseudo-Unions and Passive Professionals? Noting the bread-and-butter incentives for engineers in the private sector to organise and, seeing the closed shop and some form of employee participation in management men- acing on the horizon, the C.E.I. urged them to join small, ineffectual “pseudo-unions” which are not affliliated to the TUC, which hardly have a chance of ever achieving recogn- ition in any office, and which appeared willing to dance to the Chartered Institutions highly paternalistic and clitist tune. This, it was hoped, would forestall the growth of bona-fide, TUC-affiliated unions like AUEW(TASS) and ASTMS who already have a foothold among professional engineers. The whole tone of the report was to suggest that professional engineers should passively “join a union,” picking and choosing among the C.E.I.’s worthies on the basis of personal preference as if one was purchasing an insurance policy, rather than actively organising their union among their colleagues. of ised Engi ing g ane Instituti an Same brela body groupithneg15 raat cate Se, Nse.ORONEPF =x nae TS ~xe, vv W>e¥ ~ vv a' —> SESey 10 12 While a similar approach will appeal to the mam short- sighted employers in architecture as well, it is hardly likely to satisfy the growing number of architectural employees who want an effective trade union organisation at their place of work. For them, the need to compromise with personal preferences in order to come toa collective agree- ment ona single, unified vehicle for trade union organisation among all the 50,000 unorganised employees in theprivate sector of the building professi is app Cc loining the carpenters, the plasterers went in with the build- g ELeereTdandbuildingmaterialsdriversintheTGWU, and the plumbers joined the elctricians in what is now known as the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union (EETPU). call for timately works only in the employers’ interests. ul- ug! 's and Allied Technicians’ Association, and now the Technical, Administrative and Supecvisory, Section of the AUEW), APEX (the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staffs, formerly the Clerical and Administrative Workers Union), and ACTS (the Association of Clerical, Technical and Supervisory Staffs, part of the TGWU). Public sector unions, with the possible exception of the Electrical Power Engineers Association, will generally not organise in the private sector. Conversely, architectural workers trying to organise in the private sector will have their hands full even without attempting counter-productive “raiding” of workers in the public sector, something few unions are nowadays eager to do and which violates the TUC's “Bridlington Principles” governing relations between unions. The Unacceptable Alternative Still, there may be as many as half a dozen “appropriate” unions for architectural and allied workers in the private sector. The immediate prospect for achieving “one union” might not appear very encouraging. If architectural workers Straggle into a handful of different unions, which will happen unless they take a collective initiative, the result will be thatt Aatinevitabl iaatons Le 1 1 ad workers in the allied professions will proceed slowly, sporad- ically and hesitantly; will be unnecessarily protracted; will temain incomplete, and will never be able to contribute to the workers, profession, industry and community what an effective, coherent union could. The difficult initial organis- ing would become practically impossible without the realistic Prospect of an eventual coherent, effective trade union organisation of private sector architectural and allied workers. Up until now, however, no trade union has been seriously interested in launching in the building professions the kind of organising drive that would have arealistic chanceof success, considering the difficulties already described. Architectural workers should have no illusions about this. They should also consider the possibility that, should an effective organising campaign get started, hitherto lukewarm unions may show a sudden enthusiasm for organising, encouraged by anequally sudden interest by employers in “good industrial relations. Some form of trade union organisation in the private sector is inevitable. To achieve really effective organisation, and to achieveitwhenitisreallyneeded,however,suchobstacles must be overcome. This can be done by a carefully con- sidered strategy and committment, hard work anda willing- ness to take personal risks. Only architectural workers them- selves can provide this. If they do, the trade union movement will contribute the essential support that only it is in a pos- ition to provide. Both manual and non-manual workers, with growing concern about the built environment they must live and work in, are today increasingly likely to welcome the organisation of architectural workers and support their struggles. “Industrial Muscle” The need for one, and only one, union for al people working in the private sector of the building professions should be clear by now. A “craft union” for architects alone isjust not on. Unless al workers in the office are organised together, the bare minimum of “industrial muscle” to achieve even recognition will be lacking and an organising drive will face an additional, unnecessary and crippling burden with which it could hardly cope. In times of dispute, having the telephonist and secretary on your side can be useful. Somedefendnarrowlytheirowninterestswithlittleregard Whatresourcescantheunionmakeavailableforan Among white collar unions there are four of major significance in Gheprivate sector: ASTMS, TASS (formerly DATA, the Deaick In collectively selecting one union within which to organise, what types of choices must be made? Over the years, several different types of unions have developed in Britain. They can be distinguished by different conceptions of their “‘constit- uencies” as well as by differences in structure and orientation. for those of other workers, while other tinions see their own progress as inseparable from that of the labour movement in its broadest sense and act accordingly both on the shop floor and in the community. Some have a docile attitude towards management while others are militant and incorruptible representatives of their members’ interests. Some unions are run from the top down in a hierarchy mir- roring that of capital, while others function by a democracy built up from the “grass roots” and dependent upon an active rank and file. Some unions function mainly by full- time, permanent “professional” trade union “administrators,”” while others are essentially “amateur” operations, with the bulk of the task left to the “lay’’ membership rather than to the “experts,” and officials, generally elected, returning to their old jobs after relatively short terms in union office. In the history of trade unionism all those contrasting positions have existed, but today in Britain the differences between and within unions, while significant, are often of degree rather than of kind, can change over the years and are not always easy to discern from without. “Bourgeois Individualism”? organising driv {c.g., financial, personnel, legal, research, publicity, etc.) especially in the crucial first year? 1.6 How would the union's present specific organisational strength (c.g., industries, occupations, regions) be of particular aid to an organising drive among workers in the building professions? What specific “industrial muscle” (e.g., sections of membership etc.) would the union be able to bring to bear in support of a potential dispute involving work- ers in the building professions? What particular resources can the union draw upon to support the particular needs of professional, technical, and clerical workers (e.g., aid in negotiations, research, propaganda, etc.)? Would the union support the establishment of a membership level “alliance” (or “institute") bringing together architectural workers from the relevant trade unions in both sectors? STRUCTURE To what extent do the rank and file run the union, or is the union actually controlled from the top down? 2.2 Is there a union “priesthood” or do the workers themselves administer the union, returning to the “shop floor” after brief terms in union office? 2.3 How powerful are elected “shop stewards” in the union structure? Do they get full support from full-time union officials? To what extent does shop floor initiative and action get smothered under the weight of union bureaucracy and hierarchy? Are union officials elected or easily subject to recall? Is opposition within the union to its present leader- ship and official policics s!lowed freely to associate and to gain a platform for its views? ATTITUDES Does the union take a clear and uncompromising position in defence of the interests of workers when in conflict with those of management or its instit- utions? Will the union actively fight not only for better wages but for full control by workers of all aspects of their working lives, by both “shop floor” organisation and broader political action? It is further important that al employees in private sector building design, not just architectural workers strictly speak- ing, but also quantity surveyors, structural and services engineers, building surveyors, landscape architects, etc., be organised into one union. As co-producers of the same crs, p » P tc. though not easy, is essential. The alternative is having archit- product, mutual support in potential industrial disputes is 1 lumbers, etc.) ini of the medieval ectural workers straggling into a handful of unions, based on The carly unions developed along “‘craft” lines (e.g., carpent- We have emphasized the necessity of having one strong union for as many workers in the building professions as possible. The collective choice of one union within which toorganise, guilds. In order to match the growing power and flexibility of capital and to organise workers hitherto ignored by the craft unions, industrial unions developed, grouping all workers in an industry into one union. Because of the entren- ched craft union tradition and the growth of multi-industry “general” and white-collar-only unions, a true industrial union is hard to find in Britain, though the National Union of Mineworkers comes close. “Staff” or white-collar unions often organise across industrial lines, making a sort of ‘‘craft”” out of non-manual work, while the true general unions, like the TGWU, in principle organise workers at all levels in all industries, on the model of “one big union.” “Ideal Types” and Realities These “ideal types” hardly exist in practice today due to historical and practical circumstances. Public sector unions, having grown out of “staff associations,” define their con- stituencies in terms of the management structure of that sector, ignoring craft and industrial lines. The huge TGWU incorporates craft unions like the plasterers, has an industrial structure with sections for road haulage, docks, construction, i etc., in ition to its ional structure, and contains a white-collar section as well. essential And since one group is often capable of doing the same work as another (e.g., architects and surveyors), common organisation is essential to prevent not only explicit or de-facto “scabbing” on one another but also destructive competition for work at the other’s expense and jealous guarding of possibly outdated delineations of exclusive professional spheres which may prevent the pursuit of the common good as determined by al the workers together, in coordination withthe communities who use its products. “One Big Union?” The arguments for unified organisation have been put for- ward many times in the history of the trade union movement and have had, and continue to have, an important influence upon its development Witness the periodic batches of mergers, aimed at strengthening labour’s defences against the power and flexibility which capital has at its command through its companies, conglomerates, finance, state, and media. The fact is, however, that the historical development of trade unionism in Britian has not resulted in the formation of “one big union.’ Look, for example, at construction unions and white-collar unions, two areas of the appropriate for workers in the private sector of the building professions. In the building industry, after numerous amalgamations, the most recent in the late 1960's, there are three unions of major significance, though organisation as a whole remains comparatively weak. UCATT, formerly the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, includes now two other “craft unions,”thebricklayersandpainters.Whilethelatterwere bers’ inthe workpandinthe i anidentitycouldworkersinthebuildingprofessions toimprovingemploymentprospectsinthebuilding Perhaps the differences between unions in terms of structure and orientation are more significant. Some tend to be like friendly societies while others act more forcefully in the in- dustrial and political arenas. Some unions are concerned almost exclusively with bread-and-butter issues of wages, hours and pensions, while others take a broader view of their 1.3 What is the union's attitude towards organising salaried management in architecture? What safeguards can it provide which would prevent their gaining undue influence in an organisation of archijvctural workers? 3.3 What attitude will the union take towards existing pay and status differentials among architectural workers and what priority does it give to raising the levels of the lowest paid, both in architecture and in the broader economy? “personal preference.” Perhaps this is the first test of whether architects can overcome the “bourgeois individualism” which has condemned to failure or insignificance so many of their previous ‘‘reform”’ efforts. WHICH UNION ? The criteria which ought to be applied in making the collective choice of one union for the private sector are probably apparent by now. It is important, nevertheless, to make explicit the more important ones concerning the union's structure, its attitudes, and its potential role in a drive to Organise architectural workers. 1.0 11 ORGANISING ARCHITECTURAL WORKERS Is the union willing and able actively to organise al unorganised workers in the building professions, no matter what type or size of office they work in? 1.2 Will they organise al workers in such offices or departments, including clerical and administrative? 14 What degree of autonomy and how clear and coherent enjoy in the union? professions and to environmental issues as they 3.4 Is the union sympathetic to a broad-minded approach concern the community (e.g., “Green Bens,’ Lucas Aerospace shop stewards-type proposals, develop- ment of institutions for community control, ctc.)? Does the union identify employment security with the preservation of narrowly-defined “positions” rather than with a broader outlook on the division of labour and continuing education? 3.5 To what extent is the union willing and able to dev- clop cooperation and solidarity among al workers in the building industry? 3.6 To what extent does the union actively combat racism and male chauvinism among its members as well as in discrimination by employers and the state? Seu When the union invests (or even builds), does it take an environmentally, socially and politically respon- sible attitude? One Foot in the Construction Industry Of course, a union with an established presence in the construction industrywouldbepreferablbeu,tthatisclearly only one of many factors to consider, It must be borne in mind also that many of the clerical and administrative workers who will be organising along with technical and professional employees in the building professions might prefer a multi-industry union in which they could more likely remain should they switch to a similar job in another industry. The “‘dual-industry” character of “in-house” architectural departments also tends to reinforce the need for a multi-industry union. An architectural worker today may, for example, have one foot in the construction industry and the other in brewing, banking, housing or transport. A New Union? In applying the criteria listed above, it becomes apparent, for example, that no conceivably “appropriate” union gives a clear impression of an active grass-roots democracy, com- pletely unfettered by hierarchy and bureaucracy. If no exist- ing union satisfactorily fulfills all these demanding criteria, there always remains the possibility of starting from scratch and building up a new union expressly for workers in arch- itecture and the related building professions. This has obvious attractions, including the option of amalgamating in the future with a larger, more general union on terms preserving a reasonable degree of autonomy, as the Medical Practitioners Union did with ASTMS. Of course, considering the difficulties which an organising drive in the building professions is likely to encounter, the chances of getting a new union off the ground without the back-up which an already powerful union could more easily provide are pretty slim. Organising requires funds for person- nel, literature, legal fees and overheads and to cover for inevitable strikes, lock-outs, and victimisation. In addition, the expertise which comes from considerable trade union experience and the access to trade union allies in case of dis- putes are less likely to be easily available today to a new union, however genuine it may appear. But it has been done before and may conceivably be done again. Back to the Drawing Board In any event, the opportunity to begin organising must be seized. The subject israpidly moving into the spotlight and if the architectural workers don't move fast, the bosses no doubt will, accommodating as many as possible of the most docile unions they can find as soon as they perceive the threat of a really affective unionisation. So, back to the drawing board. . ...and Organise! SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY On trade unionism: Ken Coates and Tony Topham, The New Unionism: The Case for Workers’ Control, Penguin Books paperback, 1974. ESSENTIAL READING. Tony Topham, The Organised Worker, Arrow Books paper- back, 1975. Case Con, no, 23, Autumn 1976, “Union Issue.”’ 25p plus postage from Case Con, 74 Lytton Road, Leytonstone, London E.11. Lucas Aerospace Combine Shop Stewards Committee, “Dole Queue or Useful Products?”’ New Scientist, 3 July 1975. Dave Elliott, “Workers and the World Unite,’ Undercurrents 12. (On Lucas Aerospace shop stewards proposals.) “No More Work for Work's Sake,” Undercurrents 14. (On “Green Bans.") David M. Patterson, White Collar Militancy, Workers Educ- ation Association, 1975. 35p plus postage from WEA, 9 Upper Berkeley Street, London W, 1. On the situation in architecture: NAM Report on Architectural Practice, ARCUK, and the Architects Registration Acts, 30p postpaid from the New Architecture Movement, 9 Poland Street, London W.1. A Short History of the Architectural Profession. 20p post- paid from The New Architecture Movement, 9 Poland Stect, London W1. Malcolm Mac Ewen, The Crisis in Architecture, RIBA Pub- lication Ltd., 1974, Edited extracts published in R/BA Journal, April 1974. (See also his long article, “What Can Be Done about Competence?” in The Architects Journal, 19 November 1975, pp 1063-1084.) Louis Hellman, “Democracy in Architecture,’ RIBA Journal, August 1973, pp 395-403, and ‘Professional Representation,” Architectural Design, March 1976, pp 156-159. JUST OFF TO A TRICKY CLIENT MEENNG... KEEP UP THE GOOD Work, CHAPS / Appendix Alternatives to Unionisation? Are there any alternatives to unionisation? that |reformism, h fi ee Wal sy resourceful animal, may be running out of rope. Among the ways by which “architects of conscience” have attempted in the recent past to find a way out are thefollowing: Modern and Post-Modern Various “formalisms” and other attempts to seok “techni topoliticalproblemshavealwaysbeenpopularinSete: {Cynics might say that is the profession's main role,) From the late NineteenthCenturyuntilaftertheSecondWorldWar,thegreatesten- ergy of mony talented and dedicated architects want into the “crusade” for “Modern Architecture.”Some of its leading exponents were Social Democrats or Communists (and some Social Democrats and Commun- istspatronisedthestyle),thusencouragingtheNazistoattackthe rolepossiblewithinpracticeasitnowis,haveretreatedintoLe style. This gave it great credibility after the Second World War until Its massive shortcomings became so painfully and tragically obvious that they could no longer be glossed over. This “movement” hasby now all but gone Into pleas! though its influence persists and though > an of building continues to obsess a few die-hards and maki jeadway where traditional labour-intensive building methods ind skis have not yet been stamped out. With “modern architacture” discredited Gesignors |have desperately searched for more sophisticated and credible “technical” answers: for another would-be solution which avoids or obscures the need for changes in the structure of thepro- fession (i.e, hi ural education and theory. While there is no doubt that important contributions can be made in this field, aven at times in isolation from Practice, there can also be littledoubt that there isatendency among some of these people to erect a protective shelter of miystification around their somewhat vulnerable and isolated professional position, technolony. eneray conservation, etc.). Short-CuttoSocialism? Many who realisedtha ” Progress without Power? Seeing the need for basic changes in the professional structure itself, groups like the New Architecture Movement have begun to call for its reorganisation into a public design service of small, locally-based, aButwithoutourdev Sieiete eatPolitical poreir to begin to move in this direction, let alone to fully realise the pro- possi now theyevenbeabletorealisticallydeveloptheconcepts emselves’ Illusions, Allies, and Tactics In the late Sixties, some salaried architects in public practice, in col- with some . began the latest attempt to gain influence within the employers’ organisation. The “Salaried Architects Group” on the RIBA Council was formed and got the RIBA’s electoral system modified inthe hope of giving the salaried majority of RIBA members some control of the organisation. Tbe group has subsequently spent years ofSorsicerable effort achiev- would solve none of the underlying problems of architecture and only served to mystify the profession and the public put their faith into the extension .of “socialism=nationalisation” into the practice of architecture. For them, the local $ was to be th .The notion of d however, no longer has the “pull it once had. The failure of public sector privatepractice, gethei 1 relations in the production of architecture and its inability to with- stand the forces of the market system externally have created broed disillusionment with local authority practice, as 8 solution in and of ingt th ‘ Aitectina y itself, both from within and from the community. “One-Off” Progress In an attempt to learn from the mistakes of more conventional Practices, a few “‘enlightened” architects have tried to create small, feirly “responsive practices,” more or less “democratically” run as cooperatives or modified partnerships. As “one-off” cases they have been obliged to compete in isolation for patronage, manpower, fin- ancing, etc. in a completely capitalist system whose business and pro- fessional structure has been designed for their more bureaucratic, hierarchical arid profit-oriented competitors. Yet because of their internal advantages as well as the unusual emount oftalent, effort and committment which those involved have brought to them, some of these practices have achieved limited success and have even been seized upon by the profession and media as signs of progress. Signs of hope they are, but it would be foolish to believe that in the present context such a course Is realistically open to any more than a token number of practices, without the backing of a strong trade union Organisation. Community Architecture Others in a related vein sought to rectify the obvious lack of direct accountability to the community which has characterised both private and public practice and set up would-be “community architecture offices” in the wake of the planning” These have been involved, with varying degrees of success, in fighting the Planning and architecture establishment in the name of threatened local, generally working-class, communities and providing them with orchitectural services to which they would not otherwise have access. \tappears token, local may be if not encouraged, in order to give the profession a slightly more pro- gressive and dynamic public image and to keep busy and content Some of the more committed young architectural workers while at the same time isolating them from the “mainstream” of architectural workers in the offices “downtown,” there is also reason to believe that this direction is hardly accessible as a “general solution” on any scale without major structural changes in the profession. In the mean- time, lacking a consolidated power base and with tenuous sources of funadndisunppogrt,suchofficesmayevenruntheriskofcompetition from the professional establishment itself, seeking to move in on the new “market” they have opened up, recoup some respectability and ‘ensure that “things don’t go too far,” “Code of Conduct” whose “enforcement” is still entrusted to the employers. Meanwhile, involvement at Portland Place has tended to isolate these articulate and committed architectural workers from their “‘constit- uency” while their token presence has perhaps encouraged the illusion that the RIBA might someday be made accountable to its salaried majority. Yet, how seriously would the RIBA's “democratic frame- work" be taken if it were ploced in the architectural office itself rather than at Portland Place, given the absence of strong “shop floor” organisation of architectural workers. We doubt whether the charade could continue. By removing the scene of confrontation from the work-place, where the conflicts are to a so-called “professional inst- itute,” the illusion of democracy is more easily sustained. Tactically, by trying to deal with the employers within the RIBA framework, rather than at the ploce of work, the S.A.G. denied themselves the support of many architectural wokers who are not even eligible for (or interested in) RIBA membership, while allying themselves instead with some architectural management. All the above-mentioned “tendencies” try to solve the pro- blems facing architecture by solutions” which attempt to avoid the inevitable need for collective action on the part of I to begin to transform the productive relations within architecture itself. When architectural workers are well-organised, these tendencies can cease to be the ambiguous “‘diversions” they are in the present context and begin to make a positive and significant contribution to architectural and social progress. “Self-Build,”. “Drop-Out’” One step forther istaken by advocates of “self-bulld” who attempt to "drop-out" of the building industry and al its frustrations, though they sometimes do reserve a continuing role for the architect. A Challenging Model itive Others have chosen to try to minimise their connections with the Tienesiysiemnisselsib)sexingopinre “communes.”Thisagain, jough inting o lenging mi |, Ismotan ion numbersofpeopleinthepresentcontext. Suen ee A Protective Shelter Some thoughtful architects, seeing no socially or creatively CONTENTS Why Organise? Areas for Union Action What Kind of Organisation? Can Architectural Workers Organise? Learning from Experience The Situation in the Public Sector An “Architectural Workers’ Alliance” The Need for Unity in the Private Sector Which Union? Appendix: Alternatives to Unionisation? What isthe “N.A.M.” The New Architecture Movement ("NAM") aims, through the collec- tive action of architectural workers and other concerned people, to play an active role in radically altering the system of patronage and power in architecture. It seeks an architectural practice directly accountable to all who use its products and democratically controlled by the workers within it. NAM aims thereby to promote effective control by ordinary people over their environment and by architect- ural workers over their working lives. The New Architecture Movement was founded in November 1975 ata National Congress held in Harrogate for the purpose of building up a broadly-based, progressive force for accountability and democracy in architecture. Interest in NAM Issteadily growing. Membership in NAM cost £5 for employed people and £2 for students and unemployed and includes a subscription to NAM’s newsletter, “Slate,” which is also available to non-members for £2 (or 40p per single copy). All enquiries about membership, the newsletter, other NAM publications, and NAM activities should be addressed to The Secretary, The New Architecture Movement, 9 Poland Street, London wi, onmroanr FN = Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource NAM Unionisation Report Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource May 1977 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/aff2be56dfda55d240d8d385a8f3f3bc.pdf 4949ba400b48fdc8823cd0ae7133df7b Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Public Design Group Description An account of the resource <p><span style="font-weight:400;">Argued that it was only through the public sector that the majority of people could have access to the land and resources needed for housing, education and other essential services. The task was therefore to reform the practice of architecture in local councils to provide an accessible and accountable design service. The Public Design Group proposed reforms to the practice of architecture in local councils to provide a design service accessible and accountable to local people and service users. The following 6 Interim Proposals were developed which were later initiated and implemented in Haringey Council 1979-1985 by NAM members. </span></p> <ul><li style="font-weight:400;"><span style="font-weight:400;">Local area control over resources </span></li> <li style="font-weight:400;"><span style="font-weight:400;">Design teams to be area based </span></li> <li style="font-weight:400;"><span style="font-weight:400;">Area design teams to be multi-disciplinary </span></li> <li style="font-weight:400;"><span style="font-weight:400;">Project architects to report directly to committee</span></li> <li style="font-weight:400;"><span style="font-weight:400;">Abolish posts between Team Leader and Chief Architect </span></li> <li style="font-weight:400;"><span style="font-weight:400;">Joint working groups with Direct Labour Organisations</span></li> </ul> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource NDS Subject The topic of the resource NDS Group preliminary steps recommendations to 3rd Congress 2pp. 3 copies Description An account of the resource leave DYNCMDLs cervecertraetrenUeMaligationof foboifcrmiuirntaralppprsionaoe deaviiesof puspleynndefter,lonheCele ‘lateexciltpualyWML? arclidiae ovetved ar an Allonolive meas Weaiy by phich.profleeatMAHI. FavetiwwrachunrePers Public <fituctibionk Md a shdf ofresources fags publeesect srfotepruyele,partecularttyn beisng nae housing Rehab iliteahor. ; a Pitin)fdas afCourseatnddy anchiA22t0atfftayeudneted,16 a /yate praclich hie Sora C0_ LL fale of contolHotes idl gp sn aN 2'ln4 (o (ohesottrite prluae |EBS 1tall hn “ae eA reelsteetecledel nsarvdtele prpanalé fisLa Nabael chetigen SomeaebasedmwAcuque€pectic lathinagpsSti 4k ffeck on archukechnal sernce tp te public jarclufacts anamapninksandee ee fouart. Weanyudfladebiserviceartucl.ouldbe rectly accounleble & and conhollad by te pesple tn th lgcabidy We <upesled trot peighbeurhrod based trea auiberdy offices WhuleMealgoveumaeytbeMgaarsatutdaSeprudment Y scuak cated it 1sat te same fewn te wan and oflr Be only stuchise through —ortutl, tle reajoity ofpeoplecar sett cima’ and gavin accord he tnd» feairuc on eller Kioures vecravy Paw housing , eabld’ od ducati Megnbnik « That ts, leak goverment prices tase coral Vitipan) conrneces ebucl, te print soa cect tarfound &be Jn Cortol ovetase pesecmnests A crtfealfoal Kaotucl corkedcnev clecign 5 polated. tshalosev Haul Secinkfanshin Us ewgl, Ce Atwacrabee Itt; 2~A rot Ahgoegl Ue Lacal grremasmoit “> Acdiiid A; Lé Ue ody efpryiniee A prereguscle a patimal Aeciyn connie epalt be Ue Litlevon a/4eleut ee x ee : freaplea ;foe wesfy decalgotu.nirdawol Eee eave dashed- hawMat20CeLawstattees 4 4 mint at 1S saceftib® a vg @noue preSsune fia bela): Fil. decal akkaulibo Can an Haw Chag of dinvelion 07 a roculf Me celeelode Aomands a Grats aganinatios , tral foliteal fariies oA” peck MANUS5 Pomudlgatr tis ddsaofev x Meslyn sence arth <orpol AY s0semcr Hol Le 9px An Crucspructjo. Was by dszall be ath tuinboingAesiguofficerXe20talallel, thepeel a megetCalaullouty Ara stopAn torlang fourrde tia goals Le Third WAI Cugnnr aclepted te fallawing tes an! “ThinCeguencostes)Mototbynary recervary 8developflies I frites Nitds avanr ~ te Ppublia sectv. To Ler Lud yf wavdals aneelNratiornaldBésiy.d.sloysiceGpoufpee ae Lebar 0 a rnponen cor, werden,tra foclovatiaAnAS\Hferopriale(hakeuninS~# AlalociedvGebratirs Ie: f Md: A Wabioral Design Sennen”, P 2 CA7L Bw 3 ea, 3 Sts Anedtalole 5 NAM, 2 Pland Shet london SI. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource NDS Group John Murray Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource November 1977 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/f3aa102926b27ee1e6bdce989a4eaef1.pdf 309e0b117f9f68d3bdeb713fea0becd8 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to Registrar re Advice to Architects Subject The topic of the resource Letter to Registrar re Advice to Architects, with other letters of 3.9.85 & 9.9.85 clipped Description An account of the resource Having considered the various texts again I offer yet another alternative: "Architects concerned with the selection of other architects for appointments or advancement should not make any requirement or preference in addition to registration unless it can be demonstrated that this does not impair an architects integrity and does not limit choice unreasonably" I will be prepared to discuss this further by letter or at a CMG either before or after the P PC of September 18th. Yours sincerely Norman Arnold & Eddy Walker 4a The Corn Exchange Leeds LSI 7BP Kenneth J Forder Registrar ARCUK 73 Hal lam Street LONDON WIN 6EE Dear Mr Forder ADVICE TO ARCHITECTS NO 7 Architects 0532 445795 7 August 1985 RECEIVED 9 AUG 1985 With reference to Mr Waterhouse's letter of 25 June 1985. I have discussed the situation with John Allan and we offer the- following comments. We hold reservations about omiss ions from the alternative, in particular •or preference" Is it not a cause for concern when equal opportunity employers are stating "preference will be given to 2) We also cons ider it is important to communicate the concern of the PPC regarding the pitfalls of unreasonably limiting choice. In addition I do not like the inclusion of the word "professional • . I note that the alternative still includes the words n or advancement" and • in addition to n I recall Mr McCarthy citing these late additions to the printed agenda as the reason for his unease regarding the entire Advice Note and I think it clearly illustrates his muddled thinking, due perhaps to his hurried attempts at stalling Councils acceptance of the Note. Having cons idered the various texts again I offer yet another alternative: "Architects concerned with the selection of other architects for appointments or advancement should not make any requirement or preference in addition to registration unless it can be demonstrated that this does not impair an architects integrity and does not limit choice unreasonably" I will be prepared to discuss this further by letter or at a CMG either before or after the PPC of September 18th. Yours sincerely WATERHOUSE & RIPLEY Chartered Architects 50 Charlotte Street London WIP ILW DAVID B WATERHOUSETelephone: 01437 0881 ROGER M BUTTON JACK R WOOD DONALD G KINO DBW/LH/WA 3rd September 1985 Norman Arnold Architect 4a The Corn Exchange Leeds LSI 7B? Dear Norman , The Registrar passed me a copy of your letter of 7 August and I apologise for the delay in responding due to holidays and the distraction of the Directive . I take you points 1) and 2) which were upheld by the Group. I assune 'professional' was inserted to exclude matters covered by general law e.g. race but I see it as Incompatible with ARCIJK's general Thesis that a 'criminal offence' may •have a professional dimension. Reflecting on the nature and expression of the existing 'Advice to Architects in relation to the Standard and Explanatory Memorandum, I think that the implication for integrity. can be taken without express reference. So I too offer another alternative :— "An architect concerned with the selection of other architects for appointments or advancement should not make any requirement or preference in addition to registration which would limit the field of choice without demonstrably good reason " . I should like to have your reaction to this before consulting me m ners of group — from whom I have had no corunent on my Memo. of 25 June. Yours sincerely , D B WATERHOUSE. ADVICE To ARCHITECTS Thank you for your letter of 3 September. In short, I find your alternative acceptable and would be prepared for it to replace my own suggestion of 7 August (annex D PPC 18 .9 . 85 ) . Yours sincerely Norman Arnold cc The Registrar Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Norman Arnold Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 7.8.85 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/97dd0b8d4098459b30107f7adbb827b5.pdf 8d80a1c1558937c28ed2e4b38dab80d9 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to D Waterhouse Subject The topic of the resource Letter to D Waterhouse re different versions of Advice to Architects (4 pp total) Description An account of the resource The following suggestions for improving the draft Advice have been made : -- Draft as agreed 10 April All registered persons have equivalent recognition from ARCUK and architects concerned with the selection of other architects for appointments should not without demonstrable justification make any requirement or preference other than registration if to do so would put their integrity in question by unreasonably limiting choice . line 3 after " appointments " add "or advancement. line 4 delete "other than" : substitute "in addition to " These seem to me meritorious and unless I receive objections will be included in the draft for discussion by PPC. D B WATERHOUSE CONVENER c.c. Registrar . Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Norman Arnold Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 11.4.85 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/24e3f0b31eb1c1a5d4f08195c31b52bb.pdf 8e9d26fe840a98198cc6f19c00a2ad45 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to Registrar with 4 motions for next Council Meeting Subject The topic of the resource Letter to Registrar with 4 motions for next Council Meeting + press cutttings (5 pp total) Description An account of the resource Encs MOTION A This Council considers that discrimination exercised by an architect employed by a Local, District or Metropolitan Authority or Central Government, based on the premise that preference in selection of applicants for employment by the Authority in the style of architect will be given to members of an institute or similar organisation, constitutes unacceptable conduct when measured against the ARCUK document "Conduct and Discipline" . MOTION B This Council considers that discrimination exercised by an architect employed by a Local, District or Metropolitan Authority or Central Government, based on the premise that a condition of employment or engagement of an architect by the Authority will be the membership of an institute or similar organisation, constitutes unacceptable conduct when measured against the ARCUK document "Conduct and Discipline" . MOTION C This Council directs the Registrar to write to the Secretary of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities with the request that the Secretary once again reiterates the statement circulated by the NJ CLA in 1978 to the Chief Executives of all Authorities. The statement should consist (as previously) of 'l a firm reiteration that membership of the RIBA should not be inferred as conferring any additional qualification" with regard to the title or job description of architect. This communication should be made with particular reference to (but not exclusively) recruiting advertisements and conditions of employment for architectural staff. Motion C cont/ . It should also be pointed out to Authorities that many describe themselves as "equal opportunity employers" and as such they should not discriminate against architects who choose not to belong to one particular institute or another. MOTION D This Council directs the Registrar to enable circulation of Motions 'A' 'B' and 'C' to: Chief Executives of all relevant Public Authorities in the United Kingdom. Associations of Chief Architects of Local Authorities. The Association of Official Architects. The Press. �trial section. A thorough struct analysis must always be carried ou ub story How many more reminders w rom Irvine Bendelow DipA rch, Shaw, Gary Parkinson, John Beck London WI All my own work Fro•m Roderick Gradidge , Sir: Delighted though I was to see Astragal linking my name with that of Quinlan Terry, the most successful publicist of the 'new architecture' (AJ 21.11.84 p26), I must protest at the suggestion that I am a 'classic Roderick Gradidge: 'I prefer a more empirical revivalist'—which presumably approach'. See 'All my own work'. canopies at Portland Place and in my view totally wasteful exercises in remodelling the inside of Portland Place. I spent the best six years of my life studying to become an architect, at the end of which time I was accepted as an associate (the good old title) of the Institute, and haven't I paid for it since. The time has now arrived when I must seriously consider my resigning from the Institute which, after 24 years' membership, would be a decision of great sadness. Irvine J. E. Bendelow Watford, Herts Tile tale From Paul McGinty of H. & R. Johnson Tiles Ltd Sir: I write to correct a number of statements made in your Products in practice supplement on plaster, render and tiles (AJ 4.7.84). First, the assertion that British ceramic tile manufacturers have followed the continentals in marketing a 'universal' tile has no foundation. The Johnson universal edge has, since the late 1970s, remained unique in that it is self-spacing, thereby acting to replace spacer and border tiles while leaving sufficient width for the grouted joints. We know of no continental tile that has this facility. Second, in conjunction with our sister company, A. G. Tiles, H. & R. Johnson manufactures in 14 different sizes including those (200 x 150 mm, 200 x 200 mm and 300 x 200 mm) which you suggest are the preserve of the continentals. Rest assured, if the UK market demands even bigger tiles in sufficient commercial quantities then the companies of the Norcros Ceramic Division are quite prepared to meet that demand. Paul McGinty Stoke-on-Trent Quids out From John Harris, curator ofthe British Architectural Library Drawings Collection Sir: James Dunnett's appreciative review of Richard Seifert's exhibition at the Heinz Gallery contains a misstatement (AJ 21.11.84 p34). Seifert has never been a 'substantial benefactor' to the Heinz. Indeed he has never been a benefactor to the Drawings Collection at all. The fact that this comment is made at the end of Dunnett's article might convey the impression that the exhibition was a quid pro quo and this is certainly not the case. John Harris London WI I am sorry to have given an incorrect impresston, although I understand that Colonel Seifert has made generous benefactions to the RIBA in other respects. James Dunnett AJ 12 December 1984 23 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Norman Arnold Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived JA Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 15.3.85 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/c793431c2f286756c362c76401e85b5a.pdf 1a5d4d7009afb3b7c42ffb520489c5ee Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Professional Issues Description An account of the resource A cohort of NAM members became engaged with the professional registration body, standing as elected councillors on the Architects Registration Council and its various committees. Hitherto entirely dominated by the RIBA bloc, the Council began to yield to a new dynamic through NAM's involvement, enabling fresh perspectives on such issues as mandatory fee scales, greater lay representation on the body, ethically-based standards of professional conduct, etc. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letter to NAM ARCUK Councillors querying relationship between NAM and its ARCUK Councillors Description An account of the resource @ ©) It has become apparent at the last couple of liason group meetings that some 1.g. members are concerned as to the relationship between NAM and NAM members who sit on ARCUK. Some of this anxiety seems to stem from the press/public view of NAM/ARCUK. Despite your own (jrefer to the unattached ARCUK group as a whole) apparent insistence on being representatives of unattached architects first and NAM members in addition, the press continues to emphasise the existence of NAM as a power group within AKCUK. While this publicity helps to promote NAM (and hopefully its aims and policies) some members of the 1.g. feel that they do not have enough knowledge of the strategies and aims of NAM members within ARCUK and of what relevance these might be to the resolutions passed at the last congress und AGM. While the AKCUK group appears to want autonomy it 1s not unreasonable to assume that they wergelected partially as a result of their relationship to NAM and that they pursue NAM policies within the council. They also make applications to the l.g. for financial assistance in support of their activities. While ‘the 1.g. whishes to support those activities of the ARCUK group inpursuance of NAM policies it is unclear to what degree we should use NAM funds to finance them . It has been 1.g.'/8 policy with issue and local groups to encourage self financing as far as possible, although we would obviously provide whatever help we could in cases of financial difficulty. It is not clear however whether the ARCUK group should be (or whishes tobe) treated as an issue group of as a more independent body. (The constitution group might like to consider some of these points.) As a member of the l.g. responsible for keeping them informed on unattached ARCUK activities, I am writing this letter to try and express some of the feelings vented at recent 1.g. meetings and to ask you for your response. It would be of help to the 1.g. if you could send me a brief statement giving your own individual views on the above, specifically your relationship as an ARCUK coubillor to NAM, and any other comments you may wish to make.In addition, despite the fact that the London NAM group have decided against holding a group forum along the lines of Cardiff, it might be useful for you to arrange the attendance of a spokesperson at the next l.g. meeting. (10 Tolmers Square, 2pm, Sunday 2nd April). This would I believe,,be more in line with group forums as invisaged by last years 1.g. and resolved at last years ACM. Yours sincerely To all ARCUK councillor NAM members ee Norman Arnold 9 Midland Road leeds 6 13th March 1978 Norman F.Arnold Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Norman Arnold, Leeds Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Murray Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 13/03/1978 https://nam.maydayrooms.org/files/original/2875f3a530b6672716d8f51d3c0a8efb.pdf 1e7d6b2c0eeaa9ddc6567c54849b627b Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Miscellaneous Subject The topic of the resource Miscellaneous issues Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Various Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976-1980 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Meeting Notes Subject The topic of the resource 8 pp MS notes including "Reflections on Cardiff" by John Allan Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource North London Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived John Allan Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource Undated