What if you don't get laid off?

What can be expected once the economy turns around for those who remain employed?

What if you hate your current job but find yourself now fighting for it?

What opportunities or setbacks can be expected once the economy turns around (for those of us who keep our jobs)?

are you serious? eat a dick

Eat a dick? Are you suggesting I start applying to grad schools?

MArch, that was too funny, but seriously, danger does make a good point. the fear that he is not quite getting across is this; it is unlikely that when the economy starts to rebound, and you know it will, that firms will resume the hiring pace of the mid-90's, and they'll thank their gods for the work they will have. having read the "new" tea leaves, the profession will likely overburden those left behind, because they know that there are 3 or 4 deep looking to get re-hired. so, i share danger's concern. danger, when the economy starts back up, i'd still keep one toe in the water and continually evaluate all options.

but yeah eaating a dick does not hurt too, it doesn't mean you're gay, it just means you are putting food on the table, or at least that's what you can tell your parents....

If you don't get laid off you still get to collect a paycheck. Be happy.

historically, in economic declines like this one, employees who aren't laid off tend to cling tenaciously to their jobs, even if they're supremely unhappy. there's simply nowhere else to go and most people make decisions that are in their economic best interests.

however, when the economy starts to rebound and jobs start becoming available again, there's typically a jumble of people changing jobs in a fairly short period of time. some of these people have been suffering under pay cuts and discover that other firms with project work will pay them well to move. others simply hate the place they're working and easily rationalize that the grass will be greener elsewhere. whatever the reason or motivation, as the economy strengthens lots of people start to move around.

one thing to keep in mind ... during economic downturns firms are very sensitive to employee behavior that demonstrates loyalty, commitment and contribution. very often, the seeds of future promotion and added resonsiblity are sown during slow periods, when firms actually need people to step up to higher levels of responsibility and can pay close attention to what each individual really means to the firm long term.

we each have to make our own personal decisions about how we're going to react to this recession. IMO, times like these are a great opportunity to demonstrate your true character and ability to make a contribution.

Just count your blessings man!

And just dont ever vote republican ever again.

Blue Goose said this so well I'm just going to restate it using his words:

one thing to keep in mind ... during economic downturns firms are very sensitive to employee behavior that demonstrates loyalty, commitment and contribution. very often, the seeds of future promotion and added resonsiblity are sown during slow periods, when firms actually need people to step up to higher levels of responsibility and can pay close attention to what each individual really means to the firm long term

Be one of the ones who stays focused and strong during the downturn and it will likely pay off when things get better.

(This is also why I've not been on the 'nect much lately - I'm busting to keep my clients happy right now, I even just agreed to do a weekend meeting which I despise doing!)

i would say for the time being you fight to keep any sort of employment you can, even if you hate your job

you just need to be aware of what is going on, to know when the time is right to be able to find another job if the one you are klinging to now is not for you


i dont see any real setbacks if you keep your job now as long as you just keep your eyes open and be ready to move on when the job market gets better

you wont be looked down on by future employers if you were working during this economic crisis, and has been said, you might get more responsibility now anyway, which will only look better in the future

danger: firms rarely, if ever, keep their weaker staff and let their best people go during economic downturns ... what would be the sense of that?

so, I'm not really sure why you're asking this question ... what are you worried about? keep doing your job well, continue gaining experience, and hope your firm's situation doesn't deteriorate further.

give it time. the economic crisis is still in its infancy.

I bailed out of my last firm just before shit hit the fan both there and all accross the profession. You want to talk about a downright poisonous atmosphere? Trust me I have chilling stories that will haunt your dreams forever.

Leaving that firm was a decision I'll never regret for all of eternity and now I'm seriously 1000 times happier.

i may be in a similar situation as danger. i'm still working but my employer, to simplify it, cut my income: no health insurance, no paid vacations, no sick leaves...just straight out hourly wage at an employee level. on top of that all, they started reporting me as an independent contractor, which will bite me at the end of the year. my schedule and work is still as if i'm an employee.

should i be thankful or should i call the IRS?

Oooh, dammson, that's a tough one. Changing your status to independent contractor now is bad, bad business.

I don't know if you should call the IRS, but if you have a friend who knows tax law who would advise you over a beer you might want to call him/her.

Self Employment tax sucks.

That's some bullshit, dammson.

We keep hearing "stay late, show your loyalty, brown-nose...."

Employees are being asked to bend over backwards just to KEEP their jobs, meanwhile employers are (often) using this economic situation as an excuse to cut benefits, wages, etc....

Dustin, I think most of us here are under the impression that employers are suffering right along with employees. I know a lot of firm heads have taken significant pay cuts and are seriously busting their butts to keep the firms operating.

As in any situation, though, if you're working for a jerk, someone who you *honestly* suspect or you can prove is using the tough times as a way to squeeze more out of already overworked/underpaid staff, you should move on, or decide if the stress of unemployment is better or worse than the stress of the job.

dammson's situation sounds like the employer has gone over the line from "trying to hold it together" to "taking advantage".

Come on, LB, you know very well that every firm owner has multiple homes and cars, does nothing productive, and lives only to lay off talented and dedicated young employees, or cut the compensation of those who remain ;-)

After all, this has been demonstrated time and again by a wave of folks who have each been in the field at least three years..... come on!

sorry, i misread the thread title thinking it said 'what if you don't get laid'.

re: distant - firms rarely, if ever, keep their weaker staff and let their best people go during economic downturns ... what would be the sense of that?


in poorly managed firms it's usually the people who were critical of management who get let go first - often times the most talented people on staff (if they hadn't managed to quit beforehand). This happens a lot more than you might think.

toaster: "it's usually the people who were critical of management who get let go first - often times the most talented people on staff"

in my experience there's zero correlation between "the people who were critical of management" and "the most talented people on staff" - except in their own self-deluded minds

citizen, I have been through the experience I describe before firsthand. Three of us bailed out in the course of a month for related issues.

Point taken, Dustin.

And I give you credit for your "(often)" qualifier about bad employer practices. If only some of your brethren were as careful in their jeremiads.

"employers are (often) using this economic situation as an excuse to cut benefits, wages, etc...."

sorry - even with the qualifier, I just don't buy that statement as a general reflection of what's happenng.

the swiftness and magnitude of this economic decline has exceeded anything I've seen in my 35 years in the profession. the market is simply awful - there is no new work and projects under contract are being cancelled right and left.

many, many firms literally have been pushed right to the edge of insolvency. while I agree there may have been some abuse, I believe the vast majority of firms are simply doing what they need to do to survive - these economic conditions could only be considered an "excuse" for such actions if the firms were reducing costs further the expand theur profits.

Most firms today would be quit happy to simply break-even or suffer only a minor loss in 2009. Even so, I think we're going to see many more firms cease operations over the next few months.

It does nobody any good when a firm goes out of business.

sorry ... "reducing costs further to expand their profits" ... just can't seem to type early in the morning.

From what I've seen, this economy is so bad that firms are letting go of people they do not want to, they are not just letting go of the proverbial bad eggs. Firm's cutting over 50-75% of their staff are having to make decisions they probably never envisioned they would have to. If your a young architect and are still working I would hold onto it for the time being since unless you have another option, this is simply not the best time to be looking for one.

I have noticed an alarming tendency of my fellow architects to internalize their layoff, to blame the employer, gripe about other things. This is a fact of life for our profession, just like it is for finance, real-estate and other industries. Of course, I know there are lots of shady things happening at many firms, especially some that are probably illegal, but nonetheless getting layed-off in this economy is beyond the control of most and has very little to do with a person's real ability, skill, or talent. We are in a crisis, and over the last three months things have really shaken out in our industry. I'm assuming there is probably more pain to come, but I also believe we soon will reach that stabilizing point, where the layoffs will subside, and the hopefully things might start to brighten a little.

Remember, the recession will have ended before anyone knows it, just like it began right beneath our noses. What has surprised me the most about our current crisis, is how few architects were ready or attuned to what was happening, from the very top to the bottom of firms. A lot of firms until recently were proverbially "building castles in the sand," they were hoping for the best, rather than preparing for the worst. I'm not sure if this was due to naivety, ingnorance, or the whims of our profession

re: babs in my experience there's zero correlation between "the people who were critical of management" and "the most talented people on staff" - except in their own self-deluded minds

I agree, if you are openly critical of management in any office there is no reason for them to keep you around.

however - I said poorly managed firms when I meant to say abusive offices. and I didn't mean openly critical... me and english have a tricky relationship.

Most people just keep their heads down and quit when they get a chance, but if you stick up for yourself and do it in a constructive way, it can either make things better (rarely) or get you fired. I used to work for a very abusive boss, and there were some talented people there who just snapped. He would fire people who stood their ground, and he'd fire people if he thought they were breading discontent (which most people weren't because they were too scared). I used to think this was rare, but I've met other people over the years who have worked for other abusive bosses who would pull the same garbage.

anyway - I just think it's unfair to qualify laid-off individuals as being "weaker" employees - perhaps they were specialists or the most recent hires who were let go before they got a chance to prove themselves. or - the office simply had to cut back everyone except a couple key people...

dammson--
I think your employer is on very shaky legal ground. Read this from the IRS web site. If your employer controls anything except the final product--he has to pay the taxes. go to IRS.gov

Independent Contractor (Self-Employed) or Employee?

It is critical that you, the employer, correctly determine whether the individuals providing services are employees or independent contractors. Generally, you must withhold income taxes, withhold and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to an employee. You do not generally have to withhold or pay any taxes on payments to independent contractors.

Before you can determine how to treat payments you make for services, you must first know the business relationship that exists between you and the person performing the services. The person performing the services may be -

An independent contractor
An employee (common-law employee)
A statutory employee
A statutory nonemployee
In determining whether the person providing service is an employee or an independent contractor, all information that provides evidence of the degree of control and independence must be considered.

Common Law Rules

Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence fall into three categories:

Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?
Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another.

The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination.

Form SS-8

If, after reviewing the three categories of evidence, it is still unclear whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, Form SS-8, Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding (PDF) can be filed with the IRS. The form may be filed by either the business or the worker. The IRS will review the facts and circumstances and officially determine the worker’s status.

Be aware that it can take at least six months to get a determination, but a business that continually hires the same types of workers to perform particular services may want to consider filing the Form SS-8 (PDF).

I understand that it is very difficult to change an employee to an independent contractor. (see above) Since the self employment tax is over 15%, you need to be prepared, but I think your employer would lose this argument with the IRS. On the other hand, you might lose the position... Maybe you could wait until you file your taxes next year.

"how few architects were ready or attuned to what was happening, from the very top to the bottom of firms" - Jayness

Oh, so true. My wife's office, for example, was preparing to expand to another city right before the crash. And at my office it was business as usual until only one month ago once they realized there were so few new jobs out there. They were so unprepared even while other firms in town were going under - my bosses were just laughing it off...they seemed so clueless and cavalier.

Even I could sense a shortfall in the economy at the end of 2007...At a point where I was ready to quit and get a new job I somehow knew I needed to hold on to this job...when you are on the outside or the losing side of the growing bubble its easy to see that its about to burst.

The stereotype of the architect as a bad-with-money-artist is so frustrating...Architects shouldn't be surprised by relatively low pay if they continue being ambivalent to basic business and forecasting principles.

I can see why some here think many firms were operating with their heads in the sand ... however, I'm not sure that's entirely a fair criticism.

Speaking only from my own experience, when things started going south last fall, the decline was sudden and unprecedented with respect to its scope. Literally, I was gearing up to hire about 5-6 new people when overnight 3 major projects that had every appearance of being rock solid were put on hold by our clients. The cause was, of course, the difficulties in the financial markets.

My friends in other firms tell very similar stories ... in a matter of days, many of us went from an expansion mode to one of contraction.

I've been doing this for quite a long time and I have never, in all my long career, witnessed market conditions even remotely similar to what started last fall and continues today. Even where they exist, "basic business and forecasting principles" are of little value in conditions like these.

Firms are trying to adapt, but when entire markets disappear overnight, adaptation does take a little time.

"one thing to keep in mind ... during economic downturns firms are very sensitive to employee behavior that demonstrates loyalty, commitment and contribution. very often, the seeds of future promotion and added resonsiblity are sown during slow periods, when firms actually need people to step up to higher levels of responsibility and can pay close attention to what each individual really means to the firm long term." - BlueGoose

I am hoping you are right on this one, BG. Because we suffered two layoffs and our studio was diminished to a miniscule amount of what it once was. I saw this as my time to find ways to be a leader. So I have stepped up, and although I would normally get paid OT, I wanted to be a leader on a project and to do something that no one else knew- which was going to ultimately benefit the client, and our budget. I took ownership of it and saw it not as the hours I was getting paid- but the job that had to be completed. I know I make contributions and step up whenever I can- and today it was noticed by my VP. My review is coming up soon- and I can see where what you have said will come to ring true. But the rewards will come in the long term and probably not during this quarter.

What people sometimes see as someone "stepping on toes", is actually someone stepping up to the plate when everyone else was just standing around. I can't believe how- even of the people who are left- so many will leave early during the middle of a deadline, not complete a task to the best possible quality, or simply back out of any responsibility. Yet I hear them regularly talking about how scared they are to lose their jobs. It's absurd.

This was one lame ass question. But here is the answer for you.

After the economy comes back and people start designing and building again, you will have several months if not years of experiance to draw upon. You should probably have been able to take on new responsibilities while learning new things related to this profession. When people start to get hired again the firm will need those older more experianced people to take on and lead teams and projects.

This should be you. If they start to hire new people and put them in charge of you, there is a problem and it is you.

why do we always need to qualify our answers with talking down or bad against the original poster?

Many firms are both terminating employees as well as significantly reducing compensation for remaining employees. Those still employed are facing reduced salaries (I've heard here in Chicago a range from 5% to 15%), and reduced "work hours" (a "4-day" or "32 hour" workweek is the equivalent of a 20% wage cut). Many firms have also stopped 401K contributions.

Yes, I agree lay-offs and compensation reductions are needed at many architectural firms to keep firms afloat, and to preserve cash to continue to operate firm during the recession period. I fully understand and accept these practices, so long as compensation reductions don't become permanent. These salary reductions are occurring to people whose salaries might have increased only at 2% - 3% cost-of-living increases per year while receiving larger bonuses to reflect "contribution to firm" compensation. Many firms were doing this to scale-back "automatic" salary increase expectations while incentivising and compensating employees for "due effort". With salary cuts now occurring, some people are back to their salary scale from 2 years ago to maybe 5 years ago, or less.

For example, if your annual salary was $100,000 as of last review and the firm reduces salaries by 10%, you're down to $90,000. Then firm goes to "4-day week/32 hours" and you're down to $72,000. Now it's really a 28% earnings reduction, while your household budget is still based on your last review and salary/bonus. For people supporting a household, or with a mortgage and other significant debt, it's difficult. Yes, you still have a job, but you're also scrambling. (And you don't have the luxury of hating your job unless you live at home with your parents.)

Secondly, even if firm's official week is now 32 hours/4 days, reality is that most people will do "8-hour/5-day" office face-time to make sure their continuing loyal contribution is noted even if the office is slow. Maybe real work week becomes 40 hours, with those extra 8 hours "for free". It's not a good plan for a second job, or for repairing your house. (A lot of middle-aged architects I know have houses that need to be fixed.) It's up to the office principals to make sure firm doesn't take advanctage of its remaining employees' anxiety regarding face-time.

Big question is will those wage "roll-backs" be rectified, and will wages be appropriately readjusted to original wage scale, when economy improves.

I feel for people with their jobs as much as those without them ... I fortunately can easily survive on my unemployment, assuming I get a job before it runs out, where I would then have to eat into my savings. On the other hand, most of my friends still employed are getting benefit cuts, salary cuts, or even worse, expected to work a crap ton of additional unpaid hours just to keep their job, and still in the end have their head right there on the chopping block with everyone else. We're still in total cut-throat territory, don't be fooled that your additional work will be well rewarded in the end, I've been there too many times where that has just fallen through.

a "4-day" or "32 hour" workweek is the equivalent of a 20% wage cut

Let's at least get our terms straight: a 20% wage cut is when your pay is cut by 1/5 but you are still required to work five days for it. A 4-day workweek is when you get to do what you want with one day, which could include doing some freelance, helping out at another office, or even flipping burgers to make some extra money.

Emilio, like I said, will principals make sure 4-day week actually occurs w/o penalty to those who stay home the 5th day or do only 32-hour week. Too often this becomes another loyalty litmus test of "face-time" and "commitment", where the 5th day is still spent in the office and nobody wants to be the first bunch to go home at the end of the day. Remaining clients still want their calls returned same day, work done, etc. HR still looking for people for The List.

So let me get this straight: the principal(s) of a firm announce that they are going to a 4 day work week, reduce your pay accordingly, and then expect that you show up the 5th day and work?!?....yea, I would stay with that firm real long.

emilio ... you're not getting it ... you're free to leave such circumstances any time you want and, quite frankly, the firm probably would be glad to see you go ... especially with an attitude like the one you exude. but, where are you, and your attitude, going to go?

when the Titanic went down, some people made it into life boats, the rest went into the water. which group survived?

most firms aren't doing this to take advantage of their staff ... they're simply trying to remain afloat with as much of their crew intact as possible. if you're not happy with the circumstances, take a hike ... there's a ton of folks out there who'd be delighted to have your job.

if you continue to think like an hourly, blue collar worker, you're going to be one of the ones in the water. you might want to consider whether it's time to lose the attitude.

what is the big deal? if your office goes to a 4-day work week, work four days and go home. i wholeheartedly believe that its architects' insistence that not working that fifth day will be their demise is one of the major innate business flaws architects have somehow ingrained. if you don't go in for that fifth day, the world keeps turning, folks.

yea, babs, what fucking attitude? the firm would be glad to see me go?!? a firm that acts that way should be brought to court, called on the carpet...attitude? what the fuck are you talking about? with an outlook like yours you're going to be shit on your whole life.

man, architects will just accept any garbage thrown at them, unbelievable.

well, I guess you told me. enjoy the water.

yea, babs, whatever.....i've survived in architecture just fine without being taken advantage in that way so far, and kept my self respect to boot...but go ahead and bend over for you master principals...

emilio, glad you've got it all figured out.

you have a nice life.

It's sometimes a thin line between principals' "save firm" by belt-tightening business decisions and staff's perception of those declining wages, benefits, and reduced workweek hours. But firms are facing unusual and frightening economic circumstances. Most remaining staff understand this.

Some younger staff people perhaps don't have families and major loans to support, and can self-righteously maintain a "me first" attitude as their firm tries to stay ahead of financial meltdown. But such expressed opinions suggest likely lay-offs for those people in the near future, if still employed, because it's hard to mask that kind of self-centeredness when closely observed by senior staff assembling "lay-off lists". Every positive employee trait is now counted; every negative trait magnified. Be sure of it.

During the Great Depression many employed people (including professions) worked reduced hours, which reduced their wages but kept some cashflow coming into the household. Unemployment was very high then, but so was underemployment. Read up on it, because it's becoming more prevalent now. Most of us are happy to still have our jobs, even with reduced salary, loss of 401K contributions, etc, because we still need cashflow to sustain ourselves and our families.

I'd rather work for a firm that takes these actions to save my job for a few more months, than to be laid off, knowing that here in Chicago no firm is hiring at any level now or for the 2009 future. I could get mad about it, display an angry attitude towards the firm, or foolishly quit, but these are wholly self-defeating acts now.

When my old firm went to 32 hours, everyone still worked at least 40 hours. The pay cut (the portion of our salaries that added up to 20%) was presented by the firm as a we're-all-in-this-together life saving measure. This was a firm of 20 people that had great benefits, wonderful office environment, and felt very much like a family.

We all survived, working those 8+ "unpaid" hours every week, for a few months, then things turned around and we went back to normal hours/wages.

I know this is hard for younger people to understand, because you possibly don't have the life and social experience to read the cards right at your firm. If you're in a firm of 100, you're a number not a name to HR and the principals, the firm has a reputation for chewing up and spitting out interns...then a move to a nominal 32 hours week that actually requires you to still work 50 hours is possibly a lousy situation. If it's a smaller firm and you can see there is suffering on all levels and the firm is desperately trying to keep you employed, that's a situation where being "One of the team" counts.

For younger interns and those who have not had a lot of job experience: I'll say it again: there are A:: kinds of firm cultures out there. now is obviously a terrible time to be looking for a job in a great environment, but those firms do exist. Don't get bitter until you've been around for awhile. Just ride out the times we are in and set a goal for yourself to find a better gig when things get busy again.

the reason why lay offs are happening is because there is no work. generally when a firm goes down to a 32 hour work week it is because there are not enough projects to keep the staff billable for 40 hours. keep that in mind. simply put, if you are still billable for 40 and getting paid for 32, you are getting screwed.

while I understand where jafidler's comments come from, keep in mind that you also need to look at the workload available across the office -- it's never evenly distributed.

firms tend to make layoff decisions and salary reduction decisions based on macro economic information. these decisions don't necessarily drill down to the project level in every single case.

so, it's entirely possible that a firm of some size will have layoffs, institute salary reductions and after all that happens, some people remain overbusy on project work and others have time on their hands and are assigned to overhead projects.

in the best of all worlds, the work could be (would be) redistributed so that everybody is equally busy with project work. but, the reality is that such redistribution many times simply doesn't make sense.

because of these conditions, it's not necessarily true that someone who's job-chargeable for 40 hours but only paid for 32 is getting screwed. it's entirely possible the firm made the pay cut decision in order to keep a specific set of people at the firm. if the cost reduction had been implemented entirely by staff cuts, that same person easily could have lost his/her job had the firm felt someone else - who might not be as busy - was more important to the firm long term.

bottom line -- these are extremely hard decisions for a firm to make, especially if they're trying to think through all the ramifications. as someone above mentioned, there probably are some abuses taking place. but, don't automatically assume that you're getting screwed if you remain busy after a pay cut is implemented -- you might be lucky to still have your job.

hang in there people --- this won't last forever

stone, i understand the firm macro-economics behind layoffs and pay-cuts, but to see various staff members billing to overhead projects for the last six months (how many times do the g.d. pen tables need to be revised?) while the staff that is still billable busts their hump to complete projects does get a little frustrating. while cad committee guy goes home at 5 everyday, the billable project team is there till 8 or 9, and we're all in this together singing kumbaya, let's get through this with our 20% paycuts?

to me, this is a management issue. if cad committee guy is capable, why not bring him onto the billable project team that is drowning with work? the pm would likely say, "well, we don't have enough hours in our contract to add another team member?" but we do have the hours to have him dink around with layer management?

there's firm macro-economics and then there's firm "macro-management," and from what i've seen they don't always jive.

jafidler -- I concur -- it is a management issue and it can lead to unfairness and abuse if it lasts too long. hopefully, most firms will find ways to make appropriate workload adjustments fairly quickly to ease and equalize the burden.

my earlier post was intended to note solely that it is not always and automatically abuse when some individuals work 40 hours but only receive pay for 32.

Listen...this is the WORST economic crisis in this country since the Great Depression, and you guys are talking as if your firms have a personal vendetta against YOU. This is not about YOU, it's about the economy. In October 2008 everything came to a screeching halt. Banks stopped lending, which is the fuel that runs the projects we all work on. The only sectors that are still moving are those that have their own money: healthcare, institutional and government.

The entire professional is contracting more than anyone has seen in the last 30 years or more. Most firms have never experienced a slowdown in work of this magnitude. This is a major crisis and firms are forced to take extreme measures to deal with it.

If you are still employed, you have two choices. You can stay or leave. If you decide you want to stay, you have to do what it takes to retain your position. If you think that your firm is abusive, or that the demands being made on you are unreasonable, you should start actively looking for another job, even though it may take many months to find one.

If you are unemployed, you have two choices. You can stay in architecture or you can go outside the field. If you stay, you are going to have to be prepared for an extended job search, and the job you finally land will probably pay less and have fewer benefits than it would have a year ago. If you go outside the field, you will probably still have an extended job search, and you may have to give up design. But you might find a job you enjoy, and possibly something that pays better and/or has better benefits, such as working for the government or in a large corporation in facilities.

Enough of the emotion and complaining. These are hard times. You need to be clearheaded and focused and make the right choices for yourself.

stone/houston, none of my comments were meant to target you or anyone else posting on this board. my comments are simply in regards to a situation that i happen to be seeing in my office and a situation that i do not think is all that uncommon in our current economy. in some respects perhaps i am complaining, but it's more because of the burden i see being put on my project team than anything related to me personally. frankly i am grateful to have a job and would prefer to be putting in long hours doing satisfying project-related work than slogging through overhead.

these decisions come down to the philosophies of layoffs versus paycuts and how it affects the psychology of an office. obviously i favor layoffs over pay-cuts, but if we are going to keep the entire staff together, we need to find ways to creatively use the resources at hand to make the office run more efficiently and not over-burden some while others merely ride it out.

Wasn't really pointed at you, jafidler, more at some other posts, and some on the "layoffs...layoffs..." discussion. Unbalanced workloads are a management issue that is always present.

Here in Houston, i have heard of 4 or 5 firms going to 32-hour work weeks, and 1 or 2 cutting pay by 20% but not hours. Layoffs citywide have been ranging from 10% to 20% on average, with a few retail firms at 50% and over. Firms here doing heavy healthcare and government are not laying off yet that I have heard.

It is interesting that firms are even considering the 20% pay cuts rather than simply laying off more people. In some ways it is riskier: even in this economy, a firm could lose its best people who may seek another offer elsewhere. But I think these firms remember how difficult it was to find highly qualified people just six months ago and are reluctant to lay off good staff, PAs & PMs.

just think.... the longer your out of work..the more your student loans double on you and you get screwed by the lending institutions... been there and still pissed


if you have a job... keep it for now... its a pain looking for another especially now...... not much going on anywhere unless you work for the oil industry.

wtf, am I living in some form of alternate universe? Look, it's very simple: if the principal of a firm tells me "We don't have enough work to keep everyone employed five days a week, we are now going to a 4-day (or 3-day) work week work week and you will not be paid for that one (or two) day(s) then I'm going to believe that they don't have enough work for me to do for a full week and I'M NOT FRIGGING GOING IN ON THOSE ONE OR THOSE TWO DAYS and that's all there is to it for me....and if they want to get rid of me for actually not coming in those days, well, honestly, fuck them. Now, if anyone here thinks that's a strange way to read the situation, well, I've got an answer for you too.

exactly

hee hee ... emilio ... you're funny!

yea, and you're a scream

Emilio you realize that if you were a boss you'd be exactly the kind of abusive, unsympathetic, controlling power-mad asshole boss that you're afraid of working for. Right?

At least that's the way the posts you put up here read. It's sad that those kinds of bosses are all you've been - or think you've been - exposed to in your career.

my previous boss must be a really good lover.

i am not sure how, right now in this economy, taking the stand that you are insulted if your company has cutbacks or temporarily you get paid less than a 5 day week, yet you are expected to work 5 days

there is not always some huge conspiracy by the bosses

my firm had to cut everyone to 4 day pay checks yet we are still working 5 days
the point is the firm is surviving and i still have a job

if when the economy gets better, they dont reinstitute the salaries, then its time to leave

but to think that i should just say, fuck them and walk, is a tad dramatic

if you want to look at it a different way, there is enough work for 5 day weeks, just the fees are less due to the economy, so naturally our salaries are reflectant of that

making demands never seems right unless you are forced to, and no offense, but in this economy, taking some righteous stand against getting your full pay even when the firm isnt getting fully paid, doesnt seem like a smart career move

hopefully you will have another place to work lined up that fulfills all your "requirements" so if your current firm calls your bluff, you wont be out of work

if you want to look at it a different way, there is enough work for 5 day weeks, just the fees are less due to the economy, so naturally our salaries are reflectant of that

this statement is not accurate of how firms bill. billings rates have not changed; there are simply fewer projects in most offices, so there are fewer billable employees. that's why revenue is down.

jafidler: what you describe is true in some firms, but it is far from being universal.

in our firm, 99.9% of our contracts are fixed fee contracts. we're in the unenviable position of having a large proportion of work in CA right now - the workload has not diminished but our billings are way, way down.

we've explained this to our staff and implemented 20% pay cuts. so far, our staff "gets" what we're trying to do (i.e. save their jobs) and morale remains high as we work through the problem.

times like these reveal the true character of individual firms and individual employees. as evidenced by some of the angry posts above, it seems to be true of 'necters too!

Emilio, since you obviously think your firm is just trying to screw you, go find another job. Oh wait,...you can't because no one is hiring? Gee, I wonder why no one is hiring. Could it be because THERE"S NOT ENOUGH WORK?

jafidler
i wasnt making a general statement about how fees are collected, because there is no single way it is done everywhere, i dont know why anyone would think it is done the same everywhere
so it is completely accurate about how some places bill

i am speaking specifically about my firm and how we are working through this bad economy

i have been working on steady projects for 3 years now, so if we bill and collect the same, i shouldnt have needed to take a pay cut

collections are probably worse off than fees right now, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to collect from clients in a reasonable amount of time

and eventually that just snowballs to the point

sometimes part of a fee due is better than none recieved at all


this is mainly for work that was started before the economy fell
you cant always just stop work on a project because a client is late with a fee, especially in this economy, you have to work with them as you can

jafidler
i wasnt making a general statement about how fees are collected, because there is no single way it is done everywhere, i dont know why anyone would think it is done the same everywhere
so it is completely accurate about how some places bill

i am speaking specifically about my firm and how we are working through this bad economy

i have been working on steady projects for 3 years now, so if we bill and collect the same, i shouldnt have needed to take a pay cut

collections are probably worse off than fees right now, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to collect from clients in a reasonable amount of time

and eventually that just snowballs to the point

sometimes part of a fee due is better than none recieved at all


this is mainly for work that was started before the economy fell
you cant always just stop work on a project because a client is late with a fee, especially in this economy, you have to work with them as you can

From the March 2 issue of The New Yorker, "Nice Work if You Can Get It" by James Surowiecki:

"...bosses are afraid of what economists call “adverse selection”: if they cut wages, it’s the least productive workers who would be the most likely to stay, while the best workers would start looking elsewhere. (Even in a weak economy, businesses still compete for talent.) In a 1997 study of almost two hundred employers, the economists Carl Campbell and Kunal Kamlani found that the threat of losing their best employees was a major reason that bosses didn’t cut wages.

Even more important is the impact of wage cuts on morale. After the 1990-91 recession, the economist Truman Bewley interviewed managers and labor officials at more than two hundred companies and found that most believed that wage cuts wreck employee morale and eat away at productivity. Whatever money they’d save by cutting wages, bosses assume, would be cancelled out by the decline in effort and the breakdown of trust that wage cuts would create. Not everyone believes this: in the past month, both Hewlett-Packard and FedEx have announced plans for pay cuts. But generally, when sales and profits drop, wages aren’t cut, even in firms undergoing layoffs. Of course, layoffs don’t exactly help morale, but, as one of the bosses that Bewley interviewed coldly put it, they “get the misery out the door.” Cutting wages keeps the misery around.

you sound like an good worker, marm. keep it up.

houston, yes, that is precisely my point. paycuts are the "socialist" approach to internal economic distress. everyone sacrifices equally, the best and the worst; that doesn't do much for incentive. of course, the firm's gamble is that the best will never leave, that leaving in this market is the equivalent of being thrown out to sea, but in terms of the long term health of the firm and the satisfaction of its employees, paycuts are in my view a major risk.

so if your firm proposed pay cuts as a way to avoid major layoffs or the firm closing, you would say screw it, i refuse?

pay cuts are of course a major risk and a last resort

if the long term health of the firm is either it will close for good, or you have to make some cuts just to survive, which would you choose?


if all you think of is yourself, of course you should refuse to take a pay cut. personally, i didnt have anything else lined up currently, i think my firm is a decent place to work, so i decided to take the cut now and work through the bad economy

if the economy gets better and compensation isnt given, then we have a completely different situation, and honestly, i imagine a lot of people will not be adequately compensated for having major pay cuts for a substantial amount of time


but to say paycuts are "socialist" is a bit extreme
or do you just feel that everyone else should get fired before you, so you can keep your original salary?

i would say most well run places are not instituting pay cuts to make a profit
they are doing so to stay in business
and in a tough economy, people have to work together, and think of more than themselves

our firm has been bleeding cash - and people - for about six months now. we've already lost all the people who had marginal skills, poor attitudes and bad work habits. everybody who's left is strong and, in every respect, a "keeper". however, business conditions are terrible and continue to worsen.

we've debated at length the relative merits and risks of pay cuts - in the end, we felt the risk to be worth taking. besides, we're at a point where any further job cuts would be difficult to make - we'd probably have to draw straws.

our people seem to understand why we're doing this and more than a few have dropped by to say how much they appreciate still having a job, even at the lower pay. time will tell I suppose, but for now it seems the right decision for our firm.

Emilio you realize that if you were a boss you'd be exactly the kind of abusive, unsympathetic, controlling power-mad asshole boss that you're afraid of working for. Right?

At least that's the way the posts you put up here read. It's sad that those kinds of bosses are all you've been - or think you've been - exposed to in your career.

Oh my God, I think I really am in some parallel universe where I can't make myself understood in any language. lb, how did you get all that from what I wrote? I am speaking AGAINST "controlling power-mad asshole bosses" who are liars to boot - and I have been a boss and have been the EXACT OPPOSITE of the bosses you describe above and HAVE NOT, for the most part, been exposed to those kinds of people in my career: which is exactly why I won't tolerate certain types of treatment from bosses who act like that, I don't care how many people in this forum argue that, because of the economy right now, you must bend over and take any sorts of treatment to keep your job. I am just drawing the line somewhere: others may draw it somewhere else, that's their perogative. And if you draw a line, then you accept the consequences, that goes without saying, but I don't really want to work for people who act like that.

Maybe it was my rough language, but babs was just getting on my nerves with a groveling, "we must never question our superiors" attitude, and preaching to me as if I was not probably double his age or more (just guessing here). I was arguing about one specifice case that all of us may come across in this profession (and others): the cutting back of work week days and corresponding salary. So I'll state my point of view once again in the form of a question to you, lb (and others here): if a boss announces to the office that all employees should now work three days a week because there is not enough work to keep everyone busy five days a week, then I should read between the line and interpret that as "You better come in the other two days anyway and do work that I don't have for you to do, in order to show your loyalty and committment to the firm, or I will most likely fire you the first chance I get", is that right?...and if I refuse to tolerate such bold faced deception and usury (and you are the one who argued against people using other people in negative ways in another thread just recently) then that makes me a terrible, abusive, unsympathetic, controlling power-mad asshole, is that correct?

and yes, lb, I read what you wrote about the firm above, presenting it as "we're all in this together", and I don't agree with it, I'm sorry; and I also don't agree with your giving it as "advice to young people" who don't know yet, either. If the firm does have the closeness you describe above, then just say "We will lower your salaries for a period, until things get better, let's all stick together in this" (and even that request is debatable), but why put it as "We're now in a 4-day work week where you actually work 5 days"? To me that's very silly, because cutting to a shorter week is done when there isn't enough work for everyone, but you still want to keep everyone employed, so you distribute less work out evenly to each employee over less days. In that case, why come in the other day or two days and do work that doesn't exist? how does that show your loyalty to the firm? For me, if the situation is stated as "a 4-day workweek" or "a 3-day workweek", then I will not be coming in the other day or days, and if that makes me weird, then so be it.

and I am presently not a boss, but am working in a firm where I know for a fact that the principals are honest and nice enough not to make such a forked-tongue request.

ok, i have to respond to huston too, since I just honed in on lb's comment and missed it before.

Emilio, since you obviously think your firm is just trying to screw you, go find another job. Oh wait,...you can't because no one is hiring? Gee, I wonder why no one is hiring. Could it be because THERE"S NOT ENOUGH WORK?

I just want people to speak to me honestly and with respect, no matter who they are and what the economy is doing and how tough it is to find a job. And as for your second point, "THERE"S NOT ENOUGH WORK"...THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING!!!!!! Why show up for the two or three days you've been asked not to show up at the office to do WORK THAT IS NOT THERE??? Is that so damn hard to understand?

I can hear you loud and clear, emilio. I was on "reduced salary" right before I was laid off. I was the PM on the only billable job we had in the office. The client was paying us hourly, and didn't know that I was on reduced salary. The project had demands past a 32 hour work week, but how do you tell a client that you can't work on her project at the level she demands because your company doesn't want to pay you for it, even if she does? You don't. So I put in the time, but found it to be an ethical dilemma, especially since the job was billed hourly and the company was getting paid for every hour I put in. I think it's funny that I was actually laid off on a day that I wasn't even being paid to be there, but HAD to because my phone was ringing, design decisions were flying and hitting that deadline was imperative for her business. It didn't help that the principal in charge never cared to understand the scope of the project; he insisted it was a plan stamp job, whereas she wanted, and was paying for, me to design custom light fixtures for example.

How soon we forget that architects suck at business, which is something most of you willingly admit. This thread has more than a few insights as to what we do wrong.

Yes, Strawbeary, we do a lot of things wrong and many of us love to exaggerate and perpetuate wrong thinking.

when the Titanic went down, some people made it into life boats, the rest went into the water. which group survived?

it's statements like the above that really gall me and make me feel sorry for the person making them, and it's an overwhelming attitude in this thread and other "layoff" threads here. I usually hate the "I'll tell you youngsters what's what" lecture, but since I also have a few years behind me, here's a couple of points:

- Losing you job is NOT dying. Your job is not your life; you will survive and live on another day after a layoff. If tomorrow morning architecture is over with, done, no more new buildings or renovations, will you then kill yourself? Well, sorry, I ain't gonna follow you, there's a few other things I'd like to do that will keep me well occupied.

- Being taken advantage of, mistreated, lied to, abused, and otherwise enslaved by a boss or bosses should never be, under any circumstance, "business as usual", "the way it is in architecture", "it is what it is" (this last one of the most heinous sayings ever created) and it makes me sad that so many here at Archinect treat it as such. And never, ever, in any circumstance, should working for free for anyone, I don't care if it's Eisenmann or Joe Schmoe, be legal and condoned (and don't come at me with "well, the interns are willing to do it".)

(I just had a conversation at dinner with a couple of non-architects about the "a 3-day week in architecture really means you have to work 5 at lower pay" issue and they were appalled that we accept that kind of abuse and that people were berating me here for daring to suggest that that such conduct by bosses is wrong. One of them even reminded me that in situation were there is a union involved, you would not even be admitted into the premises on the two "off" days.)

Emilio, I have similar conversations with non-architect friends. These people are professionals, and they understand business ethics, they know they have rights as employees. It's not that hard. If you are providing a service, you get paid for it. If someone can't to pay you to do something, then they need to figure out something else. It's called being responsible.

i am not sure i follow
how is going to a 4 day work week when expected to work 5 days different from just a 20% pay cut?

are you saying if they just said to you up front, we are cutting salaries so we can make ends meet, then that is ok?


if the choice is take a pay cut, or lose your job, i am not sure why taking a pay cut is wrong or being taken advantage of
especially if it is an across the board pay cut, everyone in the firm

would you seriously refuse a pay cut and be laid off just on that principle alone?
the ego of an architect can be staggering if so
being "appalled" and calling this "abuse" is a little ridiculous and extreme given the economy

no one is making money with these pay cuts, it is about a firm's ability to continue existing
my firm would have closed without our pay cuts and employee cuts

now of course, i imagine most of these pay cuts or 4 day work weeks or whatever they are called are all supposed to be temporary with the way the economy is

once the economy comes back, things should be reinstated and compensation should be given

if and when that time comes, it will say a lot about a firm with how they handle that situation



and the union situation is an interesting but irrelevant one to this discussion i think

I also need to say that I think the people on archinect tend to consider themselves progressive. Shouldn't we be advocating responsible behavior instead of justifying outdated practices? Remember, women weren't allowed to vote till 1920, and plenty of wise, successful men advocated keeping it so that they couldn't. It doesn't mean they were right. If you don't fight for your rights, you don't deserve them.

Marm, in my case, there was nothing ever said about a paycut at all, it was a 32 hour work week, with an implied, but unspoken, paycut, that was comfirmed on payday.

this thread seems to have gone off the deep end of emotion. guess that's a sign of the stressful times we're in - it's sad, really.

our firm considered reducing the workweek as a cost savings measure. we decided not to do that because we never could figure a way to balance the project workload equitably and efficiently.

we decided instead to implement across-the-board paycuts, with the more highly paid folks taking a higher percentage cut.

when people don't have enough project work to do, we have a backlog of "overhead" projects we're assigning to those people - we figure this will make us more efficient and effective when this economic mess recedes.

we explained our rational to our staff and also explained other options we had rejected, and why. I think they thought it would be worse (i.e more terminations) and seemed to appreciate being treated as stakeholders and adults.

we made this decision knowing some of our people might find it necessary to leave. we told them that, but also told them we really hoped they'd all stay. so far, nobody's left.

these are very tough times and very tough decisions.

Emilio, I get your parallel universe comment, so I'm sorry to frustrate you so much, and yes, I think abusive bosses are absolutely not to be tolerated. Your comments have sounded so hardline that I couldn't help but make the parallel with an old boss of mine whose secretary/wife used to time our lunch hours.

My comment directed to younger staff relates to my stand on abusive bosses: only you can determine whether your boss is truly abusive or not; only you know if you are being taken advantage of. Many interns may have only worked in one or two offices: I have known interns who thought their boss consistently "forgetting" to pay them on payday then delaying for another week was normal business behavior (it's not, it's incredibly unethical).

On the other hand, there's nothing unethical about publicly instituting an all-staff pay cut for the same amount of work time, and it is completely different from saying we're going from a 5-day to a 4-day workweek.

We are in an incredibly difficult market. Taking a hardline position that "not getting paid for every minute of my time means I'm quitting" is anyone's choice, but they should know that 1. it's likely that a sacrifice now can lead to a payoff later and 2. there's likely no other job to be had out there. It's a gamble that everyone has to decide on their own.

thats what happens when firms bid low to get work.... they get the work but expect everyone to work for free....

if i get cut down to 32 hours a week salary, guess what.... i'm only doing 32 hours.....

this is the reason why i never believed in salary but more on hourly rates.

salary just screws you........ if there's no work then you dont work or if the firm wants to keep you around then they drop you down to 24-32 hours a week just to keep some duckets in your pocket..

if companies can't pay for it, then they don't get it.......it's that simple...

maybe the design should suffer if the billable hours are not there..... stop wasting time on over designing shit and changing minds..... lay it down and thats that.....if clients change shit, then they pay.... how hard is it really....

man, this is like a broken record

how is going to a 4 day work week when expected to work 5 days different from just a 20% pay cut?

marmkid, read my original comment above about those two things not being the same, and the next comment by chicago,ill that set all of this off.

I made a very simple statement that going to 4 or three day workweek is different because then you can use the 1 or 2 days free to make some extra income if you wish and recoup some or all of the lost salary, whereas a straight cut in salary requires you to still work a full week or more...

whereupon chicago said, no, if you actually take those days for yourself you will be punished because it will be a test of your "face-time" and "commitment", upon which I said bullshit, I would never except such doublespeak from a boss - and please NOTE, I was only speaking for myself, and as lb wrote above, only you can decide how much crap you will accept be thrown on you in this profession...

and this is taken by lb and others as a "hardline stance" and by babs as a sign of "my attitude" and by houston as a sign that I think every boss "is trying to screw me" WTF?!? well, at least some people here understood what I was saying, and I'm tired of explaining it, so I'll see you in the funny papers.

Emilio I guess you and your selfish attitude have already forgotten the salad days of architecture when you were paid 48 hours for 40 hours and there were all those furniture, carpet, wall covering reps bringing in panera bread breakfasts. how soon you forget. how soon.

i am with emilio on this. 32 hours means 4, 8 hours days. it could be any day of the week so if face time important to the company, they can rotate the off days between different personel who are accepting the 32 a week schedule due to economy.
if you are working on an hourly salary, i think it is bullshit to cut someone's hours by 8 hours and expect them to show up 5 days. what about the driving time, lunch money and the possibility of doing freelance work on the cut 8 hours which is really 24 hours?
average work day for the employee is;
let's say you wake up 2 hours ahead of time, drive to work for 1/2 hours each way and lets say you have to stop and fedex office work stop at the printer stop to get gas, groceries or after hour meeting with a co worker for a beer to wait for the traffic to die down, etc., it easily shoots up to 12-14 hours. by cutting 2 hours work time everyday to 6 hours, is not really benefitting you all that much.

it is like doing value engineering by cutting the sq. ft of drywall. but drywaller still has to set it up, buy materials, deliver, install, tape, mud, sand, clean up etc. you are basically trying to value engineer the work he performs the fastests. at that point, it doesn't make that much difference to him if he has to install a dozen panels less. so you don't get the big reduction on his price. because he knows very well he still has to come to the job site same number of days.

emilio and Orhan are right on target with their statements, you need those extra days to pound the pavement for small projects and contract work to fill in the gaps. Don't be a slave.

for the last several years I've been lucky enough to always have one or two freelance projects going on the side. At times it was hard when things ramped up at the office. I found myself working 7 days a week.

Since I was laid off, I've been working that small network I built up full time. While everyone is slow, I'm still managing to pull something in here and there. Its really been the only thing keeping me afloat.

About half of the people I went to school with are laid off, the other half are either miserable and can't quit or are working on reduced hours/pay.

I think alot of them are now realizing why I did what I did and are less critical of my moonlighting.

Respect begets Loyalty. If they respect you and your need to survive, they should be supportive of you taking those days to do what you need to do. Whether it is freelance work, studying for the ARE, less day day care expenses, finishing your own kitchen so you can sell, etc.

OK, OK, I'll accept that going to a 4-hour week is different from an across the board pay cut, and I said so above. If your boss flat out says "I have 32 hours of work for you this week" then fine, show up for your 32 and spend the extra day doing freelance work - that's a decent arrangement.

But there is also a difference in salary vs. hourly mentality here, not just in pay, but in mentality. I for one would not go back to being an hourly worker; as Steven has posted here on archinect (maybe a year or so ago), there is a level of professionalism and trust that comes with being salaried that implies that you no longer have to have a secretary timing your lunches because you'll get the job done whether it's 40 hours or 50 (or 35). Again, if your firm is consistently assigning you 50 hours of work and beating you up to only bill for 40 of it, that could be categorized as poor management aka abusive.

The point is to be able to speak openly about the situation, as cadcroupier said, acting professionally, in a way that both demands respect AND is respectful of the others in the situation. Stomping around and whining about only putting in the bare minimum required is not going to gain you any respect.

Also, remember that if a firm is trying to keep you in your health insurance, they may need to define a pay cut as "32 hours" to keep you nominally "full time". Keeping those benefits is worth more than an 8 hour day that you're not getting "paid" for.

If on the other hand they end your benefits and suddenly start paying you as a contract worker, as with dammson above, that's bullshit.

wow - the angst here is palpable

it might be useful to say that as the marketplace has changed in recent months and as firms have adapted to the new reality, many are finding that the little work that's available is only coming at significantly reduced fee levels.

compensation structures that made sense in 2006 through mid-2008 no longer make sense in this new economy. firms are faced with the daunting prospect of walking away from low fee work (a bad thing, resulting in further lay offs) or asking their staff to work at lower wages (another bad thing, resulting in pay reductions).

every firm has to make its own decisions on these matters -- as digger says above, these are not easy decisions to make and they're not easy decisions to understand if you're on the receiving end.

I'd advise everybody to take a deep breath and really try to understand that very little that's going on here is either arbitrary or the result of evil intentions. for the most part, on both sides of the debate it's just a group of well meaning individuals trying to make the best of a very bad situation.

Emilio i clearly said it was all semantics

going to a 4 day work week but expect people to work 5 is the same as taking a 20% pay cut

i said nothing at all about actually only working 4 days a week


i think everyone is an adult, if you are so stubborn as to think you are getting screwed with a pay cut then just leave

if you can find a new job in this economy, great, you made the right decision

if not, perhaps you made the wrong decision

me
i can live with a temporary pay cut to keep my job
i am still young, and dont have a million other choices, plus i like my job here so i will stick it out for a while

if you dont think that is the right decision, really it doesnt matter, as it will be different for everyone

there are no blanket statements that hold true for everyone, i dont understand why people here think there are
amazingly enough, the way you view and do things might not hold true for everyone else
and that doesnt mean they are wrong

it has nothing to do with being a slave
i am not being taken advantage of here
the entire company has taken pay cuts and i was on the low end of the % cut from my salary

part of being in a company is being a team player to a degree
if you refuse to bend at all given the economy, then really, unless you bring in a constant stream of jobs and are not effected by anything going on, i dont see how any architect is above having to take a pay cut or anything of the sort

I think that there is another difference here than between the people who are in charge and the "interns." It's those who have been through layoffs before and those who haven't. I'm going to guess that Emilio has not been through one before. Personally, I believe having gone through a downturn cycle or two changes one's perspective. That and whether or not you have a family, bills, mortgage, etc.

But, this downturn IS different. In many places it turned on a dime. Anyone that thinks the good old days are coming back soon is kidding themselves. THAT is why many people are saying batten down the hatches and suck it up to keep your job.

Ok, Emilio, I apologize for my snarky response back there. Hardly any of us can get by on 60% of our salary for more than a few months, and the bad will such a move creates, as evidenced by your post, is poisonous. If I were running the firm you work for, I would have laid off more staff and kept on the rest at full salary or no less than 85% rather than expect more people to hang around full-time for 60%. If I couldn't get the work done with that staff, I would hire architects on contract until things improve.

A 40% pay cut doesn't work for anyone. At best, it buys the employees a little time until they find full employment somewhere else. Besides, you have to work (and be paid) at least 30 hours a week (= a 25% cut) to be eligible for benefits.

One last comment. I just went on the AIA job board. I keep regular tabs on this board, and I was shocked at how few jobs are listed - just 66 architect positions nationwide. There are no new postings in Texas for the month of March, and just 3 each in California and New York.

Do what you have to do to support yourself.

a few short months ago new york alone would have had 66 job listings.

I know of firms that have given "non-essential staff" (meaning interns) 40-50% pay-cuts while Associates and Principals got 5% cuts.
I've heard two cases of this thus far -- one of which didn't really get them two far -- they shut their doors only two months later.

If that were me, I'd pack my shit and leave within two seconds of that anouncement.

Ok, I apologize to all for getting snarky myself...for some reason I get easily irritated on this forum (and no, it's not angst).

No, nothing is black and white in this discussion, but I was very much speaking first hand. My experience has mostly been that when I was a principal or when I worked for someone else or stories I know from friends is goes like this: when work slows and the principal has to cut weeks short, they not only don't expect the people to come in on the off days, they see if they can place them in another office they get along with - and there are two examples that I know of right now. One is a young intern architect that is being evenly shared by two offices: another is an experienced architect whose large firm has gone to a three-day week, so he is working two days for a smaller firm. There was no cutthroat "you better damn show up on those other two days or else" and I have had little direct experience with that attitude. I've also worked for firms where the principals used a line of credit to pay employees in hard times rather than ask them to go without pay. The people I've worked for have mostly been decent human beings who understand that we all have bills to pay and families to raise and will try to help their employees get through hard times, not enact some Darwinian survive-or-die scenario (and I've mostly worked in small firms, and my worst experiences have been in big firms).

There should be a rule: If they cut your work-week short they should cut your "life-week" short -- meaning that rent, bills, everything should be cut in proportion to your work-week cut.

I mean it's only fair. We have lives to live -- remember?

well in that case, whenever you get a raise should they then increase your rent and bills?