Is the RIBA’s action on low pay tough enough?
Insisting students are paid minimum wage is an important marker of change says RIBA president Ruth Reed; while Keith Tomlinson says the institute should have gone further
Yes
The introduction of the requirement for students to be paid at least the national minimum wage by RIBA Chartered Practices for all work noted on the Professional Education and Development Record is timely, given the potential crisis in architectural education.
The trebling of course fees at the same time as the economic downturn has severely reduced practice workloads and also threatens to cut off the education of a generation of talented designers. To protect the future of the profession, it is imperative to safeguard the income of those least able to negotiate a position in the workplace and sustain a living.
Best practice in employment already exists across the profession in large and small firms, but the actions of a few in exploiting student labour create an unequal environment for fee bidding.
The minimum wage is not enough to make architectural education economically viable, but it is a marker of a change in the culture of a profession that at the best of times can give away its skills and in times of economic hardship increasingly uses the unpaid labour of its graduates to maintain unsustainable business practices.
This is the beginning of work to define acceptable levels of pay within the profession. The immediate imposition of a more onerous requirement would not have allowed businesses to adapt to the new pay and conditions culture in a sustainable way. This step on the way signals the change and empowers students to ask for a minimum recompense for their skills and labour.
No
Following a year of campaigning by BD and Architects Against Low Pay, the RIBA’s decision to stop passively endorsing low pay/ no pay is a very welcome small step forward. So, problem solved? I don’t think so.
Earning the national minimum wage seems a paltry reward for seven years’ study and practical training, and it is hardly a ringing endorsement of the value of an architectural education which is controlled and validated by the RIBA.
Tough times offer no excuse for our professional, subscription-funded institute not to exercise courage and moral authority. It would be perfectly possible to make fair wages (above minimum wage) part of the conditions of RIBA-chartered membership. Those practices that wish to exploit can do so outside the tent by relinquishing RIBA status. I doubt many would. Potential difficulties with enforcement are no reason not to try and improve conditions.
Britain remains one of very few countries that offer no protection of function for architects. Protection of title is of very little value when we are competing against the unqualified and uninsured, especially in a tough marketplace. Since the 1980s, the RIBA has allowed our value to be undermined. Small wonder we are in this condition now!
My hope is that the RIBA can become more relevant to the needs of architects, like the Architektenkammers in Germany. Resigning my membership was a sad thing to do, but I have few regrets.
What do you think?
Related Articles
- RIBA hosts meeting on student support
27 May 2011
- Anger as Coates offers unpaid work at practice
21 April 2011
- RIBA pledges to kick out wage abuse firms
1 April 2011
- Relying on cheap labour
1 April 2011
Have your say
Sign in to make a comment on this story.
Sign InDesktop Site | Mobile Site
Readers' comments (5)
Talk about setting yourself a low bar. The minimum wage is already enforceable in law so it should be a given that this is a requirement for any chartered employer to remain so.
In anycase the action on the part of the RIBA isnt remotely timely - the effects of no-to-low pay are ingrained and negatively affect everyone, both employee and employer.
Its also absurd to say that action beyond the minimum wage at this point would not have been sustainable - it is precisely the unsustainable nature of the current situation that needs sorting.
Keep at them Mr Tomlinson & BD.
Please consider joining the Facebook group "Architects Against Low Pay" Our membership includes the current PRIBA Ruth Reed and the PRIBA elect Angela Brady.
AALP campaigned for Angela to be elected as the next RIBA president and I am sure that here clarity of thought and toughness have contributed significantly to this cultural change in Portland Place.
But does this go far enough? Of course not, however welcome the change. AALP has nearly 3000 members who have already made a difference, but can still acheive more.
Together we are stronger so please contribute to the debate, and help encourage the RIBA to be more effective and relevant in the support of its members who contribute many millions of pounds annually to their coffers.
The minimum wage legislation does not apply for Part 1, 2 and possibly even part 3 students, because work experience undertaken as part of a course of study is not covered by the minimum wage. So putting it in the RIBA Chartered Practice scheme is a brave step which distinguishes Chartered practices from others. Hopefully higher pay will attract the best. A good principle, perhaps.
Lets be clear - the exemption in the legislation is for a maximum of one year for work experience. Pt 2 and 3 are certainly not exempt from the minimum wage.
Also - the RIBA policy should cover all employers who are chartered members - not just chartered practices.
A good start, but definitely not tough enough: the prospect of earning minimum wage after such an intense postgraduate degree is not exactly exciting. It should be all ARB members that are legally bound to this, not just RIBA chartered practices, otherwise, smaller non-chartered practices will continue to operate outside the requirement.
More important though: if architects claim not to be able to pay salaries to students because they don't have enough work, why isn't the RIBA lobbying to change the core of the problem through 2 basic steps: 1) make it law that any construction work (including loft conversions, extensions, etc.) requires signing off by an architect (like in Spain), not just some random self-proclaimed 'designer' or 'architectural consultant', and B) that planners working for the councils be architects as well - what good is it to have a historian taking architectural decisions?!
If these 2 steps are not looked at, and people continue to be encouraged to build without architects (the way it is often done in Grand Designs), why would anyone bother hiring architects, and thus sustaining the profession?