Are Woodstock attendees still preaching their peace and love message?

It seems like every five or ten years we are reminded of a rock concert in Bethel, NY (no, it wasn't in Woodstock, NY) that brought about half a million "flower children" together and nearly destroyed some poor man's farm who was talked into allowing the event by his son. But my question on this 40th anniversary of the concert (give or take a day or two) is what are these folks doing now, and are they still preaching their glorious message of peace, love, kindness, and disassociation from all the worry, and stress of the real world?

Let's say you were 2o years old in 1969 and you had a fantastic time listening to Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and smoking the occasional ganja. By now you're 60 and hanging on for dear life to a career that needs to be milked for 2-5 more years before you can deplete the social security fund and have enough money to live the same life to which you have become so happily accustomed.

But the economy has thrown us a curve ball at the sunset of the baby boomer's career much like Jimi ripped the raw version of the "Star Spangled Banner" as the sun set over Bethel, NY and an epic rock concert that defined a generation.

Young people have been tossed from companies like Hendrix would throw guitar picks into a frenzied crowd. When 20 somethings are waiting in the unemployment line and worrying about how their credit cards and student loans are going to be paid, older folk sit in their offices and worry about how they're going to afford their country club membership if their company bonus isn't large enough this year.

Former Woodstock attendees decided at some point that they would join the ranks of corporate America and start the slow laborious climb up the greasy pole. And they've done it. The boomers are running our organizations now and I'm afraid that their ethical line ain't quite what it used to be. But they've done well - you can't argue that. When their job was to make money, money is what they made, in whatever way they could. They even charged $9 for a bottle of water at one of the Woodstock commemorative concerts which eventually led to riots. And now they are certainly taking job security priority over the younger generation. And really, that's ok.

I have no problem with giving boomers the respect in bad economies and rewarding them for a long hard career, but please, we have to eliminate money grubbing, sneaky, squirly, and at times unethical behavior that has gone on in organizations and could very well have caused this mess that we're in. You can't get preferential career treatment and be crooked at the same time - one or the other.

Woodstock was more than just a rock concert and a bunch of kids getting stoned. Right? There was a message.

Boomers have short but ample time to bring back their message from Woodstock and add to the growing interest among organizations for a balance between profit and social responsibility. It's a meeting ground between the boomer from 1969 and 2009 (or 2008) - perhaps even meeting in Bethel, New York.

Are Woodstock attendees still preaching their peace and love message?

LEED Version 3 - A whole mess of changes

I attended an information session last night put on by the vice president of the Delaware Valley Green Building Council, Peter Levasseur. It was an excellent presentation, but if this thing gets any more complicated I may have to....well, I don't know what I may have to do, but it would probably involved whining about it to deaf ears throughout cyberspace.

Actually the changes, in my opinion, are very sensible, they just take a little time to go back and learn. And since human beings are very lazy (no it's not just me), we don't like having to learn something even once, let alone twice, and then again in another three years. C'mon didn't we graduate from school for a reason?

Anyway, I'm going to try to give the best recap I can of the changes to the LEED rating system (and accreditation system). Please excuse me if there are some minor inaccuracies, but if there are, it is entirely the fault of the USGBC for making us have a PhD in thermo-nuclear physics to figure this thing out. (Actually it's really not that bad)

First of all, the system is 100 points with 10 extra credit points leaving a total of 110 possible LEED points instead of the previous 69 point system. The certification schedule for New Construction and Major Renovations is below.

Certified 40–49 points
Silver 50–59 points
Gold 60–79 points
Platinum - 80 points and above

They also gave some weight to some of the credits so you no longer get the same credit for redeveloping Three Mile Island as you would for putting a bike rack in front of your building. Actually those did stay the same! I can't believe it!

However, there were some significant changes. For example, the development density and community connectivity credit is now worth 5 points instead of 1 and the access to public transportation credit is worth 6 instead of 1. Also, you get 3 points for meeting the low-emitting and fuel efficient vehicles requirement.

LEED 2009 also has a prerequisite of beating the ASHRAE energy performance requirements by 10% instead of just meeting them. The optimize energy requirements in Energy and Atmosphere are now worth a possible 19 points instead of 10, but I'm not sure if this is better or not because you need nearly double the amount of points to get LEED certified. Also, the on-site renewable energy credit has a possible 7 points when it was previously 3.

It seems to me that the USGBC is trying to push us in the direction of development in more densely populated areas and then using more forms of on-site renewable energy. That's just a hunch.

Another little interesting twist is the addition of four possible regional priority credits which basically put added weight to credits that could be more beneficial to a particular area. The USGBC (actually the chapters) went through every zip code in the country and tried to determine which LEED credits would be most beneficial to that particular environment. For example, downtown Philadelphia will get an extra point for meeting the bike storage requirement due to the high number of bikers in the urban area. A suburban project wouldn't have as much importance placed on this credit because most people are driving anyway. A site in Las Vegas may have more emphasis on water reduction credits or the use of renewable energy. However you can confirm this on the USGBC website for any zip code in the country.

Whew!

So the last thing that is really worth mentioning I suppose, is that the route toward professional accreditation has changed slightly. Even though I don't really care, because I already got my LEED AP, I'm kind enough to tell you anyway. Basically, there is no more single LEED AP. Newly appointed LEED APs will fall in one of five categories: Operations & Maintenance, Homes, Building Design and Construction, Interior Design and Construction, and Neighborhood Development. The generic LEED accreditation is called a LEED associate and from what I hear the test is a lot easier than the LEED AP. Also, there are eligibility requirements to take any of these tests. Folks who passed the test previously are now LEED Legacys and I have no idea what they are entitled to or what kind of respect they will get.

I know I didn't hit everything either because I didn't know it, didn't understand it, or just couldn't bear talking about this anymore, but if you would like to add anything that you think is a significant change from the previous version of LEED please do. Perhaps this can be an online collaboration of the LEED version 3 changes. That would make my life a lot easier.

LEED Version 3 - A whole mess of changes

Is job-hopping really that bad?

I often get in discussions with other young professionals about job hopping and its potential affects of your career. And the question always stirs up some significant debate, but I will argue that the topic is blown a bit out of proportion.

When we thrust ourselves into the working world after graduating from school we are presented with several mentors, co-workers, and managers that may (albeit subtly) try to push us in different directions. Members of the organization for which we work will probably look down on job-hoppers and try to paint them in a very negative light in an effort to keep the employees they have at their company (and perhaps pay them less). But the question is: is it really that bad?

Before we get into the nitty-gritty of this we have to realize that the architecture, engineering, and construction industry may be a bit different than others mainly because of the fragmentation of the business. The overwhelming majority (possibly over 90%) of AEC organizations have less than 20 people. Organizations of this type may tend to have higher turnovers because of the lack of structured career paths, mentoring, and training. Also, AEC organizations are basically doing the same thing. Principles of architecture, engineering, and construction are for the most part the same across the board unless you are in some very specialized type of construction. This homogeny across the industry allows newcomers to an organization to move in and immediately make a profitable impact, instead of having to learn a completely different product or operational system as may be the case in larger organizations. And really this is what companies are looking for - immediate profitability.

However, in a job market such as this one, employers that by some fluke of nature, are actually hiring, have the luxury of being very choosy. And if you have a resume that shows a slew of less than two year stints at companies, this could easily be used as reason for sending your resume on a one-way trip through the paper shredder. But when things improve, as they always do, these same companies won't care if you have five or fifty previous employers because they know that you can come in on day zero (that's construction schedule talk) and make money for the organization.

Ok, so what do you do if you are stuck in a position that isn't right for you or you are presented with an opportunity that is much better than the one you have? Well, this is one of the toughest choices that a young person has to make, and it is a situation that can come up quite often for people with engineering and architecture degrees due to the stiff competition for qualified employees during strong job markets. Unfortunately there is no right answer, and the best way to learn is to probably do it. But first I would think about the reasons for what you are doing and how you think this move may benefit your career. If you can reasonable articulate why this is a beneficial career move then your best bet is to probably do it and not worry about what future employers may think.

I think there is a stigma out there that if you move jobs too many times you will be branded with some job hopping scarlet letter, shun from the working world, and left for dead as a stock person for Home Depot. I will say that this stigma is largely propagated by employers themselves and doesn't have any legitimate reasoning other than the fact the tenured employee may tend to make the company more money for which they may or may not be paid more. Also, managers look bad when employees under them quit, so a manager that tries to talk you out of going somewhere else may not be thinking in the best interests of you or the company, but in the best interests of themselves.

It's tough being young in this business because there is often so much opportunity and things to see and do that may not be offered at the organization for which you work. I'm not going to suggest that everyone should quit their jobs and go build desalination plants in Kuwait, but I do believe that, especially when you are young, a bit of an exploration of the industry in which we work can be invaluable later in life.

Is job-hopping really that bad?

What a Difference a Year Makes: A Look at Construction Unemployment Last Year vs. This Year

Let's rewind for a moment, back to July 2008. We were in the midst of listening to heated presidential campaigns, gearing up for the Michael Phelps show in the Summer Olympics, satisfied with the Dow Jones over 11,000, and not too unhappy with the construction industry unemployment rate of 8.0% (US rate of 5.5%). My how things have changed.

In just twelve months time we have a new president, an Olympian who celebrated a little too hard, a stock market that went to nearly half and then back to 75% causing near heart failure for many, and an unemployment rate that has over doubled for the construction industry.

And it's not looking that good for improvement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that construction lost another 76,000 jobs in July compared to averages of 73,000 for each of the three previous months. Chief economist for the Associated General Contractors, Ken Simonson said, "I don't see any good news for construction in these figures".

I'll say.

Simonson believes that by the end of 2009, there will be enough single-family home building and home improvement work to produce an upturn in that segment. But he then adds, "I don't have much hope for nonresidential construction."

I think the glass isn't even half empty, its dry as a bone.

So what do we do? Sit here with our proverbial thumbs up our proverbial rear ends? Perhaps for now. But very soon we must start innovating and actually getting people to work again, and that starts with owners proposing projects that banks are willing to finance. What do we have to do to get this going?

I'm hoping its just an overall aversion to risk due to economic fears and uncertainly and when things look like they have steadily improved for more than just a month or two, the "powers that be" will become less conservative.

But what if they don't?

What a Difference a Year Makes: A Look at Construction Unemployment Last Year vs. This Year

New York Carpenter's union indicted for (of all things) taking bribes

I was browsing through my daily email from ENR magazine this morning and the headline read, "10 Indicted in N.Y. Carpenters Union Corruption Investigation" The article began with a brief synopsis of the situation:

A grand jury Wednesday indicted New York City’s carpenters union chief and
nine other members and contractors following a sweeping investigation that
resulted in allegations of fraud, racketeering and accepting bribes.

I will tell you that I am shocked that something like this would happen in the construction industry. The typically straight as an arrow labor unions seem to be pulling shenanigans. And of all places, New York!

The truth is that if New York labor unions are as straight as an arrow, then the sport of archery would be far from an accurate method of nailing down a bison.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomburg commented that he was "surprised" and "sad" about the allegations.

C'mon Mike, surprised? New York labor unions have been tied in with organized crime groups forever, and you may be sad that the carpenter's union who publicly backed your upcoming bid for re-election is getting nailed for corruption, but certainly not surprised.

Incidentally, a video clip was recently released showing Michael J. Forde, the district council’s executive secretary-treasurer, who is now indicted, giving the mayor a robust introduction at a union event and confirming his support for Mr. Bloomberg with a hug.

From what I've read, the carpenter's union allowed contractors to do what non-union contractors are doing all over the place. In order to get a carpenter on a commercial job in a union town like New York City, you must hire from the union (and don't ask what if you don't hire from the union). The union will charge you about $85 per hour for an apprentice level carpenter, however the carpenter is paid only about $45. The rest goes to fringe benefits like welfare, pension, health insurance, vacation, etc. So the contractors, in all their wisdom, decided to bribe the union officials in exchange for allowing them to hire illegal alien workers to do menial carpentry work and pay them cash under the table with no benefits. The union officials allegedly accepted the bribe. So if the contractors paid them $10-15 per hour and billed them out at $85, you can see how quickly their profits can add up. The union officials are being charged with accepting bribes of over $1 million.

I still think that this little racket should have been caught through some kind of certified payroll check, but who knows, maybe the owner's in on the deal too.

At least we are moving swiftly toward ridding the country of crooked contractors and union officials - yeah right.

New York Carpenter's union indicted for (of all things) taking bribes

Cash for Clunkers is robbing the construction industry

It looks like the "Cash for Clunkers" bill has been a huge success. A bill that was intended to stay in effect for many months, burned through a $1 billion budget within weeks. It looks like they hit the jackpot - at least until their money ran out.

So with a program this is fantastically successful for whatever it is trying to achieve, the logical choice would be to add more money to the bucket and "ride 'er till she bucks ya". But where do we get this money you ask? It comes from the stimulus money set aside to fund renewable energy construction projects. Another $2 billion dollars of funding for the cash for clunkers program has passed the House of Representatives and is expected to pass the Senate on Friday. Aren't they just robbing Peter to pay Paul. Actually, it's more like taking the money out of the left pocket and putting it in the right, but they could just be throwing it in the street.

"If Congress decides to extend this initiative, I believe we must not rob from the loan guarantees we provided through the recovery package that, in the long term, will shift our country to home-grown, renewable energy while creating good 'green collar' jobs," Senate Energy Committee chairman Jeff Bingaman said, according to a Reuters report.

I'm actually not that upset even though, I'm sitting here as a construction professional (no smirking) without a job, because I think it's a pretty creative idea that will in the least get people to drive more fuel efficient cars, and could rejuvenate a stagnant auto industry. As a card-carrying armchair economist, I'm not opposed to the whole thing, but even my slightly idle mind can point to some small holes in the oil pan.

So what if I trade in my "clunker" (that must get less than 18 miles per gallon) and get my $3500 rebate for a newish car (if the car gets less than 10 mpg you get $4500) and the dealer turns around and instead of demolishing it as they are supposed to, they sell it for $2,500? Then we've got two cars on the road instead of one and both the dealer and buyer lined their pockets with money that could have otherwise gone to building renewable energy facilities. Did they figure out a way to stop that one? I hope so.

But again, I'm not complaining because I think its a good attempt at being economically and environmentally sensible at the same time. It may take a couple more generations, but we should be good at it eventually - being sensible that is.

Cash for Clunkers is robbing the construction industry

Emotional Intelligence: What is it and what does it have to do with building?

You may know your IQ, and if it is a very high number then you should be very proud of your intellectual ability, but what about your EQ? That's right, do you know your emotional intelligence?

The answer is no. Nobody knows, and nobody cares, but if you get stuck in a contest about who has the higher IQ in a meeting full of egomaniacs (which is every meeting), I'm sure you'll have a group of people that should be the next Einstein if it wasn't for some third grade teacher that busted them for shooting spit balls.

While the debate over the importance of EQ vs. IQ rages, I think research has shown us enough evidence to at least conclude that IQ is far less important than most people think. In a world that relies heavily on communication, people skills, managerial skills, creativity, and strategic management, it is difficult to conclude that one portion of intelligence (IQ) can be solely responsible for success in work, and life.

*Note: Success is far from an absolute and really has to be defined by the individual or organization to which it applies, but this is the topic for at least another blog and at most a PhD thesis, but for the purposes of this lovely article we're going to leave the topic conveniently untouched. :) *

But before we go much further let's figure out exactly what emotional intelligence is. Wikipedia which is of course the authority on everything defines emotional intelligence as follows:

Emotional Intelligence (EI) describes the ability, capacity, skill or, in the case
of the trait EI model, a self-perceived ability, to identify, assess, and manage
the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups.

Ok, so maybe EQ is important for a nurse, kindergarten teacher, or social worker, but we're rough and tough construction people and even if we were huge Leonardo DiCapprio fans we certainly wouldn't shed a tear during a screening of Titanic.

The reality is that there is plenty of emotion shown in the construction industry and in all business organizations. When an owner's rep throws his hard-hat at an underperforming sub (which I have seen happen), or a manager belittles an employee in front of co-workers, they are showing very little emotional control and very little emotional intelligence. The screaming and yelling that bellows through construction sites is unproductive and at times debilitating, but also displays very low emotional control of those involved. And while these folks may have very high levels of analytical intelligence (IQ), their emotional intelligence needs significant improvement.

When the intelligence yardstick is broken out at your next meeting feel free to bring up the topic of emotional intelligence. I'm sure it will be a huge hit.

Emotional Intelligence: What is it and what does it have to do with building?