Unions……………no!!!!! They are the model of the old and besides there strengths are in numbers so I assuming you are talking about a international union. Most landscape architects work in small firms and the last thing they need is more regulations and intrusion by foreign bodies that only care about their parasitic existence…….
I don’t like the idea of a service profession having unions – especially since, as I understand it, LAs work for LAs and rarely for someone else. Though I would like the profession as a whole to be better able to position ourselves in society as the lawyers and doctors do; the ASLA ought to be the means to do that.
My thought is that professionals police themselves internally through licensure boards and professional societies. Firms that mistreat clients and the public should be held in check by their peers. Employers that wish to abuse their employees will gain a bad rep (our profession is too small for them to get away with it), those that do treat them well will be able to have better talent pool to choose from and gain long term employees.
Of the list above I like 3, 6, and 7. A lot of the other ones appear to potentially limit small start-ups firms from being able to compete well.
1. I’m ok with LA firms hiring ecologists, engineers, architects, etc; if a firms needs the expertise, why not?
2. I’d keep it as a requirement to not exceed 40. I’d be more than happy to work 60+ hrs as long as the projects are good and some type of compensation is projected (time off/bonus of some type). As for pay, the market dictates the fees a firm can charge, hence rather that it not be mandated – I’d hate to see us lose work to designers, engineers and architects b/c of a pay requirement.
If anything I’d add membership into two professional organizations (assuming ASLA as one, and the other one of employees choice), and professional development (conference, continuing ed, licensure).