Are we protecting our profession? Part 2.

April 5, 2016 § 12 Comments

Dear Colleagues:

On the first part of this entry we discussed the role that professional associations should play on the face of antitrust legislation and its adverse effect on our profession.  Today we will explore another crucial aspect of the profession that has been under siege for several years; and if some external forces have their way, it could set the profession back to the Stone Age.  I am referring to the very popular tendency to minimize the importance of interpreter and translator professional licenses, certifications or patents and the acceptance, and in some cases even blessing, of lesser quality paraprofessionals as the preferred providers of services by many government entities and multinational interpreting and translation corporations who make the decision to hire these individuals, who are unfit to practice the profession, based to the extremely low fee that they command.

It took interpreters and translators many decades of constant struggle to get to the point that their accreditations became widely known and accepted as the standard of quality among those providing the service.  Finally, holding an American Translators Association certification, or proof of many years of experience,  gave the real professional translator the needed tool to argue that she should get the job over the individual whose only credentials were the translation of his parents’ birth certificates and a couple of elementary school reports.  The days when a real professional interpreter would lose an assignment to a person whose only linguistic experience was that he had lived in two different countries during his life, became less common when true professionals started to demand top assignments with their interpreter degrees, or their court, or healthcare certifications in hand.  There was a lot to be done, but interpreters and translators were on their way to educate more prospective clients and government officials every day.  People began to notice the difference on the quality of the service rendered by a real certified interpreter or translator.

But, since nothing can come to the interpreting and translation world without drama and tragedy, technological developments such as CAT tools and telephone/VR interpreting came to be. This should have been a welcome development that benefited interpreters and translators; however, this new technology, combined with a global economy where big corporations seek profit by bastardizing a real profession and turning it into an assembly line, and changing its name from profession to “industry”, injected a new player to our eternal drama:  the opportunist, also known as the “new talent scout” whose sole function was to undermine established professions, like ours, and replace quality professionals with cheap novice paraprofessionals who see this individuals as their ticket out of the flipping burgers world.

Compounding the problem in the United States, there was a new administration in the White House, whose attorney general was determined to compel the state-level agencies who were recipients of federal funds, to provide access to their services for everybody, regardless of the language they spoke. This in itself sounds very good and fair, and in fact it was not just the right thing to do by the administration, it was long due as this mandate had been part of the law since the mid-sixties when Title VI of the Civil Rights Act was enacted.  In fact, to an interpreter or translator who did not know the reality of the American system this would look like a pot of gold. All of a sudden millions of people who needed interpreting and translation services were going to get them! Unfortunately, reality and a short-sighted government opted for the easy way out, a path that was doomed from the beginning. Let me explain: This instantaneous demand for many more interpreters and translators exceeded by far the supply of professionals in the United States, and to meet the mandate, the states decided to enable just about any almost-bilingual individual, to provide translation and interpreting services, instead of promoting more college programs and encouraging American citizens and permanent residents to prepare themselves, and become true professional interpreter and translators, who would have access to professionally remunerated work due to the implementation of this legislation.

When the opportunists, also known as the “new talent scouts” realized what was going on, they immediately saw the possibility for huge profits by providing the required services with tons of these paraprofessionals, who they immediately hired at rock bottom fees.  Moreover, they saw the possibility of making their margins even bigger by using machine translation and retaining humans as proofreaders, and by providing interpreting services by telephone, and lately by video remote interpreting or VRI in some cases, while hiring these new “type” of “interpreters” by the minute (or if they are lucky by the hour).

Government officials liked the solution, but they still had one more obstacle that was keeping them from going all the way with these multinational corporations operated by the opportunists, also known as the “new talent scouts”, who by now were active in social media, writing their own blogs, and organizing their own conferences to build themselves up like interpreting and translation “self-proclaimed gurus”. That obstacle was the certification.

The certification, that extremely difficult and elusive project that took real interpreters and translators several generations to create, and then make known and widely respected, was by now a requirement in the law.  It was obvious that the new paraprofessionals would never pass a certification exam, so the government officials and their “associates” had to think fast, and cheap.

The solution they came up with was the creation of a “second class” tier of people who they call “language facilitators”, “justice-system interpreters”, and many other labels, avoiding this way the uncomfortable, and perhaps illegal alternative of referring to them as translators or interpreters, who, in lieu of a real certification, would be “accredited”, “registered” and many similar names.  Now they argue that these individuals can provide the professional service as long as the content is not too difficult or the event is not very important!

Finally, to end the vicious circle, some of our opportunistic “friends”, also known as the “new talent scouts”, realized that with government officials willing to do whatever possible to go around the true mandate of Title VI, which would require them to use certified, experienced, professionally trained interpreters and translators, they could get another piece of the pie by pulling a rabbit out of a hat, and creating a mutant creature they would call: “community interpreter certification”.

The principle is very simple: What do you do when you have a group of people who cannot pass the interpreter certification exam? You develop another program with an exam easy enough for anybody to pass, and you propose it to the authorities as a legitimate certification for court cases before administrative judges, for client-attorney interviews, and for simple medical events. Do you see the pattern? Once again we have the not-so serious event and the not-so difficult content rationale to justify the use of mediocre individuals, who have only one advantage over the real professional, experienced, certified interpreters and translators: They will work for peanuts; because whatever they get paid will be better than the money they were making before they got “discovered” by the talent agent.  Never mind the fact that administrative law hearings are as complex as Article Three court hearings as I have indicated on a previous entry to this blog a few months ago.

The situation turned for the worse when the implementation of Title VI at the state-level civil courts in the United States was narrowly interpreted by many of their administrative offices, as meaning that only interpreters supplied through the judiciary could provide services in civil matters. This actually killed the main source of income to many entrepreneurial interpreters who had opted out of the bureaucratic, low-paying criminal court assignments, and had developed their own client-base, charging for their services according to supply and demand. Oftentimes, because of the complexity of civil litigation, and because of their type of clients, these interpreters fared much better than their counterparts who stayed on the criminal court bandwagon.  Title VI guarantees equal access to all government funded services, including the administration of justice, but it does not make it illegal for litigants who want to, and can afford it, to hire private interpreters.  In my opinion, this is a classic example of a situation where professional associations needed to protect their individual members, and the profession, by advocating for the availability of private interpreters to be retained for civil litigation.  Unfortunately, instead of taking action, our biggest professional association in the United States not just sat on the sidelines, but welcomed the new “civil court-provided interpreter system”, and remained silent when some states decided to meet the requirements of Title VI by hiring big “interpreting services” agencies (who view our profession as an industry) to program the interpreters for civil cases.

To summarize the situation, we now have an environment fostered by the government authorities, and exploited by the multinational interpreting and translation corporations, plus some small “local talent” that was able to learn fast how to do this thing, where certifications and education do not matter anymore, where assignments are going to questionable paraprofessionals, many of whom have never been able to pass a certification exam, who are working under terrible conditions, in exchange for a miserable fee.  The first logical reaction of any interpreter or translator should be one of outrage, disgust, frustration. The second reaction should be to talk to its professional association and ask it to represent its members and protect them from these nefarious tendencies, thus saving the integrity of the profession.

Attorney and medical associations are vigilant and protective of their members and profession. They do not allow, under any circumstance that paraprofessionals practice law or medicine. In fact, attorney associations set the standards of practice in their profession. No agency or its equivalent is allowed to set the tone.  They have lobbied for, and achieved legal protection: In the United States it is a crime to practice law without a license, and this applies to all court proceedings, including administrative courts.

Unfortunately, this is not the case with some of the bigger translator and interpreter associations.  They keep silent when the government creates these groups of paraprofessionals to “meet” the requirements of Title VI. They invite those who are turning translators into proof readers to their conferences to recruit more of the young talent before they learn to separate good from evil; Instead of protesting, criticizing and denouncing the birth of that Frankenstein’s monster called “community interpreting certification”, they celebrate the lowering of the bar and open wide their organizations’ doors for these paraprofessionals.

Moreover, they welcome as their members many of these multinational corporations, “self-proclaimed” gurus, and opportunists, also known as the “new talent scouts”. Maybe they do so because they do not know of all these terrible things that are happening to the profession. Maybe they let them in because they share their view of interpreting and translation not as the professions they always were, but as industries where the proofreader (formerly known as translator) and the part-time telephone operator (formerly known as interpreter) will happily hold hands at the assembly line and praise the virtues of the big “language” corporations. The question is, what are professional associations for? I now invite you to share your comments about this reality we are living pretty much around the world, and to offer your solutions to the role that a professional association should play in the world of interpreting and translating.

Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

§ 12 Responses to Are we protecting our profession? Part 2.

  • weinterpret says:

    Very well said Tony!
    I forward your articles to a few of my contacts to make them aware of what’s going on in our profession, very sad indeed!
    Inge

    • Kazinsky says:

      I just received my passing result at the Master level for the NCSC. I contacted an agency I work for to ask about a small raise. I received a reply stating that no compensation is given for any extra credential. Extremely irritating.

  • hcazes says:

    Looking for a short phrase to quote as a teaser when tweeting or publishing this link.
    The whole article is something to be quoted completely!!
    I understand why Steve decided to simply reblog it in Patenttranslator…

    It is terribly sad that the same association that created a credential that became more respected and attractive than even university degrees, has now bowed down to the interests of the Translation Industry.

    I would expect a professional association to support, protect and advocate for the interests of its members. To take advantage of its recognition to stress the need for profesionalization and good quality, and lead and point in that direction. Have been hoping this for a while.

    I am very naive, I suppose…

  • Reblogged this on Translator Power and commented:
    And here is Part 2 of “Are we protecting our profession? Part 2.” Enjoy!

  • taxco2012! says:

    Aho Mitakuye Oyasin. The truth has been spoken. Thank you!

  • EOAlfonso says:

    The reason why one must be licensed as a doctor or lawyer is to protect the consumer. The law hasn’t hurt the doctor and lawyer fee, just who can charge it. In the same way, by letting anyone bilingual who cannot become certified “practice” interpreting, the LEP consumer is NOT being protected.

  • zinnesther says:

    The implementation of the Language Access Plan is in full force in California with the backing of the staff interpreters’ union CFI and non-profits that are part of the task force.

    I have spoken before the LAP chaired by Justice Cuéllar about the unfairness of the system that will allow corporations and insurance carriers to take advantage of it. I also provided them with a memo written by a court administrator given instructions to the judges in a civil courthouse in downtown Los Angeles to turn away anyone but staff interpreter if there was one present in the courtroom or available which may or may not be implemented. One judge approached me after the meeting to ask me more questions about this. My only reasonable objection from my self-employed status is that it infringes on my right to earn a living. I also stated that this a burden on taxpayers who will be paying for every single instance instead of allowing privately retained interpreters in the courtroom. The courts allow privately retained attorneys to come in to the courtroom; they don’t have FREE Public Defenders to represent the indigent in civil court cases. California no longer provides court reporters to record the proceeding in civil matters; the parties need to bring their own if they want to protect the record. I see a system that caves into the demands of non-profits who claimed and won a lawsuit in federal court stating that language service is a civil right afforded by Title VI. I doubt the government will have the resources to provide interpreters in every legal matter in a court setting, but that is the object of the LAP.

    Nonprofits have paid attorneys on staff and pass on some of their pro-bono cases to large and financially stable law firms that use these cases to train the newly hired attorneys and it’s a tax write-off. While I get hired by these large firms to interpret for their client, they always ask for a reduced rate, and I oblige, as it’ll be the same rate I charge the LSP. These cases go to court and a staff interpreter does the work that I should be doing while being fairly compensated.

    Our work does not compete with the non-profits ability to help the indigent. Most of our cases do not involve those types. I don’t object to assisting the poor and those who cannot afford to pay for a professional interpreter. Our private sector cases are of a much larger scope that specializes in highly complex litigation where we have honed our skills and expertise.

    One interpreter association that voices its opposition to blanket coverage of civil matters to be provided by staff is the Association of Independent Judicial Interpreters of California. I can proudly say that I’m a founding member of this association that truly stands by privately retained court interpreters.

  • […] Dear Colleagues: On the first part of this entry we discussed the role that professional associations should play on the face of antitrust legislation and its adverse effect on our profession. Today we will explore another crucial aspect of the profession that has been under siege for several years; and if some external forces have…  […]

  • […] Dear Colleagues: On the first part of this entry we discussed the role that professional associations should play on the face of antitrust legislation and its adverse effect on our profession. Today we will explore another crucial aspect of the profession…  […]

  • […] Dear Colleagues: On the first part of this entry we discussed the role that professional associations should play on the face of antitrust legislation and its adverse effect on our profession. Today we will explore another crucial aspect of the profession…  […]

  • Thank you for this excellent article. At All Language Alliance, Inc. we use court certified interpreters for multilingual depositions even when the attorneys do not request that, and our clients really appreciate this fact.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Are we protecting our profession? Part 2. at The Professional Interpreter.

meta

%d bloggers like this: