Some interpreters’ unprofessional conduct on social media.

January 10, 2019 § 7 Comments

Dear Colleagues,

Social media interaction can be a good thing for our professional practice. It helps us to be up to date in current events that affect our work; learn about interpreting, languages, and many other topics relevant to what we do; and it comes in handy to ask for help when stuck on a word or term. Unfortunately, social media can be a two-edged sword when used irresponsibly. It can hurt us individually or as a profession, especially when we, as interpreters, attack or criticize a colleague without actual knowledge of the subject and circumstances that surrounded the event or rendition we are ready to criticize.

I am saddened by colleagues who have never interpreted for a live event on TV broadcasted to millions, and yet they post on line uneducated remarks criticizing the interpreter for not “interpreting everything”, showing the world they have no idea of how broadcast interpreting works as far as screen timing and the expectations of the target audience. They do not stop to think that doing the rendition the way they suggest would take the interpreter into a different, unrelated image on the screen or even a commercial.

Frankly, I am tired of social media posts in chatrooms where ignorant interpreters attack a conference interpreter for not interpreting everything; a court interpreter for interpreting everything, (even the obvious and redundant), and doing it very fast; healthcare and community interpreters for doing the necessary advocacy so their client understands the message, and even the military interpreter for not being neutral and impartial.

At the end of November of last year, we lived through one massive attack and “opinions” by some colleagues who, despite not being well-versed on diplomatic interpreting, filled the digital channels with bizarre remarks.

The incident that triggered such social media activity were the November 30, 2018 remarks by president Trump of the United States, (who had traveled to Argentina to attend the G-20 Summit) and President Macri of Argentina in Buenos Aires. They both appeared before journalists from their respective countries and elsewhere. President Macri spoke first and welcomed Trump. Next, president Trump spoke, but at the beginning of his remarks, while holding a receiver in his hand, he looked at president Marci and said: “…I think I understood you better in your language than I did on this. But that’s okay…” Next, president Trump dropped the receiver he had been given for the interpretation of Macri’s remarks. President Trump’s comment was in English, but its interpretation into Spanish was heard by those present in the hall, and by everyone watching TV in Spanish in Argentina and the United States.

Right after this joint appearance by the presidents, interpreter forums, chatrooms, and tweeter accounts, filled up with strange comments such as: “…I wonder who interpreted for Trump. The rendition was so bad he said he understood better without it…” “…Trump was so mad at the interpreter he tossed the equipment…” “…the interpreter was so brave, she even interpreted the part when Trump said he didn’t understand her…” “…it wasn’t the interpretation, he said that because (Trump) hates Hispanics…” “…Trump did not like that the interpreter had an Argentinian accent, that is why he did it…” Also, the comments we see all the time: “…I wonder who picked those interpreters…” “…I bet you the interpreter isn’t certified…” “…Macri is so incompetent that he hired bad interpreters for his meeting with Trump…”

I watched the joint appearance on TV and I saw something very different from what these colleagues saw: It was obvious from the beginning that president Trump was handed a receiver at the last moment. They were already on stage and president Macri had started his welcoming speech. Trump got the receiver with no explanation as to how it works. He seemed unfamiliar with the receiver. On TV it looked different from the 2-part earpiece-receiver we use most of the time. This one looked like a one-piece receiver you use like a telephone receiver. At one point, it looked like president Trump was trying to adjust something on the receiver: maybe the volume, perhaps the channel. The video shows a lady giving him the receiver in a hurry. It does not show if somebody tested it before handing it to Trump. Maybe he was just adjusting the volume and he accidentally changed the channel on the receiver, or maybe the channel was wrong from the moment the receiver was handed to him. There is no way to tell for sure, but from the first time I saw it live, I realized there was something wrong with the equipment, not the rendition. I immediately answered all emails, tweets, and messages I got from many colleagues all over, sharing what I just said above. I know the two interpreters who worked the event, and they are the best of the best. The International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) came to the same conclusion. On December 3, 2018 they issued a statement in both, English and Spanish:

                                                                       AIIC statement in Spanish

 

AIIC statement in English

Unfortunate that people who did not even watch the live broadcast or the full video were criticizing the interpreters when this was a case of a technical problem. It was disheartening to read on public professional forums how people criticized Trump because he did not like Hispanics, or the Argentinian accent of the interpreter. Before attacking and criticizing, these colleagues should learn the basics of diplomatic interpreting: President Trump was listening in English the rendition by president Macri’s magnificent interpreter, who is a male and speaks with a British (not Argentinean) accent. President Trump’s fabulous interpreter, a female who speaks Spanish with an Argentinean accent, interprets into Spanish for President Macri. Your interpreter interprets what you say, not what the others say. That is the protocol in diplomatic interpreting. The words in Spanish these misinformed interpreters heard during the broadcast when Trump states he understood Macri better in “his language” were by Trump’s interpreter interpreting Trumps remarks about the equipment during president Macri’s words interpreted into English for Trump by Macri’s male interpreter. As for who hired these interpreters; all experienced interpreters, diplomatic or not, know that presidential (and diplomatic interpreters in general) are not retained as an interpreter is hired to do a court hearing or a parent-teacher conference. These interpreters have ample experience in conference and diplomatic interpreting, they have meet academic and skill requirements, passed tests and evaluations, and have been granted security clearance. Usually they are full-time staff interpreters working for their government, or very experienced, trusted independent contractors with a long history of assignments and missions working for their government. Court certification is irrelevant for this work, so the comments about that issue merit no further elaboration. Finally, just like presidents have little to do with the direct supervision of a state dinner, they have even less involvement on the interpreting equipment used for a particular event. These are the links to the English and Spanish versions of the video that clearly depict what I just described: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=YouTube.be&v=9qN2Cf0FnP8

https://YouTube.be/PWPom4j8H8Y This is the link to the White House transcript of the full remarks by both presidents: https://whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-president-macri-argentine-republic-bilateral-meeting/

Dear friends and colleagues, these attacks, criticism, comments, etcetera, hurt our profession. Few things are more damaging to a profession than its own members’ attacks out in the open for all to see. This happens when some interpreters use social media either to criticize just because they enjoy doing so, or to advance their own career and reputation by pointing out things they would never do. These unfortunate remarks are always harmful, but when uttered with no knowledge or foundation, as it was in this case and many others, it is even worse. The interpreters who follow this practice and post all kinds of irresponsible comments put in evidence their lack of professionalism and build and invisible wall around them, isolating them from any top-tier interpreters and their clients.

The final point I wanted to make concerns mixing our own personal lives and political opinions with our professional image as interpreters. Few people in the world are as polarizing as Donald Trump and Mauricio Macri. Some people love them, others cannot stand them. I have no problem with that. The thing that concerns me is that many interpreters in Argentina and the United States made this a political issue. It always worries me when an interpreter pours his or her political opinions in a professional forum, chatroom, or tweet. As professionals we should separate them both. Please make all political statements and give all political opinions you want, but do it in your personal Tweeter, Instagram, and Facebook accounts; Do not post it in your professional social media or in any group forums or chatrooms you belong to, more so if they are open to the public. We do not know what our clients’ political opinions are, as we do not need to; even if our clients’ opinions match ours, we do not know how they feel about hiring an interpreter so opinionated in social media.

Because we do not know how an agency, or even other interpreters feel about our opinions, or about voicing them in professional forums, we should keep them private, in our personal social media. I occasionally post some funny stuff about topics and issues I disagree with, but I do it in my personal social media. I have never issued a political opinion for or against anything in my professional social media as I consider it unprofessional. I have these tools to educate, inform, promote, and influence issues related to the profession. That is why I limit myself to criticize and expose government entities, multinational agencies, bad practices, and legislation that hurts or could hurt the profession and my fellow interpreter and translator colleagues. That is valid in a professional forum. I now invite you to share your thoughts on this important issue.

Interpreter fees and antitrust legislation and policy worldwide.

February 5, 2018 § 10 Comments

Dear friends and colleagues:

I am about to deal with a very touchy, delicate, dangerous, and polarizing issue. For this reason, I want to begin this post by clarifying that I have always observed all antitrust legislation, domestic, foreign, and international, everywhere I have worked, spoken, and in any other way practiced any professional activity. In no way I intend to encourage, suggest, hint, or in any other way provoke the desire to break any antitrust legislation anywhere in the world; and even though I may intellectually and philosophically disagree with part of the antitrust policy and legislation, I am firmly committed to fully obey the law if it remains as is.

Once the above is very clear, I would like to revisit this issue that most colleagues usually dodge, and perhaps for good reason. My intention here is to inform my colleagues about the legislation and policy about agreeing as professional service providers to set professional fees. There is a lot of misinformation, and urban legends around. I hope this piece contributes to dissipate some, and to raise awareness on the situation we have and what can be legally done to enact change, if you really want that.

My motivation to write about this issue came from some news I got about certain events in the Czech Republic, where apparently UOHS, the local Czech antitrust authority initiated proceedings against Jednota tlumocniku a prekladatelu (JTP) the main professional association of interpreters and translators in that country, because of the publication of recommended minimum rates for translation and interpreting professional services on their internal journal (reaching about 500 members) arguing there could be a potential violation of Czech antitrust legislation. Shortly after this happened, JTP settled with the authorities and withdrew said recommended rates with an agreement to abstain from publishing them again.

Czech legislation is very similar to prevailing legislation in the European Union, the United States and elsewhere, prohibiting “…agreements (including decisions of associations) containing provisions on direct or indirect price fixing or other business terms and conditions…” This legislation takes generally adopted terminology when it states on a later paragraph that: “… The prohibition… shall not apply to agreements (that) do not afford… the possibility of eliminating competition in respect to a substantial part of the market…”

I sympathize with all my interpreter and translator colleagues in the Czech Republic. I have often questioned the moral justification and ultimate purpose of all antitrust legislation. It comes to us as a gift from the past when legislation such as this was needed to protect regular citizens from colluded corporations and tolerant governments. We could argue those days are gone; that antitrust legislation is necessary in certain cases, but rarely when it comes to a regular individual trying to earn a living selling goods or providing a service as a freelancer.

Unfortunately, moral considerations also encompass our duty to respect and obey the law, in the understanding that if we dislike it, or disagree with it, we must pursue change by legal means such as lobbying for (in this case) more realistic legislation that reflects the reality of life in the 21st century. Disregarding the law, even if we deem it wrong is not the best answer to solve a problem.

Let’s look at the pieces of legislation widely applied throughout the world, that serve as a model for practically all antitrust legislation.

First, a very important concept difficult to understand (and accept):

Long arm of the law:

In the United States, a Long Arm Statute is a statute allowing a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant with certain contacts with the state.

Black’s Law Dictionary: It is a term where a law of a state gives its courts jurisdiction over people and property outside the state.

The United States subscribes to this legal theory and constantly exercises it, and applies to acts and individuals throughout the world. To properly exercise long-arm jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, the plaintiff’s cause of action must also arise out of one (or more) of the enumerated bases for jurisdiction set out by the state’s long-arm statute. Some of the most common instances include buying, selling, producing, or transporting goods to, from, or through U.S. territory; dealing with people or corporations with some contact with the United States (even if minimum). If country “A” sells a product to country “B”, and the product is transported on a plane or vessel in possession of a registration under country “C”, but the vessel uses American fuel to transport the goods, all parties from countries “A”, “B”, and “C” are under U.S. jurisdiction because of “the long arm of the law” theory. The same happens when a translator from the Czech Republic or elsewhere translates a document used in the United States, even if the direct client is from a third country, and according to more recent tendencies, even if the only contact with the U.S. was that said product was advertised on line using an American internet provider or a platform such as Google, Microsoft or Apple.

Even if a non-resident defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction under a state’s long arm statute, a court within the forum state may not exercise jurisdiction over that defendant if doing so would violate the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. To satisfy the Due Process Clause, the defendant’s contacts with the state must be so it would “not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” to require the defendant to litigate in the forum. Courts in the U.S., the European Union and elsewhere have determined that satisfying the requirements on the examples above, and affording the defendant a court hearing will comply with such legal requirements.

The Sherman Act

The main antitrust legislation in the United States, and the oldest (still current) antitrust legislation worldwide is the Sherman Act from the United States. It describes what conduct “Involves” import commerce, and gives the FTAIA and Justice Department main authority to deal with antitrust investigations and prosecution. It does not bar Sherman Act claims that “involve import commerce.” Several courts have recently been asked to consider what sort of “involvement” with import commerce is sufficient. The Third Circuit in Animal Science Products rejected the notion that the “import commerce” exception is limited to physical importers of goods, thus, it applies to service providers like interpreters and translators. The court defined conduct “involving import commerce” as conduct “directed at” or “targeted at” the U.S. import market. Although the original Minn-Chem Seventh Circuit panel agreed with this approach, neither court gave clear guidance on how to apply this standard.

Is a subjective intent to harm the U.S. import market required? Or is it sufficient to allege a global conspiracy to fix prices or set production limits that had as a consequence (as opposed to its focus or target) higher U.S. import prices? The DOJ’s view is that the FTAIA requires no subjective intent to harm U.S. import commerce and that a price-fixing conspiracy involves U.S. import commerce even “if the conspirators set prices for products sold around the world (so long as the agreement includes products sold into the United States) and even if only a relatively small proportion or dollar amount of the price fixed goods were sold into the United States.”  [Minn-Chem Inc. v. Agrium Inc., No. 10-1712, Brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission as amici curiae in support of neither party on rehearing en banc (Jan. 12, 2012), at pp. 19] Remember the example of the vessel above.

We can conclude that in the current environment, foreign companies involved in the manufacture or distribution of products (goods and services) outside the United States can no longer assume that the U.S. antitrust laws do not apply to their activities. This is an evolving area of the law with substantial uncertainty. It will take time for these issues to be sorted out in the courts and for clarity to emerge regarding the extraterritorial reach of the U.S. antitrust laws. Until then, a case-by-case analysis will be required to properly assess foreign companies’ potential exposure to criminal penalties (significant fines and jail sentences) and civil damages for violations of the U.S. antitrust laws. Because litigation before American courts is very costly, and the losing party is not required, as a matter of law, to pay for the legal expenses of the prevailing party, defendants often settle their cases and abstain from violating antitrust legislation before reaching a final resolution. This was the case of the American Translators Association (ATA) an association incorporated in the United States. ATA had a “Rate Guidelines Committee” (RGC) that once a year published a list of fees it recommended translators consider. It is possible that said rates (or fees) were reprinted by other professional associations of translators. In 1990 some interpreter and translator professional associations in the United States became the target of antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). By 1994 at least two of the organizations: “The American Association of Language Specialists” (TAALS) and the “American Society of Interpreters” (ASI) had signed consent decrees in which the press reported they agreed, among other points, to halt any meetings at which two of those present mentioned rates or fees. After two years of investigation, and significant money spent in defending the association, ATA was notified by the FTC in March 1994 that the investigation had been closed. ATA had approved an strict antitrust policy seven months before the FTC investigation, and this probably contributed to the decision to close the inquiry.  In closing the case, the FTC issued a statement indicating that the closure did not mean that a violation had not occurred. The Commission also reserved the right to “…take such further action as the public interest may require…” Three years later, the FTC issued a cease-and-desist order to the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) after finding AIIC in violation of U.S. antitrust law. The association also chose a settlement obligating them to abstain from discussing fees (or rates) in public.

US versus EU Antitrust Law

Regarding Antitrust Law, the similarities on both sides of the Atlantic outweigh the remaining differences by far. This holds true, at any rate, today, after more than 100 years of legal development.

The central difference was initially that the relevant U.S.-American law is much older. The Sherman Act dates from 1890, the Clayton Act, which introduced merger control, from 1914 (with a significant improvement by the Celler-Kefauver Act in 1950). These laws were not only existent on paper. They were rigorously enforced in practice. National competition laws in Europe developed mainly after the Second World War. Their development was triggered by introducing the rules on competition in the European Community in 1958. The latter induced many of the Member States, e.g. Italy, to introduce laws against restraints of competition for the first time.

A difference between the legal systems lies in the role of the state. In the USA, antitrust is a matter for private actors. In Europe, the role of the state was inevitably involved. This was due to the extensive involvement of the state in the economy

A common feature of the competition law regimes on both sides of the Atlantic is that they claim for themselves a wide international reach (long arm of the law). It suffices that a restraint of competition has effects within their own territory, regardless of where and by what enterprise it is effected (“effects doctrine” or “extraterritorial application of competition law”). A difference lies in the U.S. Antitrust Law’s better ability to assert itself: Uncle Sam has a very long arm. This is due to the USA usually making up half of the “world-wide market”. No globally acting enterprise can afford not to be present on the U.S.-American market. This inexorably leads to the result it can be caught by the American jurisdiction with no strain. Translators, interpreters, and professional interpreter and translator associations must know of this before taking any action.

Regarding the procedure, both legal systems build upon a rule of law, which is more pronounced in the United States than in Europe. A remarkable difference consists in the fact that in the USA, approximately 75% of all antitrust cases are brought by way of private enforcement

Under American civil procedure law, the American rule prevails. I.e., a defendant wrongly sued has to bear his own legal costs. The unsuccessful plaintiff need not reimburse them. This creates a significant potential for threat in the hands of an economically strong plaintiff. The civil procedure can mutate into an instrument for restraining competition. Just imagine a case between IAPTI and the U.S. Department of Justice. The deepest pockets will prevail.

European Union

Czech Republic and all members of the EU must comply with EU antitrust policy and legislation.

European antitrust policy is developed from two central rules set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

First, Article 101 of the Treaty prohibits agreements between two or more independent market operators which restrict competition. This provision covers both horizontal agreements (between actual or potential competitors operating at the same level of the supply chain) and vertical agreements (between firms operating at different levels, i.e. agreement between a manufacturer and its distributor). Only limited exceptions are provided for in the general prohibition. The most flagrant example of illegal conduct infringing Article 101 is the creation of a cartel between competitors, which may involve price-fixing and/or market sharing.

Second, Article 102 of the Treaty prohibits firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position, for example by charging unfair prices, by limiting production, or by refusing to innovate to the prejudice of consumers.

The Commission is empowered by the Treaty to apply these rules and has several investigative powers (e.g. inspection at business and non-business premises, written requests for information, etc.). The Commission may impose fines on undertakings which violate the EU antitrust rules.

National Competition Authorities (NCAs) are empowered to apply Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty fully, to ensure that competition is not distorted or restricted. National courts may also apply these provisions to protect the individual rights conferred on citizens by the Treaty. Building on these achievements, the communication on ten years of antitrust enforcement identified further areas to create a common competition enforcement area in the EU.

As part of the overall enforcement of EU competition law, the Commission has also developed and implemented a policy on applying EU competition law to actions for damages before national courts. It also cooperates with national courts to ensure that EU competition rules are applied coherently throughout the EU.

Best Practices on Cooperation in Merger Investigations

The revised Best Practices include an expanded section on remedies and settlements that details cooperation throughout the remedial process, emphasizing that early and frequent cooperation in this phase is important to avoid inconsistent or conflicting remedies, especially when remedies may include an up-front buyer and/or Phase I remedy in the EU. The revised Best Practices also underscore the critical role that the parties play in ensuring effective cooperation in this phase, including timely coordination of their remedy proposals with the reviewing agencies to allow for meaningful cooperation before either agency decides. Besides avoiding the risk of inconsistent or conflicting remedies, such meaningful cooperation in the remedial phase can cause the acceptance of common remedy proposals or even the appointment of common trustees or monitors, which is in both the agencies’ and the parties’ interest.

Recognizing that legal professional privileges differ between the U.S. and the EU, how are in-house counsel communications protections maintained once waivers of confidentiality are granted? The Best Practices note that the agencies will accept a stipulation in parties’ waivers given to DG Competition that excludes from the scope of the waiver evidence properly identified by the parties as and qualifies for the in-house counsel privilege under U.S. law. This is only an example of the European Union accommodating U.S. legislation in antitrust matters. There are other instances.

Antitrust legislation in Latin America

There has been antitrust law in some of the Latin American countries for many years. Brazil was the first to have such a law, but for many years enforcement was desultory. Then in the 1980s and 1990s scores of other countries around the world enacted or strengthened their antitrust laws, and this included Latin American jurisdictions such as Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and others.

A few jurisdictions had become fairly consistent in enforcing their antitrust laws, including Brazil and Mexico.

Continuing with the reforms, the new authorities of the Argentine Antitrust Commission (the “Antitrust Commission“) released a draft of the new Antitrust Law, which seeks to bring Argentina into line with the international experience in this matter: The Ley de Defensa de la Competencia (As far as I know) passed in the lower chamber when the diputados voted for it, and it is pending approval by the Senate. Among the reforms envisaged are:

Tougher sanctions, increasing fines up to 30% of turnover associated with products or services involved in the anti-competitive act; The creation of a National Antitrust Authority as a decentralized and self-governing body within the national executive branch, in replacement of the Antitrust Commission and of the Secretary of Commerce; The facilitation of private actions for damages against violators of the law; and the creation of a National Antitrust Court of Appeals to replace the uncertainty on which Court of Appeals is competent regarding antitrust matters.

The long arm of the law theory, and current practices and cooperation of all major international players, including the United States, European Union, and others will make it almost impossible to go against current policy and legislation. There is a great likelihood that many complaints will go to the U.S. courts because of the high cost of litigation and the absence of any legal basis for the losing party to pay for prevailing party’s legal fees and costs.

A Private Citizen’s Freedom of Speech.

Individuals may exercise their freedom of speech and speak, write, publish, and in any other way disseminate their opposition to legislation and policy. It will take a change of heart by the authorities, and current cultural values, to change this legislation and bring it to the reality of solo practitioners trying to make a living in the 21st. century. I now invite you to share your thoughts on this issue, remembering that no comment suggesting fees or rates will be included in this blog.

What we learned as Interpreters in 2017.

January 1, 2018 § 6 Comments

Dear Colleagues,

Now that 2017 is ending and we are working towards a fruitful and meaningful 2018, it is time to assess what we learned during the past 12 months.  As interpreters we are constantly learning, and from talking to many of my colleagues, 2017 was packed with learning opportunities.  The year that ends gave me once again the opportunity to work with magnificent interpreters and many of my dearest colleagues.

Our profession had positive developments this year:  The International Federation of Translators (FIT) held a very successful conference in Brisbane, Australia where those of us in attendance could see many friends and colleagues advancing our professions throughout the world. It was personally very instructive, and inspiring, to see how interpreting services in Aboriginal languages and Sign Language interpreting in many languages have grown and developed In many countries. I witnessed how the interpreting profession has moved forward in Mexico, as evidenced by the Organización Mexicana de Traductores’ (Mexican Translators Association, OMT) very successful conference in Guadalajara, The Autonomous University of Hidalgo’s University Book Fair and content-rich conference in Pachuca, and the very inspiring second court interpreter workshop and conference for Mexican Sign Language (LSM) that took place in Mexico City with the tremendous backing of the Mexican judiciary.  The International Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters brought its world congress to the Americas for the first time, and the decision could not be better: An unprecedented number of colleagues from North and South America attended the event and benefited from IAPTI’s philosophy and the quality of the presentations in beautiful Buenos Aires. This, and the workshops and talks I gave in Mexico to colleagues and students, including a very special invitation to the Autonomous University of Guadalajara (UAG) have helped me understand why the profession is growing south of the border, successfully taking the challenge by their government’s total revamp of their judicial process.  I also could participate in other professional conferences and seminars of tremendous level where I was honored to share experiences and exchange ideas with many professional colleagues. Thank you to all my colleagues who attended my presentations, workshops and seminars in Querétaro, Mexico City, Charlotte, San Antonio, Buenos Aires, Washington, D.C., Brisbane, Pachuca, Montevideo, Guadalajara, Seattle, Chicago, La Paz, and Baltimore. It was a pleasure to spend time with all of you in 2017.

The year that ends in a few days saw the growth of our profession in the healthcare field.  Remote Simultaneous Interpreting (RSI) had a landmark year as it listened to the professional conference interpreters and treated them with respect in both, labor conditions and professional fees. It also defined itself and marked an important distinction between the quality of Remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI) and video remote interpreting (VRI) the “industry’s” option.  Once again, I noticed the growth of our profession in Africa where our friends and colleagues held several professional events.

Unfortunately, not everything was good.  Our court and healthcare interpreter colleagues in the United States continued their fight against “peer” mediocrity, government ignorance, and agency greed. 2017 saw the biggest shift in American foreign policy in decades and this affected our profession. Events held in the United States for many straight years left for other countries because of the uncertainty of American immigration policy. It is very difficult to plan a big conference and invest a lot of money, without the certainty that attendees from certain countries will be admitted to the United States for the event.  International government programs that require of interpreting services was at an unprecedented low, and changes of personnel in the administration, at all levels, impacted the work available to interpreters in the diplomatic and international trade arena.

Apparently some bad situations remain alive, like the one suffered by the state-level court interpreters in New Mexico, and other court interpreters in some American east coast states. These colleagues continue to fight against low pay, deplorable working conditions, favoritism, ignorant government program administrators, and other problems. Some European countries, like Spain and the United Kingdom, continue to fight low quality translation and interpreting services in the legal arena.

Once again, interpreters around the world faced attempts from special interest groups to erode our profession by lowering professional standards and creating questionable certification programs, the multi-national language agencies continued to push telephone interpreting whenever, and wherever they can, offering rock-bottom per minute fees to the interpreters. Some board members in one professional translator and interpreter association maneuvered to oust two of the most valuable and recognized members of our professional community, and this jury (me) is still out on the question of the future of the association.

On a personal positive note, 2017 was the year when a long-time goal was reached: with my distinguished friends and colleagues, María del Carmen Carreón and Daniel Maya, we published the first ever text on court interpreting in Mexico within the new legal system the country recently adopted. The publication: “Manual del Intérprete Judicial en México” has been embraced by interpreters, judges, and attorneys throughout Mexico, and so far, the sales are handsome in many Spanish-speaking countries.

Of course, no year can be one hundred percent pariah-safe, so we had our “regulars” just like every single year: 2017 was full of para-interpreters trying to “take over” the market by charging laughable fees under shameful working conditions in exchange for miserable services.

As you can see, dear friends and colleagues, much changed and much stayed the same. I think that there were more good things than bad ones, but I continue to be aware of the awesome problems we still face as a profession from threats that come from without and within. I now invite you to share with the rest of us your learned lessons (good and bad) of 2017.

I wish a Happy and Productive New Year to all my friends and colleagues!

Will my clients find me in this association’s directory?

April 17, 2017 § 10 Comments

Dear Colleagues:

I am tired of getting this call repeatedly: “Hi, I got your name from the ATA directory and I was wondering if you would be available for a medical evaluation (or a worker’s compensation hearing) this Friday…”

Maybe those providing the service would be happy with these calls, but I am not.  Every time I must answer the phone to tell somebody I don’t do that work, and that I refuse to work for peanuts, is a waste of my time.  I do conference interpreting and I don’t like to explain two or three times a week I do not work for fifty dollars an hour.

For years I have almost exclusively worked as a conference interpreter, doing some court or legal interpreting for established Law Firms I regularly work with, generally in civil cases or some federal criminal matters.  Motivated by ATA’s outreach campaign regarding the credentialed interpreter designation and database, I thought that maybe, if I clarified it on the ATA directory that my credentials are United States Department of State Conference-level, and Federal court certification, all these people would stop calling asking me to do work that I do not provide.

I have been an ATA member for many years, and even though the association does many things I am very much against, I also get many benefits from my membership: a monthly publication with some very good articles, a discount on my errors and omissions insurance, good divisional activities, valuable webinars, and a well-known directory.

I logged in to the members section of the website to update my information and take advantage of the new credentialed interpreters’ database in their directory. This happened:

I must start by confessing that I rarely access ATA’s website, so I found it a little bit too crowded; maybe appealing to translators, but I believe it could be a little intimidating for clients looking for an interpreter or translator. After I accessed the “members” section, I looked for a section called “Interpreters’ credentials”, or something similar, but I found nothing. I clicked on the menu where it says “update your contact information” and “update your online directory profile”.

As I got to the profile section, all my information was already there (so I had entered it before). I did not need to change anything. Since I was already inside the program, I reviewed it anyway to see if I needed to make any changes. When I got to the “Interpreting Services” section, I saw that I had previously highlighted “consecutive”, “court”, “escort”, and “simultaneous”. Since I saw a “court” category, I scrolled down to see if I could also highlight “conference”, but the only category left for me to highlight was “sign language”. I thought it was odd. On one hand, if all you are listing are the interpreting you do, then “court” does not belong in here. If they added “court” to make the search easier for the clients, then I would like to see “conference” as an option. I suppose that healthcare interpreters would argue the same for their specialization.

Under the “Certifications” section, I entered my federal court interpreter and my two state-level court interpreter certifications from the drop down menu. I saw nothing for other credentials that are not certifications, but equally important, such as AIIC, U.S. Department of State, European Union, etc. The menu had another category: “other” where I entered my conference interpreting credentials, constantly wondering why I could not find the so much talked about “credentialed interpreter” menu for the new database ATA has been advertising so much. I thought the reason the place to enter that information was somewhere else, perhaps later on the form, was because these other credentials are not certifications and ATA had included them separately.

I kept looking, and my search only found a different category towards the end of the page called: “Additional Information”. That was it. No other place to enter conference interpreter credentials. Knowing I would not get what I wanted, I tested the directory, so I looked myself up. On a simple search I found my information, not as advertised with the credentialed interpreter information, but as I had entered it earlier. I immediately thought of the unwanted agency phone calls that would keep on coming as before.

I ran an advanced search just for English<>Spanish interpreters in Illinois, where I live, asking for State Department conference-level credentials, and the result was “we found none”.  I found this interesting, so I dug deeper to see if there was a problem with the directory search engine. The first thing I tried was a search for interpreters with that same language combination and credentials in the largest state: California. I know several colleagues there with the credentials and are members of ATA. The result was: “we found none”.

At this time I decided that maybe it was a glitch on the search engine, but before concluding that, I wanted to see if I had missed the section where you enter these credentials. I went over the form two more times and I found nothing. At this point I am thinking that maybe I needed to submit my credentials for a verification before the information was displayed, so I went back to the form once again. I read it carefully looking for some instructions or description of such process. I found nothing.

I did the only thing left: I went to the search menu at the top of the page and I typed: “credentialed interpreter process”. The search took me to a page with all the results. At the top I saw one that looked like the information I was looking for, so I clicked on it.

I finally found the explanations and instructions, with a link to a form to start the process. The first thing the program asks you to do is to reenter your ATA membership information. Once you are in the form, you are greeted by a message in red that tells you to submit a separate form for each credential and that you must pay $35.00 USD. As an attorney I must confess that although the red-inked message clarifies that one fee covers all requests, it is ambiguous on a second matter: it reads: “A $35-administrative fee covers all requests for one year.”  I did not understand if this means that for your information to continue to be available indefinitely you must pay $35.00 USD every year, or that any request filed after twelve months is no longer covered by the initial $35.00 USD fee and therefore you must pay again for the new credential.  Finally, I also learned that the process could take up to something like forty days.

After reading this, I stopped for a minute and reflected on what I was about to do: I was ready to send $35.00 USD to ATA (with my documentation) to be a part of this new database, but so far I had had a miserable time looking for, and finding any colleagues with the desired credentials; so far I had found zero conference interpreters. I even had a difficult time finding the instructions to get my credentials reviewed.  My friends, I am pretty active on social media, and even though I am not a computer genius, I am resourceful. Can you imagine how tough it would be for a regular individual looking for an interpreter to navigate through these? Even if I do this, send the documents, pay the fee, and wait the forty days, will my clients find me?

I concluded that I had to do more research first, so I did.

I went back to the directory and tested it:

I did this trying to think like a client and not like an interpreter or an ATA member. The first thing I noticed was that to look for an interpreter, the person doing the search must go through the translators’ section of the advanced search; they must scroll down passing through a section with very confusing questions for somebody who, let’s say, wants to hire an interpreter for a marketing conference at the Marriott downtown. Without being an interpreter, I would not know what to do when asked to indicate if I want an ATA certified or non-certified translator, or what translation tools I will need. As a client, even before reaching the interpreter questions, I would probably close the page and look for a conference interpreter in Google or somewhere else.

Since I had already tried Illinois and California with a result of zero interpreters, I looked first for any conference interpreters with an English<>Spanish combination, with a U.S. Department of State Conference-Level credential in New York State. The result was: none. Then I did the same thing for Washington, D.C. (where most conference interpreters live) Again there were zero. I got the same result in Florida and Texas. Next, I searched the same states for any interpreters with the same combination, but with the AIIC membership credential. The result was: nobody. I considered doing the same for every state in the Union, but (fortunately) I decided against it. Instead, I looked for any conference interpreters with any credential and living anywhere in the world. The result was: 2 interpreters. One U.S. Department of State Seminary-Level colleague in the United States, and one AIIC member in Argentina!

Based on these results, I looked for interpreters in all listed categories. I found this: Under certified court interpreters I found 10 colleagues. Under Healthcare certified I found 4 (2 were also listed as part of the 10 court certified). Under conference credentials I found 2 (one of them is also one of the 11 under court certified). I found 1 telephonic interpreter (also found under another category), and I found zero sign language interpreters.  Looking for simultaneous interpreters I found 10, under escort interpreters I saw there are 9, and as consecutive interpreters they have 14. As expected, all interpreters under the modes of interpretation categories are the same ones listed by specialization. I also noticed that some interpreters I found in this group are ATA Board members.

The page also asks the person doing the search to state if they are looking for a “consecutive, court, escort, sign language, simultaneous, or telephonic” interpreter. My relevant question was stated before in this post, but it is worth repeating for another reason: If I am a client looking for a conference interpreter, how can I find one under this criteria? Ordinary people do not know that conference interpreters do simultaneous interpreting. Even worse, they also do consecutive interpreting in many events such as press conferences for example.

If people we deal with regularly have a hard time referring to consecutive or simultaneous interpreting by their correct name, why would everyday people looking for a conference interpreter know who they need based on this question? If ATA included “court”, and even “telephonic”, they should include conference. Once again, I am sure my healthcare interpreter colleagues want to be heard here as well.

After reviewing the directory my decision was simple. Why would I want to pay $35.00 USD, and perhaps wait up to forty days, to be part of a directory listing a microscopic portion of the interpreting community? Should I encourage my clients to look for a credentialed conference interpreter in a directory that does not even list us as an option, and flatly ignores conference interpreting in their most common questions section, where all explanations and examples are geared to court and telephonic interpreting? And why as interpreters should we reward the work of an association that continues to treat us as second-class professionals by including the interpreter search criteria after the translator search options, instead of having two separate search pages: one for interpreters and one for translators to make it easier for our clients, and to give some respect to the many interpreters who are ATA members? There is no excuse or justification for this.

I know there are plenty of capable people at the helm of the American Translators Association whom I know and respect as friends and colleagues. I also appreciate many of the good things they do for the profession, but at this time, for all these reasons, until we interpreters get from ATA what we deserve as a profession: Unless the search criteria and credentialed interpreter designation process is as prominently displayed on the website as is the translators’ certification; and only when the search criteria addresses the conference interpreter community on a client-oriented, user-friendly platform, I will stay away from the “advanced-options” directory. I hope this post is welcomed as constructive criticism, and as the voice of many interpreters all over the world. It is not meant as an attack on anybody; it is just an honest opinion and a professional suggestion from the interpreters’ perspective. I now invite you to share with the rest of us your thoughts about such an important issue for all interpreters and for the image of ATA.

The new government could help interpreters in the U.S.

January 20, 2017 § 12 Comments

Dear Colleagues:

“We are sorry, but we will not be needing your services after all. We decided to hire some interpreters from the country of the people attending the conference…”  Does this message sound familiar? How about this: “…They decided not to retain me because they found somebody less expensive in South America.” (It could be Asia, Africa, or Eastern Europe).

Every interpreter in the United States (and other countries) has been part of this situation too many times in their career. The reality is that many agencies and event organizers are trying to save a buck, and with globalization, it is now very easy to hire a team of interpreters in a foreign country, offer to pay them in U.S. dollars (or euros), and bring them to interpret an event in the United States (or Western Europe) for very little money, compared to what professional interpreters typically make in that market. The foreign interpreters may be excellent, good, or bad; most likely, they will not be acquainted with the local culture, geography, current events, humor, and idiomatic expressions of the place where they are going to interpret, but they will save the agency a lot of money. To them, the little money they will get paid, and the second rate accommodations provided by the promoter of the event will be acceptable because they will be earning more money (and in hard currency) than their typical fees in their home market. The result is not good for the American-based interpreters who cannot afford to work for so little just because of the cost of living and doing business in the United States. I believe that it is not the best possible outcome for the audience either because the foreign-based interpreters (even some of the best) will not be able to understand and therefore interpret all the nuances of the speaker’s presentation just because they do not live in the United States.  Every U.S. interpreter has had this experience when working with a colleague who comes from a different culture, and we have also suffered the painful, stressful situations when we do not get a geographic site, local celebrity’s name, or regional expression because we do not live in the country.

The only one who relatively wins in this situation is the agency or event promoter; and I say relatively wins because they will eventually suffer the impact of this culture-deprived renditions.

To complete the sad picture I have just described, we have the case of those “less expensive” video remote interpreters who provide services for events held within the United States from abroad, and the telephonic interpreting services agencies that have moved a big chunk of their business to foreign countries with little overhead, lax legislation, and much lower salaries. The result: a good number of U.S. based experienced conference interpreters, willing to do video remote interpreting for a fee set by the American market, and many telephonic interpreters, including many who are just entering that market often encouraged by the same agencies alien to the profession but part of the “industry”, will lose their jobs or find little work because the bulk of the interpreting services to American clients are now provided from calling centers in Asia and Central America, and quite a few agencies look for video remote conference interpreters abroad without even looking for them in the United States.

This week a new president takes the oath of office in the United States, and a very prominent part of his agenda deals with protecting American jobs. This is where we can take advantage of the current mood in Washington, D.C., and demand that the new government keeps its promises to the interpreters and translators in the United States.

A new tougher immigration policy will benefit U.S. interpreters if we move our chess pieces wisely.  We must demand Congress, The White House, State Department, and Department of Homeland Security to enforce the labor laws of the United States. You see, most foreign interpreters brought by the agencies enter the United States on a tourist/ visitor visa without ever disclosing the fact that they will work in the U.S.

Working with a visitor’s visa is against the law; misrepresenting your purpose to enter the United States is cause for denial of admissibility and in some instances it could be a crime. Agencies that bring foreign interpreters this way are also breaking the law and should be investigated and fined by the federal government. If the law is properly enforced to protect American workers (that is: all of us) the agencies would need to file a work visa petition with an immigration service center, show a business necessity to bring that individual to do the job, demonstrate that there are no United States citizen or lawful permanent resident interpreters in the United States who are willing and able to perform the service the agency needs in exchange for the prevailing wage or fee for that service in that part of the United States. If the petition is approved, the foreign interpreter would need to attend an interview with a consular agent at the U.S. embassy in his country, and demonstrate that he is qualified to do the job, that he will go back to his country after the assignment is over, and that he has no criminal record anywhere in the world, including any past affiliation to terrorist groups or prior immigration violations in the United States such as deportations, overstays, or having worked without legal authority. Only then, and not a minute earlier, these people could enter the U.S. to work as interpreters for that conference. As you can imagine, this takes time, costs money, and often requires of the services of an immigration attorney. You see, dear friends and colleagues, all of a sudden the U.S. based conference interpreter got a lot cheaper than the foreigner, even if the agency needs to pay market fees in America.  This is our chance to end the “interpreter smuggling” that is happening right now in the United States. Of course, this does not cover foreign interpreters who come as part of the team of a foreign diplomat, head of state, dignitary, or celebrity. Those interpreters will enter the country with their client and for a specific mission that requires of them personally based on other characteristics. They will be paid in their home countries for a service that would not be performed by anyone else, American or foreigner. Even though it has been treated as one and the same, it is very different to enter the United States as the interpreter of the president of Argentina, and enter the country to interpret a conference at the Honolulu Convention Center.

The new government advocates a policy that keeps jobs in the States and will likely sanction those businesses who move abroad and try to sell goods and services back to the American consumer. There is no question that all these interpreting agencies that have moved abroad will qualify for sanctions as long as they provide their services to people in the United States. I believe that the fines and the cost of litigation to keep their facilities abroad selling their services in the United States will be more expensive than closing shop in Costa Rica or India and moving the telephonic interpreting center to Arizona or California.

I understand that this entry may not be very popular with many of my friends and colleagues abroad, but I ask you to please pause and examine your market structure so you can strive for better and more professional conditions in your own countries.  I also believe that much of what I say here can be applied, and in fact has already been implemented in some countries. Only when these conditions even up across the markets we will be able to universally enjoy the advantages of globalization.

You see, dear friends and colleagues in the United States, there is plenty we can do to protect the profession and advance our working conditions under the philosophy of the new administration.  I now ask you to share your comments with the rest of us, and I beg you to please limit your participation to the issues subject matter of this blog, and refrain from politically charged comments either for or against the new government.

The “must attend” conferences of 2017.

January 5, 2017 § 7 Comments

Dear Colleagues:

2016 was a great year for many of us. Quite a few of you developed professionally and became better at what you do. I congratulate you for that important achievement; unfortunately, competitors are still out there, languages are still changing, technology continues to improve, and clients (agencies or direct corporations) are willing to pay for what they need but are looking for the best service at the best possible price.  The question is: How do we adapt to reality, keep up with technology, and improve our service?  The answer is complex and it includes many different issues that have to be addressed.  Today, at the dawn of a new year, the time for planning activities, and programming agendas, we will concentrate on one of them: Professional development.

It is practically impossible to beat the competition, command a high professional fee, and have a satisfied client who does not want to have anything to do with any other interpreter but you, unless you can deliver quality interpreting and state-of-the-art technology.  In other words, we need to be better interpreters.  We need to study, we have to practice our craft, we should have a peer support network (those colleagues you call when in doubt about a term, a client or grammar) and we need to attend professional conferences.

I personally find immense value in professional conferences because you learn from the workshops and presentations, you network with colleagues and friends, and you find out what is happening out there in the very competitive world of interpreting.  Fortunately there are many professional conferences all year long and all over the world.  Fortunately (for many of us) attending a professional conference is tax deductible in our respective countries.  Unfortunately there are so many attractive conferences and we have to pick and choose where to go.   I understand that some of you may decide to attend one conference per year or maybe your policy is to go to conferences that are offered near your home base. I also know that many of you have professional agendas that may keep you from attending a particular event even if you wanted to be there.  I applaud all organizations and individuals who put together a conference. I salute all presenters and support staff that makes a conference possible, and I wish I could attend them all.

Because this is impossible, I decided to share with all of you the 2017 conferences that I am determined to attend:

The International Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters (IAPTI) Annual Conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina (April 22-23).  I go to this conference because it is IAPTI. Because it is about us, the interpreters and translators! This conference, and this organization for that matter, presents a unique point of view of our profession that I consider priceless.  It is the only international conference of this size where there are no corporate sponsors. All you see is translators and interpreters like you.  Some of the results of this innovative approach are that the conference attracts a very important group of colleagues that stay away from other events because they are bothered by the corporate presence.  This is the conference to attend if you want to learn how to deal with agencies, corporate clients and governments, because the absence of all those other players fosters this dialogue.  You can attend the presentations and workshops knowing that no presenter is there to sell you anything and that is fun to have at least once a year. Extra added bonus: Beautiful Buenos Aires! I am personally delighted that IAPTI decided to take its conference to Latin America where so many colleagues need these events.

The National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) Annual Conference in Washington, D.C. (May 19-21) I am determined to be in Washington, D.C. in May for the largest judiciary and legal interpreter and translator gathering anywhere in the world.  This conference lets me have an accurate idea of the changes in this area that is so important for our profession in the United States.  It is a unique event because everybody shares the same field and you get to see and network with colleagues that do not attend other non-court interpreting conferences. Extra added bonus: As the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. offers interpreters and translators the opportunity to physically see where it all happens: the government institutions and agencies, monuments, museums, and the federal court system: History and the law!

International Federation of Translators (FIT) XXI World Congress in Brisbane, Australia (August 3-5) This is an excellent event to attend for several reasons: It is an international meeting of professionals who actually live all over the world. There are other big events where interpreters and translators from many countries get together, but most of them live in the United States or the United Kingdom; at the FIT World Congress most of the professionals attending the event will be coming from their respective countries, bringing along different perspectives, points of view, and first-hand information on the status of the profession somewhere different from the country where you live. Extra added bonus: Despite the long trip for most of us, the central theme of the congress is “Disruption and Diversification”. Enough said: This are issues that affect all of us and should be near and dear to the heart of all professional interpreters and translators.

XXI Translation and Interpreting Congress San Jerónimo (FIL/OMT) in Guadalajara, Mexico (November 25-26) Every year the Mexican Translators Association (OMT) puts together a magnificent program featuring well-known presenters from all over the world. Coming from an unprecedented success during their XX Congress, the 2017 edition will surely have workshops and presentations in varied, useful, and trending topics. This is the activity to attend this year for those colleagues who work with the Spanish language.  Extra added bonus: The Congress is held in the same venue (Expo Guadalajara) and at the same time as the International Book Fair, one of the largest in the Spanish language world. Besides the professional sessions, attendees can also stroll up and down the immense fairgrounds a purchase some books, listen to some or the most renowned authors in the world, or just window shop in between sessions.

I know the choice is difficult, and some of you may have reservations about professional gatherings like the ones I covered above.  Remember, the world of interpreting is more competitive every day and you will need an edge to beat the competition.  That advantage might be what you learned at one of these conferences, or whom you met while at the convention.  Please kindly share your thoughts and let us know what local, national or international conference or conferences you plan to attend in 2017.

Young interpreters are the key to save the profession.

May 31, 2016 § 8 Comments

Dear Colleagues:

These past four weeks I had the fortune to work with, and be around, some of the brightest young interpreters and students. I attended four events that reminded me of the importance of passing the torch to the next generation of capable professionals. First, I lectured at the Masters’ Degree program at Anáhuac University in Mexico City, then, I attended the Sixth Latin American Translation and Interpreting Congress in Buenos Aires, followed by a talk to the students of the Autonomous University of Querétaro, Mexico, as part of their Translation and Interpreting Summit; and then, I was a presenter and a panelist during the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) pre-conference and conference in San Antonio, Texas.

Besides the great presentations, networking, and greeting of old friends and meeting many new ones, including the “living legends” of our profession and dear veteran colleagues, I had the opportunity to talk to the youth. Many of my conversations were with college students and brand new interpreters and translators who are just entering the global market. As expected, I saw the enthusiasm of youth, and I noticed something else: These new interpreters and translators, and the ones still studying to become our colleagues, are very capable, knowledgeable, and in some ways they are already ahead of us. Let me explain:

Many of these youngsters had a better academic formation than some of us, they are a product of a world that did not exist when we were starting our careers. While we were the product of a cold war era where the rule was hard work, hauling of heavy suitcases full of dictionaries and reference books all the way to the booth, endless library research hours, and practicing with your peers (in order to get constructive feedback on your performance); these new interpreters’ world includes laptops, tablets, electronic dictionaries, Wikipedia and Google.  They never had to use the services of a travel agent to get to a conference because they always had Kayak or other similar application; they never had a booth-mate smoking and handling conference materials with cigarette burns.  They did not become interpreters hoping to see enough work coming to their hometown, and most of them did not have the goal of working as a staff interpreter for a big company or international organization.  They knew that travel was part of the business and they did not hesitate, they wanted to have their own professional practice and own their time and career choices.  I know that you probably know all of these characteristics of our new colleagues, but I am mentioning them here because it is only when we stop and reflect on them that we can understand the young interpreters, and welcome them to the profession as we should.

Many of you have been around long enough to recognize the following situation. It happens constantly, and it takes place everywhere in the world:

Every time that graduation season comes along, and on every occasion that the results of newly certified, licensed, admitted, credentialed, or whatever the term may be, interpreters are announced; many of our colleagues, staff and freelancers, whether they are in a conference booth, courthouse, hospital, international organization, or government agency, will make a comment similar to this: “…There are all these new interpreters graduating this month, I don’t know why they studied this career, there is no work for them around here. We can hardly get work for the ones we already have…” or: “…I hope that nobody gets certified; every time there are newly certified interpreters, the first thing they do is to come here and try to get work. We don’t need them! We are fine just the way we are now…” and of course: “…these new kids from college think they know more than us, and are always trying to change the way we do things in here. I don’t like working with them. They want to do everything with a computer…”

We are all familiar with these reactions and attitudes. Some colleagues endorse them, some of us dislike them enormously, but the reality is that this predisposition against the “new interpreter” is pervasive, particularly against the “new young interpreter”; it is everywhere.  They exist because they come from a natural fear that humans experience when they are faced with the unknown. Add to this the fact that people feel that their source of income will be threatened, and you get the reality described above. It is a bad situation, buy fortunately, it is all based on ignorance, and as it is always the case, lack of knowledge can be defeated with information.

I propose that all of us, veteran professional interpreters and new colleagues, because this situation impacts everybody, look at it from both perspectives: that of the experienced interpreter, and that of the newly graduated.

Why is it that so many veteran interpreters get so upset when youngsters graduate from college, when it is announced that there are new certified interpreters, and when they are told that they will be sharing the booth with a new, much younger colleague? Because many veterans are afraid. They fear that they will not get work anymore, they are afraid of showing their rendition to a younger partner who may detect diminishing skills that another veteran would never dare to disclose to the client or agency; they are embarrassed to show their lack of knowledge of modern technology, and looking incompetent before the new interpreter who will lose any respect for the veteran who cannot even do a quick Google search in the booth. They are aware of their lack of technological skills, they know that modernity requires them and the client values them, and therefore, they feel ignorant, perhaps of lesser professional quality than the young ones, and they fight the change. As a result of these insecurities, many veterans ignore, despise, and mistreat newcomers, creating a tension that helps nobody, and erodes the profession.

On the other side, new interpreters resent this treatment by those who are already making a living by practicing the profession. Some of them put up with the insults, abuse and assignment bypassing, as part of the “paying your dues” process; others are more fortunate, of just luckier, and despite the campaign against them by the old-timers, they are noticed by a veteran interpreter, the agency, or the client, and they blossom as interpreters. Sadly, many of these bright and very capable new professionals get discouraged and abandon the quality path of our craft, they let their guard down, and they are lured to the dangerous dark side of our reality: they become the prey of those in the interpreting “industry”, who will wine them and dine them until they are ready to become one more laborer in the interpreting sweat shop.  You see, by rejecting these excellent professionals whose only “sin” is their youth and to be technologically literate, we are throwing them to the jaws of those colleges and universities that (maybe in good faith, or perhaps because of their own monetary benefit) promote the concept of graduating and going straight to the big multinational agencies where quality is not even on their priority list. We are leaving them at the mercy of aggressive recruiters who work for these international calling centers where their interpreting talent will be wasted, and they will work for a fee so low that their college loans will have to be paid back by their grandchildren. At the least, we will leave them vulnerable to the big professional associations who mask these low-paying job fairs as “professional conferences” and “mentor” these youngsters until they are conditioned to accept whatever the “industry” tells them to do.

The truth is, dear friends and colleagues, new young interpreters are also at fault. Many times, when faced with the very real possibility of working an assignment with a veteran interpreter who has achieved prestige, but was not college-trained, (in many occasions because the career did not exist yet, or because there were so few institutions of higher education offering it), the newly graduated acts as if she were better that the empiric, self-taught colleague, refusing to listen to any suggestions or comments that the veteran may share. This will undoubtedly result in a bad situation where the newcomer looks arrogant and ignorant, and the experienced interpreter feels disrespected.  Another common scenario has a new interpreter losing patience and his “cool” when the older veteran does not seem to understand the technological terms or simply shows up to the booth dragging behind one half of the Library of Congress. There has to be self-reflection, tolerance, understanding, and respect of the other’s personality, experience, formal education, technical skills, and personal style when interpreting.

Let’s see, the first thing an interpreter who is going to work with a colleague for the first time (even more so when they are from a different generation) needs to do, is to look at himself in the mirror, and remember when he was young and the “victim” of a prior generation of interpreters; and then, he must acknowledge his strengths and weaknesses.  The veteran may have the confidence that only years of working give you; he may know the speaker, the subject matter, the venue, or the sound technician very well. He may know the interpreters in the other booths and how to work relay assignments with them. The younger interpreter may know how to take notes with a tablet or I-pad; and how to research a speaker, term, or topic with her phone, without having to leave the booth.  They need to be honest with themselves, and acknowledge their shortcomings: The older interpreter may not be very good; maybe he never was, but at a time when no interpreters were around, he was better than nothing. In this case, he needs to be a professional and decline the assignment. Everybody will respect this move more than a cavalier attitude motivated by ego and a state of denial.  The young interpreter may conclude that the event is just to “big” for her; she should realize that, although these assignments may be right for her in the future, she is not ready yet. People will respect this honest assessment of an assignment and the interpreter’s skill to do it at this time.  The older interpreter may have to accept that technology arrived to the booth and that it is here to stay; he has to understand that taking several minutes to research a term in the paper dictionary is now unacceptable.  The new interpreter may notice how the veteran interpreter has a better idea as to the location of the booth, or at dealing with the speaker, and she should not dismiss a lesson learned in the booth just because the interpreter teaching the lesson does not have an interpreting college degree.

You see, it is really simple when you think about it: if the veteran interpreter lets his guard down, he will become a better professional, as he will learn from the younger booth-mate how to use so many of the modern tools that will make him more marketable and better.  If the younger interpreter gets over the fear of working with the older guy, she will learn the ropes of the profession that are not taught in school. She will learn how to negotiate a better contract, how to get better clients, and how to do a complex high-profile assignment without even sweating.  The reality is: everybody has something to teach. We all have something to learn. The goal of every experienced interpreter should be to leave the profession better than they found it, and the only way to do it, is to pass on every piece of knowledge and experience onto the next generation.  The goal of every new interpreter should be to take the profession to the next level, and the only way to do it is to continue to build on top of the structure already in place left behind by those who came first. There cannot be any progress if the new generation wants to reinvent the wheel.  If we all do our part, we will also protect the profession by retaining the talent for the quality, well-remunerated work, and letting the “industry” feast on those not-so-talented colleagues who will need to do a greater effort to improve their service before they can “escape” the claws of assembly-line interpreting.

Yes, there will be some growing pains, it will take some effort to adapt to a different generation booth-mate, but the quality of the rendition will improve, and all interpreters will have so much fun working with a veteran, or a rookie, in the booth, the courthouse, the hospital, the government agency, the international organization, and everywhere else that real professional interpreters are needed.  I now encourage you all, my young and seasoned colleagues, to share with the rest of us your constructive ways to strengthen the professional relationship between experienced veterans and new interpreters.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with Argentina at The Professional Interpreter.