Interpreters’ association favors some of its members with 2 questionable actions.
July 11, 2019 § 13 Comments
Dear Colleagues:
If you are a regular reader of this blog you know my position regarding California’s AB5 bill that will benefit independent contractor interpreters who are currently prey to abusive practices by many agencies that treat them like employees but provide no labor benefits in that state. If enacted into law, this legislation will protect those who cannot move or seek other sources of work due to personal circumstances such as a sick child, and elderly parent, or unaffordable individual health insurance coverage. (For more information, please see my post of June 12).
I have no problem with those colleagues who, acting as small business owners, not professional interpreters, seek to influence the legislature and kill the bill. They have a legitimate right to do so, just like I exercise my right to support the bill and advocate for its passing.
The situation turns problematic when an association the size of the National Association of Judicial Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) apparently injects itself into a controversy that affects many of its members on both sides of the bill, and throws its support behind one sector of its membership: the agency owners.
It concerns me that a national association decided to participate on a state-level issue in a way that goes beyond its mission to advance the quality of the services provided by its membership, and the professionalization of interpreting, and decides to adopt a position fueled by the commercial interests of some of its small agency members, and those who have listened to the one-sided arguments by these businesspeople, and erroneously think the legislation would harm them. A professional association should concern itself with continuing education, position papers, and support of its membership’s efforts to become a recognized profession, not a commercial entity or a merchant guild. It should not support the other side either.
Independent contractor interpreters have the support of the California Labor Unions and Guild; Agency owners are represented by the Association of Language Companies (ALC), an entity conceived to advance their business interests, not the professional status of individual interpreters or translators. On this issue, agency owners who are NAJIT members should turn to those who share their interests in ALC.
Professional associations should refrain from taking positions and acting on behalf of a membership segment at the expense of another. From the beginning of this controversy, at the time of the Dynamex decision, the American Translators Association (ATA) took itself out of this issue by announcing they would not take sides. That was the right decision, they did not put some members over the rest.
The second thing that troubles me is the way NAJIT got involved in this issue. The membership was not informed of any discussion about this support; as far as I know there was never a Board meeting to deal with this issue. No decision was ever made, and the Board was not consulted. For all these reasons, it is very disconcerting, and extremely troublesome to see NAJIT’s Chair actively participating on these actions through social media, by letting others use the name of NAJIT in a way the public could think the association and its Board were behind these efforts, and (according to social media) by actively attending the legislature’s session, not as a private member, but representing NAJIT (there are social media posts showing her approval of these actions). In fact, to foster trust on the leadership, I believe Board members should remain neutral even as individual members of the association for as long as they are part of the Board. I have no way to know if any other members of the Board participated in such an unfortunate incident, because there is no evidence they did, but if this were the case, they would have acted ultra vires as well, and without discussing these actions as a Board.
Fortunately, the California Senate’s Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee passed the bill on Wednesday, and it now moves to the Appropriations Committee before it can reach the Senate floor. Assemblywoman Lorena González (D-San Diego), author of the bill, added business to business services to the list of exempted occupations. This can be used to escape the law by some of those who claim the legislation will put them out of business.
It is my sincere hope that NAJIT and its Board, thinking of its membership as a whole, publicly take a position of neutrality and clarify they will not support some of its members over others.
Is it true that interpreters must abstain from public commentary?
December 10, 2017 § 3 Comments
Dear Colleagues:
I have recently read many comments about the court interpreter in California who decided to talk to the media after she provided her services to the defendant in a high profile criminal case. To my surprise, must comments promptly endorsed the position that a court interpreter cannot make any public comment. Such extreme “black and white opinion” is quite concerning.
Before expressing such a sweeping opinion, interpreters should reflect on the purpose of their professional service, the reasons for the rule or legislation, and what the consequences of failing to observe it really are. Let’s see:
The main topic concerning this analysis is confidentiality. The nature of the duty of confidentiality is based on two things: the subject matter or area of interpretation, and a scale of values.
Different subject matters or fields of interpreting will be governed by different legislation, interests, and goals. If the interpreter’s professional practice involves intellectual property, diplomacy, or national security, there will be many limitations and restrictions as to the things the interpreter can share with others. Most of these duties will come from legislation, not canons of ethics of regulations. Many others will derive from contractual obligations regarding commercial brands, patents and copyrights.
The scale of values is also important: The more important the value, the stricter the responsibility.
Revealing the content of diplomatic negotiations could have implications of war and peace, and the interpreter could even go to prison, or at least lose his job and reputation.
Revealing medical information can disrupt a patient’s health or treatment, impact insurance coverage, kill a patient’s future employment opportunities, and generate legal problems for hospitals, physicians and interpreters.
When we provide diplomatic or military interpreting services at certain level, we are required to undergo a security clearance process and we take a legally binding oath to secrecy. Breaching this legal obligation will bring catastrophic consequences to the interpreter.
The California case gives us the opportunity to revisit a court interpreter’s duty of confidentiality, so we can see how sweeping statements like those made by some of our colleagues last week, most of them in good faith, are not so categorically right.
First, we need to understand what is protected by the duty of confidentiality, and who imposes the restrictions on the court interpreter.
Interpreters exist because there must be equal access to the administration of justice, regardless of the language the court or the parties to a controversy speak. Here we must make a distinction:
(1) The court interpreter as a communication tool to the litigant.
When a plaintiff, defendant or victim cannot actively participate in their legal case because of a language barrier, the court interpreter acts as the ears and voice of the foreign language speaker in communications with the court, his attorneys, and the opposite party. Interpreters render a complete, accurate interpretation of everything that is said during the hearing, and interpret to the court and parties everything the foreign language speaker says. These interpreters handle three types of information: public record, confidential information, and privileged communications.
These are the interpreters hired by the court, paid from the courthouse budget, and selected from a roster kept by the clerk’s office.
When a plaintiff or defendant want to be represented by a private attorney, but they cannot communicate with their attorneys because of a language barrier, those privately retained attorneys can also hire professionals court interpreters in private practice to help them communicate with their foreign speaking client, their client’s relatives, and with those witnesses who do not speak the language of the attorneys. In this case it is the attorney who selects the interpreters from prior experiences or referrals from others; and it is the attorney, not the court, who pays the interpreters’ fees (very likely from the plaintiff or defendant’s assets). This interpreters handle three types of information: public record, confidential information, and privileged communications.
As we can see, in both cases, interpreters work with information that is public record. This means that everybody has access to what was said or done. For example: As a rule, court hearings are open to the public. Anybody can go to the courthouse and sit in the courtroom during a trial. At the State-level, many jurisdictions broadcast their proceedings in public and even commercial TV. All legal arguments, court rulings, and witness statements are heard by all interested individuals.
Both, court appointed and privately retained interpreters are privy to confidential information not because of who the interpreters are as individuals, buy because of what they do for living. This information is sensitive in nature and if disclosed, it could adversely impact third party innocent individuals. For these reasons, interpreters are usually barred from sharing this information. Details surrounding a case that come to the knowledge of the parties, but are irrelevant to the outcome of the controversy are kept from the public. Names of business partners, financial information, paternity, personal health information, sealed court cases, juvenile court records, are just some of the examples that fall under this category.
While working with an attorney, all interpreters learn what is called privileged information. This is crucial, intimate information about the subject matter of the controversy that lawyers need to know to represent their clients and defend their interests. This information is treated differently because it is only when a person knows that statements made to their attorney in confidence cannot be disclosed to anyone, not even the judge or jury in the case, that clients can truly open up to their attorneys and share all details of a case. Those acting as agents of the attorney, such as paralegals, investigators, and interpreters, are covered by the client-attorney privilege, and nobody, not even a judge can compel them to disclose said privileged information.
(2) The court interpreter as auxiliary agent to the administration of justice.
The court system has a vested interest on the perception that the administration of justice within its jurisdiction is equally fair to all citizens, even those who do not speak the language of the court. For this reason, courts have set policy to clarify this principle, and reassure all potential litigants of the impartiality of the court, even in those cases when a foreigner is party to a controversy, especially in criminal cases where life or liberty are at stake.
This principle has motivated some courts (not all of them), in particular in the United States, to go beyond what many would consider reasonable, and impose the strictest restrictions to some of the things court interpreters can and cannot do. Based on this one-sided extremely restrictive rules, the federal courts of the United States abide by the United States District Court Code of Ethics for court interpreters, who have been sworn as officers of the court for the duration of the assignment, and interpret under contract with such court, “…to follow the Standards for Performance and Professional Responsibility for Contract Court Interpreters in the Federal Courts…” (USDC Code of Ethics. Preamble)
The Federal Code of Ethics contains some important principles needed to practice the court interpreter profession that are free of controversy, such as Rule 5: “Confidentiality. Interpreters shall protect the confidentiality of all privileged and other confidential information…”
It also covers other situations where restrictions seem unreasonable and arbitrary, like Rule 3 where it states that: “…During the course of the proceedings, interpreters shall not converse with parties, witnesses, …attorneys, or with friends and relatives of the party, except in the discharge of their official functions…”, or Rule 6: “Restriction of Public Comment. Interpreters shall not publicly discuss, report, or offer an opinion concerning a matter in which they are or have been engaged, even when that information is not privileged or required by law to be confidential…”
Dear friends and colleagues, we must remember that the above restrictions by the United States District Court Code of Ethics only apply to court interpreters who are providing their professional services when they “…are sworn in (and) they become, for the duration of the assignment, officers of the court with the specific duty and responsibility of interpreting between English and the language specified. …In their capacity as officers of the court, contract court interpreters are expected to follow the standards for performance and professional responsibility for contract court interpreters in the federal courts…”
In other words, said restrictions, as they are not the law, but a mere contractual obligation, only apply to those who are providing their services in federal court pursuant to a contract with the court. These blanket restrictions do not apply to any of us when working as interpreters in federal court if we have been retained by one of the parties.
Once we understand this limitation, and the different role interpreters play when they act as a communication tool to the litigant with his attorneys, and in those cases when they also act as an auxiliary arm to the administration of justice and are paid by their judiciary. It is obvious that legal restrictions and limitations such as client-attorney privilege and confidentiality will apply to all interpreters as they are part of the essence of the legal representation, but other limitations that go beyond that scope will not apply to privately retained interpreters as they exist to assure impartiality and transparency to the extreme. This is not necessary with private attorneys and their interpreters as they are publicly known as part of a team: plaintiff’s or defendant’s.
To the latter group of interpreters, sharing what is already public record should be no problem; and in my personal opinion, I do not believe that even court appointed interpreters should be sanctioned for sharing public information with the media. I believe that telling a reporter that a hearing was moved from 1 pm to 2 pm and saving her the trouble to go up 20 stories to read the same information on the court’s bulletin board will hardly raise suspicion of prejudice, particularity when we know that interpreting is a fiduciary profession. To me, it looks very weird when the interpreter refuses to answer such silly questions and reacts by moving away without an explanation.
As far as confidential information, please be aware that the prohibition is not absolute either. A court order can compel you to testify. Please remember that the client holds the right to said confidentiality, and as such, he or she can always give consent. When this happens, confidentiality goes away. Will these ever happen in your professional career? We do not know, but we should always be aware that it is a possibility.
Even client-attorney privilege is not absolute. There are certain exceptions in the law that allow you to pierce the veil of this sacrosanct privilege. Among other possibilities, the client, who holds the privilege, can also lift it by giving consent; you can also pierce it when defending yourself from the actions of the client who holds said privilege. Let’s say that the client sues you arguing that the interpreter did nothing in the case. Under those circumstances you can pierce the privilege to prove that the client is not telling the truth and show the work you did, as long as the privileged information you divulged is limited and tailored to the point you are trying to prove in court. Statements and information provided during a client-attorney communication that include future illegal activity is not covered by the privilege either, and you as interpreter must disclose it to the authorities.
We must remember at all times that different jurisdictions will have different policy, rules and legislation, so we must adhere to all applicable rules, as long as they apply to us, depending on the type of professional service we are going to provide.
In the case of California, please keep all of the above in mind, and understand that Rule 2.890(c)(4) states that: “…An interpreter must not make statements to any person about the merits of the case until the litigation has concluded…”
Notice how the rule does not go beyond the conclusion of the case, because the rule (erroneously in my opinion) does not make a distinction between interpreters privately retained by the parties who act as a communication tool to the litigant, and those retained by the courts who also must play the role of auxiliary agents to the administration of justice and therefore be impartial at all times. Once there are no more appeals, there is no reason for the restriction on the first type of interpreter.
Finally, a couple of thoughts: I was saddened to see how must of my colleagues immediately assume the role of a criminal court interpreter retained by the court. I am always hoping that more interpreters view themselves as independent professionals working with private attorneys. There is an abysmal difference in professional fees, and the work is about the same. I ask you to please think like a private practitioner, instead of accepting the rules without any reservation. Question the rules and try to understand why they compel you to do or abstain from doing something.
It also concerned me how so many of our court interpreter colleagues rush to “obey” anything the courts say without even checking the source of the “command”. Many people criticized and condemned the interpreter who spoke to the media because of what the “Professional Standards and Ethics for California Court Interpreters” say. Please understand that this is just a manual, not legislation, regulations, or a court decision. It is just a didactic tool for those who are trying to understand the profession. Use it as such. Observe the California Rules of Court.
I hope we all understand that professional rules include universal standard values, but they also incorporate local culture so necessary for an administration of justice that reflects the values of the community it is meant to serve. For this reason, I. Sincerely hope we all come to understand that asking for universal rules or codes is not the best legal option. A system like the one we have is an appropriate one. We just need to understand the rules better, and fight to change those we believe constitute a hurdle to our profession. I now ask you to please share your founded legal arguments on this issue that could adversely impact our profession.
My last word on interpreting for this political season.
November 7, 2016 § 7 Comments
Dear Colleagues:
This Tuesday is Election Day in the United States, and people going to the polls means the political season is over for politicians, campaign staffers, beat reporters, and yes: interpreters. Unlike any other presidential campaign during my professional life, the last eleven months were full of surprises and unusual challenges for the interpreter. First, we had sui-generis primary elections; on the republican side we interpreted stump speeches and presidential debates full of disqualifications, insults, rudeness and unparalleled vulgarity, and we learned to interpret for non-politicians like Trump, Carson, and Fiorina. On the democratic side we interpreted stump speeches at campaign rallies where the candidate who motivated and inspired the crowd the most did not get the nomination, and we worked presidential political debates that, compared to what was going on at the republican party, seemed low-key and frankly boring. Even some of the victory and concession speeches after the primaries were bizarre at times. And then came the general election campaign.
Although it may seem that from the interpreter’s professional perspective both campaigns were about the same, and they are both ending with speeches where nobody talks about their platform, but about how awful the other candidate is, it was not like that at the beginning. Starting with the democratic convention, Clinton run a very conventional campaign; the speeches were of the kind the interpreter expects to hear during a presidential race. On the other hand, the republican campaign started with a very different convention full of insults and disqualifications among the supporters of the different candidates. There was also a very strange “endorsement” speech that really was a non-endorsement address by Texas Senator Ted Cruz (followed by one of the strangest press conferences I have interpreted in my life) And of course, the constant chants of “lock her up” from the floor of the convention that we as interpreters decided not to interpret since the chants did not come from the podium, and we were there to interpret the speeches, not the crowd’s reactions, the same way a sports interpreter is there to interpret what journalists and athletes have to say, not the screams coming from the bleachers. And then, we had the three debates.
Even though I only interpreted the second and third debates, I watched them all, and for the first time in my life, partly out of curiosity, and partly motivated by many blog posts by other colleagues, I also watched the interpretation rendered by friends and colleagues from other countries.
Because of the unusual candidates and the tone of the presidential campaign, many foreign radio and TV stations carried the debates, and in many cases the interpreters were not from the United States and they were physically abroad working from a studio in their hometowns. First, I congratulate my colleagues for the great job they all did; despite the fact that I could not understand the rendition into some of the languages I watched, I observed the professionalism and delivery of the interpreters working the debates and I salute them all. I also want to take a moment to address all of my colleagues who have ferociously criticized the work of some of these colleagues, and ask them to please consider the difficulty of doing this work with technicians, radio or TV equipment, and the awareness that many people are listening to your rendition live, and later on to the recorded version that will be replayed over and over again. Next, I ask the same critics to recall the times when they have interpreted a live unscripted event before millions of people and assess their performance. I suspect that most of those screaming the loudest against these interpreters have never done this kind of work. I did not listen to all of my colleagues, and I suspect that there were probably some bad renditions, especially if the interpreter selection was left to an agency more interested in finding cheap interpreters and less inclined to pay for high quality, but the overwhelming majority of those who interpreted the debates did a magnificent job.
For me, it was interesting to see how some of these foreign interpreters had difficulties with things we don’t even think about because we live in the American culture and system. Basic political concepts, idiomatic expressions, and references to U.S. geography and history were cause for pause and struggle. The mechanics of the debates presented an unfamiliar situation to some colleagues who grew up and live in countries where there are no political debates, and if there is such a thing, it is often a staged show with soft questions by a friendly panel, that look more like a press conference where the candidates take turns answering questions and ignoring the other opponents also at the podium. Because of our socio-political reality in the United States, we do not interpret foreign leader debates for the American audience, and for this reason I do not really know what it feels like to interpret a foreign debate such as the ones between Clinton and Trump, but as an interpreter who lives in one State and often interprets gubernatorial, congressional, and local government debates somewhere else, I have to prepare to deliver a professional rendition.
Some of the things I do to get ready to interpret for a political debate include: reading about local and campaign issues, learning about the candidates’ background, views, and platform. It is crucial to study the election system of the place where the interpreter will work, learn the structure of the State government, read local newspapers, watch and listen to local newscasts and political shows, search the web, know basic history and geography of the place where you will interpret the debate, know national and world current events in case they come up during the debate either as a question or as part of an answer; and finally: know the rules of the debate.
Finally, there is another issue that merits comment: From their own comments, it was clear that for many colleagues interpreting Donald Trump was nearly impossible. I disagree.
It is true that Trump often leaves sentences unfinished, that he does not follow a logical pattern when he talks, and he often interrupts others. Interpreting somebody who behaves this way may be hard, but it is not uncommon. My years of court interpreting took me to many individuals whose speech is much more difficult to interpret, yet I did, and so do hundreds of colleagues who work at the federal and state-level courthouses of the United States every day. If an interpreter spends an entire professional career interpreting in the booth, working with highly educated people, or just with those whose main objective is to convey their message to an audience, interpreting for a person of Trump’s characteristics will be extremely tough; however, those interpreters who had a broader formation, including some work with criminals and witnesses who will do anything to say as little as possible in a court of law, and to mislead a judge and jury every time they have a chance, will find themselves in familiar territory when they listen to Donald Trump.
We have a few days to go: Election Day and the aftermath when we will deal with the results. There are a few more things to interpret in this political season, but we are at the very end of what will forever be a unique presidential campaign cycle for everybody, including the interpreter community that had to deal with situations we never encountered in the past, and for the first time, turned into an international affair for interpreters everywhere. I now ask you to share with us your experiences, thoughts, and comments, from an interpreter’s perspective, about this political campaign, the conventions, the presidential debates, and interpreting for Donald Trump.
Understanding the Electoral College in the United States.
October 11, 2016 § 3 Comments
Dear colleagues:
During my career I have noticed that every four years during the Presidential election season in the United States many interpreters are faced with the Electoral College topic even when their assignments are non-political. Because of its American uniqueness, this topic presents a challenge to many colleagues who usually work outside the United States and to others who live in the country but grew up somewhere else. In fact, the Electoral College is one of those issues that many Americans do not fully understand, even if they vote every four years. Interpreters cannot interpret what they do not understand, and in a professional world ruled by the market, where the Clinton and Trump campaigns are dominating broadcasts and headlines, this topic will continue to appear on the radar screen. Therefore, a basic knowledge of this legal-political process should come in handy every four years.
Because we are in a very “different” campaign and Election Day will be here before we know it, I decided to put my legal background and my passion for history to work:
Every four years when an American citizen goes to the polls on a Tuesday in November to elect the new president of the United States, that individual does not vote for any of the presidential candidates. We Americans vote for a preference (Republican, Democratic and occasionally other) and for electors who will go to Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital, in the month of December to cast all electoral votes from that state, in favor of the candidate who represents the preference of the majority of the state voters as expressed on that Tuesday in November. In other words, we vote for the people who will go to Washington D.C., to vote on our behalf for the presidential candidate who received the most direct votes from the citizens of that state during the general election. After the November election, those electors are pledged to the candidate who received the most votes in that state. The result: We have direct vote elections in each state, and then we have the final election in December when the states vote as instructed by the majority of its citizens. It is like a United Nations vote. Think of it like this: Each state elects its presidential favorite; that person has won the presidential election in that state. Now, after the November election is over, the states get together in December as an Electoral College and each of them votes. This is the way we determine a winner. Each state will vote as instructed, honoring the will of its citizenry. We do not have proportional representation in the United States.
Historically and culturally this country was built on the entrepreneurial spirit: Those who risk everything want everything, and when they succeed, all benefits should go their way. We are an “all or nothing” society. That is even reflected on our sports. All popular sports invented and played in the United States have a winner and a loser by the end of the game: We do not like ties because we associate a tie with mediocrity. A baseball game can go on forever until a team wins. We do the same in politics. Once the citizens have voted, the winner gets all the benefits, in this case all the electoral votes; it does not matter if he or she won by a million votes or by a handful. You may remember how President George W. Bush was elected to his first term; he won the state of Florida by a very small margin, but winner takes it all, therefore all of Florida’s electoral votes went to him and he became the 43rd. President of the United States. Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams got to the White House with a smaller margin than George W. Bush.
I mentioned earlier that we like the principle of winner takes it all. Although that is true, we are a country of fairness and justice with such diversity that the only way to achieve this goal is through a balance of the rights of the people on one side, and those of the states on the other. (For those who have a difficult time understanding why the states have rights separate from the people, please imagine the United States as a mini-world where each state is an independent country. Then think of your own country and answer this question: Would you like a bigger or more populated foreign country to impose its will over your country, or would you like for all countries to be treated as equals?) In December when the electors or delegates from each state meet as an electoral college in Washington D.C. to cast their state’s electoral votes, all states have a voice, they are all treated as equal. This is the only way that smaller states are not overlooked; their vote counts.
We find the final step to achieve this electoral justice to the states of the United States of America (all fifty states and territories that make this country) and to the citizens of the country in the number of electoral votes that a state has; in other words, how many electors can a state send to Washington D.C. in November. The answer is as follows: The constitution of the United States establishes that there will be a House of Representatives (to represent the people of the United States) integrated by 435 members elected by the people of the district where they live. These districts change with the shifts in population but additional seats are never added to the House. When the population changes, the new total population are divided by 435 and that gives you the new congressional district. The only limitations: An electoral district cannot cross state lines (state borders) therefore, occasionally we will have a district slightly larger or slightly smaller, and every state must have at least one electoral district (one house member) regardless of its population. The American constitution establishes that there will be a Senate (to represent the 50 states) integrated by 2 representatives or members from each state for a total of 100 senators elected by all the citizens of that particular state. When new states have been admitted to the Union (the last time was 1959 when Alaska and Hawaii became states number 49 and 50 respectively) the senate grows by two new members.
As you can see, all states have the same representation in the Senate (2 senators each) regardless of the state’s size or population. The House of Representatives on the other hand, has more members from the states with larger population, but all states have at least one representative in the house. This way the American system makes sure that the will of the majority of the people is heard in Congress (House of Representatives) and it assures the 50 states that all of them, even the smaller ones, will be heard as equals in the Senate. You need both houses of Congress to legislate.
Going back to the Electoral College, the number of electoral votes each state has is the same as its number of Senators and Representatives. The total number of Senators and Representatives is 535 (435 Representatives and 100 Senators) Washington D.C. is not a state, therefore it has no Representatives or Senators, but it has 3 electoral votes to put it on equal footing with the smaller states for presidential elections. Therefore, the total number of electoral votes is 538. Because of this totals, and because of the American principle of winner takes it all that applies to the candidate who wins the election in a state, to win a presidential election, a candidate must reach 270 electoral votes. This is the reason why California, our most populated state, has 55 electoral votes (53 Representatives and 2 Senators) and all smaller states have 3 (remember, they have 2 Senators and at least one Representative in the House)
The next time you have to interpret something about the Electoral College in the United States remember how it is integrated, and think of our country as 50 separate countries who have an internal election first, and then vote as states, equal to all other states, on the second electoral round in December. Because on November 8 of this year we will know who won each state, we will be celebrating the election of a new president, even though the Electoral College will not cast its votes for another month. It is like knowing how the movie ends before you see it.
Electoral votes by state Total: 538;
majority needed to elect president and vice president: 270
| State | number of votes | State | number of votes | State | number of votes | ||
| Alabama | 9 | Kentucky | 8 | North Dakota | 3 | ||
| Alaska | 3 | Louisiana | 9 | Ohio | 20 | ||
| Arizona | 10 | Maine | 4 | Oklahoma | 7 | ||
| Arkansas | 6 | Maryland | 10 | Oregon | 7 | ||
| California | 55 | Massachusetts | 12 | Pennsylvania | 21 | ||
| Colorado | 9 | Michigan | 17 | Rhode Island | 4 | ||
| Connecticut | 7 | Minnesota | 10 | South Carolina | 8 | ||
| Delaware | 3 | Mississippi | 6 | South Dakota | 3 | ||
| District of Columbia | 3 | Missouri | 11 | Tennessee | 11 | ||
| Florida | 27 | Montana | 3 | Texas | 34 | ||
| Georgia | 15 | Nebraska | 5 | Utah | 5 | ||
| Hawaii | 4 | Nevada | 5 | Vermont | 3 | ||
| Idaho | 4 | New Hampshire | 4 | Virginia | 13 | ||
| Illinois | 21 | New Jersey | 15 | Washington | 11 | ||
| Indiana | 11 | New Mexico | 5 | West Virginia | 5 | ||
| Iowa | 7 | New York | 31 | Wisconsin | 10 | ||
| Kansas | 6 | North Carolina | 15 | Wyoming | 3 |
The expenses all interpreters must charge to the client.
September 27, 2016 § 10 Comments
Dear Colleagues:
One of the questions I get the most from students and new colleagues has to do with interpreter fees and expenses. We have covered professional fees from several perspectives in prior posts, but so far we have never really discussed the expenses interpreters should pass on to the client.
I write this entry with my conference interpreter colleagues in mind. Other interpreters can certainly benefit from this post, but they should always keep in mind that expense reimbursement in their professional practice might be governed or constrained by other considerations such as contractual limitations, government or institutional policies, and legislation.
If you work full time as a conference interpreter, or if you mainly do other type of interpreting, but you accept conference work on weekends, after hours, or during the summer vacation; mainly if you are new to the field, but also if you are a veteran who simply never figured out what expenses to charge to the client, this entry will put you on the right track.
Keep in mind that we will not deal with our professional fees here. That is a separate issue. You should have a set fee that you charge per day and per half-a-day of interpreting. In the past we have discussed how to arrive to the right fee and what to consider when calculating it. Some of you have attended my seminars on that precise topic. Remember, you must charge the professional fee for the service you render, and you should never have more than one fee for all clients (except for government or corporate professional service contracts where you agreed to a lower fee in exchange for consistency, volume, prestige, or many other considerations). For now, let’s set the fees aside, and concentrate on those expenses necessary to provide the service that the agency, government office, corporate entity, or end client must reimburse you after the service has been provided.
Notice that I am talking of reimbursement and not advance. I do this because that is the standard business practice and you should be prepared to work that way. Oftentimes, interpreters can lose a good client, or close an important door, simply because they asked for an expenses advance. We should always be prepared to cover these costs upfront. A good conference interpreter who is also good in business should always have money set aside for a plane ticket across the ocean, a hotel reservation, and transportation and food. Naturally, when dealing with new clients whose reputation is unknown to you (after a diligent inquiry on your part) it is always advisable to ask for an advance not just for expenses, but also for part of our fee.
As I said, in an overwhelming majority of assignments, you will be expected to pay first, and be reimbursed later, generally at the same time that your professional fees are paid; sometimes because of the accounting practice of the corporate or governmental client, reimbursement may take quite longer than the payment of your professional fee. You need to be prepared for this. Having an amount available to cover these costs while being reimbursed should be considered as a business investment on your part.
The question is: What expenses should I be reimbursed for?
First, if the assignment requires you to travel away from home, and your trip will be on the day before and the day after the event, you should charge one half a day of your interpreting fee for each of those two days. In other words, if you interpreted a conference that lasted three days, you should charge fees equivalent to four days of work:
½ day fee for travel day to assignment + 3 days of interpreting + ½ day fee for travel day back from the assignment = 4 days of interpreting fees
Next, you must be reimbursed for the airfare, train fare, or bus fare you paid to get to the out of town conference and back. Usually, the client expects you to ask for an economy ticket reimbursement, but in extremely long trips, you should ask for business class reimbursement, especially if you are going to work right after you land from crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific. As I have suggested in past posts, you should have a preferred airline where you are a frequent flyer so you can get upgrades to business or first class with your miles while the client is reimbursing you for the economy ticket. Please make sure to include here all other flight-related charges such as luggage fees, airport fees and taxes, visa fees when applicable, that you disbursed in order to get to the out of town venue.
You should also request a reimbursement of all hotel expenses that have to do with lodging: room fare, reservation processing fee, internet service in the room, and so on. Things like room service or pay-per-view movies in the hotel room cannot and should not be included in the reimbursement request. You should pick a business hotel, not a luxury hotel (unless the assignment requires it).
To have an idea of the price range you can charge to the client, in the United States, use the table of the GSA – Internal Revenue Service. It clearly states the maximum rate per room allowed for business travel by city and state. http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104877
Ground transportation should also be a part of your reimbursement, taxis from airports to hotels and back, and taxi rides from hotels to the event and back should always be reimbursed. In some cases, the client will even pay for ground transportation from your home to your town’s airport and back. It is possible, but you should negotiate it before you include these taxi payments in your reimbursement requests. Sometimes the client may want you to ride a passenger shuttle from the airport, and others could even suggest that you take the subway or another urban public transportation. I do not like that, but you should negotiate it with the client.
You must request a daily allowance for meals (Per Diem) for every day that you are away from home (travel and interpreting days). To eliminate the hassle of collecting receipts for every meal you have, in the United Stets, refer to the table of the GSA – Internal Revenue Service. It clearly states the Per Diem allowed by city and state. http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104877
If you are based in the United States and are traveling to a foreign country to provide the interpreting service, instead of following the table above, you will need to base your hotel and Per Diem expenses on the list that the United States Department of State publishes every year. It also contains the appropriate amounts by country and city. https://aoprals.state.gov/web920/per_diem.asp
Although I do not exactly know what requirements are needed to follow the same practice for those of you based in a European Union country, At least you can refer to the E.U. Per Diem list by country.
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/perdiem-rate-20150318.pdf
The following list can be used by those of you who live in Mexico: http://www.cualtos.udg.mx/sites/default/files/adjuntos/tarifas_viaticos_nacionales.pdf
Finally, you should be reimbursed for all other work-related expenses needed to provide the professional service such as parking fees, car rentals and gasoline, highway, tunnel and bridge tolls, photocopies, etc.
You should save all receipts or all other reimbursable expenses: airfare, taxis, hotels, etc. Even if the client does not ask for them, and you should always try to get reimbursed by the mere presentation of your professional fees and expenses invoice detailing reimbursable costs by category, it is a good practice to keep them in case they are needed, and for tax purposes as well.
It is possible that the client may offer to purchase the plane tickets, pay for the hotel directly, they may take you out to eat all meals, and so on. That practice is also acceptable, and in such cases you should only ask to be reimbursed for those costs that you paid for.
I hope you find this information helpful, and I sincerely expect you to pass all of these expenses to the client. That is how professionals work. I now invite you to post your comments regarding this very important part of our professional practice.
What interpreters should do when asked to charge less for their services.
September 13, 2016 § 12 Comments
Dear Colleagues:
Lately, it seems to me that there are requests everywhere for interpreters to work for less and even for free. Whether it is the Olympic Games, the political campaign events in the United States, or the community organizers’ voter registration actions. Everybody seems to want a free ride. At first impression, it looks like these are worthy causes and we as interpreters should be on board; unfortunately, when you take a second look at the request, you start wondering what is really going on. You see, Olympic Games’ organizers ask us to provide our professional services for free, they tell us it is a righteous idea, it will help to bring people together, and it will contribute to world peace. Then you realize that the physicians, paramedics, attorneys, dietitians, and many other professionals involved with the Olympic movement are not doing their jobs for free, they are getting paid for their professional services. The same thing happens when you notice that the person asking you to volunteer your interpreting services to a political campaign or to a community organization’s event are paid staffers who do nothing for free. Something is not quite right.
Principled causes and ideas are great and we celebrate their existence, but professional services should always be remunerated, regardless of the virtuous cause they help advance. Otherwise, professionals should only get paid for awful, despicable activities. Under this criteria, healthcare workers should always work for free.
This reminds me of an occasion, many years ago, when a judge asked me to interpret a restraining order application form for free. When I refused stating that I would not do it unless I was paid for the professional service, the judge told me that it would be my fault if I refused and the victim was later harmed by the alleged perpetrator she was seeking protection from. He said that I was greedy.
Despite the fact that this judge was backed by an ignorant selfish interpreter coordinator at that courthouse, I immediately responded that my services were professional, just like the judge’s. I then asked him what kind of moral authority he had to scold me for not working for free while at the same time he was making a pretty fat check for presiding over the hearing. I did not interpret and I never knew what was of that alleged victim that a judge refused to help, because it was up to him to lend her a hand by just approving the payment of my professional interpreting services of the restraining order application. You see, it is easy to be a Good Samaritan when it is on other people’s dime, it is more difficult when it affects you directly.
It is easy to ask for volunteer work when you are getting paid for asking others. I have nothing against volunteer, charitable work, but it has to be on my terms. I am a professional just like the physician, or the judge of my story, I run my own practice and I have to generate an income to cover expenses and to live the way I want to live; in my particular case, I work hard and provide an excellent professional service to be able to live my lifestyle.
As professionals, we must never lower a fee to give someone a break because they are poor, needy, or just need a break to get back on their feet. You see, the day you agree to reduce your fee to a client, regardless of the motivation behind your decision, will be the last time you were able to charge your regular fee. From that point on, because everything gets to everybody’s ears in this world, all clients will always ask why you are charging them a full fee when you charged a lower amount to another client. It is a dead end with no return. It is a terrible business decision. I think you are starting to see why a lawyer or a doctor ask you to lower your fee for their “needy client or patient” while at the same time they charge them their regular fee. When someone asks you to provide a professional service for free or at a reduced fee they are belittling the profession; they are automatically placing you in a separate category from the one where doctors, engineers and accountants are. To lower your fee is a disgrace.
People, clients included should know that they will always be able to find someone else willing to work for a lower fee, but you are not that person. Your services are of the highest quality and that goes hand in hand with a robust fee. On the other hand, because we should have a spirit of social empathy and solidarity, we must provide certain services pro bono.
Please pay close attention to what I am about to say: As a professional, I am who decides when to volunteer my services, I decide the causes that are worthy of my time and effort. Professional interpreters should set aside a time for these free services, buy it should be at a time and place you decide; that way you can set the time aside when it does not interfere with your professional practice or your personal life. You should designate, let’s say, the first Saturday of the month from 8 in the morning to 2 in the afternoon to assist anyone who needs your services for free, and you should do it at a church, community center, or similar venue. During that time, chosen by you, you will interpret legal, healthcare, school or any other community situations that those attending the facility during the previously set hours many need. Once the time is up, and at any other time, you will only see full-fee paying clients. This is very different from living at the mercy of others who may want you to provide free or discounted professional services at times when you should be taking care of your professional obligations towards your paying clients. This will immediately put you on the driver’s seat and will make it clear to everyone that you charge for your services, and sometimes, when the cause is righteous, and on your terms, you provide services free of charge. By doing so, you are not lowering the professional standards, you are not harming your own practice, and you are not insulting the profession.
Next time that you are asked to lower your fees or to work for free because the client deserves a break, stand firm on your regular fees, and if you decide that you want to provide a service for free, not discounted, then let that person know the terms of your pro bono services. I ask you to please share your thoughts on this very delicate issue that is vital to us as individuals trying to make a living, and to the profession at large.
A big problem with continuing education.
September 6, 2016 § 9 Comments
Dear Colleagues:
Let me start this entry by saying that I am a strong supporter of continuing education for all interpreters. I know that the topic is somewhat controversial and some colleagues believe that it is unnecessary to have an organized practice of checking on colleagues who have already graduated from school or achieved certification or accreditation. I have been contacted by colleagues telling me that they consider continuing education a waste of time; that they are already certified or accredited and there is no other professional level above that; they have said that there is nobody out there who knows enough to teach anything to interpreters that are already at this level.
There is another group of colleagues who believe that continuing education is just a way for some interpreters to make money from teaching others what they can learn on their own; Some even claim that it creates a false sense of insecurity and need to take a seminar or a workshop, especially when these courses are sanctioned or even organized by government agencies or professional organizations.
Finally, there is the position of others who acknowledge the value of continuing education, but oppose it de facto when they state that as a policy or program, continuing education is too expensive to run and control. That there is not enough money to do it, and for this reason interpreters are not required to comply. This is the position adopted by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the only court jurisdiction in the United States with an interpreter certification requirement that does not include continuing education as one of the elements to maintain a valid certification.
In my opinion, it is not possible to provide a truly professional service without preparation. Interpreting is a complex task that requires of sharp skills and huge amounts of knowledge.
The practice of any profession in a developed country requires that those individuals providing the service have a degree and a license, patent, certification or accreditation to show that they meet the minimum standards needed to work as a professional. Then, in order to keep said certification or whatever license is required, the professional individual must comply with continuing education requirements to guarantee society that they have kept up with the changes in their profession. Lawyers, physicians, accountants, engineers, teachers, and in many cases interpreters, must abide by these rules. Everyday more developing countries are following on these steps, and (in some cases with huge opposition from special interest groups) are beginning to require continuing education for their attorneys and doctors among many others.
Interpreters are aware of their reality: you need to study and prepare for a conference if you want to do a good job. Most colleagues would not disagree.
I believe that the need for continuing education becomes more apparent and crucial in the case of those interpreters whose work is linked to the life, health, freedom, and wellbeing of a person.
As interpreters, we all work with something that is constantly changing, permanently evolving: we work with languages. As interpreters who work in the real world, we are also impacted by science and technology. They have changed the way we work: from simultaneous interpreting equipment to note-taking on a tablet; from digital dictionaries to video remote interpreting. The language we spoke when we first started working and the means used to deliver our rendition do not look like the ones we presently use on a daily basis. There is a constant need to learn.
Moreover, healthcare, medical, court, and legal interpreters work with medicine and legislation. Sometimes these fields are less permanent than language and technology. Those agencies that certify or accredit these interpreters, whether they are run by a government or by a professional association, cannot put the client at risk. They have to assure the consumer of the professional service (a physician, attorney, patient, defendant, plaintiff, or victim) that the interpreters who have achieved certification or accreditation meet the standard requirements to practice the profession, and that they have been able to update their skills and knowledge by complying with continuing education requirements. Remember, we are dealing with human life, freedom, and assets.
Most court and healthcare interpreters in the U.S. acknowledge the importance of continuing education in ethics, interpreting, science, legal changes, and technology. There are also many colleges, professional associations, independent interpreter trainers, and government agencies that organize and offer quality continuing education at all levels. In the United States, continuing education is accessible all over the country at one time or another. The problem is not the willingness of the interpreter to attend the seminars, courses or workshops (even though sometimes the motivation to study may be the risk of losing the certification or accreditation for lack of credits); the real problem is the difficult and sometimes absurd requirements that some government agencies ask for in order to approve a workshop or a seminar for continuing education.
There are government agencies where an ethics workshop will never be approved for continuing education, even when the only subject matter of the class is ethics, unless the word “ethics” is included on the title of the workshop. Sometimes a workshop that deals with the business aspects of the profession, or a seminar on legislative changes are not approved for continuing education because the individual who makes the decision does not understand the subject matter or its relevance. There are also places where continuing education credits are only granted when the course or workshop is offered by the government.
There are some government agencies where the person deciding what does or does not constitute continuing education for an interpreter program has never interpreted, or has never been involved with interpreting or translating. Many times these are people who were transferred from another bureaucratic post because of their clerical skills, not their professional knowledge. Sometimes the people running a program decide to exercise their “power”, and only approve for continuing education credits those workshops that they contracted and organized; ignoring, and for all practical purposes running out of the state, all seminars and courses offered by reputable entities and instructors that, in the judgment of this government bureaucrat, “are too expensive”, even when the presenters are world-class.
I believe that certifications and accreditation at all levels and in all specialty fields are too important to leave them at the mercy of individuals who are only interested in covering their own behinds or favor their buddies. The granting of continuing education credits should be decided by government officials who are interpreters and know the profession, or even better, by a committee of local reputable interpreters who know what the profession needs because they know what it is all about. I now ask you to share with the rest of us your experiences in dealing with these unreasonable government officials, or your ideas as to how continuing education credits should be granted.
If it is team interpreting, why are so many flying solo?
August 1, 2016 § 6 Comments
Dear Colleagues:
The last couple of months have brought to the forefront of my professional environment a frequently discussed, but rarely solved, issue: team interpreting.
Many of our court interpreter colleagues in the American southwest are presently fighting a battle against the uninformed government officials of that state’s Administrative Office of the Courts, for the very survival of our profession as we know it, and as it should be. They are fighting for essential elements of their professional practice such as clear and coherent payment practices, minimum guaranteed work hours, the use of legally certified court interpreters instead of paraprofessionals drafted sometimes from the ranks of those who failed the certification exam, and to have people with interpreting experience in the decision-making positions within the state government.
Talking to some of them, I noticed another concerning policy spelled out in a written communication from a state government official to the interpreters: A statement affirming a puzzling rule of the New Mexico Judiciary Court Interpreter Standards of Practice and Payment Policies, indicating that there would only be team interpreting when a hearing was scheduled to last over two hours. This is the text of said “standard of practice”:
“For court proceedings lasting less than two (2) hours, the court may appoint one (1) spoken language interpreter but the court shall allow the court interpreter to take breaks approximately every thirty (30) minutes.”
Two hours!
In other words, neither the quality of the rendition nor the health of the interpreter are compromised as long as the interpreter “is allowed” by the judge to take a bathroom break every thirty minutes. And this rule is not an isolated case. There are plenty of states that follow the same “standards”, and there are other state court systems where they assign two interpreters for a long hearing or a trial, but in the understanding that the second interpreter will be available to cover other assignments during the thirty minutes when they are not actively interpreting. Once again, we notice these government officials’ total lack of understanding of the team interpreting concept.
In fact, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) follows the same criteria in immigration court, where a solo rendition of a credible fear hearing could take all day without ever switching interpreters. It must be those magical bathroom breaks that the judge may allow every thirty minutes.
The problem, however, is not exclusive to the public sector, or to the United States for that matter. I know many interpreters who will gladly agree to provide their services for a deposition without even asking about a second interpreter. I have heard many colleagues in Europe and South America say that there is no team interpreting in a consecutive rendition. Many of these colleagues do not even question the rationale behind such an assertion. I guess the brain does not get tired during consecutive interpreting.
I know consecutive interpreting is as exhausting as a simultaneous rendition. I learned it the hard way many years ago when I made the horrendous mistake of taking an assignment to provide interpreting services during a series of depositions that were going to take place in Mexico for two weeks. The pay was good and it was an interesting case with challenging vocabulary, so off we went to this town where a mining accident had occurred. Besides me, the American team included three attorneys, two paralegals, two court reporters, and a camera operator to record the proceedings on video. The days were long, sometimes over ten hours a day. On some days we would go to the mine where I had to interpret while climbing and descending inside the mountain. It was dangerous, and it was exhausting. There were times when by the end of the day I could not even move my mouth to utter the rendition. My brain had lost all command power over the movement of my mouth. Of course I immediately understood why there were two court reporters: the hours were long and the work was very demanding. It was at that time that I made a mental note to always request team interpreting in all depositions and reject the ones where the agency, insurance company, or the attorneys were so cheap that they would not agree to pay for a team.
For the most part this policy has worked for many years. Sure, I had some bumps here and there, like the time when a financial specialist in a big law firm from the west coast sent me a check for one half of the time invoiced because: “…since there were two interpreters in the room, you just worked fifty percent of the time…” Fortunately for everybody, that case had a happy ending. You see, lawyers who are used to team interpreting for a deposition know why they need two of us. I just called one of the attorneys, told her about the little incident, and my check for one hundred percent of my fee arrived two days later. The financial specialist learned what we do as interpreters and never made the same mistake again.
Dear colleagues, it has been proven that for quality and health reasons, interpreters need to take a break from the active role every thirty minutes or so. It is also widely accepted that during a difficult speech or a complex subject matter, the role of the second interpreter is key to the success of the rendition. A 1998 study conducted at the École de Traduction et d’Interprétation at the University of Geneva, demonstrated the effects of interpreting over increasing periods of time. The conclusion of the study was that an interpreter’s own judgment of output quality becomes unreliable after increased time on task. (Moser-Mercer, B., Kunzli, B., and Korac, M. 1998. “Prolonged turns in interpreting: Effects on quality, physiological and psychological stress.” University of Geneva, École de Traduction et d’Interprétation. Interpreting Vol. 3 (1), p. 47-64.)
The International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) is the gold standard on working conditions for interpreters worldwide. Article 6 of its Professional Standards refers to team interpreting and it clearly states the following:
“Article 6
Teams of Interpreters
Given the physical and mental fatigue that are caused by sustained concentration, certain constraints will necessarily apply to the composition of teams in order to guarantee that the work done will be of an optimum quality.
The minimum number of interpreters required to make up a team is a function of these constraints as well as the mode of interpretation, the number of languages used, the language classifications of the interpreters making up the team, the nature of the conference, its duration and the workload.
- Consecutive Interpretation
| Number of languages used: | Minimum number of interpreters: |
| Two languages into two | Two |
| Three languages into three | Three |
Under exceptional circumstances and provided the principles of quality and health are taken into full consideration, it shall be possible to recruit just one interpreter instead of two or two interpreters instead of three.
- Whispered Interpretation
For a conference involving the interpretation of one or two languages into one other language and where there are no more than two listeners, whether or not consecutive interpretation is provided in the other direction, at least two interpreters shall be required.
- Simultaneous Interpretation
Teams of interpreters must be put together in such a way as to avoid the systematic use of relay. However, when there is no alternative to the use of relay for a given language, the team shall comprise at least two interpreters able to provide a relay from that language. In addition, if the relay is provided from a two-way booth, at least three interpreters shall work in that booth.
As a general rule, a team is composed of at least two interpreters per language and per booth. This is to ensure adequate coverage of all language combinations and to guarantee the necessary quality.
The number of interpretation booths is the same as the number of target languages, except for the case of two-language conferences where a single booth may suffice.
See Team Strength Table below.
Team strength table for simultaneous interpretation in booths
| Number of languages used in the conference room | Number of booths | Number of interpreters (1) |
| One-language conference:
into one other language into two other languages … (2) |
1
2 |
2*
4 |
| Two-language conference:
into one of the languages used into both languages used into three languages (2+1) into four languages (2+2) … (2) |
1
1 or 2 3 4 |
2*
3** 5 7 |
| Three-language conference:
into one of the languages used into two of the languages used into all three languages used into four languages (3+1) into five languages (3+2) … (2) |
1
2 3 4 5 |
2
3 5*** 7 9 |
| Four-language conference:
into one of the languages used into two of the languages used into three of the languages used into all four languages into five languages (4+1) into six languages (4+2) … (2) |
1
2 3 4 5 6 |
2
4 6 8*** 10 12 |
| Five-language conference
into one of the languages used into two of the languages used into three of the languages used into four of the languages used into all five languages used into six languages (5+1) into seven languages (5+2) … (2) |
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 |
2
4 6 8 10 12 14 |
Notes on the Team Strength Table
(1) This number shall be increased if:
- the language combinations are such that the minimum number of interpreters shown on the table is insufficient to cover them;
- the working hours are long;
- the conference involves the presentation of a large number of written statements or is of a technical or scientific nature requiring extensive preparation.
(2) And so on: each booth working non-stop must have at least two interpreters. Moreover, in the case of relay via a two-way booth, such booth shall have at least three interpreters.
* An interpreter shall not, as a general rule, work alone in a simultaneous interpretation booth, without the availability of a colleague to relieve her or him should the need arise.
** One of whom must be able to relieve each of the other two. In certain circumstances this number may be reduced to two (particularly for short meetings or meetings of a general nature, provided that each of the two interpreters can work into both languages).
*** Under certain circumstances and providing the principles of quality and health are fully respected, this number may be reduced by one (short meetings or meetings of a general nature)…”
We can see how team interpreting is necessary in all scenarios, not just simultaneous interpreting. Moreover, in a way, court interpreting can be more difficult than conference interpreting because it is hard to hear what the speakers say and sometimes they are not very articulated. For this reason, the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators of the United States (NAJIT) has issued a position paper that states in part:
“…It is unrealistic to expect interpreters to maintain high accuracy rates for hours, or days, at a time without relief. If interpreters work without relief in proceedings lasting more than 30-45 minutes, the ability to continue to provide a consistently accurate translation may be compromised… Like a marathon runner who must maintain liquid intake at regular intervals during the race and not wait until thirst sets in, an interpreter needs regular breaks to ward off processing fatigue, after which the mental faculties would be impaired. Team interpreting allows the active interpreter to remain mentally fresh, while the support interpreter takes on other functions that would lead the active interpreter to cognitive overload…”
Moreover, regarding Sign Language interpreting, the National Consortium of Interpreter Education Centers of the United States Department of Education issued a paper in 2010 stating the following:
“…Research has confirmed the physical challenges that sign language interpreters face when they work alone for long periods of time. The professional association has long been concerned that the proper ergonomic conditions, including the use of two interpreters who alternate interpreting, be implemented for the physical health of sign language interpreters. According to the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), all sign language interpreters are at risk of developing some kind of Repetitive Stress Injury (RSI) during their careers, and if ignored, RSI can develop into a permanent disability… There are many things interpreters can do to prevent RSI and key among those is to work in teams…”
The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) also has a Standard Practice Paper (SPP) that reads:
“Team interpreting is the utilization of two or more interpreters who support each other to meet the needs of a particular communication situation. Depending on both the needs of the participants and agreement between the interpreters, responsibilities of the individual team members can be rotated and feedback may be exchanged…”
As interpreters, we have two fundamental concerns: The quality of our service, and our career. Team interpreting is essential to protect them both.
If we want to be around, working at the highest level in our profession, we cannot agree to working conditions where team interpreting is not provided. We cannot turn our heads the other way when an agency offers a lengthy job with the expectation of having one interpreter.
As always, there will be mediocre paraprofessionals who will accept these solo assignments, offered by bottom-feeder agencies, because these individuals are not qualified to work for those at the top. Unfortunately, we will continue to see how, out of fear or cowardice, somewhat good interpreters will provide their services to government agencies and direct clients whose only priority is to pay as little as possible without regard for the quality of the job.
The formula to success is the same one we apply all the time: Without wasting our time on the (hopeless) usual interpreter abusers, we need to educate our direct clients, government officials, and reputable interpreting agencies. We need to explain to them the value of team interpreting and we must show them the difference. Those with a brain will buy the team interpreting concept immediately.
It is extremely important that we stop working for those who insult us with solo assignments, even after we explained to them the value of not working alone. We cannot make any exceptions. I am never offered a conference assignment without team interpreting, and all federal courthouses in the United States where I have interpreted have always provided team work for trials and long hearings.
It is true that every now and then I get a phone call from an agency offering me a deposition, but it is also true that if I ask them about team interpreting, and they say that it is a solo assignment, I always turn them down. Remember, you do not need many clients, you just need good ones.
I hope that next time that a court interpreter coordinator or an agency representative contacts you for a lengthy assignment and asks you to work alone, you will explain the reasons why that is not a wise decision, and if necessary, you will quote the position papers and standards mentioned above, I hope you will succeed in changing the mindset of those who as of today ignore these basic aspects of our profession.
I also hope that when you sincerely try as hard as you can, and you fail to convince that individual sitting across the table, or at the other end of the telephone line, you will have the professional attitude to walk away with dignity and turn down their job offer. I now invite you to share with us your personal experiences with team interpreting.
