October 1, 2018 § 1 Comment
Occasionally interpreters ask me what to do when retained to assess the rendition of other colleagues in a court hearing or civil deposition. This is a delicate issue for several reasons: As interpreters, we do not like another colleague carefully reviewing every single phrase we interpret; we feel it is invasive and even disrespectful. Sometimes the added pressure of having somebody else, most of the time with more experience than us, ready to jump at the first error or omission will turn a good rendition into a poor interpretation because of the intense scrutiny. We feel uncomfortable doing the same to another colleague when we are the “checker”. We do not want to offend a colleague, even a friend, but we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place when one of our best clients requests we render this service.
The first thing we need to understand is this is a professional service we were hired for. It is business. Also, we must remember what we were retained for: To check the accuracy of another interpreters’ rendition. We were not hired to destroy the interpretation; we were not asked to dispute and question every word interpreted or every term rendered by our colleagues. A professional opinion informing our client that the interpretation was fine will be welcomed by our client. They do not want us there to turn the other interpreters’ work to shreds; we are there because our client wants to make sure that the rendition was complete and accurate. This is important as it lifts an enormous weight off our shoulders. It gets rid of the feelings of disloyalty and guilt.
When I am hired to check on other colleagues during a court hearing (trial, motions hearing, expert testimony, etc.) or a civil deposition, the first thing I ask for is the names of the interpreters to interpret the proceeding. Sometimes I know the interpreters and from that moment I know if my job will be a walk in the park, because the interpreters are exceptional, or if it could turn ugly. Most of the time, I do not know the colleagues. In that case, my first task is to learn as much as I can about that interpreter: Where do they practice; how long have they been interpreting professionally; what experience they have with the type of proceeding and the subject of the rendition; their first language, professional studies, who are their clients, and so on.
I can get most of this online by visiting their website, looking over their resume, and checking their LinkedIn page. I also look for photos online. Sometimes I do not know a colleague by name, but once I see the picture I realize I know who they are, and sometimes I am even familiar with their work. Another important source is those interpreters they usually work with. I may have never worked with the interpreter I am about to check, but I may have worked with some of their partners or boothmates before. Sometimes I may contact these interpreters (when I could find no information on the interpreter for example) but most of the time just knowing who they work with helps me understand the level of the interpreter. Finally, I look for what professional associations they belong to. I know it is not a very good indicator of the level of a colleague, but it helps me understand better if the person cares for the profession and their continuing education. If the interpreters are great, I let my client know right away. This helps me to prepare them for an “everything was fine” report after the rendition. I say nothing detrimental to a colleague a priori. If I have nothing great to tell to my client, I reserve judgement until after the hearing or deposition.
On the day of the interpretation I arrive early, and the first thing I do is say hi to the interpreters. I introduce myself and put them at ease by telling them this is not personal, but I never look nervous or afraid. I also communicate that I know of the fact there is more than one way to skin a cat and their choice of words may not be the same as mine. I assure them that, as long as the rendition is correct, even when their style my differ from mine, I will not make a fuss of the interpretation.
If I hear something I disagree with during the rendition, I am always very careful and rarely interrupt (only in very evident mistakes). There are synonyms and regional expressions that do not make a rendition wrong unless they are essential to the case. If this happens, I wait for the break and explain it to my client, emphasizing that the rendition was correct, but I would have said it differently.
When I hear something and I know it is wrong and relevant, I respectfully interrupt for the record. State my objection to the rendition and why I object. If the other interpreters agree: Great; if they disagree, let them explain and accept your mistake, if any, or be firm if you are right. It is always necessary to have the basis for your dispute: a grammar rule, applicable dictionary, section of the law. Otherwise your objections will seem frivolous, irrelevant, and you will undermine your credibility.
After the hearing, I am professional and courteous with the other interpreters, judge, and attorneys. It is important they know it is a job. Nothing personal.
Finally, I prepare my report in writing, including my expert qualifications and explaining to my client who I monitored, including the results of my research on the interpreters, I describe the room, and do a narrative of the hearing or deposition, indicating all questionable interpretations, mistakes made by the interpreters, and correct renditions I would have interpreted differently due to my personal style (synonyms, regional expressions, etc.). Finally, I type my conclusions. Usually indicating there was nothing of importance omitted or misinterpreted at the hearing or deposition. Occasionally, indicating the interpreting mistakes and the reasons to back up my opinion. I now ask you to share with us your experiences as “check-interpreter” or about being “checked” by other. I would also like to hear what other strategies you follow when asked to be a check-interpreter, and what you include in your report.
September 17, 2018 § 2 Comments
Imagine having to support a family when you are unemployed, poor, desperate, living in a country torn by war, ruled by a despot. Then one day, somebody tells you that, because you speak a foreign language, you can become an interpreter for a foreign army. You are told that you will be paid for that service, and after the war, this foreign government will take you and your family to their country where you will be safe from retaliation, and will live a better life. Those of us living in a western nation cannot even imagine that situation, much less the ray of hope it means to many humans who live in that reality. This is the story, and the dilemma, of a conflict-zone interpreter.
You just noticed that today’s post is about interpreters in conflict zones. Please do not go away! I know most of you access this blog to read and debate topics related to conference, court, healthcare or community interpreting. Today please read this post from beginning to end, show your determination to defend the profession, and do something that will make you feel good as a human.
Throughout history, explorers, conquerors, traders, religious missionaries, and all others who found themselves in a foreign land where they did not understand the local language have used interpreters to accomplish their mission. Often, these interpreters have been local individuals who spoke both, the foreign and domestic languages, and with no formal training, but armed with their natural skills, and some powerful motivation, provided their able services even when it meant risking their lives and the lives of their loved ones. From Malintzin to Squanto, Boubou Penda to Luis de Torres, these interpreters, our colleagues, have contributed to the history of civilization providing a bridge that made communication possible when peoples did not speak the same language.
These interpreters have been essential in all armed conflicts: invasions, liberations, occupations, and peace negotiations. Many in recent history, like the Navajo Code-Talkers who serve the United States armed forces during World War II. Others, anonymously participating in conflict zones like Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, and the Bosnian War.
Western nations have benefited, and still do, of the services of interpreters in conflict zones who assist military forces and civilian contractors in places like Africa and the Middle East.
From the start of the war in Afghanistan, and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, western nations participating in those conflicts scouted those two countries looking for local women and men who spoke the local language and that of the western country. The United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Spain, France, and others, recruited bilingual individuals, often with a professional education background (doctors, teachers, engineers) who had no employment due to the armed conflict or because of their political opinions, ethnic group, or religious beliefs. Some had openly opposed the local regimes and were personae non gratae in the eyes of the despot in charge of government, others quietly disagreed with the way their countries were governed, afraid to say anything the authorities could perceive as treacherous. Others’ sole motivation was to feed their families.
All these courageous humans knew what they were risking by helping the West. Besides the tremendous danger of being in a theater of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan where they could be killed during a fire exchange, and ambush, or by an improvised explosive device (IED), they knew the consequences if caught. Their execution, and that of their immediate family members was a reality they faced every day the worked with the foreign armed forces and independent defense contractors in their countries. These were (and are) brave and courageous individuals. They also knew that all armed conflicts have a beginning and an end. They recognized the dangers they would face after the foreign troops left their countries. They knew their families, even if not involved in the armed conflict, would face the same consequences. To stay behind after the Western armed forces left would be a death sentence.
The United States and all of its allies were aware of this reality. They knew the only way to recruit much needed interpreters and translators was promising they would not be left behind. These conflict zone interpreters got assurances from the western governments they served that when the time to withdraw their troops came, they, and their immediate families would be taken to their countries to start a new life free from death threats and other retaliatory actions. In other words: conflict zone interpreters agreed to provide their services and the western nations promised they would take them to the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Spain, France, and all other countries to use interpreting services for military and civilian personnel. As we know, the troops withdrew from these countries, but many interpreters continue to wait for an entry visa to the country that promised to take them. Interpreters have been admitted to these western countries, but it has been a fraction. Many of those who have moved to their new countries endured a lengthy and cumbersome process. During this time, as expected, many conflict zones interpreters, and their family members, have been executed as traitors back home while waiting for a visa.
These interpreters, our colleagues, did their part, they rendered the service facing tremendous risk and unimaginable working conditions. They were essential to accomplish a mission; through their work they saved many western and local lives. The West has not honored its word.
This is not a political post, and I am not arguing for or against the admission of refugees in any country. I understand there are very solid arguments for and against admitting refugees. I am not endorsing or condemning the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq either. Solely this post invites you all, interpreters and translators worldwide, regardless of your political persuasion, religious beliefs, or immigration stands, to join to protect the profession by supporting our conflict zone colleagues, just like attorneys help each other, as Marines leave no one behind. We need to raise our voice and tell the governments of those western nations who made a promise to these interpreters when they needed them, to walk the walk and deliver. We need them to know that we know, and we need to push for an expedient visa issuance system for these colleagues. Countries who break promises look bad and lose credibility. Interpreters who believed their promise continue to die while government authorities drag their feet motivated by politics instead of integrity.
Through my work as a civilian interpreter with the armed forces and defense contractors, and as an interpreter trainer, I have met several military and conflict zone interpreters who have served in different places. I have heard from them some horror stories of killings, kidnappings, rapes, and beatings. I have gotten to know many as friends and colleagues. I have met their families. I have also heard the tales of those less-fortunate still risking their lives while they wait for an answer from the West.
I also recognize the amazing, tireless, work of Red T, its compassionate and courageous CEO Maya Hess who I have the privilege to know personally, and the professional associations that support its efforts and share its values: The International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) The International Federation of Translators (FIT) and many of its member organizations; The International Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters (IAPTI); Critical Link International, The International Council for the Development of Community Interpreting (CLI); and the World Association for Sign Language Interpreters (WASLI). Some time ago during the IAPTI Congress in Bordeaux France, I had the opportunity to hear Maya’s passionate description of their efforts to raise awareness and to get a United Nations declaration of legal and physical protection for translators and interpreters in conflict zones. On that occasion, she was joined by another fighter for protecting these colleagues: Linda Fitchett, Chair, Conflict Zone Group, AIIC. Just this Spring I had the opportunity to hear Maya once again, this time in Zaragoza Spain during ASETRAD Congress where she spoke before a big crowd of interpreters and translators, and was joined by some conflict zone interpreters for a round table discussion. On that occasion, ASETRAD conferred honorary membership to Red T. To learn more about Red T and to support their campaigns, please visit: www.red-t.org
My motivation to write this post at this time has to do with the Congressional elections in the United States this November. On November 6, Americans will vote to elect one third of the members of the U.S. Senate (according to the U.S. Constitution, the Senate renews its membership one-third at a time every two years) and for all the members of the House of Representatives. Political campaigns just started last week and all candidates will visit your hometown, attend townhall meetings, debate their opponents, pay attention to your phone calls, and read your mail.
This is the time to tell your senators and representatives running for office that as a professional interpreter or translator, and as an American who values your country’s word and promises, that you want them to pass an increase on Special Immigrant Visa numbers (SIV) for conflict zone interpreters and their families, and to expedite the visa processing times, at least to comply with the nine-month limit in the books which has not been observed. During the last 2 years the number of SIV approvals has declined and the process has seen considerable delays. The official argument is the security background checks. It is understandable and desirable that the government carefully review case by case, but it is also necessary that authorities consider previous background checks and past performance. Remember, these interpreters already worked with members of the U.S. Armed Forces and risked their lives to do their job. Please call the candidates’ campaign headquarters, your Senate and Congressional Offices back home and in Washington, D.C., and support our colleagues. I guarantee you will feel better afterwards.
Regardless of where you live, contact your U.S. Representative. Remember: They are all up for reelection. Please contact your Senate candidates if you live in these States:
To contact the U.S. House of Representatives, go to https://www.house.gov/representatives
To contact the U.S. Senate, visit: https://www.senate.gov/reference/
If you do not leave in the United States, please contact the office of your President, Prime Minister, or Head of Government. You can also visit Red T to sign the petitions.
Remembering that no political debate will be allowed, I now invite you to share with you your experiences as a conflict zone interpreter, or your ideas on how to press Congress and foreign governments to live up to their promise to our colleagues: the conflict zone interpreters.
August 29, 2018 § 5 Comments
The Association of Language Companies (ALC) effusively announced that on August 8 of this year “leaders from the language service industry gathered on Capitol Hill to sound the alarm over new <disruptive> employee classification regulations that threaten to upend the $45 billion-per-year industry’s business model”.
Over fifty individuals attended their “policy summit” to “strategize an industry-wide response to the recent California Supreme Court ruling which narrowed the definition of who can be classified as an independent contractor”.
As part of a public relations campaign, many of these agencies’ representatives have been telling interpreters that the California Supreme Court decision is terrible and, unless it is neutralized, it will effectively destroy the interpreting “industry” leaving thousands of interpreters with no work. Without even hearing the details of the decision, and knowing how it will affect them as freelancers, not as agencies, some of our good colleagues celebrated the agencies’ lobbying efforts, and even praised them for “saving our source of income”.
I agree that the Dynamex decision by the California Supreme Court will affect freelance interpreting, but I disagree it will hurt independent interpreters and it will be the end of our profession as we know it. This court decision is a rare occasion when judicial decisions favor independent professionals over the special interest groups financed by the big multinational agencies, and if independent interpreters play their cards wisely, it will bring huge benefits to them. Let me explain:
We should start by understanding what the California Supreme Court decided on April 30, 2018 in Dynamex (Dynamex Operations West, Inc. Petitioner S222732 v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Loa Angeles County, Respondent; Super Ct. No. BC332016, CHARLES LEE et al., Real Parties in Interest).
In an 82-page decision, the Court rejected the Borello test to determine whether workers should be classified as either employees or independent contractors for the wage orders adopted by the California Industrial Welfare Commission, for a worker-friendly standard that may change the independent contractor market. The California Supreme Court embraced a standard presuming that all workers are employees instead of contractors, placing the burden of proof on the agency or other entity classifying an individual (in our case the interpreter) as an independent contractor. For those of you who practice court interpreting: This is similar to the prosecution burden of proof in a criminal case. Although not subject to a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, companies, agencies, and other entities must overcome the legal presumption of employment (just like the presumption of not guilty in Criminal Law).
But, where does this decision originate?
Dynamex is a nationwide same-day courier and delivery service offering on-demand same-day pickup and delivery. Before 2004 Dynamex classified all of its California drivers as employees, but staring in 2004 they converted all of their drivers to independent contractors to save money on employee benefits and expenses related to income tax retention. A year later, a driver named Charles Lee entered into an independent contractor written contract with Dynamex. After leaving his work at Dynamex, Mr. Lee filed a class-action lawsuit on his own behalf and that of other drivers in a similar situation against Dynamex. During their time working for Dynamex, these workers had to work during the hours and according to the schedule unilaterally set by Dynamex; they received direct and strict direction from Dynamex in a subordinate relationship instead of an equal-to-equal relationship as expected by independent contractors, and the drivers could not work for someone else because they were always working for Dynamex under the described conditions. They alleged that Dynamex had misclassified them as independent contractors in violation of State law, including various sections of the Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (engaging in unfair and unlawful business practices).
The case went through a long litigation in California until it finally reached the Supreme Court where the Court framed its decision by broadly characterizing the misclassification of independent contractors as harmful and unfair to workers, honest competitors, and the public. The Court did a long and detailed analysis of precedent, analyzing Borello, Martínez and Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc. (59 Cal. 4th 522, 527. 2014)
The California Supreme Court rejected Dynamex’s arguments for applying said previous cases. Instead, the Court adopted the ABC Test to determine if an individual is an employee or an independent contractor. Under the test, a worker will be deemed to have been “suffered or permitted to work”, and thus an employee, unless the employer proves:
- A. That the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in the performance of the work, both under the contract for performing the work, and in fact.
- B. That the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
- C. That the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Each requirement needs to be met for the presumption that the worker is an employee to be rebutted, and for a court to recognize that a worker has been properly classified as an independent contractor. If a worker is classified as an employee, the employer must pay Social Security and payroll taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, state employment taxes, worker’s compensation insurance coverage, and all Labor Law rules and conditions regarding wages, vacation, sick leave, overtime, maternity leave, etc.
Bringing the Court decision to the interpreting field, we find that most agency-freelance interpreter relationships will fail the ABC test.
Agencies would fail “A” because they micromanage interpreting assignments. From checking in and out when arriving or leaving the site of interpretation, to endless paperwork required for payment and other “rules”; not forgetting ridiculous dress codes, and other one-sided rules such as not talking with the client about interpretation.
They would also fail “B” because it would be extremely difficult to argue that the fact that an interpreting services agency is hiring an interpreter as an independent contractor, constitutes a service outside the course of the agency’s business; and
They would fail “C” because they hire the interpreter according to such schedules they cannot render the services anywhere else, they make them sign non-compete contracts, force them to hide their personal business from the client so the agency does not lose the client. In other words: an outsider could not see the difference between a staff interpreter working side-by-side with an independent contractor.
Now you know, the “industry leaders” are spending their money in lobbyists so they continue to pay rock bottom fees to most interpreters with no risk. They keep the money and the interpreter gets close to nothing, without having a say.
I don’t want you to think that all agencies are bad either; I happily work with some who respect me as a professional. I am not saying that freelancing is bad. I do not want to be considered an employee of any agency or other entity.
I do not support what the multinational agencies are doing for three reasons: First, because I want to be the one who decides if I want to be an independent contractor or not. I do not want to leave the decision in the hands of greedy one-sided “industry leaders”. Second, I think that been treated as employees would be great for many colleagues who could not succeed in the freelance market. They would get a decent wage, and many other social protections that otherwise they would lack if they continue to freelance for those agencies who bring in the money for the shareholders (nothing wrong with that) and pay very little to the interpreter, so little it is not enough to afford a decent health insurance coverage and a retirement plan (this is wrong). My third and very powerful reason not to support this lobby effort is very important:
Now that there is a court decision that favors independent contractors in California, interpreters should seize the moment, take advantage of this leverage, and negotiate a system that benefits all professional interpreters: those who want to be staff and those of us who will continue to freelance. A system that keeps agencies in business, but eradicates the one-sided system most interpreters (out of necessity or because of lack of negotiating skills) endure today. I propose this:
Raise our voice so the non-interpreters in the field (aka: the “industry leaders”) do not get away with passing one-sided legislation as they are trying right now. We have to act with energy and decision because they are pursuing an option as nefarious and unfair as the “Major League Baseball” exception Congress granted once and landed thousands of professional ballplayers in servitude where they could be bought, traded and sold having no input.
These “industry leaders” argue that Dynamex should not be applied to them, because they are not part of the “gig” economy. They told Congress they “exclusively” work with “…highly-trained and educated professionals whose success is dependent upon the highest quality of work…” adding that “…to be a professional linguist takes years of education and training…” They mentioned the State Department interpreters as an example. I wonder why they did this instead of mentioning the many interpreters they hire without a college degree but with a high school diploma, or how they justify laborer pay for such illustrious “linguists”.
We do not have the funds to lobby against this multi-headed hydra, and we cannot go to our largest professional association because it will not go against the interests of its corporate members, and they may even share the same lobbyists as the “industry leaders”. What we have is the right to testify in congress, appeal to the ACLU for help if needed and pertinent, and most important: We have our professional services and skill as leverage.
I wonder why we need to change the law and attack the Supreme Court decision. If agencies really want to work with the best, professional, trained, and experienced, they should have no problem complying with the ABC criteria. The problem is, dear colleagues, that they do not want the brightest professionals, they are too expensive. They want the high school diploma new paraprofessional interpreter who will work for a pay similar to Wal-Mart’s, and to avoid mistakes, she must do it under micromanagement conditions. They do not want the best because they would risk to lose the client. They want somebody so afraid of losing this laborer’s salary job, that he will never dare to tell the client he interprets independently from the agency, even when the client already knows it and sees this situation as ridiculous.
Interpreters, however, could join the “industry leaders” as a common front to pass legislation fair to all parties. Instead of eliminating the criteria in Dynamex, a fair legislation should allow for interpreters to opt out of the employee reclassification and remain as freelancers if they do it freely, with no coercion by the agency or other entity retaining their services, and both, the written contract and de facto performance demonstrate this was not a sham by the agency, but a real independent contractor. Interpreters could then negotiate with the retaining agency a professional fee that truly depicts their freelancer status and not an employee working under serfdom conditions.
At this time in California, and unless the law changes, interpreters should demand compliance with the ABC rule. As of today, with the Supreme Court decision as the supreme law in California, compliance protecting interpreters and our profession is possible:
“A” can be overcome by negotiating a written contract that clearly leaves the interpreter free of the agency’s control. It clearly states that interpreters will deliver the service they are retained for, but all conditions to implement the service and fulfill the obligation are left to the interpreter. No more stupid paperwork that requires hours of unpaid time; no more micromanagement in the contract and in the real world.
“B” will be more difficult to overcome, especially for the smaller agencies because the multinationals have so many other businesses through subsidiaries it will be costly, but possible to solve this requirement. Remember that it is the agency’s burden, so you need not worry about this one.
“C” is your real leverage. The agency cannot overcome this requirement without the interpreter’s cooperation. You will have to show that you have a website, or an office where you offer your services to other prospective clients; you will show you are a real independent contractor by showing the authorities how you are not contractually bound to secrecy when a client asks you for your services during an assignment with the agency. More important: without your cooperation, the agency can never prove this requirement.
We must educate ourselves so we do not jump up and down as cheerleaders to support this public relations propaganda campaign. Seize the moment and change the landscape. Make these “industry leaders” live up to what they preach and, using their own words, demand they only hire the highest quality of professionals with years of education and training. We can support them in their lobbying efforts, but only when all professional freelance interpreters are paid professional fees. Do not listen to those colleagues who live in fear, worship these agencies, and think they are doing them a favor by hiring them to work. There cannot be an interpreting agency without interpreters. There can be interpreting services without agencies. I now ask you to share your thoughts with the rest of us, and please be advised that comments defending agencies will not be posted. They have plenty of media outlets to proselytize. Here we want to hear the voice of the interpreters.
August 15, 2018 § 9 Comments
Have you noticed mediocre agencies always say: “unfortunately, your fee is way over the budget this client has for the event”? This seems to be the answer I get most of the time, even from the big multinational interpreting services agencies, and it is the main reason I reject an assignment offered.
It makes me wonder how those huge multinational agencies, worshipped by their colleagues in the “industry”, who claim to be service providers to the biggest corporations and organizations in the world, can be as big and profitable as their financial statements show, (and believe me, thanks to public litigation records from lawsuits involving some, market share values, and their own bragging about their success, we know they are turning profits never seen before) when according to their conversations with interpreters, our fees are almost always above their clients’ budgets for their main, once-a-year conference, launching of a new product presentations, multi-million dollar fundraisers, or award ceremonies. I find it difficult to believe these agencies would only work with “starving” clients.
The main issue is how these agencies’ clients decide on a budget for their events. I would think that corporations have little knowledge about interpreting services, and for that reason they go to language service agencies to find out about interpreting costs, just as they go to the caterer for information on the cost of food, or to the hotel to see how much it costs to rent a ballroom for the weekend. The agency informs the client or event organizer how much interpreters will charge, and what else they need to factor in (equipment, booths, technical support) before determining the amount needed for interpreting services. The agency tells the client what interpreters will cost. Then, armed with all necessary information, the corporation of association sets a budget. It is not the other way around.
The problem is that agencies want to pay interpreters very little so they can have great margins, and they tell their clients they can get interpreters for very low fees; even when the agency knows they will never get the best human talent for such a tiny paycheck. They have offered lower quality interpreters willing to work for below market non-professional fees.
If an ignorant client contacts the agency and tells them they want an interpreter for no more than a certain amount, and the amount is below prevailing professional interpreter fees, that is the time for an agency to educate the client and tell them: “…sorry, but a team of interpreters would cost you such and such professional fee per interpreter per day…” and then explain that interpreters charge by the day, that every time they are retained to work four hours or less, they must be paid for half a day, unless the four-hour (or less) assignment encompasses both morning and afternoon hours, because in that case interpreters need to be paid for a full day since they cannot generate any other income on that day. During this conversation, an agency interested in quality interpretation would add: “…by the way, half days are handled this way…”
Then, if the event requires interpreters from out of town, the agency must make it very clear to the client these interpreters will charge at least half of the full-day fee for each travel day. Finally, the agency should clarify that, separate from their fees, these out-of-town professional interpreters will need for the client to cover their travel costs: travel, lodging, in-town transportation, and Per Diem.
At the beginning, these agencies may have to sacrifice part of their margin, but in the long run they will turn more profitable than those who turn their backs on the interpreting profession and embrace the low-quality ranks of the so-called “industry”, because their clients will notice the difference in the quality of the service and will go back to the same agency time and again. These are the agencies interpreters look for. These are the real interpreting services agencies. I would like to hear your ideas on this issue, and please share any relevant experiences you had.
August 8, 2018 § 10 Comments
I was recently part of a two-interpreter team that interpreted for 2 depositions. They each took a full day; they were complicated because of the subject; they were difficult because of the deponents; they were important because of their crucial part in the litigation process; they were stressful because of the financial impact the outcome of the case will have once it is decided in court or settled by the parties; and they were exhausting even for two interpreters.
As I was rendering this service, I remembered the many times I have heard colleagues say that depositions can be interpreted solo because they are interpreted consecutively. Honestly, I do not know how this could be possible without compromising the flow of the testimony, the timing of the questions, or the quality of the rendition.
I rarely interpret depositions, but the two or three times a year I am asked to do it, it is always as part of a team of two experienced legal interpreters directly hired by one of the law firms I work with. I know the fact that many agencies contact interpreters for these assignments and ask them to interpret solo. It is clear they follow this practice not because they believe depositions are simple enough to be interpreted by one interpreter, but because they are putting money before quality. Many attorneys, who do not know better, buy into this idea, and by accepting this practice, they contribute to the perpetuation of the idea that consecutive interpreting in a deposition setting does not require team interpreting.
Before the actual deposition, like in any assignment, my partner and I had to study all materials relevant to the case, we had to travel to another state the day before these depositions, check into a hotel, get to the venue the following morning (in a different time zone) early enough to assess the place and determine where we would sit during the sessions, and set up our iPad and other materials at the boardroom table where the deposition was to take place.
The depositions were complicated because of the technical matters discussed, the many dates, places, names, etcetera. They were also difficult because of the deponents’ reluctance to answer the questions. Both deponents spoke Spanish, but they were from different countries, different gender, they had a different background, and conflicting interests regarding the outcome of the case.
Because the attorneys and interpreters were from out of town, the Law Firm was interested in finishing the matter in two days. This meant long hours with short breaks.
Even though we prepared for the assignment, and we were flooded with many documents, there were certain technical terms, types of software, and other concepts not in the package. We had to research on the run by going online and looking up concepts and products. This can only happen when you have two interpreters working as a team where one interprets (active) while the other one (passive or supporting) does the research and passes on the information found to his or her colleague.
I do not see how this could happen when working alone. The interpreter would have to request a break to research what is needed. This would bring at least four unwanted consequences: (1) The deposition would take longer, generating additional costs when held out of town; (2) It would break the rhythm of the dialogue between attorney and deponent, causing attorneys to lose their train of thought; (3) It would cut the flow of an answer by interrupting the way the deponent is describing or telling something, or in another scenario, it would give a deponent time to think an answer eliminating the effect intended by the attorney asking the questions; and (4) The interpreter’s rendition could be compromised because on top of the complex and exhausting task of interpreting everything alone, he or she would now undertake another tiring task: research in a hurry because you are holding up the deposition. To compensate, attorneys would shorten the breaks and the interpreter would have to work more than originally expected with less time to rest.
On both days, we shortened our active interpreter shifts towards the end of the day so we could maintain the quality level of the interpretation. On both days the passive, supporting interpreter, had to research during the sessions; and as always, when you work as a team, we both consulted with each other when needed (doubts about a term, a number, a regional or technical expression) by simply exchanging notes without interrupting the deposition. I will not even mention the impromptu “saves” during a coughing attack or a bathroom emergency.
Depositions happen in civil cases where there is often a lot of money on the line. My experience is that attorneys who do this work are very receptive to the advantages of having the interpreting service provided by a team. They get the importance of a smooth deposition, and they understand the costs saved by avoiding prolonged sessions because of continuous interpreter breaks. As experienced attorneys, they know the difference between a fresh interpreter and an exhausted one. They are aware of how difficult our work is, and they trust our professional advice. For this reason, they will go for a team of interpreters instead of a solo. I would say to those of you who claim this is impossible because the agencies will not go for it: Talk directly to the law office. Do not wait for an agency to find you for a deposition. Go out there and find your attorney clients yourselves. It has worked for me. I now ask you to comment, and I would like to hear what you do when you are unfortunately interpreting a deposition by yourself and you need time to research something where attorneys are working under time constraints because of financial considerations or due to their professional agendas or the availability of the deponents.
July 10, 2018 § 13 Comments
On June 30 those who took the federal court interpreter exam in the United States last year, and have not received their test results to this date, found an email from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (FCICE@ao.uscourts.gov) in their inbox.
Once again, and after all this time, the email was to “provide an update” on the status of the scores. The email explained how all exams have either been scored and equated, or invalidated. The email then goes into a very detailed explanation of the scoring and review of the exams, but it only addresses the news that candidates care about towards the end of the communication by stating that “…no dates have yet been set for the 2018 re-administration of the oral phase of the… examination…” and it then drops the bomb when it indicates that “…dates will most likely not be determined until after November 2018…” and it gives an “assurance” to those who have been victimized by the credibility of the AO since they took the exam last year, that regardless of when the exam is re-administered, “…it will be administered in time… to qualify for the 2019 administration of the oral phase…”
Once again, the email tells nothing to the candidates, and once again it lacks an apology, by now long due to all of our colleagues who have endured this nightmare for so long. The email does nothing to comfort the candidates. Instead of informing them of their scores, it gives them an unusual explanation about the way these scores will be delivered. First, they will receive an email informing them that their score has been snail-mailed through the U.S. Mail. Can you imagine how much longer those candidates who live outside the United States must wait for the letter to get to their mailbox?
The email speaks of the “re-administration” of the test, but it says nothing about the entity in charge of the task. At this point is not known if there will be a new contractor or if the AO itself will administer the exam.
It concerns me to see how the government does not get it. Once again, they distract the candidates from the fact that nothing relevant has changed since the last time they received a letter from the AO, with a lengthy explanation on how the exams have been scored, equated, and reviewed.
The validity of the exam and the integrity and skill of the raters are the only things never questioned by anybody, yet, they continue to dominate the communication to the candidates. What everybody questions is not the exam nor the examiner; the answers everybody is waiting for concern the decision-making process that resulted in contracting paradigm and the accountability of those who made such decision; the readiness of Paradigm to administer an exam like the federal court interpreter certification test, when there was nothing in their background to suggest they could perform the task; and finally, the way the AO has handled the situation after the exam, from its secrecy and lack of transparency, to the delays, to a full report on what they are now doing to hire a capable contractor and to make sure that another fiasco of this enormity never happens again.
The candidates got another email, and from that, they got:
No apology from the AO for all damages caused to the candidates who took the exam.
NO admission of any wrongdoing or even responsibility for retaining Paradigm and for acting the way they have after the exam was administered.
No word on who will be the new retained contractor, or what they will do to re-administer the test. It is very important to know who the new contractor is because candidates will want to know that the selected corporation can handle the administration of both: written and oral tests in 2019.
No date for the retake, just a hint it will probably be after November. This assures all candidates an awful holiday season full of pain and suffering.
Not a word on reimbursement of the fees paid for the exam “administered” by Paradigm, and nothing on covering travel and other expenses for those who had to travel from far away to take the Paradigm exam.
Another development in this shameful saga happened on the written federal court interpreter certification exam: Even though Paradigm’s website still links to the FCICE webpage; the link has been disabled by the AO, and their website now indicates that at this time there is no date for the “summer” written examination, but from a careful reading on the website you can conclude it will be next year.
To mend the biggest fiasco in court interpreting history, people will take both, written and oral tests on the same year, altering the spirit of the exam as originally conceived, and ending a tradition.
Dear friends and colleagues, candidates who took the exam last year and those studying this year for the written test: it looks like you will continue to suffer emotional distress and enormous tension as you are likely to spend your 2018 holiday season studying for a test you had the right to take this year.
I now invite all candidates who took the oral exam, those studying to take the written test, and those certified interpreters who feel for these colleagues, to share their stories of struggle and frustration during this very dark time for court interpreting in America.