The ASL Interpreters' Union

[Ballewbird]

Dear Colleagues,

I'm sure many of you have heard about the 4 call centers within Purple VRS who have voted to unionize.  The union is now known as the ASLIU (ASL Interpreters' Union).  It is part of the Communication Workers of America.  They have released a video that discusses the reasons to organize.  You can find it here:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucFWkNe81vE

Purple and ASLIU have been negotiating all year for a contract.  Recently Purple left the table.  ASLIU is circulating a petition in hopes of encouraging Purple come back to the table and finish the contract.  At the heart of the contract is balancing company profits with a safe/healthy work environment for interpreters so they can do the best possible job interpreting for Deaf and hearing consumers.  

The petition link is here: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stand-up-for-quality

Many of you may not know that log-in requirements now exceed 80%, which is very fatiguing.  Purple has also begun to hire non-certified interpreters.  They have no support, mentors, or path to certification in place for these interpreters.  

I understand that unions can be controversial, but I felt the information was important to share.  Thank you for your kind attention.

Yours,

Jenny Ballew

NIC, RID K-12

[Austin Kocher]

Jenny,

Thank you. I appreciate you sharing a specific, timely and extremely important opportunity with us on the forums. I signed the petition and I hope that other do, too.

Sincerely,

Austin Kocher

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[jmil...@frii.com]

That's wonderful Jenny! I wonder if other entities that employ large
numbers of interpreters such as K-12 and colleges have approached ASLIU?

Take care,
Jenny Miller

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:08:07 -0800 (PST), Ballewbird
<jenny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,I'm sure many of you have heard about the 4 call centers

> Yours,Jenny BallewNIC, RID K-12

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.

> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG [1].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out [2].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG
> [2] https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out

[Diana MacDougall]

As did I, through a social media petition earlier. Thank you for bringing this to a wider audience. 

Diana Mac

[Karen Lefebvre]

Diane,

 

I do not work in the VRS setting, therefore, I am not fully confident or familiar with the interpreter's responsibilities, benefits, scheduling, and training requirements, etc.

 

But, I do know for certain,  at a local level, from experience, unions often times protect the folks who may be unskilled, uncertified, in jeporady of loosing their jobs because of poor performance.  This was very discouraging when it was time to push for quality interpreters in the educational setting.

 

Also, in speak ing with my niece who is a nurse working in a facility where there is no union, she indicates she is worried in that when and if the union comes on board, strong possibility she indicated, again, those folks who she deems 'unskilled' not working up to par, not doing their jobs, may be protected.

 

Take good care and good luck in the VRS areana.

 

Karen Lefebvre

[Jody Weidemann]

Karen, what you state is my experience with Unions.

It is all about how much money can we get for how little work done by our members.
On the other hand as employers continue to disrespect employees, something has to give.  Wish there was a Union concept that included accomplishing the job that the business is in business to do, while respecting the employees and paying a "fair" wage.

Employers and employees need to realize they have a symbiotic relationship.  They both need each other and need to work TOGETHER! 

~jody weidemann
Sent from my iPad

[Bill Moody]

Who is the ASLIU?  I assume there are members in the 4 Purple call centers.  Who are other members?  Who are the officers and staff of the Communication Workers unions?  Who is on the negotiating team with Purple reps (reps from the Communication Workers AND an interpreter, or only reps from the umbrella of communication workers)?

These are questions we need to answer your concerns about protection of incompetent workers…

I am the union rep (United Federation of Teachers) for the interpreters who work in the NYC public schools.  So far, protection of incompetent workers has not been a problem, but it could well be in future…

Bill.

 

 

 

From: NI...@googlegroups.com [mailto:NI...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jody Weidemann
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 3:41 PM
To: NI...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [NIDG] The ASL Interpreters' Union

 

Karen, what you state is my experience with Unions.

--

[Betty Colonomos]

Hi Jennie,

I have always supported the idea of unions to fight for fair treatment of workers.  In this case, I have mixed feelings.  I don't know of any profession that has unionized (except for teachers who do not have the status they may deserve.)  Perhaps that is because many are self-employed and make the rules; another reason is that professional organizations police their own members.  In addition, there are protocols in place to protect the consumers (clients, patients, etc.) from abuse. Most professionals must go through a rigorous educational process, then must be licensed to work.  I believe that part of being a professional is having the confidence in your abilities and the assertiveness to improve working conditions without third party intervention.  This unionization of workers in VRS just adds another barrier to our desire to be recognized and respected as a profession. 

If the vast majority of  VRS operators were certified and qualified interpreters were in place in VRS centers, I might support this idea. If VRS employers cared about (or were mandated to) have only qualified interpreters, then I believe pressure could be brought to bear in the form of boycotts, demonstrations. etc. This, of course, will not work given the current situation. VRS providers would just replace qualified interpreters with those who will work cheaper and put up with whatever conditions exist.  These interpreters may not be able to find work otherwise. 

The most important question here is....who needs protection?  The consumers are getting below par services and have little power to change this sorry state of affairs.I, personally, have had my last two calls through VRS shock even me.  The interpreters (not same person) were so inept that I had to end the call and contact the Deaf parties myself.  While there may be qualified interpreters currently experiencing these poor working conditions, there are so many more that should not be working.  The union will protect all of them and that is counter to our professional code of conduct, mission, and philosophy.  Unless and until we clean up the mess and set appropriate standards, I cannot support any action that may (unintentional or not) continue to oppress the communities that we serve.  I am not going to tell the Deaf community, "Sorry, we know thatyou are not getting good (or even acceptable) services, but we are going to make sure that imcompetent interpreters have job protection and good working conditions so that you continue to have unacceptable services."  That is what we are considering here, instead of fighting the good fight to elevate the standards and find ways to negotiate with employers the way that professionals do.

We need to think this through more carefully. lest
 we make hasty decisions like the many we have made and now regret. 

Respectfully,

Betty Colonomos

[Karen Lefebvre]

Yes, Jodi, you are correct.  The example in history: the 'Triangle Shirt' Factory Fire in NYC during the 1800s and with the problems in Bangladesh, human rights, protection of employees without a union causes issues and with interpreters at VRS, I am assuming, quality of work, responsibility, hours, benefits, lack of respect , hiring practices, etc.

 

Because with the interpreters at VRS, it is the first step toward the improvement of their working conditions, so to speak. 

 

So with this in mind, I wish them the best of luck.  They are paving the way for improved communication between the Deaf consumer and clients in general.

 

In my years at the local program, at the negotiation table I was informed the custodial crew were a priority on the list of talking points and that anyone can sign. (They used silly gestures which was very insulting, but, I bit my tongue.)

 

 Finally after repeated negations, a few years later at our local level, contract after contract, I was able to secure recognition of national certification, screening of potential candidates, levels of pay increments, recognition/ incentives for training and workshops, a six hour day, respite and being put on the IEP team.  This was based on the communication needs of Deaf students in our program.

 

My inner goal was to attract the qualifie/certified interpreter into the program.

Most young interpreters coming out of ITPs, used this setting as a first step, worked a couple of years, then, bam, out of the system.

 

Their replacements, without the contract improvements, were very unskilled.

 

Have a wonderful Christmas and New Years!!

 

Take good care,

 

Karen Lefebvre

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Jody Weidemann

To: NI...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 3:40 PM

Subject: Re: [NIDG] The ASL Interpreters' Union

[Christina Stevens]

Recently Keith Wann interviewed two members about this topic, you can listen to the podcast here: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/asl/2013/12/17/sign-language-interpreters--union-vs-purple

An ASL version will be available soon.  

He interviewed Martin Yost and Judith Kroeger, I dont know if any of those people are involved with this group. I hope this helps give more information. 

Christina 

  

Martin Yost -
Martin Yost began interpreting in 1989. Private-practice professional interpreter, interpreted on staff at postsecondary educational institutions, a large mental health agency, a community based interpreting agency and VRS company. In addition, he has presented workshops on a variety of subjects including mental health interpreting and NIC preparation. He has been involved in mentoring interpreters for most of his career and served San Diego County Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (SDCRID) as the Chair of the Mentorship Committee.  Martin assisted in a collective effort to organize the first union for VRS interpreters in 2012 before he became a union officer.  He is currently serving as a National Vice Chair of ASLIU (American Sign Language Interpreters United) bargaining a labor agreement with his employer.

Judith A. Kroeger, MA, RID Certified
Judith A. Kroeger has worked as an interpreter for over ten years with more than six of those years in video relay.  With a Master of Arts in Deaf Education and an Associate of Arts in ASL/English Interpreting, Judith has interpreted in various settings including educational, both K-12 and college level; video remote interpreting, and general community. 
Judith is currently the chair of RID’s Video Interpreter Member Section (VIMS), and also serves as vice president of SDCRID (San Diego County RID).  Through each of these involements Judith has brought many interpreters together with the purpose of growing the profession locally within SDCRID, and  nationally for video interpreters. 
Judith got involved in organizing with CWA (Communications Workers of America) in 2009 and worked in partnership with interpreters across the country to develop a common mission statement, responses to FCC requests and most importantly petitioning for a vote for collective representation with CWA for a voice in the workplace.

[Susan Stange]

Amen, Betty!  I could not possibly agree more.  Can I get a witness? 

--

[Austin Kocher]

I am proud to see interpreters working together to create solidarity and possibly (though not guaranteed) create better working conditions. I wonder how we might work together to prevent exploitation and hostility within our profession?

Sincerely,

Austin Kocher

[Diana MacDougall]

I don't know, Austin. I do believe, though, that this may be a first step toward organizing standards that may get some recognition on a broader scale. In the process, this may be a forum for creating a definition for "qualified" interpreters. 

Diana Mac

[Brenda Dencer]

VRS is not the only venue where providers will use the lower-cost interpreter. With the advent of spoken language interpreting/translating companies winning contracts (both federal and other), we are being offered rates lower than the standard in the area. One company asks for the best offer before hiring interpreters. I have sent in a rate that is very competitive, yet was told that someone else who offered a lower rate got the job. I can only imagine what the level of services were.I don't even respond to their emails anymore. Slowly but surely, our living wage is being eroded by spoken language companies. But if we get together to discuss the issues facing us, we have to be careful or be accused of price fixing.

One company was sending a sign language interpreter who was paid $20/hr. She handed out business cards for her pajama party business, work funky clothes inappropriate to the setting, and was (surprise!) uncertified. These agencies don't screen, even if they have a certified interpreter on staff. After all, the bottom line is king. I'm not blaming those companies. It's just a fact of life that these companies have to make a profit or they can't exist. It's unfortunate that the deaf community is caught in the middle.

 

Brenda Dencer, SC: L
Sometimes when things seem to fall apart, they actually may be falling into place.

[Lisa Sands]

I can point Martin and Judith to this group so they can answer your questions. I know Judith is currently out of the country right now, but I am sure Martin would love to chime in.

 

Thanks,

Lisa Sands

[Judith A Kroeger]

Hello all,

Glad the discussion is spreading and more and more are not only talking but wanting more information.  I'm traveling, so I will keep this short.  

CWA Communications Workers of America is not new to the interpreting nor the sign language interpreting rhealm.  CWA has organized spoken language interpreters as well as court interpreters.  They have established an organization many of you might be familiar with NIAN National Interpreter Action Network.

I don't know about each of your locales, but here in Southern California many of our K12 and college/university interpreters are already organized within unions that encompass different employees within each if those organizations.  (One union here locally negotiated teaming and minimum hiring standards for their K12 interpreters).

Unions in many service professions act to protect the consumers in the end.  For example, requiring qualified professionals is one step towards enduring a better product, whether that be the health care you receive or the phone call you make.  ASLIU is committed to providing qualified interpreters at a time when providers are seeking a higher profit margin by bringing in less and less qualified interpreters; some would even venture to say unqualified in the name of profit "efficiency."

In the same respect, collectively bargaining together through a union, as interpreters we make the decisions through voting for our peers to represent us at the bargaining table and to bring back a contract which we as the interpreters then vote to accept or send back to bargaining.

As far as who is protected and what they are protected from, the union ensures that companies, or providers, follow guidelines according to the negotiated contract.  That contract is designed so that providers who many of us have seen let interpreters go who we're speaking out against unsafe working conditions, quality of product, and those who were unwavering on lessening quality to meet the providers' self profiting demands.

Keep in mind the rationale for organizing was not to increase wages, but to improve safe working conditions that effect the quality of product consumers receive.  And the goal of union organizing is to work with the employer, and to also protect the employees by putting agreements in a binding contract that provides for accountability on both parties.  Many times union organizing occurs after several failed attempts at doing just that without a written, binding contract only to see one side not perform on stated promises.  Organizing does not happen out if the blue without this prior history of failed promises.  

The union is our way of getting our voice.  It's an avenue provided to us by the National Labor Relations Act that is in place to protect all workers organized or not, but especially those in "at will" states who seek to better their profession and are told "you know where the door is" when voicing those concerns regardless of the offered solutions we stand face to face with profit seekers who see those quality standards as a barrier to their margin.  Confidence and assertiveness is what brought a group of Spanish interpreters, those interpreters that many in the community look down on as "refusing to get certified" even though equal opportunities/access are not provided who with confidence and assertiveness said our consumers deserve something more; something better; something not hastily decided upon, but now almost 5 years in the making.  

Union organizing has become the avenue for change in VRS.  Change interpreters finally have a voice in.  Consumer groups have direct contact with the FCC.  Providers have direct contact with the FCC.  But when it comes to employer/employee issues of interpreters, the professional organization of RID and the FCC are not involved; not because of a lack of desire, but a lack of power and jurisdiction to illicit change.  (Note:  the FCC can get involved if the FCC feels it is effecting quality, of which interpreters are at an impasse until more research is done to evidence the impact issues have on consumer quality).

You can find out more information about officers (all elected from their centers), bargaining team (all except 1 professional CWA negotiator elected interpreters from their centers) on the Facebook page.  Search ASL Interpreters United.  

Hope that answered all your questions, if not let me know (might be a couple days for a response as I'm standing on my head to get the slightest of a signal out here).

Judith

Judith A Kroeger, MA, RID Certified

Spirit lead me where my trust is without borders!

[Kenneth Houghtaling II]

Hello all

I enjoy the discussion and topics we venture into here as interpreters. Most of the time I simply read and give consideration although I have contributed on occasion. 

The topic of unions is quite debatable. I actually have quite a bit of experience with labor organizations. Prior to becoming an interpreter  I worked for seven years for my utility as a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers IBEW 682 as a member of the line department. I also have worked as a staff interpreter in K-12 school district that only included teachers in the union although they were trying to bring the interpreters in. During my years in the IBEW I actually spent time as "yard steward" - I was the guy who filled and argued all the 1st step grievances in my department. 

Unionization has many positive and negative aspects. Despite the fact that I was a card holding union due paying member I repeatedly saw my union leadership drop grievances at the third step because they felt it was not important enough to fight for the small ten person department that I worked in. The all for one never seemed to apply when it came to issues that affected so few employees. At the same time I saw the union fight for and win back the job of an employee who was terminated multiple times for being caught golfing and fishing on the job. Unions can be a powerful ally in the fight against corporations who try to leverage against their employees however in most cases I have seen the unions back and support the worst examples in my profession. 

Additionally there are many other factors to consider. Many states are Right-to-Work meaning you do not have to belong to a union to hold a position that is considered "Unionized" We are fooling ourselves to think that labor unions have the power they once held when a VRS  company can simply close the doors in one state and move to another to avoid having to deal with a closed-shop. In a state like Florida where I live we are a Right-to-Work state with no laws regulating interpreters. In my opinion interpreter licensure/registration law should be a primary concern and would do more to regulate our profession than spending money to a union who may or may not have my personal best interest as a goal. I also fail to see how companies, particularly VRS companies are the enemy we must organize against when the real problem is the FCC accepting the ridiculous assertion that we are Call Assistants and that cutting the VRS reimbursement rate will devastate not only the VRS profession but the community agencies as well. As was stated previously the VRS companies as well as agencies and the school districts are lowering the standard of interpreting, agreed! Licensure and Regulation of our industry are far more powerful in achieving the goals that we all seem to have. 

Sincerely

Kenneth W. Houghtaling II NIC

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 11:08:07 PM UTC-5, Ballewbird wrote:

[Betty Colonomos]

Dear Kenneth,

Thank you for bringing your experience to share the realities of unionization.  Your points about Right-to-Work states is a way to avoid working with unions and since VRS companies are national, they could set up a call center anywhere.  The union wants dues-paying members, they don't have any concern about quality.  They protect those who would be fired if they didn't belong to the union. 

This notion that unions will solve VRS interpreters problems comes from a place of powerlessness.  It is a place many interpreters (who are women) live:  a gender that is taught to be a) non-assertive and fearful of authority, and b) nice and cooperative, lacking the tools to negotiate on their behalf. I see this daily in my interactions with interpreters, so it also applies to relationships with employers, colleagues, and clients. We could be working with our consumers and the VRS companies to challenge the FCC to make changes, not by expecting big brother to get us out of trouble.

What we need is some form of legal status, such as licensure, with effective enforcement protocols, that will allow only qualified interpreters to work. Then companies will have little recourse than to deal with competent professionals who they NEED to provide the services they promise.  With a seemingly limitless pool of signers who will work under any conditions for much less pay, there is no reason to deal with us.

Most of all, the union will not elevate our profession to the minimum acceptable standard that our consumers deserve and demand. We need to do this hard work ourselves...perhaps with the support of our national professional organizations that have a stake in the outcome.

Welcome to the discussion!

Betty Colonomos

[yostjr]

Hello all,

I am one of those VRS interpreter union folks that have been the topic of this discussion.  I am on the bargaining committee for a contract with my employer and I’ve been working in VRS for a little over six years with the same company.  I have a fair amount of interpreting experience outside of VRS.

I appreciate the discussion and experience that comes from those who have participated in the current debate.  I would like to go on record by stating I do not think a union will solve all the problems within the VRS industry.  I will, however, rebut the assertions that the only thing unions will do is collect dues, protect people from being fired, all the while having no concern for quality.

First, when discussing the union, it’s important to note that the union is the people; its members.  I am the union.  I care very much for quality, as do my fellow union sisters and brothers who are trying to make a difference.  Collectively, we CAN assist in elevating our profession to a minimum acceptable standard for our consumers.  Do not think for a minute that we professionals have not implored our employers to take a path of reform that does not ignore quality for our consumers and the health of the interpreters.  Our voices went unheard—until now.  This discussion is a perfect example.  Where was this discussion a year and a half ago if not only in silos of VRS call centers throughout the nation? Collectively, we have a national platform where we are demanding to be heard.

We (the union) actually got to sit at the table with the FCC to discuss VRS reform from the interpreters’ view-- a view that has immense concern for quality service to our consumers.  Yes, we are also concerned with preserving the health of VRS interpreters.  Additionally, we had the privilege to meet with a staff attorney of NAD’s Law and Advocacy Center to foster a consumer-centric relationship.  In the same spirit, we have also met with TDI, a small, but extremely powerful national advocacy organization that focuses its resources to equal access in telecommunications (and media).  These meetings were made possible by a collective effort of our union. 

Not all unions are the same and it is unfair to generalize the experiences of one union to another.  Communications Workers of America, CWA, is a very old union that started as the telecommunications union back in the days of Ma Bell.  It has very strong lobbying power and relationships to the FCC, which is currently the only governing body of VRS companies and at the helm of industry reform.  Let’s please not overlook the opportunity here.  RID has been conspicuously absent in steering VRS reform, despite cries for help from its members.

What’s so wrong with VRS interpreters unionizing?  My partner is a registered nurse and a union member.  His union is heavily involved with regulating health care at the state level from a patient-centric approach.  My uncle was a firefighter and it never occurred to me to wonder why until now.  Why are teachers unionized?  Why are there unions at all?

I come from a place of respect for all who are contributing to this debate, no matter the opinions stated.  I wish I could write a lot more, but I gotta go to work now.

[Karen Lefebvre]

Dear Kenneth,

Also, in line with Betty and her experience, I can add the final results of the local work within our union.  After all the work of networking through out the state, setting up training centers for the educational interpreters, the state setting aside a grant specially to upgrade the skills of the educational interpreters who were not certified,  the lobbying group, New York Untied Teachers incorporated the interpreters under their umbrella of Support Service Personnel.  This may have been an achievement for those involved on the surface.  At the end of the grant, training, etc., the state established a certification requirement for the interpreters working within the educational system.  How wonderful!! Yes, we would all think so.  But,  with the pressures of the numbers of 'unskilled' interpreters fearing loss of their jobs, NYSUT approached the SED and Legislature and suddenly it was all put on the 'back burner'.  NYSUT saved the day, the interpreters presently working in the system would not loose their jobs after all.  Much apologizes were sent out to all of the training centers, funding ceased and that is the end of the story.  One of the SED directors whom I still see on occasion, still comments to this day.  'Too much politics involved.'  'Again, the quality of the education of The deaf kids in the state was overlooked in this instance.'

Again, you have to be careful in moving forward.  We were successful at the local level,,,but,, when the idea of uniting, creating a standard, requiring quality of skills under the support of a so-called powerful union, NYSUT which is under the AFL-CIO, was a dismal failure.  

Right now the state is revisiting the recognition of certification and training…will see.   Because I have seen it fail at least three times in our state over the last twenty years, I am very curious how it will pan out with upcoming Legislative Year.

Karen Lefebvre

 

[Betty Colonomos]

Hi Karen,

Thanks for the reality check.  I applaud Jamie and the professionals who are working hard to make things better. Their passion is admirable. I think that those professional interpreters who live and work in areas where there are many skilled interpreters (such as Washington, DC, Boston, and others) really have little sense of the vast number of people who call themselves interpreters and who do harm every day.  I came to realize how seriously skewed the picture is because I travel all over the country and have had long talks with colleagues who tell me about their experiences. I have also been to places where I see first hand the dismal state of affairs.

I am not anti-union and I believe that in many cases it works. My concern is that none of these other professions named (nursing, education, etc.) has practitioners who are unqualified, yet working, to the degree we have. I would be generous if I estimated that 50+ percent of signers are unqualified as interpreters despite their job titles. That may seem unfathomable and perhaps someone can give me evidence to the contrary (I would love that!) If half the nurses and half the firefighters were unqualified, many more of us would be dead.

I just don't believe, as you pointed out, that in the end it will happen.  There are just too many folks who do not met any reasonable standard and they will fight to keep their jobs no matter what.  Yes, eventually the politics of numbers will be the victor.

If you want to kill the message, please do. Just don't kill the messenger.

Betty

[Dan Parvaz]

Interestingly, to me at least, VRS services are one of the groups with the numbers/reach/community ties to really put some metrics to quality of translation/customer satisfaction vis-à-vis credentials (RID/NAD/QA, formal education, demographics, etc.). _Are_ they doing this? It would be nice if we could stop chasing our own tails about this, and get some numbers. It's to everyone's mutual benefit that this finally get done.

Cheers,

-Dan.

[JenProsceo]

Betty,

I agree that understanding theories about gender and power differences are crucial to our field and are integral for developing negotiation, assertiveness and advocacy skills within our profession.  That said, these ideas do not explain the basic need for unionization in any profession.  I couldn't imagine telling my friends in Actor's Equity or in IATSE (theatrical stagehands union) that the only reason the unions benefit them or their profession stems from their inherent powerlessness and their passive approaches with management.   I have never before heard the argument that unions are a mere substitution for what should be one's own personal quest for empowerment, much less as a career crutch for women.  

If anyone can help me understand this better, I would like to know why some say that a union would necessarily protect unskilled practitioners or be unconcerned with quality.  I realize that the unions are out to earn dues, but a union is made up of its members.  Could a union not negotiate for more stringent quality standards rather than more lenient ones?  Would that not be in the best interest of the union members as a whole?   Why would management be any more concerned with quality than a union?   And does union membership necessarily negate or disallow the use of the licensure and/or certification to help with matters of quality control?

Thanks,

Jen Prosceo, NAD-V, OTC, CI/CT

[Jody Weidemann]

I am speaking only from personal experience, not research or theory.

But I see management wanting quality only so long as it earns them profits and they don't care how they get those profits. If it is with less quality but their product or service is still purchased then less quality it is. If they can earn higher profits by misusing their employees, so be it.

Whereas Unions seem to only want less work, more pay/benefits for their members, consideration of the company's purpose be damned. Unions use safety issues and quality issues and customer service as leverage, but that really is not their interest. I can not imagine a Union fighting for something that would cost their members time or money, such as increasing licensure/certification. Just like what happened in public schools. They set in motion for all K-12 interpreters to get training, for FREE, and get certified. But when not enough participated the whole requirement was scraped and things continue as they were.

And to say Unions represent their members......well? That is like saying our government is run by the people because we can vote. Sometimes The People/members have influence, but more often than not those running the show do what they damn well please regardless of what a The People/membership is saying.

IMHO, ~jody weidemann, csc
Sent from my iPad

> On Dec 28, 2013, at 3:11 PM, JenProsceo <jpro...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> ............. that a union would necessarily protect unskilled practitioners or be unconcerned with quality. I realize that the unions are out to earn dues, but a union is made up of its members. Could a union not negotiate for more stringent quality standards rather than more lenient ones? Would that not be in the best interest of the union members as a whole? Why would management be any more concerned with quality than a union? And does union membership necessarily negate or disallow the use of the licensure and/or certification to help with matters of quality control?

[Betty Colonomos]

Dear Jen,

Thank you for sharing your views on this issue. I did not mean to imply that there is a cause and effect relationship for powerlessness and unionizing.  Your example of actors and stagehands, however noble and important in our culture, does not come with the risk of serious harm to audiences.

If we use two examples of unionized professions that have high risk potential, we see a different approach to quality control. If police officers make questionable decisions and commit dangerous actions, they are suspended pending investigation by Internal Affairs. Internal Affairs is not part of the union. The police union protects its members by fighting for safe working conditions and benefits.  These elements may indirectly affect the public welfare when working conditions allow officers to work long shifts and experience fatigue that may compromise their performance.

Another similar profession is nursing. The vast majority of nurses work in environments with other nurses and health care workers under supervision.  Health care providers are invested in the avoidance of malpractice lawsuits, so it is their best interest to carefully monitor the quality of performance of health care professionals and all employees. This is not under the aegis of any union either.

It makes sense for our professional organizations (RID, NAD, etc.) to be responsible for quality control. That would include protecting interpreters from harmful work environments. If "we are RID" then the membership needs to demand these priorities.  We need to address this within our field. Right now is a perfect time to do this. We are currently revisiting the mission and goals of RID. This is period of reflection and being member-driven. 

Your argument that the unions members determine policies, etc. is in theory correct. However, when you read other posts that describe the reality of what happens and what the focus of unions and businesses are, you cannot deny that unions and employers have their own priorities.

I welcome further discussion and I am always open to perspectives that are different from mine.

Respectfully,

Betty Colonomos

[Nancy Bender]

Betty,

We could also look at the unionization of teachers. I would argue that, like nursing and law enforcement, teaching is quite high stakes in terms of impact and outcomes. 

I completely understand the importance of interpreters working in call centers to regain the power over the quality of their own work product within the VRS environment. 

I wish I had more constructive solutions to bring to the discussion. I am keeping up with the dialog piecemeal as time permits. Very humbled and grateful to you all for putting it all out there and discussing the work....

I am increasingly discouraged by the one stop shop mentality of my customers.  It's no wonder that so many contracts are awarded using LPTA. Lowest price technically acceptable. If only it were something like "best value highest quality".  That's just not how I've seen purchasing evaluated at least at the federal and state government levels in the DC metro area.  I work to 'sell' quality to customers each day. It just isn't often in their criteria. Again if deaf people were making these purchasing decisions then of course quality would be the focus. 

Respectfully, 

- Nancy

Nancy Bender

MAIG, Inc.

2825 Westchester Avenue

Ellicott City, Maryland 21043

--

[Jeremy Brunson]

All,

 

This is a great discussion! I have two points to add to the discussion.  One is about what is in the current thread and the other is something that is not. 

 

First, I would like to point out an erroneous assumption in this thread.  It appears that people are under the impression that under skilled interpreters would be protected with a union but are not protected without the union.  As someone who has studied, written about, and has worked in video relay services, I can assure you this is not the case.  The current measurement of "functional equivalency" (aka: access) is measured in processing minutes (i.e., billable minutes).  There is no measurement used to determine whether the interpreter is effectively conveying a message.  In fact, I would argue that the longer an interpreter needs to clarify and interpret a message the better off the provider is.   Therefore, an under-skilled interpreter who is able to meet all of the required minutes during a shift may be seen as a star by the provider and may not be much more proficient than Mr.Thamsanqa Jantjie is in South African Sign Language (perhaps that is a tad heavy handed).  I am not saying this happens often but Betty's experience with "inept" interpreters probably happens more often than not.  I am sure anyone of us who has used VRS can share similar experiences.  In some states, like Arizona, where we are required to be certified and license (and home of one of the centers that unionized) it is probably less likely (not impossible) to be the case because at least a minimum bar has been met.  Although, as we all know, that is not a guarantee of skill.  

 

Secondly, we also need to accept that VRS is becoming the training ground for new interpreters.  Gone are the days where would-be interpreters were vetted by Deaf people.  This occurs in ITPs with few, if any, Deaf people.   This is ideal for providers because they are able to train them to be the kinds of interpreters they want for their business.  (I believe Plato’s allegory of the cave is appropriate here.) 

 

Regardless of my own feelings about unions, there needs to be some entity that is looking out for the safety of interpreters who have not had the years of experience that some of us have had that provides us with the ability to go elsewhere if VRS doesn't fit our approach to interpreting and the insight to know that we have this choice.   Who is going to do this?  Interpreters are often too overwhelmed with their everyday to do it.  Consumers (Deaf and non-deaf) don’t always have the ability to assess our work completely. And, providers are responsible to their bottom line.   (I should also say that this does not make providers the proverbial bad guys.  They are in the business of making money.  So are interpreters.  We all need money to survive.)

 

This is just my two cents (worth considerably less).

I hope this kind of discussion continues.

Best,

 

Jeremy L. Brunson, Ph.D., SC:L

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "National Interpreter Discussion Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to NIDG+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to NI...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/NIDG.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--

Jeremy L. Brunson, Ph.D., CI/CT, SC:L
Associate Professor
Department of Interpretation
Gallaudet University
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: 202.448.6918 (Voice/TTY)
Fax: 202.448.6987
jeremy....@gallaudet.edu

Diversity is the sometimes painful awareness that other people, other races, other voices, other habits of mind, have as much integrity of being, as much claim on the world as you do. And I urge you, amid all the differences present to the eye and mind, to reach out to create the bond that... will protect us all. We are meant to be here together.

William M. Chase, 1849-1916
American Artist and Teacher

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

[JenProsceo]

Betty.   Yes my analogy is limited to a point.  You're right, with actors and stagehands the unions do protect against serious harm befalling the practitioners themselves, but usually these risks and dangers do not have dire consequences for the consumers of acting and stagecraft, the audience.  I'm still grateful for having had the authority, as an Equity Stage Manager, to have been able to say "No, actually, these union actors are not setting their union feet on this unstable, shaky, weak, up-on-stilts-platform you (management) are calling a "set", even if you're supposed to open in two days".  

I'm wondering how even with a revised mission and goals, how can the RID have an impact on ensuring quality in private enterprises?  

Jen

[Betty Colonomos]

Jeremy,

Thanks so much for your one dollars worth (definitely not two cents!)

You have hit the nail on the head here.  As much as I am reluctant to say it, if I were in the VRS business and I only cared about making tons of money I'd hire new ITP graduates and anyone who would work for the lowest price.  It is so disturbing that most companies make money by offering quality/affordable services.  In ours, the opposite is true!  I'm not implying that the VRS companies who basically control the market are of this type, but it's hard to neglect this fact.  Why make interpreters efficient? They take less time to complete a call successfully!  This is a sorry mess. 

What we could do is let the FCC know that they are paying more than they need to.  That might work.If we could convince them that  setting a minimum standard of certification might save them millions of dollars, perhaps they would listen.  The Deaf community needs to support this  and I am sure we will have no problem getting the data from consumers to support this.  If VRS companies want to train interpreters, great!  However, they must be assessed by entity that has the tools to do so.  Regardless of the psychometric validity of RID's evaluation, it has face validity and it has been in place for a long time as the acceptable standard.

If competent interpreters are working in unhealthy (physical and psychological) environments, we need to help them.  The solution being discussed is unionization,  I don't see how that will solve the problems at hand.  If the union required certification, employers would just get "interpreters" another way.

It seems that quality interpreters who can find other work will leave call centers (as many have done already) and those who cannot will be the norm.  I wish I had the wisdom to offer an answer, but the FCC idea might be an avenue to begin.  We have been arguing about quality for the consumers. That hasn't worked. Perhaps talking about saving lots of money in these economic times could.

Betty Colonomos

[Jo Ann Kranis]

. Q

Very,.

• Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

JenProsceo <jpro...@frontiernet.net> wrote:

Betty.   Yes my analogy is limited to a point.  You're right, with actors and stagehands the unions do protect against serious harm befalling the practitioners themselves, but usually these risks and dangers do not have dire consequences for the consumers of acting and stagecraft, the audience.  I'm still grateful for having had the authority, as an Equity Stage Manager, to have been able to say "No, actually, these union actors are not setting their union feet on this unstable, shaky, weak, up-on-stilts-platform you (management) are calling a "set", even if you're supposed to open in two days".  

I'm wondering how even with a revised mission and goals, how can the RID have an impact on ensuring quality in private enterprises?  

Jen

[Betty Colonomos]

Hi Jen,

I am glad that the unions are able to protect people who work in theater and in so many other types of work.  If I believed for a minute that unions could accomplish what you are saying they could, I'd be marching along with you with a sign saying "UNION NOW! as was done in one of my favorite movies.

My vision of RID is a professional organization that spends more of its time and money advocating for interpreters and consumers.  With 16,000 members, it has the numbers to have an impact.  There are many tactics they could employ.: pressure from people with clout (senators, human rights organizations, etc.) , going to the media seems to work pretty well these days, and many more that have been successful.

Again, I believe we need to seriously examine ALL the options to find the one that has the best chance of succeeding.

Betty Colonomos

[Betty Colonomos]

Hi Nancy,

Nice to see you posting here.

No questioni that teachers have a huge impact on developmental outcomes.  The only difference is that the damage is often cumulative and usually is over a significant time period, whereas with law enforcement and health care the dangers are often immediate.  As you know, I have been very outspoken about the devastating harm that befalls deaf children in many educational systems.  I now understand that there are unions in places that are including interpreters who work in schools.  Has this made any difference in the quality of services to deaf kids?  If so, I'd love to know about it.  It might mean there are ways to ensure quality through union membership.  If so, I might reconsider my stand on this.

I know you are someone who cares deeply about the communities we serve and you srive to be the best provider of interpreter services. It saddens me that you have to compete in this awful mess. Wish I had an answer.  At least we can tell the hard truth about what is going on and perhaps get more support.

All the best,

Betty

[Christina Stevens]

Just recently (Dec 27th)  The New York Times had an article about Stagehands and the Stagehands union.  This article is focused on the money aspect of this, but it does mention that

“Management may not replace men on a job in order to avoid payment of higher rates. The same men must be kept until the end of the call.”

(call being a theatre term- meaning when you are required to be at the theatre/work day).  

 I know from experience, that the stagehands union is not a union you can "pay-into".  You have to earn points and work specific shows to earn those points before you can be asked to join and then the process moves from there. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/arts/hey-stars-be-nice-to-the-stagehands-you-might-need-a-loan.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

I thought this article would be a nice supplement to the discussion we have been having.  

Happy New Year

Christina 

[Kenneth Houghtaling II]

Thanks for the feedback....I have a few points to add to what I stated earlier and in response to what has been stated since.

Two real life experiences....

The utility I previously worked for typically negotiated three year contracts with the bargaining unit (union) employees. In 2002 we entered what can only be described as hostile negotiations. For many years the utility had been what many called a family owned business with very good relations with the IBEW. However a few years before 2002 the utility was bought by a non-union utility in another state. It was quite clear, in fact documented in writing, that the utility had no interest in bargaining with the union. After intense and meaningless discussion we voted to strike. Almost immediately a Federal Negotiator came in and informed us that we would not be going on strike and that we had to go back to the table. From that point forward we systematically watched as benefits that we had had for decades were quickly stripped from us. You see, the part that no one is talking about thus far is - what does the union have to negotiate with. ANY union worker will tell you that the only power the union has to negotiate with is the credible threat to stop production i.e. to go on strike. Do you really believe the Federal Government a.k.a. FCC will allow VRS employees to shut down VRS to go on strike? Lets be honest here...the FCC has no respect for you, me, or anyone else called an interpreter. The union can promise you anything but if a utility with 2000 union workers many of whom were nuclear plant operators cant get the Federal Government to support their rights interpreters have zero chance.

Additionally my father was a pilot for a very large airline for 27 years of his life. About 7 years ago the airline, after having made terrible business decisions, entered into contract negotiations. Now understand, this is no small time union, this was the Teamsters...not sure if you have ever heard of them. Just think Jimmy Hoffa. Also the company headquarters is in Ohio which is a closed shop state. That means if a company is unionized they can not hire non union workers. It gives the union more power to negotiate. But guess what? Here is the fine print the unions wont tell you....if the company can show they are in financial distress to the point of possible closure they can void their contract with the union. And that was the threat that was made. After a three year negotiation the pilots, in order to save their jobs took what is called a concessionary contract. That means they took whatever the company gave them in lieu of losing their their jobs. 30% pay cut, sick and vacation benefits as well as schedule were all majorly effected. Where were the Teamsters? They were cowering, because they had no power at all. 

I saw mention that the VRS companies see only minutes processed as a measurement of quality and I would agree. It is sad to see but it is true. But I feel that the only way to improve and change this is A) State legislation and B) Deaf users holding the FCC accountable to establish a certification only standard. 

Additionally, I saw a comment stating that RID did nothing to stop the FCC from the reforms that were recently instituted. I read the public comments of RID and felt that they wrote an excellent response to the FCC changes. So did many others, but the FCC disregarded those comments. The FCC does not have top answer to anyone but themselves. The VRS companies are doing what they have to to stay as profitable as they can be. They are in business to make money. The VRS companies are not doing humanitarian work for the Deaf community. They are corporations accountable to share holders. So we really cant be surprised that they have turned to non certified interpreters to control labor costs. Again the solution is simple - legislation to require certification. If state legislation required certification and the VRS companies were required to hire certified interpreters we could then together make a stand to ensure our profession is respected and compensated appropriately.

Thank you again

[Theresa B. Smith]

A few points:

 

First, yes, unions are there to protect the workers – their income, their working conditions.

Who seeks quality?  The consumer (yes, I realize I’m using a capitalist term) – in this case, the people making the telephone calls.  Consumers vote with their dollars but they are (unlike the union and the corporation) not organized.

Who sets minimum standards?  Ah, well here is where it’s tricky – both the profession in terms of certification, and the state in terms of regulations (licensure?).

Finally, one more factor is that unlike stage hands, teachers, nurses etc. we do not work in primarily one location (e.g. theaters, schools, hospitals) or even one field (theater, education, medicine) but in virtually any field in which people participate (and therefore deaf people) – but, VRS and public schools are two venues that have a disproportionate number of slots for interpreters. 

 

How then would professional standards (as determined by training/educational institutions and by the certifying body), state regulations, consumer needs and interpreter needs  all come together in concert in such disparate settings (i.e. in large venues such as public schools and VRS and across the board for ‘freelance interpreters’)?  Would there / should there be different solutions for different settings?

Meanwhile, all this begs the questions of “Who is deaf?” and “Who is an interpreter?” and “Who decides?”

 

Theresa Smith

[nuc.tng.cwa/ MJMoore]

Jenny thank you for starting this discussion. I think it's an important one, and I think that everything that has been said is important to say.

I was very involved in organizing, and am currently the National Unit Chair (NUC) for ASLIU, our unit of the Local we belong to; with CWA being the umbrella organization. In that position I'm a member of the bargaining team along with the National Vice Chairs, one from each of the organized centers.

Joining a union was nothing that was done lightly or carelessly. We researched carefully before we chose a union to approach. CWA was, we believe, the best choice for us. They are experts in working with the FCC, and our elected government officials. They have filed our comments for us, and they arranged a meeting with Greg Hlibok who heads the Disability Rights Office at the FCC. We have been asked back and are planning another meeting. Several important things were said at that meeting. One important message that we left with was that the FCC's hands are basically tied on the issue of qualified vs Certified; the Deaf callers are not complaining about quality. We were prepared for that, and spoke about the difficulties faced by our callers when it comes to that. Judith recommended that the FCC consider requiring the providers to add a feature to the software that would make it possible for the caller to leave feedback right then and there, in ASL. That's a recommendation we intend to follow through on. One thing I walked away from that experience with is that the CWA are experts, they know their stuff.

There have already been some positive changes made in the centers at Purple that align with our contract as negotiated so far. But management isn't budging on the things we organized over. The defining moment in our campaign to unionize was the announcement that our "production" requirements were being increased. The impact of that increase on VI's and consumers has been nothing but negative. In addition, we are being told it is likely that those production requirements are likely to increase again, and wages and benefits are likely to decrease again too. 

The providers keep telling everyone that they have no choice because of the FCC decisions to cut the reimbursement rate, and will not admit that they are defying the FCC when they do so as the reason for the cuts could not be more clearly spelled out by the FCC. They have made it clear that the most recent cuts were because the owners/investors are still making an outrageous profit.

There are a couple of things I'd like to address from the comments made about unions. A union's purpose, at heart, is to negotiate a contract and then enforce that contract if it becomes necessary. The workers who are covered by that contract are the ones that set and negotiate the terms. Right after we joined, with the help of the union, we developed a survey sent to all of the VI's in the four union centers. The purpose was to have an accurate understanding of what the issues were and to rank the importance of each issue. In the top five was the issue of quality. (Interestingly, money barely made it to the top ten) We fought hard to negotiate a clause about ensuring that only qualified interpreters are hired. Our ability to negotiate the terms as we wanted them, namely Certified, was weakened by the fact that there have been no negative consequences for hiring non-certified. However, there is absolutely no way we would negotiate a contract that could be used to save the job of an unqualified interpreter. Unless company management screws up making their case to terminate an incompetent employee, in which case the union is legally obligated to defend said employee, we will not fight to keep someone's job just to keep them employed.

In addition, there was concern expressed that the union doesn't tell the members everything. The example given was that the companies can't be forced to give increases in their economic packages if they can prove that they are financially unable to. First of all I would think that is something that is common sense and shouldn't have to be noted beforehand. In our case it was mentioned beforehand to some of us during a discussion. The other thing is that the amount of work needed to organize is enormous, even with the help of the reps and resources given by the union. It's very likely that if a question isn't asked, information isn't given. Whether or not that's deliberate I can't say. But we did the best we could and made sure that we were as aware as possible of what's being said and not being said before we joined. And we will continue to be sure that we remain in control of our contract and the enforcement of the terms. We have representation in the local, and we already have a VI who is a member of the PMWG Local Executive Board. Michelle Caplette, the NVC in Arizona is now the Treasurer. 

For me, the bottom line is that the providers are undermining all of the work done by Interpreters and Deaf to gain recognition for us as professionals, and to ensure that Interpreters would earn an amount that is commensurate with what it takes to do our work competently. They are also undermining the effort of years to ensure safe and healthy work conditions. Ultimately this has a negative impact on the Deaf that use VRS services. And all of this is being done for greater profits.

Thanks for listening

Mary Jane Moore