Sorenson’s Filing to Dismiss VRS Petition
31 05 2007All..
Basically, this is a filing by Sorenson of a motion to dismiss the 5 VRS provider’s petition to remove the non-compete clause (forbidding video interpreter from seeking other video interpreting of other VRS providers).
Sorenson makes compelling arguments and offers its own interpretation of various regulations. The points that Sorenson made are:
- no actual video interpreter has formally complained
- non-compete clause is a standard industry action to protect proprietary information
- felt that non-compete clause will prevail if it goes to court
- that the FCC does not have the jursdiction responsibility to handle this
- SorensonVRS claims they are not common carriers thus not obliged to follow the telecomm laws
- felt rules do not allow ancillary jursdiction responsibility for FCC to consider
(There are a few more, and the documents explains further so click to the link and read on.)
Also SorensonVRS points out if the FCC does indeed take action, then suggests that the FCC should dismiss the "complaint" portion, and instead to do a declaratory ruling; offer that via public notice so Sorenson can then respond.
Note: this is a classic example of how both differing parties: SorensonVRS and 5 VRS providers can provide good rationale why their position should be taken. So that leaves it up to the FCC to ultimately make the decision on how to interpret the relay regulations and determine which follows the regulation best; it will be interesting to see how the FCC ultimately will rule on this sticky issue.
eyes open & thumbs up,
Ed
RT Admin.
Loading ...
Another yellow thorn on the deaf grapevine.
Richard
Sorenson is very powerful and big?
I am not surprised that one of the outline “no actual video interpreter has formally complained”. In fact, they know if they do complain, they will be terminated. No question! We all know the concept of this outline. That is a standard way of bringing it up. Thanks!
Sorenson’s engaging in damage control by forming the VRSCA to look good and pro-business. VRSCA is a bait-and-switch tactic of Sorenson to lure deaf people to use their service. This is a real crock. There needs to be a neutral independently-run organization concerned with the overall Relay industry.
my thoughts:
- no actual video interpreter has formally complained
Well, if they are not allowed to talk about the contract, which I don’t know if it is true, then of course there are no complains. I also hope they are reading the contracts they are signing. Perhaps there are no complains because it is too early. What if an interpreter moves to a town where there is no Sorenson center, but there are others.
- non-compete clause is a standard industry action to protect proprietary information
I have signed such contracts in the past due to my type of work, software engineer. There is a reason for this clause - it is to protect the company’s trade secret. The contract is almost always very specific on what is being limited. They do not go saying you cannot be a software engineer for another company for a year. Being a programmer is how I make my living and they know it. What Sorenson is doing is like telling programmer that they are not allowed to program. What’s more, what the interpreters are doing are general type of work. They interpret. There is nothing secret about that. If Sorenson has something more, such as how workflow is done or how equipments work, then that should be in contract, not a blanket no-interpret.
- that the FCC does not have the jursdiction responsibility to handle this
If that is true, FCC can always make it a condition. They could say that for a VRS center to get money, they will have to follow some certain rules. If not, they can still operate, but on their own.
From the list in this blog, I don’t really think they have made any compelling points yet. I have yet to read their paper yet.
bob
Bob,
You raised an analogy that is intriguing and something most of us probably had not thought about. Thanks for ur thoughtful remarks.
Ed
I am a VRS interpreter. Sure, I have a major issue with the whole contract: we do not have anything to do with the technology other than push buttons to connect callers. I have NO idea how all the “behind the scenes” stuff works. Why should I? No reason! “The whole non-compete clause is a standard industry action to protect proprietary information”. Sure it is, and I agree we are only interpreters. We are NOT building the systems we use.
I did read the contract I signed, but what does one do? I need work, and the VRS companies provide year around work that school districts and freelance does not. I also appreciate the flexibility of working nights/weekends/days should I so decide. I know many interpreters who do not work for “S” due to the contract and how valid it is. Lucky for many of us interpreters there is a “S” in almost every city and state for now, so we can easily transfer. Still, I’m looking forward to the day when we dont have contracts looming over our heads, or the fear of being sued.
Hello,
I work for one of the 5 companies that filed the complaint against Sorenson. I’m proud of that fact! The company I work for is so confident that we will prevail that they are willing to pay legal fees for Sorenson interpreters who leave to work for our company.
As stated above, we are interpreters, behind the scenes is not of importance to us because we interpretet, we don’t design or program. I feel that the complaint is not so that we can learn about each others trade secrets but to maintain a quality of service that only benifits the consumers. By not allowing the interpreters to leave sorenson and find another job for another company for one year, keeps qualified interpreters in the way side and stopping other companies from getting great interpreters and suceeding as a company for what they offer and provide to consumers and interpreters.
It is the control sorenson has that is placed on interpreters that stops them from quitting and just getting another job because of the “contract” and also the nature of the business. Like stated above, the freelance work is up and down and k-12 is seasonal. VRS is the answer for many interpreters. To keep them from working for other companies freely restricts the pool of already not enough interpreters, and doesn’t allow for companies to suceed and keep the competition going because face it, without interpreters, your company can’t go far. You can’t expand or grow because the people who want to work for you are stuck in a contract and can’t afford to leave.
I support the complaint. I don’t have it out for Sorenson, although I feel the company I work for is an amazing company and am proud to be on their team. I support freedom to work wherever and if proprietry information is a concern, then let that be the clause….competition is healthy and the contract is only stunting it, further hurting the consumers and our profession.
Danielle
Staff VRS Interpreter in So Cal.