Thanks.

They’re true, but I agree with you. Best from VRS providers themselves.

Ed

Fraudelent or unethical calls? One example is where VI would bring a laptop and make call to himself/herself (easy to find out IP address of the particular station). There are several other imaginative ways to cheat, and I’m not sure I want to list them to give VIs an idea ;-] I chose laptop because it is easy to spot VI lugging around laptop.

To have a group monitor VRS treating VIs. That’s is probably not possible simply because VRS Providers are companies and they control the system. They will not let any independents outside of VRS provider monitor them. Could the FCC do that? Not even that. Also it may infringe upon privacy issues of VRS call.

We may simply just have to either trust VRS provider or VIs continue express their concerns by sending emails to the FCC or posting comments to websites such as this one?

And, thank YOU for ur soap box comments.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

I also like the issues raised (-perhaps more appropriate on a different thread-) about ensuring the rights for good working conditions for interpreters. I very much dislike what I’ve heard about some VRS providers who only stress production, therefore allowing only a 10 minute break per hour of interpreting. This is a clear disregard for standard business practices as set forth and accepted by RID and the majority of the interpreting community, which suggest only 20 to 30 minutes of active interpreting, then 20 to 30 minutes of supporting your teammate while s/he is in the hot seat. This is probably one of the many reasons why VRS interpreting places the most stress (physically, emotionally, and mentally) on interpreters and leads to early burnout, repetitive motion injury, carpal tunnel, vicarious trauma, etc. Since we’re all into working up groups to monitor stuff, why not have a group to monitor how VRS providers are treating their interpreters?

And for those who were asking about the way VRS interpreters handle the time of calls and how they are counted (J.J.), all I can say is this: The VRS Provider I work for has the interpreters computers set up with a program that monitor the duration of the audio portion of the call and the video duration. They are recorded both separately. Video Minutes are recorded when the interpreter is connected with the deaf consumer but not yet connected to the hearing consumer, from getting the number to call all the way through ringing until someone picks up and in between placing calls, and Audio Minutes are recorded when the interpreter is connected with the hearing consumer but not yet connected with the deaf consumer. I was trained to try my best to decrease the time between the deaf caller connecting to me (the interpreter) and me connecting to the hearing caller because FCC will only reimburse minutes where BOTH video and audio minutes are running, in other words, when the two callers are talking to each other. This means VRS minutes are counted when on hold, navigating menus, or anything else where both callers are connected. And the interpreters do not have a on/off switch to start and stop the timer. Hope that answers some questions on that. I can’t say it’s a standard among all VRS providers, as equipment and training may vary, but I’m sure FCC only reimburses for minutes when both calls are connected.

As far as quality control, that seems to be up to each individual call center managers and trainers. From time to time my supervisor will come sit next to me to see how the call is being processed, and gives me some pointers as needed. They do, of course, encourage me to process call faster and make more VRS minutes, but if I’ve been interpreting for 30 minutes, I’ll be given a replacement and a break with no one breathing down my neck to get right back to work after 10 minutes are up. That way the quality of my interpreting doesn’t suffer.

Hope that answers some questions, and I look forward to having mine answered soon. Thanks so much to everyone supporting this nice exchange of information and ideas, and thanks for letting me have a moment on my soapbox!

That is a recurring question. Should RID be involved in this; should VRS provider approach RID to eke out punishment or tear up the RID certification if they are certified with RID?

Possible problem is that these video interpreters were hired as VRS employee, not as a certified interpreter or as a RID certified Interpreter. They became VI solely based on VRS provider’s analysis of the VIs (I think with one or maybe two exception where VRS providers actually hired persons to be VI only if they are certified).

So this begs the question. Should the FCC require certified interpreters to be VI instead of allowing VRS providers determine the quality of Interpreters to become VI?

Truth to be told, I have mixed feelings about that. If require certified, I would not be surprised if sizable percentage of VIs would be let go, and create a real hardship for VRS providers to meet the speed answer. VRS would be perpetually busy and we don’t want that.

Ed

I would like to see those interpreters involved pay the appropriate penalties. Unfortunately, RID’s grievance system is based on reconciliation, not punishment. Have they ever taken away a certification (with the exception of the interpreter who let the certificaiton test get out)? RID’s history has been to try and get the two parties to kiss and make up. Hopefully this is because there have not been serious breaches in ethics, but one has to wonder about the past 40 years whether or not that has really been the case.

This is a time when punishment for those who are guilty for such a serious breach should be instituted; if either company does file a grievance, hopefully RID will step up and do the right thing. If not, their Code of Conduct is pointless and unenforceable.