Sign Language Scheme

29 04 2009

All..

Hey – from my friend, Debbie, who send me this link.

Sign Language Scheme

Oh, geez….as if we need more black eyes.  

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

« »


Actions

Informations

  • Date : 29 April 2009
  • Categories : Alerts

9 responses to “Sign Language Scheme”

29 04 2009
PJ (13:50:17) :

what a shame! Her arms should be cut off. No more job for her!! We don’t need people like her!!!

29 04 2009
briansparks (15:07:55) :

we dont black get the things we need for life and we need deaf power to run what need for outr needs and we to over run the fcc

30 04 2009
Stephen Hardy (02:02:02) :

I am curious on what will RID do about this person.

This is fraud and this so called “interpreter” should not be in the interpreting service provider’s list.

I have heard stories of what interpreter’s had done with Deaf/hard of hearing customers in terms of money, opportunity, information for their own self-benefit.

I also recalled there were so many interpreters who were sent by an agency and after the assignment, the interpreter gives them their own business card to the business and offerring a lower rate than what the agency charges. Does this sound too common?

30 04 2009
May (08:42:10) :

OUCH! It could hurt deaf people who actually need an interpreter and also for the interpreter’s job!
WOW!
What this company/department should have is to call back to verify that a deaf individual needs an interpreter before making an assignment to get an interpreter….

30 04 2009
CR (14:13:56) :

Hopefully this is an isolated incident and it stays that way. It is hard to verify that a Deaf or HoH person is attending the meeting. Any system of verification can be defeated when you have enough dishonest people working together and it is easy to ask for so much paperwork for verification that the process fails to be functionally equivalent.

30 04 2009
Daryl Crouse (14:56:18) :

Unfortunately Ms. Garner is NOT an RID member so there is nothing that RID could do about this person. RID is strictly a membership organization and can only hold its members (regardless of certified, associate, etc… all RID members are expected to follow CPC (Code of Professional Conduct) accountable under the .

It is definitely wrong and it is an example of when organizations, it appears the city hired this person directly, decide to go with “whatever” instead of “accessibility”. The city could have engaged the caller in a true dialogue about what accommodations they needed. The ADA encourages that conversation to happen from what I understand. Through a longer conversation and engaging the Deaf citizen in the process the city probably would have come across hints that this might not be a real request.

Of course, they could have, should have, and probably will now, use interpreters who are certified by RID. Perfect timing though RID just released some great videos describing the ethical practices grievance system (EPS) in case anyone would like to watch them.

(hopefully the embed will work of the first video here)

There are a couple issues that come up though in my experience. If the agency (referral service) treats the interpreter as an independent contractor then the interpreter has every right to advertise their individual services, including giving their own business card. If the interpreter and the agency have agreed that they will not give out their business card then it probably means the interpreter is not an independent contractor but actually an employee.

One of the big factors that I’ve learned over the years having owned an interpreting service firm with almost 50 employees (interpreters) is that control and direction can be determinative of that relationship employee or independent contractor. I have read situations where a state employment development agency/tax department has said that telling someone to not give out their own individual business card but to advertise the business can make the person an employee.

The relevant tenant of the RID CPC is quoted below for easy reference.

30 04 2009
Stephen Hardy (23:06:53) :

Daryl:

Thank you for your response and it is educational in nature. The issue of being an independent contractor and an employee of an agency raises many issues within the IRS. If one tells a person how to perform and it will be an employee status; on the other hand, if the contractor knew what to do during the assignment is known as an independent contractor. This is so sticky and problematic for intepreters.

4 05 2009
May (08:48:16) :

I completely agree with Stephen Hardy’s comment “sticky and problematic for interpreters”
Boyee! My point of view is that an agency should do something about this and even for a company/business know how to handle with the contactor who handles the interpreting service…
My niece (who is an interprer) disagrees with my “POV” for she is aware that there are so many sticky and problematic for “NOT ONLY INTERPRETERS” but also for an agency who wants to make a profit – doesnt give any hoot how excellent an interpreter is or not – not even care how deaf/hoh individual feel comfy with an interpreter’s skill in translating/interpreting….
Boyee it really awakes me up alot!!!!!!
Is there any way we, deaf/hoh people can do sometthing?????

8 05 2009
Terpgirl (18:43:44) :

I saw this, and I was just as shocked as you all were. As far as I’m concerned, she is guilty of fraud and should be arrested and tried just like any criminal. That is just my opinion, and I am not a lawyer, but if it isn’t fraud, it’s something else. Whatever it is, there is a crime, whatever it is called. RID wouldn’t be able to do nearly as much as the penal system. I think she should be prosecuted so as to serve as a warning to anyone else who may be thinking of doing something similar.

Leave a comment

You can use these tags : <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> <font color="" face="" size=""> <span style="">