Comments on: Misc FCC News

By: arpy

arpy — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 10:45:21 +0000

Thank you, Jeff. I don’t know if you are in management or not, but your reply sounds very much like the stock answer we are given for every transgression – “Do it because we say so. If you don’t someone else will. And don’t bother asking us questions. We don’t answer to you, or to the Deaf community. We answer to our investors.”

For this we don’t need a professional organization. We need only a harness and a bit between our teeth.

By: Terpgirl

Terpgirl — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 01:17:33 +0000

Just for fun, I called Pablo. He is a friend of mine from South America who had pain in his shoulders and had to see a physical therapist. It came from playing the violin. He actually moved to the United States to complete his doctorate in fine arts because we have a union here that would limit the amount of time he could be required to practice or play without a break. He asked me about the interpreter union, and I told him we didn’t have one. He insisted that we DID have one, that we MUST, but that I just didn’t know about it. I guaranteed him that the profession was too small to hide a union. Anyway, he told me how long they let him play the violin until they give him a break in the music union rules, and I forget the exact numbers, but I remember it was different based on whether he was with the orchestra (where the violins are not always playing) versus a small ensemble, where he would be playing pretty much the whole time. Whatever the breaks were, I asked him how long he would be willing to practice without a break if he were sight reading the entire time. (For those who do not have a music education, sight reading refers to playing music you have never seen or heard before, instead of practicing a piece over and over again, you would practice it for the first time ever and then never again) and Pablo said in that case, he would like his breaks to be much more frequent or last longer, or possibly both. After all, a violinist rarely sight reads, so it was hard for him to answer. I then asked him how long he would go without a break if not only were he sight reading all the music, each piece being something new that he had never seen or heard before, but if every time he turned the page, it changed to a completely different type of music and he had no way of finding out which kind it would be. For example, he might start out playing a classical piece. At the end of a couple of pages, it would be time to switch to a country western piece. Then rap, baroque, heavy metal, reggae, deep tribal house, etc., constantly changing music type over and over without any warning of which type it would be and again, I reminded him, all sight read. He looked at me like I was crazy. “Just answer the question,” I directed him. I mean, it is obviously difficult to compare two types of jobs like this, but I gave it a shot. He gave me some kind of answer, (I think we realize that the answers are not the point here) and I then asked him how would he feel if all the above were true (sight reading, constantly changing music type without warning of which type it would be) and in addition, the notes on the page occasionally pixilated and reassembled themselves, pixilated and reassembled themselves, over and over again for several minutes. By now, he was no longer dignifying my questions with a numerical response. He just said, “more breaks” to shut me up. I asked him how he would feel if I dimmed the lights so he could barely see the music. What if children and pets were running back and forth between him and the music stand? “How long would you want to go without a break if, instead of your regular orchestra conductor, you got one that had just begun to learn about music? Would that make a difference?” You get the point. Maybe I need to have my head examined, but I like to have fun.

By: Terpgirl

Terpgirl — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:35:38 +0000

OK, but you can’t call that solidarity. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Scabs are a sad thing to be. It’s a shame we aren’t more supportive of each other. After all, wouldn’t being supportive to other interpreters also garner support for ourselves and be helpful to the consumer groups we serve? Maybe I’m putting this on the wrong board, but I’m actually trying to get interpreters to support other interpreters, in the face of all of this overwork, by refusing to do it at the actual job site. It might not make us rich, but it could make us safe. Again, it’s probably too late. I used to say, “They can’t fire us all!” But that was back during the shortage (Interpreter Shortage, 1964-2006) but now there’s a glut (Interpreter Glut, 2007-The Rest Of Time). Incidentally, the first place I was ever overworked on a systematic basis was CSD. I think Sorenson had just started serving people and was only in Salt Lake City back then. Can you imagine? It was such a long time ago.

By: vtcodajeff

vtcodajeff — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:28:14 +0000

I think the answer you are looking for is very simple. For every interpreter that complains about working conditions at VRS there are 3 interpreters willing to take their hours. The end.

By: arpy

arpy — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:42:19 +0000

TG,

Well said. After shooting off my big mouth about what RID has said, I decided to check out RID’s 2007 Standard Practice Paper on working in VRS settings.

Now, I know there has been a lot of bashing here, and Ed has done a very good job of monitoring and asking for restraint. I’ve been as guilty as anyone at pointing the finger at the big dog, since they are the ones that call the tune for 80+% of the interpreters working in VRS. The reason I no longer work there is that they were completely unresponsive to inquiries by interpreters on the why’s and wherefore’s of their increasingly draconian working conditions. Moreover, they issued the famous “Maybe you should reconsider your relationship with the company,” so I did.

I know there are a fair number of Sorenson proponents on this list, and I wonder if any of them can offer a rationale for why the big dog ignores with impugnity of so many of RID’s recommendations for VRS interpreting. To wit:

** The primary recommendation is that VRS providers hire RID certified interpreters.** Nope, not even close.

** Ergonomics: VRS providers should assure that all steps are taken to provide a safe and healthy environment for interpreters, especially considering the physical and mental demands of VRS work.** As TG mentions, and as I and countless other interpreters have experienced, ergonomic concerns are nowhere on the radar at the big dog. In fact, it is just the opposite as interpreters are constantly squeezed to do more, do it faster, and shut the h*&% up about working conditions.

** Breaks: Frequent breaks during a shift should be encouraged to ensure quality of interpreting services. Research on spoken language interpreters has shown that an interpreter’s performance declines after 15 minutes in video-based settings** See above. The “break” policy at the big dog is an insult to professional interpreters. How can managers in good conscience enforce this? I overheard my manager negotiating a community assignment wherein she stipulated teaming specifications. Then she got off the phone and reamed a CA for calling for taking a 13 minute break. Go figure.

** Teaming opportunities: A team should be available for support when deemed necessary by the interpreter.** As noted here before, teaming as known in the community is unknown in VRS. At the big dog, teaming is actively discouraged.

Again, I’m not looking to bash. I am simply looking for a rationale for why these very reasonable concerns are routinely ignored by the company, and why interpreters who inquire about them are so often harassed out of the company. It happened to me, and I’ve seen it happen to many others. Given the predominance of RID certified interpreters working in management positions, maybe one of them can explain why multimillion dollar payouts to investors is considered more important than safe working conditions for interpreters? Inquiring minds want to know.

By: Terpgirl

Terpgirl — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:08:32 +0000

OK, here’s the thing: Yes, even if your job is being fed chocolate on one end while beautiful people in togas massage your feet on the other end, you need breaks. However, when you are a sign language interpreter, the breaks need to be rotational, which means they are either more frequent than the average employee, last for longer at a time, or a little bit of both, depending. I will not cover the research now. I think we all know it’s out there. (Unlike the first time this happened in the 1970s and 1980s, when we honestly did not know. That was actually forgivable. This is a cardinal sin.) While I agree that you can be on a typical video relay call for longer than you can interpret a meeting where your hands are in the air the whole time, it’s not all that much longer. Meaning, not quite as much longer as the providers that I have worked for would like to think. Their decisions are controlled by money and statistics. If you did that in the community, we’d never have teams. (Many places don’t have teams, but that’s another story.) So here is the video relay interpreter, sitting in a cubicle having to sign so that they can be viewed in a camera range for however long the shift is. (And the Norma Rae in me firmly believes that a job should be made safe to do for up to 8 hours a day, up to 40 hours a week, or for however long the employment is available, if the need is for less than that. Don’t cut my shift short because you can’t make it safe. Then it’s never safe, even part time! Hello! Remember when teaming started and people asked if they could have one interpreter come from 9 to 10, another interpreter from 10 to 11, and so on, all day? Sorry, I’m getting off topic again.) Here are the main reasons that I think the video really interpreter is overworked, at least where I have been:
(1) The eyestrain thing, we went over that. Sure, I will agree that if we are overworked, eyestrain can happen even if we are looking at the equivalent of a movie. But at the same time, we should improve the equipment. Both. Stop overworking us and start giving us what we need to do our job as ergonomically as possible. Is that too much to ask? Yes, apparently.
(2) Just brains. Not having any idea what is going on and trying to figure it out whilst interpreting between two people who cannot see each other is surprisingly difficult. Add to this the idea that it may be a bad picture, a consumer who is still learning to sign, another Deaf person on the other end who can sort of hear on the phone, or a signer with a physical disability, and you really need your brains. The constant change of players and topics and pictures and other factors could wear on anybody, even a superhuman with bionic vision and bionic arms. And then you take the next call. Will a Deaf person be talking to their doctor for detailed medical advice? A potential employer, doing a job interview? Who wants a tired interpreter for that? Who wants a tired interpreter at all?
(3) And now, for the upper body moment. You are right, interpreters are overworked in the musculoskeletal sense. I have worked in three places, and they’re all guilty. Sure, we spend time on hold and we don’t need a team for that (unless there’s another issue with the call) but some of those phone trees are maddeningly fast because they read them, so it’s not like interpreting for conversation or a speech, which would usually go slower. And with so many firms outsourcing their customer service to foreign countries, it’s cheap enough to get somebody to answer the phone pretty quickly a lot of places. I have had my long holds, but more than that, I have had my superfast phone trees and either me or the caller (depending on where I worked at the time) having to punch in the numbers for the choices, followed by an answer. Even if there is a pretty long hold, the phone conversation doesn’t end that way. It’s in the middle. I call it the hold sandwich. The hold is sandwiched between the IVR/phone tree and the actual conversation. You rarely END with a hold, and thus may need a break after the call, depending on length and difficulty, etc.. Yes, a lot of things are back and forth, but it doesn’t give anyone the right to overwork us. Most of all, we don’t have the right to overwork ourselves. I must respectfully disagree with the idea that we let this happen because it was the only way, or because we were told that, and so we had to accept it as a necessary evil. I am usually the type who is a little bit liberal, and I don’t like to blame the victim, but here we had a choice. We do need to take some responsibility for ourselves. We could’ve all banded together and said no. We could have said that video relay cannot exist if we are consistently being overworked. Oh, sure, I’m a trouper. I’ve interpreted a 3-hour meeting before because the other interpreter couldn’t make it. Nobody set it up that way, but stuff happens. I’ve done it happily, because it was so incredibly rare. It was my way of thanking my bosses for striving to make my job safe. However, when you consistently and systematically do this, you are asking for trouble. For the sake of video relay and all the consumers who enjoy it, for its lasting power, and ability to attract a large number of veteran interpreters, as well as for our own health, we should have saved it when we had the chance. The budget cuts of 2003 were an opportunity, and although some of us complained, we didn’t stand our ground. Sure, video relay is still here, but not the way it would have been. We should’ve made it run right. We shouldn’t have let them create an artificial glut in a shortage profession for a wildly popular service by saying that we only need a few interpreters because we can overwork them. Is it provider greed or is it that they keep cutting the rate? Is it both? I really can’t answer that satisfactorily, but I CAN speak for my own profession and say that you don’t do the wrong thing just because “that’s the job.” You do the right thing and if we lie down and let a steamroller run over us, we shouldn’t be surprised if we’re flat. They’re tough words, and I direct them at myself. I’ve done it, too, but only after completely giving up. I have tried to get interpreters to have a sense of solidarity, one that’s very functional, but it doesn’t work. Back in history, when we realized this is a high-injury profession, we probably should’ve had some OSHA regulations drawn up, or formed a union to keep from overworking us or whatever. But it’s too late now. I just feel that if we had started in 2003 to take care of ourselves no matter what, all of us, it would have had a better chance. Sorensen was barely beginning back then. It had two centers. CSD was all the rage, HOVRS and Hamilton. I wish we had set things up safe, right from the beginning. Protect the interpreters and you protect the consumers.

By: Terpgirl

Terpgirl — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:05:28 +0000

RID begs them every year to use certified interpreters. You could call it self serving. Or you could call it good for the community. It’s a matter of perspective. And I do like having Janet work on this. If they authorized teams for 911 calls, maybe they can set it up differently for you at your job. I haven’t worked anywhere that did not require a team for emergency calls. I don’t like that you are having to do that. I’m sure you’re good, but that’s not the point. And you are absolutely right to correct me. RID has power over members. But not organizational members. Individual members. At least, that’s my understanding.

By: arpy

arpy — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 13:15:32 +0000

TG,

Coupla things. You say companies should automatically bill for two interpreters for ALL 911 calls, suggesting that companies automatically provide TWO interpreters. Not so. My former company turned paring down the number of interpreters working at any time to a science. We often worked in “the red zone” with no available interpreters. I personally handled two 911 calls by myself because no teams were available. This is becoming more frequent as the company’s “science” improves.

RID doesn’t have any power at all over interpreters. Only members. You say they spoke out to the FCC on behalf of members in 2003. What have they said since? Well, they’ve said “Thank you” for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in sponsorship fees for conferences and money given to expedite certification. What else have they said, other than Janet’s very recent and very well-written concern for working conditions?

By: Terpgirl

Terpgirl — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:41:19 +0000

RID only has power over individual interpreteers. More later.

By: arpy

arpy — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:30:00 +0000

I certainly agree that overuse and eye-strain are a very big deal. Unfortunately, the company where I worked most recently does not agree. They force interpreters to work well beyond their physical and cognitive capacity. Their world is ruled by numbers, not by reason or compassion. In over five years working there, I never heard them mention eye-strain once. We VI’s mentioned it often, but management was disinterested. “Five seconds for this, ten seconds for that or you’re out the door. Don’t you know you’re lucky just to have a job in this economy?” is thier typical refrain.

The best technology in the world won’t forestall long term eyestrain problems (and worse!) in an environment that values interpreters only as replaceable parts, as machines that can be turned on and left on without regard for safe working conditions. As I’ve said before many of us interpreters bought into this working environment thinking that the sacrifices we made to professional judgment were necessary for the service. Turns out that they were necessary all right, but not for the service as much as for unconscionable, hundred million dollar payouts to “investors’.

It was good of RID, back in 2003, to predict this problem. They’ve been pretty quiet since, however. I wonder what it will take to get them to look into the pervasive breach of professional conduct and tradition that consitutes working in VRS at many companies?