Professional networking for sign language interpreters
Sorenson's Recent Petition Slanderous of the Profession?
In a recent petition filed for a proposed rule making, Sorenson borderlines on making blanket statements that brings to question the integrity and professionalism of interpreters working in VRS. Below is an excerpt of their comments. (complete petition: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&a...)
"....Some of these providers have created lax work environments and tolerated unprofessional employee behavior that create opportunities for mischief and call into question the legitimacy of the minutes they submit for compensation. For example, some VRS providers have allowed their CAs to work from home rather than in a supervised call center; to record compensable minutes through unreliable, hand-written notations of start and stop times instead of using automated means; and to switch back and forth between handling VRS calls and handling VRI calls, thereby potentially inflating the reported compensable costs attributable to VRS by including the non-compensable costs of in-person interpreting.
Some providers likewise allow callers to choose a particular CA rather than being randomly assigned one, creating the opportunity for CAs to converse with friends during billable calls. Such practices are ripe for abuse and should not be tolerated within an increasingly mature, technologically savvy industry."
Their petition is centered on protecting the integrity of the TRS fund and reducing skyrocketing costs of providing VRS, but their comments inadvertently allege that interpreters if given the opportunity will conduct themselves in an unethical manner that abuses and /or defrauds the service, thereby threatening the integrity of the TRS fund.
What is the profession's response to what Sorenson is suggesting of us as professionals?
Is RID going to address their comments?
What is more alarming is that Sorenson is applying their social, economic, and legal might upon the industry subsequently diminishing the profession's jurisdictional strength and autonomy (what is left of it in terms of jurisdictional dispute in VRS). Once again, the profession will prove how far from professionalized it is in yet another jurisdictional area.
Sorenson is proposing that the FCC make a ruling that impacts two
of our key jurisdictional disputes; our worksites and to a certain extent the provision of effective communication which affects our ability to exercise authority in those areas.
Below is what they propose (some of the proposed sections were intentionally not included due to irrelevancy to the topic)
"Sorenson proposes to address these inadequacies by adding a new subsection (d)
to section 64.604 ofthe FCC rules. That subsection would require Internet-based TRS
providers, as a condition precedent to receiving compensation from the Fund, to
(iii) ensure that CAs work in call centers under direct supervision of a manager,
(iv) randomly assign CAs to calls, and prevent any CA from handling a call placed by
someone he or she knows,
(v) ensure that all VRS calls are routed to call centers that are
dedicated solely to handling VRS calls;"
I would argue that their claims are not convincing and are unsubstantiated. Working at a call center under supervision does not in itself deter mischief, misconduct, call pumping etc. as they would like us to believe.
Case(s) in point: a handful of their own interpreters committed fraud and abuse of the service under "supervised" call centers.
The recent allegations/arrests of VRS fraud and abuse involved for the most part conduct that took place in call centers.
I would argue that if Sorenson truly wants to protect the integirty of the TRS fund and/or reduce the costs of providing VRS, they would support the idea of working from home because it would slash overhead costs dramatically, thereby potentially reducing the reimbursement rate.
In terms of handling calls of people a VI knows. Well, I have handled calls of lots of people I know and I have never used that opportunity to be negligent of the integrity of the TRS fund. On the contrary, the VI philosphy and VI service delivery model I subscribe to ensures that I am mindful of the TRS fund.
I cannot think of a better way to ensure effective communication than providing the callers the ability to select the VI they would like to process their calls.
I have at least a hundred of recorded calls and many more observed calls processed by Sorenson interpreters (randomly assigned VIs as they suggest it should be) that provide proof that certain callers (the ones that truly need VRS for effective communication) are only receiving 20% effective communication when they use Sorenson VRS. For instance, the recorded VRS calls that my mother (very ASL woman) placed through Sorenson indicated that only 1 out of every 5 calls processed by a Sorenson VI provided effective communication where she felt she understood the messages adequately and little to no effort was required on her part to understand the signed messages furthermore she was not required to repeat herself or to code switch for the VI. One thing that quite frequently happened is that when the VI realized the challenge they are up against in relaying a call for my mother or people like her, they invoke the 10 minute rule exception and transferred her out which subsequently further delayed her access to the telephone network (violation of ADA LAW on rapid and efficient acess). They would n't even say, "Hey, I suck, I can't terp for you. Let me get someone that can." No, they would just simply through the subconscious application of pattern recognition gulp, eyes wide, and say, "please hold" and next thing she knew there was someone else on her screen. She was passed off a lot. In one call she made, she was passed around like a hot potato at least 4 times before a Vi took her call and stayed with her.
In all fairnes to Sorenson, they are not the only ones that provide inconsistent effective communication access.
It is incumbent upon the profession to exercise their authority in protecting its interests and that of the people it serves. We need to petition the FCC to set minimum standards on effective communication. What percentage is deemed functionally equivalent? 50%, 75%, 80%, 85%???... it should be 100%.
Terps... we are in a slippery slope and possibly losing our professional status further in the VRS industry. Do we care to do anything about that? VIMS (video interpreting section of RID) what are your thoughts?
"....Some of these providers have created lax work environments and tolerated unprofessional employee behavior that create opportunities for mischief and call into question the legitimacy of the minutes they submit for compensation. For example, some VRS providers have allowed their CAs to work from home rather than in a supervised call center; to record compensable minutes through unreliable, hand-written notations of start and stop times instead of using automated means; and to switch back and forth between handling VRS calls and handling VRI calls, thereby potentially inflating the reported compensable costs attributable to VRS by including the non-compensable costs of in-person interpreting.
Some providers likewise allow callers to choose a particular CA rather than being randomly assigned one, creating the opportunity for CAs to converse with friends during billable calls. Such practices are ripe for abuse and should not be tolerated within an increasingly mature, technologically savvy industry."
Their petition is centered on protecting the integrity of the TRS fund and reducing skyrocketing costs of providing VRS, but their comments inadvertently allege that interpreters if given the opportunity will conduct themselves in an unethical manner that abuses and /or defrauds the service, thereby threatening the integrity of the TRS fund.
What is the profession's response to what Sorenson is suggesting of us as professionals?
Is RID going to address their comments?
What is more alarming is that Sorenson is applying their social, economic, and legal might upon the industry subsequently diminishing the profession's jurisdictional strength and autonomy (what is left of it in terms of jurisdictional dispute in VRS). Once again, the profession will prove how far from professionalized it is in yet another jurisdictional area.
Sorenson is proposing that the FCC make a ruling that impacts two
of our key jurisdictional disputes; our worksites and to a certain extent the provision of effective communication which affects our ability to exercise authority in those areas.
Below is what they propose (some of the proposed sections were intentionally not included due to irrelevancy to the topic)
"Sorenson proposes to address these inadequacies by adding a new subsection (d)
to section 64.604 ofthe FCC rules. That subsection would require Internet-based TRS
providers, as a condition precedent to receiving compensation from the Fund, to
(iii) ensure that CAs work in call centers under direct supervision of a manager,
(iv) randomly assign CAs to calls, and prevent any CA from handling a call placed by
someone he or she knows,
(v) ensure that all VRS calls are routed to call centers that are
dedicated solely to handling VRS calls;"
I would argue that their claims are not convincing and are unsubstantiated. Working at a call center under supervision does not in itself deter mischief, misconduct, call pumping etc. as they would like us to believe.
Case(s) in point: a handful of their own interpreters committed fraud and abuse of the service under "supervised" call centers.
The recent allegations/arrests of VRS fraud and abuse involved for the most part conduct that took place in call centers.
I would argue that if Sorenson truly wants to protect the integirty of the TRS fund and/or reduce the costs of providing VRS, they would support the idea of working from home because it would slash overhead costs dramatically, thereby potentially reducing the reimbursement rate.
In terms of handling calls of people a VI knows. Well, I have handled calls of lots of people I know and I have never used that opportunity to be negligent of the integrity of the TRS fund. On the contrary, the VI philosphy and VI service delivery model I subscribe to ensures that I am mindful of the TRS fund.
I cannot think of a better way to ensure effective communication than providing the callers the ability to select the VI they would like to process their calls.
I have at least a hundred of recorded calls and many more observed calls processed by Sorenson interpreters (randomly assigned VIs as they suggest it should be) that provide proof that certain callers (the ones that truly need VRS for effective communication) are only receiving 20% effective communication when they use Sorenson VRS. For instance, the recorded VRS calls that my mother (very ASL woman) placed through Sorenson indicated that only 1 out of every 5 calls processed by a Sorenson VI provided effective communication where she felt she understood the messages adequately and little to no effort was required on her part to understand the signed messages furthermore she was not required to repeat herself or to code switch for the VI. One thing that quite frequently happened is that when the VI realized the challenge they are up against in relaying a call for my mother or people like her, they invoke the 10 minute rule exception and transferred her out which subsequently further delayed her access to the telephone network (violation of ADA LAW on rapid and efficient acess). They would n't even say, "Hey, I suck, I can't terp for you. Let me get someone that can." No, they would just simply through the subconscious application of pattern recognition gulp, eyes wide, and say, "please hold" and next thing she knew there was someone else on her screen. She was passed off a lot. In one call she made, she was passed around like a hot potato at least 4 times before a Vi took her call and stayed with her.
In all fairnes to Sorenson, they are not the only ones that provide inconsistent effective communication access.
It is incumbent upon the profession to exercise their authority in protecting its interests and that of the people it serves. We need to petition the FCC to set minimum standards on effective communication. What percentage is deemed functionally equivalent? 50%, 75%, 80%, 85%???... it should be 100%.
Terps... we are in a slippery slope and possibly losing our professional status further in the VRS industry. Do we care to do anything about that? VIMS (video interpreting section of RID) what are your thoughts?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Risa O on -
I’m seeing two issues addressed in this post. One of them is whether or not the largest provider should be able to ask the FCC to create more stringent policies at video relay centers to help deter fraud and abuse of the TRS fund, and whether these policies will actually serve to do so. The other is that a number of interpreters in video relay are not skilled enough to work in relay, where any type of call/consumer can come to your station. I will address the second matter first.
As we all know, the interpreter shortage was greatly exacerbated by the creation of video relay, where we now must cover shifts in addition to community interpreting. The sad thing about a shortage in any field is that many people can enter it who do not belong there or who are not ready for that level of work yet. The former VIC (Video Interpreting Committee) chair has said that video relay is the hardest kind of interpreting, because you never know what you will get. So when an unskilled or not-very-skilled interpreter enters the profession and goes into relay, they can no longer select their assignments based on a match between their skill and the demands of the assignment itself. I have heard so much about lousy interpreters and even non-interpreters who happen to know some sign language and get hired to work in video relay. Every caller is not going to mesh well with every interpreter, even in a setting where all the interpreters are skilled. However, there seem to be a number of people there who are just not ready, I have seen some of them, and I do not know how in the world they handle these calls. I began interpreting in the mid-1980s, and I draw on all my past skills every time I’m in that chair, more so than I have ever done in a community assignment. Even if such an employment opportunity had existed back when I began interpreting, I know that I would not have been ready to take it. As for the percentages, even Monterey only tells its interpreting students to go for 90% accuracy. However, even if we were to follow the model, we're nowhere near it yet.
What do we do about this? I wish I had the magic answer. I believe that applicants should be screened in a mock call environment, whether recorded or live, with a variety of callers, and I respect providers who do this and who use the screening results to weed out people who can sign but cannot interpret properly. Real ASL and voicing are high-order skills, and not everybody has them. Betty Colonomos says that about 85% of working interpreters are not capable of doing an American Sign Language interpretation, and she is probably right. Even before relay came around, there were many people accepting community assignments beyond their skill level. It has always happened, so we are not really talking about something new. It is just in a different environment now, albeit a very important environment. Also, we’re dealing with the subjectivity of what constitutes a good interpreter and what doesn’t. I do believe that part of the problem comes not so much from the shortage, but from the lack of funds. The video relay reimbursement rate has been clobbered, particularly in 2003. Ever since then, providers have struggled to maintain profitability, and not all of them have succeeded in doing so. In fact, some providers are traded on the public market and have balance sheets that anyone can view online. I have done so, and it has been a sad, penniless experience for me. The ones who do make profits have to overwork their interpreters and cannot afford to pay these interpreters the “going rate” in some of the communities where they have centers. That makes it difficult to attract the better interpreters into the centers. I don’t have easy answers, but I would like to see a little less pressure put on the hiring end, and a little more on the screening end.
As for what Sorenson says in its request for rulemaking to the FCC, you have to realize that most of these FCC filings are created in the spirit of competition; it’s just good business. There is an incredible amount of sibling rivalry, for lack of a better word. Sorensen is hardly the only company guilty of this. In fact, the smaller providers do it more often, possibly because they’re looking for an edge, I don’t know. I guess between the budget cuts and the shortages and all the regulation and requirements, this is how the providers have dealt with their lot in life. There is someone that they can go to with their needs or complaints and be heard. I think it is easier to understand these filings in that context than through any other perspective. In this particular matter, although I cannot know what the motivations were and were not to put this particular request out, it seems they are looking to go a little further in reducing the amount of self-serving minutes racked up by providers in the course of doing their work. For that part, I can see the point. This is not a VIMS thing, so much as my opinion. There has been a lot of discussion in the past on Ed’s Alert about manufactured minutes vs. organic minutes. However, if you completely took away all manufactured minutes from some of these providers, they could go under. As it stands, with both organic and manufactured minutes, several of them have no profits at all and are just coming out even anyway. That’s why I have mixed feelings about this. I want there to be competition, and I want it to be lively! With such a low reimbursement rate, I can see why some providers have resorted to this activity, although Sorensen makes a point - - this is not what relay was ever intended to be and it is costing good money. Then again, it may be the only way we can have competition in video relay. I just don’t know. I have to admit that I’m split on this one. Competition is the American way, and for good reason. It keeps the providers on their toes.
As for the idea of working from home, the FCC has never had a problem with it as long as the room locks. If they’re going to rule against it, then I think they need to put money back into the system and increase the rate a little bit. I don’t think that’s highly realistic, however. They don’t like paying for this and they don’t understand why they have to pay so much. We, on the other hand, don’t understand why they have cut down to less than half what they originally paid us. Budget cuts are one thing, but these are not mere cuts. And yes, all of that fraud crime took place under the very DIRECTION of supervision. I don’t think there’s any argument to be made that people were doing this because they were at home and not being watched. It happened inside the centers.
As I have seen with other providers, I do not think these filings get put out in order to downgrade the profession. Can that happen as a side effect? That is possible. However, I do not believe that it is the motive. Like any good business, I believe edging out the competition is the motive, in addition to the fact that I think Sorensen is just as upset about fraud that takes place in video relay and IP relay as is anybody else. I may sound like a Pollyanna, but I don’t think they’re actually trying to put us down. I think they’re trying to put the competition down. It’s all in the context. There have been one or two recent filings from other competitors that ultimately go again Sorensen. These things just go back and forth like a tennis match.
-
Permalink Reply by Daryl G Crouse on
-
"The former VIC (Video Interpreting Committee) chair has said that video relay is the hardest kind of interpreting, because you never know what you will get. So when an unskilled or not-very-skilled interpreter enters the profession and goes into relay, they can no longer select their assignments based on a match between their skill and the demands of the assignment itself."
Was that me? I can't remember, I think I remember saying something like that. Just curious.
-
Permalink Reply by debbie fowler on -
this is getting dumb! if I were inneed of someone to interpret for me, I would want to be able to choose the person. I may not know alot, but it sounds like they want it to be more robotic, more profeessional. I'm in a hearing world, and the people I work with, want me to do less visiting, and more work. come-on! I have been watching babies grow-up, seen teenagers get ingaged, some even get married, and of corse, I've been to funeral homes. I've been working at Helping Hand for 20 years, and now they decide that I need to do less talking. that's what this sounds like. by ALL means petition this, it aint right, next they're probably dictate what you can say in less than 5 minutes. I'll be praying for you all. I'm still looking into going back to school- deaf ministry. so far, there aint much out there.
-
Permalink Reply by ASL4U on -
Ok - I have a few thoughts - (but you might not care for some of them):
Firstly - I think this petition - for whatever Sorenson thinks its doing - is FINE.
Lets look at these parts you've referenced again:
your concern seems to be that Sorenson is "making blanket statements that brings to question the integrity and professionalism of interpreters working in VRS."
as per your excerpt of the (complete petition: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&a......)
>>"....Some of these providers have created
lax work environments and tolerated unprofessional employee behavior that create opportunities for mischief and call into question the legitimacy of the minutes they submit for compensation..."
But the first thing you need to note is that this statement is not about the interpreters - it is about the Providers... (that would be Sorenson among them). So we can be assured that Sorenson WANTS to have less "lax" working environments - and to not "tolerate unprofessional employee behavior"...
Gina - this is a reasonable statement.. its talking about themselves and their goals... it is a statement of control but they use the magic word "employees"... and, unless you work for Google, Microsoft, or Wegmans (grocery store) - you cannot expect that your employer believes you to be anything more than a child/representative that needs "supervision" & "management" in order to comply with the company's business goals.
There is a lot in that sentence - to be sure... but it says more about the "culture of Sorenson" and how they perceive their employees (and what it might feel like to work for them) - than how the company sees "the Profession of interpreters". They do not perceive us as professionals - they perceive us as professional EMPLOYEES - way big difference!
In the next paragraph, and in all of the examples given, once again the document is speaking to VRS PROVIDERS... not VRS interpreters. This document is speaking from company as provider - to company as provider... Interpreters are no longer (and have not been - for a long time in the VRS arena) "providers" of service.
So if you look at what they are grieving:
CAs working from home...rather than in a supervised call center
recording compensable minutes through unreliable, hand-written notations
and switching back and forth between handling VRS calls and handling VRI calls
all of these grievances are proposed from one Company to another..they have nothing to do with interpreters as providers... (because interpreters are simply employed "man-hours" not Providers)
I enthusiastically admit that I like the idea of being able to allow callers to choose a particular CA rather than being randomly assigned one. This would do a great deal toward improving the quality of service that Deaf get out of the industry (and therefore - is not likely to happen).
Heretofore, out in the community, Deaf people have often complained of the poor quality of the interpreters they get, and the "better" interpreters have only been able to encourage them to "complain". The theory was, that if the Deaf complained, those bad interpreters would stop getting work and would eventually leave the field due to "not enough work"... but everyone knows, and especially the Deaf, that this does not work in our industry. There are too many Deaf needing interpreters for the number of interpreters (and those calling themselves interpreters) to be able to push out any one, two, three, or a hundred interpreters for being incompetent. Deaf people are trapped into having to accept whatever interpreter they get, because to say "No - you're not good enough," means the Deaf person will either have to make do with what they have now, do without here and now, or will have to make another appointment and hope that the next one will be better... (and currently the odds are, the next one will be the same or worse).
Odds.
Those are the odds. And we have carried those odds into the VRS environment. So if we allowed Deaf to request specific interpreters... it would represent HUGE benefit to the Deaf.
1) The Deaf person would finally have a way for to complain about and demand a different (more qualified) interpreter while in the situation - and then actually GET one.
2) The Deaf person would be able to work with multiple different interpreters, and figure out, for themselves, what "to Understand" means... because right now, I suspect that "to understand" happens So RARELY when using interpreters, that the Deaf have just accepted the fact that they will Never really "get it"... whatever is going on. (ask your mother Gina)
Wouldn't it be nice, if a Deaf person could make a phone call, and both the interpreter and the Deaf person were comfortable with working together to make that hearing person get the information (and vice-verse)... and the Deaf person could assume that even with errors (because we all make errors).. Most of the conversation was accurate... because the Deaf person would be IN on Most of the conversation.
3) It would allow that the Deaf could improve the confidentiality of their calls, by requesting an interpreter that they dont know and who lives in a far and different place - so they could talk about "private" stuff or "difficult" (deeply personal) stuff and not feel like they are sharing that with a local interpreter. (no matter the code of ... ahem "professional" conduct... cuz if you'all havent noticed - these new "educated" intepreters are not entirely "clear" on what "do not talk about this" means...)
4) It would allow that the Deaf person could better ensure the effectiveness and reliability of their negotiations (legal or financial/sales) by using a single interpreter for the course of all calls on the matter. As a hearing person, when I make multiple phone calls to Joe, I will always be speaking with Joe - when I'm speaking with Joe. But currently, when a Deaf person calls Joe - they get to speak with (amy)Joe, and the next time its (sam)Joe, and the next time its (sarah)Joe and the time after its (billy)Joe... and each of these "Joe" people - have different voices, different language fluencies, different abilities to understand the Deaf person, and different abilities to understand JOE...
this has a HUGE impact on the reliability of repeated conversations with Joe. If it was the same interpreter - even if the interpreter was "really BAD".. the Deaf person would at least have consistent service - and like all those who have come before - they'd be able to figure out what they Can talk about with This interpreter, and what they cannot.
5) It would allow that those interpreters who, regardless of their "certification" do not have the ability to effectively do this job be identified, even if simply by number of Deaf refusals; numbers that could indicate: "YOU - are not ready to do this type of work" and moves could be made to get you out of the active chair and send you for further training (which in Most cases - is simply the need for a couple more years PRACTICE - before this person is ready to work in such an accuracy intense environment.)
Of course, I suspect we'd find out that there are only about 1 in 6 who ARE actually qualifed to *effectively* do this work... which presents a few problems that everyone is willing to overlook in order to maintain the "everyone" is "equal" regardless the individual's actual competence farce that is the current norm. (oh God - lets not hurt anyone's feelings by telling them that a year, or two, or in some cases - five years of experience is probably not enough to ensure accuracy needed to satisfy the demands of an interactive Phone call)
>> Their petition is centered on protecting the integrity of the TRS fund and reducing skyrocketing costs of providing VRS, but their comments inadvertently allege that interpreters if given the opportunity will conduct themselves in an unethical manner that abuses and /or defrauds the service, thereby threatening the integrity of the TRS fund.
>> What is the profession's response to what Sorenson is suggesting of us as professionals?
Gina, there can be no response from the interpreters and RID has the same paternalistic view of interpreters, the sentiment:
...interpreters if given the opportunity will conduct themselves in an unethical manner that abuses and /or defrauds [...], thereby threatening the integrity of the"
can as easily say [interpreting profession] as it can say [TRS Fund]
This premise was the original justification for requiring CEUs... Our representative organization believes that interpreters, if left on their own, will NOT do what they are "supposed" to do... and interpreters have figured out a way to live with that ---
you all who work as EMPLOYEES... will figure out a way to live within this paternalistic frame as well... it is, after all, called "having a job."
>>Is RID going to address their comments?
I would be very Surprised if RID has ANYthing to say about this... although, I would be less surprised indeed if they came back and said something in SUPPORT of it.
as for the risk of
>>diminishing the profession's jurisdictional strength and autonomy (what is left of it in terms of jurisdictional dispute in VRS).
This profession (collective of interpreters) gave up (and gives up) jurisdictional strength and autonomy long ago... The minute you all became employees - YOU gave up your "jurisdictional strenth and autonomy".
Employees - are by definition - NOT autonomous.
as for their proposals...
>(iii) ensure that CAs work in call centers under direct supervision of a manager,
This is a reasonable statement. It is what is assumed to be the status anyway... but it does create a fence that disallows individuals from setting up private business VRS - working directly for the Deaf. To my knowledge, no one has set up a private, in the home one or two interpreter business designed to provide "better" than "big business" quality calls to the Deaf - but right now, the potential exists for this type of service delivery. If this piece is codified, it would mean that a qualified individual would have almost no way of getting IN to the business. You would have to work for a pre-existing company if you want to be a VRS interpreter so the ability for someone to create a new, and potentially more effective model of service delivery would be immediately blocked.
>(iv) randomly assign CAs to calls, and prevent any CA from handling a call placed by someone he or she knows,
This is a shoe in... it is the paradigm that the business works under now - and its not likely to change (so much for all the benefit it would do - to improve service delivery - see above)
>(v) ensure that all VRS calls are routed to call centers that are dedicated solely to handling VRS calls;"
This would be a good thing... it constrains all VRS to providing VRS only... thats' reasonable.
>>I would argue that if Sorenson truly wants to protect the integirty of the TRS fund and/or reduce the costs of providing VRS,
but they dont want to do that... they want a monopoly. They WANT control... They'll figure out what they're gonna do with their employees - AFTER they do their best to get more market share... This is not about interpreters Gina - its about business models.
>In terms of handling calls of people a VI knows.
Here - is the joke... If rules are established to prevent an interpreter from providing service to a Deaf person "that they know"... then they will have put themselves out of business.
done deal.
think about it.. as a VRS interpreter - how many "novel" Deaf (completely new - never seen before) do you get on your calls? From what I've seen in the call centers, there is a popoulation of Deaf who use the service, so you often get repeat callers, you see the same people, over and over and over... novel callers (people who are not familiar to you) become more and more rare the longer you work as a VRS interpreter. In fact, that's what makes the job tollerable to many interpeters. The ability to feel "safe" in that you recognize this Deaf person or that one, allowing you to feel that, in This call, you're not entirely flying by the seat of your pants. You kinda "know" this person, their langauge, their style - you feel like you can understand them... (or you know you cant)...
take that away and a few things will happen:
1) there will have to be a definition for how many times an interpreters can interpret for a Deaf person before they are considered to "know" them.. does "knowing" mean you've met for coffee?, you've seen at the Deaf club?, you've interpreted for this person in the community? (or not, but you recognize them from the community)... and if the terp "knowing" someone is indicative of simple familiarity, interpreters are gonna be turning down more calls than they can take - because healthy humans - tend to remember faces... (and interpreters tend to remember "signed voices")... we get familiar enough to share a good word after the first call.
2) interpreters will be able to refuse a call based on familiarity (shhh - I dont want to work with that one cuz he/she's too hard.. and this already happens - ask your mother!)... what happens with the interpreter "knows" all of the Deaf who are calling... they're going to have to hire someone to screen the calls and keep track of who know who. this is not like voice operators - who we never see a face for... We are real people - looking at real people... working with each others Langauge... a most personal kind of representation. "Knowing" now takes on a new meaning.
3) and if this were in effect, interpreters would eventually just leave the field (of VRS interpreting) because we (humans) psychologically cannot function in an environment the requires the kind of skill we are required to present WHILE being faced with continuous uncertainty about whether we (inside, individual) can actually do the job. This is, in fact, the reason I hear most cited about why the people who has done VRS - no longer Does VRS.
This uncertainty eats at many of the VRS interpreters now - but many of them are able to stay and continue to work - BECAUSE of the promise of an occasional familiarity. (And because they are being told they are better than they are).
>>I have at least a hundred of recorded calls and many more observed calls processed by Sorenson interpreters (randomly assigned VIs as they suggest it should be) that provide proof that certain callers (the ones that truly need VRS for effective communication) are only receiving 20% effective communication when they use Sorenson VRS.
You can replace the name of "Sorenson" with ANY of the current VRS providers out there - and this percentage is what *I'm* bitching about whenever I'm considered to have something considered derogatory to say about VRS...
Your examples (and your mother's experience) represents the STANDARD. But this standard is not established by the VRS Business... it is what the current body of intepreters are capable of. Changing the rules/requirements for interpreters will not improve this situation, because, on AVERAGE.. interpreters are incapable of delivering any better service.
>>the sad thing is, no one is doing anything about this... (and likely cannot) because -
1) RID's test is a complete farce when it comes to an evaluation of competency.
2) the business model is up and running - and hiring... and the baby terps coming into the field are learning to do a consistently poor job (and for those of you who believe you are not doing a consistently poor job - you are, perhaps not an AVERAGE interpreter - but go ahead an peek over the partition...
you can get pissy with me - but Average is Average - and the AVERAGE interpreter is not delivering very effective services).
3) the demand for interpreters exceeds the amount of time we have to create "good" interpreters. (see number 2)
as for the next part -I'm gonna keep a copy of this: (and I'm going to include it here again - and reference it often... because this is perhaps the best description of what a VRS call looks like/feels like to the AVERAGE Deaf person:
>>For instance, the recorded VRS calls that my mother (very ASL woman) placed through Sorenson indicated that only 1 out of every 5 calls processed by a Sorenson VI provided effective communication where she felt she understood the messages adequately and little to no effort was required on her part to understand the signed messages furthermore she was not required to repeat herself or to code switch for the VI. One thing that quite frequently happened is that when the VI realized the challenge they are up against in relaying a call for my mother or people like her, they invoke the 10 minute rule exception and transferred her out which subsequently further delayed her access to the telephone network (violation of ADA LAW on rapid and efficient acess). They would n't even say, "Hey, I suck, I can't terp for you. Let me get someone that can." No, they would just simply through the subconscious application of pattern recognition gulp, eyes wide, and say, "please hold" and next thing she knew there was someone else on her screen. She was passed off a lot. In one call she made, she was passed around like a hot potato at least 4 times before a Vi took her call and stayed with her.
This... This is what I have such a problem with...
and this - is what will not be changed - because interpreters are being taught (in programs, by VRS training, by (enforced) Deaf complacency, by FCC "rules" (as told by the Video Providers), by the results of RID's new Test... that the above is not the norm, and at the least, it does not represent any single ONE of the interpreters in the field.
but it IS the norm - and it represents more than ONE of us.
>>It is incumbent upon the profession to exercise their authority in protecting its interests and that of the people it serves.
too late Gina... its too late. Business has already bought this profession -
your next question:
>>"set minimum standards on effective communication
THAT HAS BEEN THE PURPOSE OF RID FOR 30 + YEARS... and what we have now, passes (in June) a Bachelors student who graduated in May - with NIC:Master.
This person IS NOT a MASTER interpreter... This person is not even a very competent interpreter - and has NO experience to speak of. If RID wants to certify this person (so they can go to work for Video Relay where certification is required and we need more more more numbers) - fine... but NOT Master! Not Linguistically represented as "the best the profession has to offer".
(and now there are MANY of them - so many in fact, that I'm genuinely sorry for those who ARE good interpreters but who are unfortunate enough to be sharing the title "master" with these young ones... because those who ARE good enough are being very poorly represented by their "peers")
>>we are in a slippery slope and possibly losing our professional status further in the VRS industry.
done deal Gina... VRS interpreters lost their professional status the moment they became employees...
but I do look forward to hearing if anybody out there has any ideas, or angst on this topic... would be nice if the people in this profession were "participatory"
see see
Terri Hayes
-
-
FYI for everyone, I created a script a while back that consolidates the FCC comment system into an RSS feed. You'd think they would already have available, no! Anyway, you can
subscribe via your RSS Reader to http://feeds.feedburner.com/FCC03-123TRS
I will see about having it added as a feed into TerpLink also.
If you see a lot of "No description..." entries, those are the mail in postcards or letters the FCC receives.
Good discussion you all... personally, I am a proponent of an employer/employee relationship.
Though, I believe anyone who I have had the honor of working with will probably tell you that I approach things very differently than most might. People are not widgets, we are an asset, but people are never simply the means to an end because each of us is worthy of respect, encouragement, and yes sometimes a friendly, professional version of a scolding (myself included on more than one occasion).
As for the IC/employee classification, I say prove me wrong. I'll buy whomever a dinner when we're at the next conference together if I am. Request a determination from the IRS or the state employment security/development agency and let the facts play out as they will. That is between agencies and interpreters. I'm not talking about a hospital, a private business that hires an interpreter for a weekly staff meeting for their Deaf employee. Those later situations most definitely pass the test.
1) it does not pass the IC/employee relationship test. Between an agency and an interpreter it doesn't pass the test. Between VRS provider and interpreter, it doesn't pass the test. Between interpreter and hospital (not in the business of providing interpreting services) it passes the test and IC is fine. (See CA Employment Development Department Determination letter attached - be sure to read the final brochure on temporary staffing services)
2) there is a big difference between working for a "jerk" and working "with" a colleague. That has everything to do with management/personality style and nothing to do with employment classification. I can't count the number of times I've heard a colleague complain about working with an agency, they were mean, abusive, etc... but they were treating them as IC. At least if there was an employee relationship then there are employment laws to protect the interpreter in those instances and to reign in the crazy this or that of the day.
There are a lot of positives to being classified as an employee. Protection under federal and state labor laws, worker's compensation, unemployment, disability, etc.. The employer must pay into your medicare and social security account with a $1 for $1 match.
I dread the day when some of my friends who have yet to pay the required 26 quarters into SS. When they try to file for SS they will find out they do not qualify for it.
But I will be the first to say, employee doth not mean owneth the person! When that happens, see the "jerk" above. :) - Attachments:
-
-
edddetermination.pdf, 994 KB
-
-
-
FYI I was able to add the RSS feed to the front page of TerpLink. It shows the last 5 comments submitted about TRS. Click on the document and it will be brought up.
-
Permalink Reply by Gina Gonzalez on -
I appreciate each of your perspectives on the matter.
Risa, you mentioned that perhaps if I would perceive and interpret matters within the context of competition, I would understand why Sorenson filed such a petition. I know that all VRS providers operate within the context of competition, financial gain, and market control...
The million dollar question is...why aren't we?
My point is when are we as a profession going to realize that we too have an entrepreneurial stake in VRS?
It is within such context that I believe our profession should feel compelled to consider and respond to the implications such a petition has upon our profession's interests. We need to ensure that all possible and viable options are left intact and not restricted; thereby ensuring that nothing limits our options or further strains our interests.
I know it is at times difficult for us to aggressively impose ourselves because of the flak we get from people that pay for our services and those we serve. We are often said to work only for the money and so long as we continue to hide behind our feigned humility, we will continue to solely work for the money. However, if we begin to act like a professionalized entity, we will recognize the need for us to impose our authority in matters that affect our best interests. Moreover, we will recognize that we deserve to act on behalf of our best interests. In serving our best interests we ultimately serve the interests of those we serve.
Terri, Sorenson indeed speaks of the providers (VRS employers) of the interpreters and not the interpreters per se. The providers are clearly being charged with creating the context (lax work environment and toleration of unprofessional behavior) for interpreters to express mischief.
What they are insinuating is if an employer (gun dealer lets say) gives an employee a gun and looks away, the employee will shoot the first person they see.
What this petition says whether intentionally or unintentionally, directly or indirectly is that we (terps) are mindless droids ready and willing to exploit the TRS fund if and when given the opportunity, therefore supervised conditions need to be put in place and we are not to be trusted to have the power to monitor ourselves or set up shop for ourselves without a provider’s call center.
One can understand why Sorenson or any VRS provider would make such claims because we as a nation operate within an economic model which created a context that promotes the greed factor in humans. Economists (proponents of capitalism) would lead us to believe that it is the only way the human spirit and the economy can flourish.
"Like any good business, edging out the competition is the motive..." I guess owning 80%-85% of the market isn't enough for Sorenson.
I remember a time when many terps and deafies alike who worked for Sorenson argued that restricting interoperability was good business while completely disregarding the fact that it was blatantly violating functional equivalency access. Just because it is good business doesn't mean we shouldn't question it.
I would like to crunch some numbers to illustrate the potential or difficulty of achieving effective communication:
In 2008 the total billable minutes for VRS were 88 million minutes (Neca report: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&a...) .
I would venture to say that 30% of those minutes were manufactured (call pumping). That would bring the minutes down to about 62 million a year.
That is roughly 5 million minutes a month , 171 thousand minutes a day, 7,100 per hour, 118 minutes per minute..
According to the (2004) Market Disorder Within the Field of Sign Language Interpreting: Professionalization Implications paper written by Anna Witter-Merithew and Leilani Johnson there are roughly about 25,000 practitioners (terps) certified and uncertified.
And if Betty Colonomos is correct that only 15% of that number can truly provide effective communication, then that means there are approximately 3800 terps who can guarantee effective communication. I would say that about 4,000 more can adequately meet communication needs of bilingual video callers (High Visual-High verbal and high visual-medium verbal) then there is the "oral", PSE, English word order callers..
So I am guessing there is about 8, 000 terps at the industry's "disposal" to handle VRS calls. Plus CDI or DIs (must have them and sad that there aren't more of them working in VRS).
7100 minutes per hour requires 140-180 terps logged in every hour (minute) to handle the traffic. Each hour the terp would have 15 minutes for break and any surplus of terps would handle breaks, teaming etc..
Now let's say there was a cap on how many hours a terp could work a day. Let's say 4 hour caps a day makes it a 6 shifts per day scenario. Every 4 hours a new team of 140-160 VIs would come in (well, not necessarily some shifts would be more dense than others due to low and high peak traffic times).
A total of 960-1080 terps a day would be needed to handle VRS calls.
If we petition the FCC to allow us to break away from the provider and set up shop like the U.S post office (public option if you will) and we would be called USVRS, and the minutes we processed would be paid to us on a per minute basis of $3.00 per minute let's say. That’s roughly $186,000,000 a year in profit for the terps (USVRS).
The current providers could still make money because it would depend on the product used to access the telephone network. VP 200 is the most popular device used therefore Sorenson would split the $6 reimbursement rate with USVRS (hence $3.00 per minute for USVRS).
Sorenson's profit would be about 157 million a year (85% of 62 million minutes) just based on device used to make the call.
Providers who do not have a product would not be able to make money, but if they wanted to, they would need to invest in product development.
$187 million a year buys a lot of mentoring, training, education etc. for the profession. Hence the people we serve benefit tremendously. Most importantly it buys quality of life for the terp and it provides the community with terps too due to the daily caps.
If providers wanted to keep the entire $6.00 and not split it with USVRS, they would have to hire the best terps and pay them very well to edge out the premier provider of effective communication... us.
USVRS would pay the VI $1.50- $2.00 per billable minute while $1.00- $1.50 goes to USVRS (63-72 million a year) for overhead, technology, ergonomic equipment/stations, administration, training, mentoring, quality assurance etc.
I don’t know, but it looks like we can pull this off…
Daryl, VIs working from home (whether for USVRS or Sorenson or ZVRS etc) paying for their own internet line, using their own equipment, their own office space etc would constitute IC. Correct?
Birthdays
Birthdays Tomorrow
TerpJobs.com | Career services and job search
Educational ASL interpreter
Educational American Sign Language InterpreterParaeducator Sign Language Interpreter
Works with deaf and hard of hearing students in elementary, middle and high schools.© 2010 Terp et al, LLC & Daryl Crouse | Registered trademark "Terp"... All Rights Reserved.
