Litigation
Aug. 17, 2002
Interpreters in Court Want More Equitable Workplace
Forum Column - By Mary Lou Aranguren - Moving steadily ahead, SB371, the court interpreters' collective-bargaining rights bill, is now in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Hardly the runaway train described in the opinion piece "Polyglot State" (Mark McCaffrey, Forum, Aug. 2), this bill has been the subject of extensive debate and negotiation, with input from both interpreters and the Judicial Council during the two-year legislative process.
By Mary Lou Aranguren
Moving steadily ahead, SB371, the court interpreters' collective-bargaining rights bill, is now in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Hardly the runaway train described in the opinion piece "Polyglot State" (Mark McCaffrey, Forum, Aug. 2), this bill has been the subject of extensive debate and negotiation, with input from both interpreters and the Judicial Council during the two-year legislative process.
For interpreters, who've sought fair treatment in a deteriorating system for more than a decade, the bill seems more like "the little engine that could" - and it's been a long time coming.
If it passes, the bill will change the way courts hire interpreters and limit the use of independent contractors. But contrary to the article's claims, the bill specifically exempts many older interpreters with long-term service from the limits on independent contractor use. That's one of many errors, too numerous to cite, in the article. For interpreters not eligible for this exemption, the bill allows continued work on a flexible basis as employees.
For the majority of interpreters, the "independent contractor" label is a farce because we're working as de facto employees without benefits. Court interpreters are the only group in the courts denied collective bargaining rights, and we simply want to negotiate the terms and conditions of our work and the tangible benefits that go with it.
Change meets resistance, even when it's for the better. Hoping to derail the bill and preserve a system that fails the majority but suits a few, the self-labeled "independents" are maligning the bill's sponsors - the Bay Area Court Interpreters Association and the California Federation of Interpreters - and insinuating untoward "union influence."
It doesn't matter that the bill aims to accommodate interpreters who want to work on a per diem basis by providing flexible employment. The independents are ramping up the rhetoric to protect what they call "a way of life." They oppose the bill by attacking us because they can't argue that the system is working - only that it works for them.
Casting doubt from the sidelines is easy. What's hard is the work that the Bay Area Court Interpreters Association and the California Federation of Interpreters have undertaken to unite more than a thousand "independent contractors" across the state. Our record speaks for itself.
In the absence of a mechanism for representation (as contractors, we remain a disenfranchised group), we have met with more than 900 interpreters, surveyed all accredited interpreters across the state - not just our members - and conducted a statewide petition process. Our organizing has led more than half of the certified and registered interpreters (a majority) to join our organizations, and even more to sign a petition in support of our goals.
Our interpreter-led associations have been listening to the state's interpreters. The overwhelming message that we hear is that, despite our rare, in-demand skills and the challenging job that we do, working conditions continue to deteriorate, and the court system doesn't respond to interpreters' professional needs. These concerns and the courts' lack of initiative in addressing them have set the agenda for our associations and for the bill - not the courts and not the union.
The independents (most of whom depend on the courts for their primary income) are clinging to illusions of freedom in a failing system. No doubt, some interpreters are happy with the status quo, particularly after the hefty rate increases the Bay Area Court Interpreters Association and the California Federation of Interpreters achieved through collective action. So even though the bill doesn't force them out, the independents are complaining bitterly. They just want things to stay the way they are.
They're not concerned with the fact that the pool of qualified interpreters available to the courts has dropped 33 percent since 1995. And courts, unable to attract or retain enough skilled interpreters, rely endemically on unqualified interpreters. The impact on due process and equal access is immeasurable.
Interpreters are defenseless in the face of arbitrary treatment, blacklisting and other forms of retribution when they defend the ethical use of interpreters and our professional standards. Qualified interpreters are passed over for noncertified interpreters in a system where favoritism is rampant.
The independents are comfortable with their personal arrangements and happy to rely on the "daily respect of our judges and courtroom colleagues." That must be the same respect that left interpreters without even cost-of-living adjustments for seven years in Los Angeles and for a decade in the rest of the state.
Never mind the fact that we work without protection in an adversarial system that is suspicious of foreign tongues and in which the courts and attorneys who benefit from our services cannot fairly evaluate our performance. Independents are confident that they can get by on their "professional merit" without a grievance process or job protection.
Never mind that we work in close proximity to prisoners and populations with a high incidence of infectious diseases. Disregard that we don't have employer-paid health insurance, sick leave or health and safety protections. Never mind that some of us have suffered retribution, too, for protecting ourselves from exposure to dangerous situations.
SB371 is a reasonable solution to a long-term problem. The courts will have enough professional interpreters only when they build a career path for interpreters who make a commitment to the state courts, providing them attractive jobs and incentives. SB371 gives interpreters a role in that process and starts the courts and interpreters down that road.
We don't think collective bargaining is the definitive solution, but it is an important beginning. We will continue working on other approaches, as well. The independents apparently believe in neither the will of the majority nor the fact that interpreters' clout, measured in both numbers and indispensability, can lead to a more equitable workplace.
We do. We are a union by and for interpreters, seeking the right to vote. The bill is ready to go, and so are we.
Mary Lou Aranguren is a certified court interpreter and legislative director for the Bay Area Court Interpreters Association and the California Federation of Interpreters.
Columnist
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com