CFI - Frequently Asked Questions

...INTERPRETERS WORKING IN THE STATE TRIAL COURTS WILL DECIDE WHO WILL REPRESENT THEM.

The law gives employees the right to choose the organization they want to represent them.

...THROUGH A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, INTERPRETERS WILL DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT IN A CONTRACT.

If CFI is chosen as interpreters' representative, you will elect a bargaining committee to negotiate on your behalf. In preparation for bargaining, all court interpreters will be surveyed and bargaining conferences will be held throughout the state to determine what kind of contract we want. Your bargaining committee will negotiate according to the priorities established through this process. Once a contract is negotiated, it will not go into effect until interpreters have voted to ratify it. If interpreters reject the contract, the bargaining committee will return to the negotiating table to keep working to get a fair contract.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Does employee status mean that I would have to work full time and work for the same court all the time?

2. Does employee status mean that I would not be able to accept other work such as federal court assignments, translations or private sector jobs?

3. Would we have to work from 8-5 if we were classified as employees?

4. If we become employees, will they make us do other work like translations, filing, & interpreting outside the courtroom?

5. If we become employees, will they reduce our pay and deduct from our per diem the cost of benefits?

6. Will I be required to join the union?

7. Why can't we have a system where some people are contractors and others are employees?

8. Why can't we negotiate a contract as independent contractors?

9. Will I lose my tax breaks if I become an employee?

10. How will my retirement be affected if I become an employee? Will I lose all that money I've paid into social security?

11. Why do you think Language Line is going to take over?

12. I like to travel. Could I take off as much time as I want?

13. Won't full-time interpreters cover more work, leaving less work for interpreters who want to work less than full-time?

14. I don't work regularly in the courts like the Spanish interpreters. How would this apply to me?

15. Things aren't so bad, especially with the pay increase. Why would I want to be an employee?

16. With the recent increases we are doing better than many employees. Why rock the boat?

17. Why now? Maybe we should just wait for the new generation of interpreters to enter the profession.

Q. Does employee status mean that I would have to work full time and work for the same court all the time?

A. No, not necessarily. Our contract could contain multiple classifications, including full-time, part-time and per diem (hired on a day-to-day basis), among others. Court reporters' contracts have classifications similar to these. The courts already use interpreters according to this scheduling scheme because it suits their needs- a change to employee status would not change the courts' needs. However, a collectively bargained contract would give interpreters the opportunity to make sure our needs are taken into account, too.

Q. Does employee status mean that I would not be able to accept other work such as federal court assignments, translations or private sector jobs?

A. No. You could be an employee of the state trial courts and continue to work in other venues as a contractor or as an employee. Your actual flexibility to work for other employers or clients would depend upon the kind of relationship you choose to have with the state trial courts. A per-diem employee could have the option to reject and accept work in the state courts. However, a contract would be advantageous because it would establish a fair system for hiring interpreters and eliminate favoritism. Likewise, the contract could prohibit the court administration from penalizing interpreters for rejecting assignments. If you're working full-time, you would obviously have limited time available for working in other venues -- but then you would likely have full-time benefits which would make the state courts more appealing. Nothing should prevent full time interpreters from taking on other jobs during their free time. Many court reporters, though employees of the court, still operate as independent contractors when it comes to producing transcripts for litigating parties.

Quote from a former Alameda County court employee: "In my experience, when one is a full-time employee ... it would certainly be possible to take days off, out of vacation or "comp time" leave, in order to do federal or other assignments during normal business hours. Part-time & per-diem employees could create their own schedules. Translations, obviously, could be done during one's free time. I cannot imagine any court would even think of limiting what a person does on her or his personal time."

Q. Would we have to work from 8-5 if we were classified as employees?

A. The work schedule would be established in our contract. But consider how other court employees work (particularly professional or semi-professional employees who work in the court room as we do): they don't punch a clock, and leave when their cases are taken care of. We have also found that these employees have some flexibility to leave early and in some places make arrangements amongst themselves in a similar fashion to how we work now. All of this would indicate that things do not have to change drastically from the way we currently work. Besides, nothing about our current "independent contractor" label precludes them from making us stay later and later as time goes by and caseloads increase. Under the Judicial Council's current compensation policies, hours are defined according to court sessions and can run from 8-5:15. In some places courts are already requiring interpreters to stay until 4:30 or 5:00 p.m. With bargaining rights and representation, we would be in a better position to determine the length of the work day.

Q. If we become employees, will they make us do other work like translations, filing, & interpreting outside the courtroom?

A. The important element here is the KIND of contract we negotiate. Filing is obviously not a function of the interpreter, and the state legislature does not approve funding for interpreters to file (and remember there are already other employees who have those jobs). Our job is that of language specialists and a contract would give us the ability to define and confine the duties of the interpreter. This is called scope of work. Thus, a request for translation or interpreting outside the courtroom (such as for probation or at the counter) would have to be negotiated. We will bargain hard to make sure that the scope of work is acceptable to interpreters, and fairly compensated and assigned.

As it is now, we can be and sometimes are ordered by judges or required by administrators to do translations or interpret outside the scope of court proceedings, without any say in the matter, and without additional compensation. Employee status with a carefully drawn up contract would give us more clear protection against indiscriminate use (or abuse) of our services.

Q. If we become employees, will they reduce our pay and deduct from our per diem the cost of benefits?

A. The question is not, what will they "do" to us but rather, What is important to interpreters? If maintaining pay is a top issue, your bargaining committee will put to use your bargaining rights and get interpreters a contract that meets our needs. The Judicial Council, according to its own representatives, places no cap on the amount employee interpreters make. Employee interpreters negotiate their wages. The Judicial Council only has the right to unilaterally set pay for contractor; interpreters. Before we walked out and lobbied the legislature for interpreter increases two years ago, some people said it would be impossible to make the per diem we're making now. The typical court reporter makes approximately our salary PLUS benefits. Do we deserve any less?

Q. Will I be required to join the union?

A. Our employee status bill will be modeled after Senate Bill 2140 (the court employee personnel structure), which states, "Trial court employees [ . . . ] shall have the right to represent themselves individually in their employment relations with the trial court." This is a standard provision in public sector employment, and we do not plan to pursue a "closed shop" which requires union membership. If interpreters vote to have a union represent them, then the union would engage in collective bargaining to benefit all interpreters. This could include provisions to have all employees covered by the contract share the cost of representation, called an "agency shop" as provided by SB2140.

Union membership would also have no bearing on who is hired. Although we may want to negotiate fair standards for hiring and promotion, the courts would retain discretion over who is hired.

Q. Why can't we have a system where some people are contractors and others are employees?

A. We could. If interpreters as a group wanted some independent contractor positions, we could make this part of our structure. But, it seems counterintuitive to create a system which only gives rights to one group of interpreters and denies another group those rights. Our goal should be collective bargaining rights for ALL interpreters in the courts. All interpreters will benefit by working under a contract, bargained on their behalf and with their input, which will require the courts to follow the Rules of Court regarding hiring non-certified interpreters (and that means Language Line, too). Whether or not an interpreter works enough to qualify for benefits, s/he will benefit from having a contract which ensures there is no penalty for improving and maintaining conditions necessary to interpret accurately, as is required by our code of ethics (i.e. team interpreting). Through the collective bargaining rights afforded to employees, we can together negotiate conditions, not to mention benefits, such as these.

When we work in the state courts, we are all subject to the same conditions and the same degree of supervision and control. These objective working conditions ultimately determine the nature of our classification, and should not be a matter of the courts' preference. That's why CFI advocates employee status for all interpreters.

Q. Why can't we negotiate a contract as independent contractors?

A. The only way we can negotiate a strong contract is if we negotiate collectively. Only employees have the right to collectively bargain. With collective bargaining rights the trial courts will be required to negotiate in good faith with us. If we were to have these rights, we could negotiate on a wide range of issues that are not currently covered in any contract, including the use of non certified interpreters in the courts & other issues relating to professional standards. Together, we have more leverage and a far better chance to improve our conditions. That's why other court employees - and tens of thousands of California public employees have chosen collective bargaining.

Q. Will I lose my tax breaks if I become an employee?

A. Overall, we should come out ahead. Losing tax deductions does not add up to as much as having to pay for one's health insurance, self-employment tax, and pension plans. And, if you work in other venues as a contractor, you can continue to deduct all expenses associated with your other-than-state court work. CFI has prepared a financial analysis that compares the overall economic situation of a contractor and an employee. If you didn't sign up to receive it at a workshop, ask an organizer or call the BACI office to get a copy. In fact, a number of court interpreters have been audited and learned that there are few expenses related to our court income that can be legitimately deducted.

Quote from a colleague: "What tax breaks? Basically, unless you work 100% from home, lease your car, use your office equipment 100% for your business and so on, you really don't have many tax breaks left. The fact that as an employee you no longer have to pay self employment tax gives you a great advantage, not to mention some of the other perks." How many interpreters can really afford to have a retirement plan? As employees, we can bargain for an employer-paid plan. How about medical insurance which costs over $500 per month for a family plan? Employer paid health benefits represent a potential savings of up to $6,000/year. I'll mention self employment tax yet one more time: $18,000 for me per year!!! Ouch!!! $23,000 in savings for just those two items. Sounds good already!"

Q. How will my retirement be affected if I become an employee? Will I lose all that money I've paid into social security?

A. We are still researching the different pension plans that might be available to us. If someone has been paying into social security for many years and then becomes part of a public pension plan not covered by social security, this can have a negative impact on social security payments upon retirement. However, typical pension plans offered by public employers will result in higher retirement payout than social security -- as long as you're in the plan the necessary time to vest (around 5 years). We could negotiate an opt-out clause for the small group of interpreters close to retirement who could be negatively affected by being included in a pension plan not covered by social security if we were going into such a plan. However, our goal is to sponsor legislation that would make us employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). AOC employees are covered by PERS, the California Public Employee Retirement System which covers thousands of state employees. PERS has different plans for its contracts with various state agencies, schools and universities. The AOC plan does make social security contributions and as a result, there should be no negative effect for interpreters transferring from contractor to employee status if we become part of the AOC pension plan.

Q. Why do you think Language Line is going to take over?

A. Language Line, which previously was a division of AT&T, has been engaged in an aggressive marketing campaign to provide interpreters in the state courts. We are receiving reports of this agency being used more and more widely, particularly for short appearances in other than Spanish cases. Language Line pays its interpreters approximately thirteen dollars an hour and charges the courts roughly three dollars a minute. Most judges that use the service do not care that Language Line interpreters are for the most part neither certified nor qualified. Because Language Line "certifies" its own interpreters, judges end up frequently not establishing on the record if the interpreter is qualified, as the law requires. Attorneys have told us of Language Line interpreters that made all the parties wait while they looked up in the dictionary basic words such as "arraignment" and "misdemeanor". In courts where there are not enough interpreting cases to justify a calendar interpreter in a particular language on a daily basis, some judges do not hesitate to call Language Line rather than put a case over to another date or even to pass it for a few minutes to allow a certified court interpreter to arrive at the court.

Because of the limitations inherent in phone interpreting, the use of phone interpreters may violate a person's right to be linguistically present during criminal proceedings. But attorneys, judges and administrators in the courts are unaware of these issues. As experts in our own field, we need a place at the table to discuss problems related to the use of interpreters with the courts. As employees, we could negotiate as a term of our contract that the statutes and Rules of Court regarding interpreted proceedings be followed. This would put us in a much stronger position to insist that certified, live interpreters be used.

Q. I like to travel. Could I take off as much time as I want?

A. Right now we can take as much unpaid time off as we want, but there is no security that our work will be available to us when we come back. As employees, we could bargain for paid vacations, holidays, educational leave (LA court reporters have 6 paid days/year), comp time and sick leave. The amount of time we can take off will depend upon the classification we choose and the negotiated conditions. Many interpreters have indicated they wish to retain flexibility to continue to take off as much time as they do currently. We will bargain for this and, based on the courts' current policies, see no reason we can't maintain the status quo in this area. Per-diem employees typically have the greatest flexibility in this regard as compared to full-time employees receiving full benefits. However, the ability to take unpaid leave is fully within the realm of what we could negotiate in a contract, and our bargaining position with the courts on this issue will be determined by what interpreters establish as priorities.

Q. Won't full-time interpreters cover more work, leaving less work for
interpreters who want to work less than full-time?

A. Employee status and a contract won't necessarily change the way we are scheduled. Given the fluctuating caseload, it seems impossible to imagine a system where a combination of full-time and less-than-full-time interpreters would not be used. Judges don't like to wait and an interpreter can only be in one place at a time. The courts already aim to use interpreters in the most efficient manner possible and a reclassification of interpreters as employees will not result in the courts organizing the caseload to correspond with the availability of full-time interpreters. As employees, we could negotiate a fair and reasonable distribution of work so that interpreters have the time they need to render the best interpretation. Consequently, the number of interpreters hired by the courts could well rise with the addition of new interpreting venues.

Q. I don't work regularly in the courts like the Spanish interpreters. How would this apply to me?

A. First, you can be an employee of the courts even if you work infrequently. For instance, substitute teachers may only work a couple of times a year, but when they do, they are employees. This will provide you the benefit of working under a contract that your elected representatives have negotiated on your behalf every time you work.

No matter with what regularity you work in the courts, you deserve to be treated fairly. Your contract could contain language to ensure fair hiring of interpreters in your language group, protect you from arbitrary treatment, provide you with a grievance procedure, ensure that the Rules of Court be followed in regards to hiring certified and registered interpreters, and protect your ability to insist on the conditions you need to interpret accurately. We will also seek to set up a system whereby interpreters who work regularly for the state trial courts, but in multiple jurisdictions, would accrue credits for all their work in the state trial courts so that they could be eligible for benefits.

Remember that the Judicial Council has already separated us from other court employees because we work differently, so we will need different conditions in our contract. With bargaining rights, we'll simply add what different conditions WE want to the mix.

Q. Things aren't so bad, especially with the pay increase. Why would I want to be an employee?

A. Some interpreters are feeling content with their current status while others are frustrated or being treated unfairly. The trouble is there is no assurance the favorable conditions that some individuals are enjoying won't change drastically, and we'll have no control over it. Sometimes merely a coordinator or judge retiring can have profound impact on the hiring practice or working condition for that county. Without collective bargaining rights, whatever "benefits" or "niche" an individual possesses can be taken away and there is no recourse.

Q. With the recent increases we are doing better than many employees. Why rock the boat?

A. The recent pay increase was obtained by conducting several area-wide work stoppages, which is currently the only means we have to make any demand or improvement. Keep in mind that before the first increase, it had been 10 years since we had gotten a rate increase! We cannot and should not rely on work stoppages every time we want a rate adjustment. The size of our recent increases was possible because we forced them to recognize the years of neglect and the desperate shortage of interpreters. Add a booming economy and you've got the formula for our significant pay increases. But it is unlikely that we will continue to make progress like this as independent contractors. Employees, on the other hand, are able to negotiate REGULAR increases in their contracts, and over time, those regular increases add up to real money. Employee status would allow us to collectively negotiate a fair and favorable contract that the court would be required to follow.

Q. Why now? Maybe we should just wait for the new generation of interpreters to enter the profession.

A. We've been given raises due to our organizations' hard work (and rabble rousing), and perhaps in the hopes that we will stop caring about professional standards. The Judicial Council started the provisionally certified program, and has joined the National Consortium of State courts, an agency with lower testing standards. The JC has not protested in any form against Language Line and its blatant use of non certified interpreters in the courts. The courts use Language Line and flout the Rules of Court and suffer no consequences. It is absolutely essential that interpreters have the rights afforded to employees so that we can protect our profession against these incursions. Without those rights, we continue to struggle with one hand tied behind our collective backs.

It's also time to establish ourselves as a permanent presence in the courts and protect our jobs. With the recent pay increases, competition for our work will increase. But no matter how many years we've been working, we have no recognition and no security for our years of service. Because we are constitutionally mandated and still in scarce supply, we are at this moment in a strong position to bargain the conditions that we want as terms of our work in the courts. Our position will be seriously weakened if we wait until Language Line (or another agency) obtains even more contracts with the California courts.