Dear Colleagues,

How would you like to have regular cost of living raises, a bonus of one day's pay for every 20 days worked, seniority-based assignments, automatic overtime pay, contract negotiations with court administration, a grievance procedure, paid parking, paid mileage, continuing education expenses reimbursed up to $200 a year, orientation training for new interpreters, and a linguistic specialist in the administration who advocates on behalf of interpreters before judges and administration when a conflict arises?

Los Angeles court interpreters used to have each and every one of these benefits. Over time, working conditions have slowly, but surely, deteriorated. The beginning of this decline came about in 1992 when court administration informed us that they would never again negotiate a contract with us because of our independent contractor classification. Unbeknownst to us, the Internal Revenue Service was conducting an audit of the use of independent contractors by the Los Angeles courts. Once the IRS' preliminary decision declared that court interpreters were, indeed, employees, the loss of these benefits occurred almost overnight.

While the Los Angeles courts appealed this decision, the administration proceeded to implement changes that they hoped would give the appearance of having a true independent contractor relationship with interpreters. In addition to losing the above-mentioned benefits, interpreters were faced with a new reality: no raises. After seven straight years without a raise, interpreters had no choice but to walk out twice in order to temporarily remedy the situation.

The assignment office began to distribute assignments on an arbitrary basis rather than on seniority. Interpreters were dismissed from assignments and were no longer offered an explanation. Forced rotations were implemented. In a desperate attempt to create a facade of independent contractor status for the benefit of the IRS, the administration implemented petty changes such as naming interpreter offices 'interpreter waiting areas,' and replacing desks with round tables.

As if these losses were not enough, we must also contend with the increasing encroachment on our profession by the Judicial Council. Acting under a long established mandate, the Judicial Council has sought to impose a unilateral model contract on interpreters statewide, has drafted soon to be implemented disciplinary procedures, and is currently developing an interpreter evaluation process. The Judicial Council also continues to uphold an unconscionable 'good cause' clause.

Is it any wonder that after so many losses, interpreters have finally decided to take control of their professional destiny? With SB371, we stand the best chance of not only regaining some of the benefits we lost, but of actually negotiating from a legitimate position of power. We have earned this right. Let us assert it!