One of Our Members Asks Questions

The following letter was sent to the board of CFI by one of our members. We have encountered many of these important questions frequently in our conversations with interpreters throughout the state. We believe it is crucial to share this exchange with all CFI members.

1. What is CFI/BACI doing to support the rights and views of those interpreters who want to remain as Independent Contractors before the Judicial Council (I am one of them)?

Our understanding from interpreters who want to work as contractors is that one of their primary concerns is to preserve the ability to take time off when they want to for whatever reasons. We are working hard to make sure the bill includes per diem interpreters (like per diem reporters in LA) which would allow interpreters to continue working in this fashion. At the same time, we don't want those people left without rights to a grievance process or representation and bargaining. We know for a fact that a group of independent contractors left out of the employment system would be in a very bad position to secure work or have favorable conditions and pay. In fact, we have looked at situations with this kind of arrangement (contractors and staff interpreters) in New Jersey, Ventura, San Diego and Fresno, and we have seen that this system does not serve either group well.

Our proposal then, is to have per diem employee positions for people who aren't interested in traditional employment as full-time benefited employees. We would be happy to talk more with you about the advantages we see in this option and also would like to find out more about your concerns in regard to such an arrangement and what could be done to accommodate your interests.

2. As a paid and active member of CFI, I have not been contacted by anyone from CFI regarding how they can better represent me and my needs in writing the revisions to the proposed legislation. Is there any effort to that effect? Or is that idea out of the question because it automatically defeats your purpose?

As sponsors of the bill, CFI/BACI feel a sense of responsibility to pass a bill that will best serve the profession as a whole. We have been involved in a two year process of talking with interpreters in meetings, workshops and individually to understand their interests and concerns regarding employee status and the problems with our current status. To this end, CFI representatives have provided opportunities for interpreters to become informed, ask questions and state their concerns by holding meetings in the various courthouses. There was also a general meeting held in mid-March that all CFI members were invited to attend. We have also had extensive consultations with labor attorneys and union representatives to understand what options are practical and legally viable, and will best serve interpreters by providing bargaining power. This is what interpreters will need to negotiate strong, favorable contracts. Still, we continue to strive to do a better job of communicating with our members and we really appreciate your taking the initiative in starting this dialogue.

3. Does the Judicial Council know that within CFI there are members who do not endorse the idea of being employees of the courts; and if they do, it is only as the last resort or out of fear?

The Judicial Council knows that, overall, interpreters who want to become employees are in the majority and those who favor independent contractor status are in the minority. Our approach has been to talk with certified and registered interpreters throughout the state regardless of their affiliation. What we have found is that to date more than 772 interpreters have said they want to be represented and take advantage of collective bargaining as employees. Indeed, these interpreters feel that they are already treated as employees and are denied fundamental rights and protections because of their misclassification. These interpreters are a strong majority of interpreters statewide and are members of BACI, CCIA and CFI. We are basing the bill's provisions of this support, and we owe it to all interpreters to establish the best system possible that will protect our professional standards and pay.

We think that most interpreters who are still on the fence about employee status can be accommodated through the option of per diem employment, which would give them the flexibility we understand they want. And we feel it is completely reasonable for interpreters to want a flexible option.

We also hope to be able to find a way to accommodate the much smaller number of interpreters who, for whatever reason, are adamant about not working as employees. The position of these interpreters, as we understand it, is for interpreters to choose their status. We know this sounds appealing, but it presents some very practical and legal problems. Employment status is not something that individuals choose. It is something that typically employers designate and the IRS labor laws define and control, and it must be based on some criteria that can be articulated and applied equally to everyone who works in a similar fashion.

We are very happy to dialogue with individuals and groups to make every attempt to make sure their concerns are addressed in formulating the legislation. However, we do also have the responsibility to create a system which a significant majority of interpreters favor and which would put interpreters in the position of having the greatest amount of bargaining power. And it's not often we have the opportunity to legislate our situation so it's important that we do not hastily propose a system to benefit a few which will undermine the wishes of the majority.

4. If we were to be given a choice of being independent contractors or employees (providing the Judicial Council acted in good faith and in a bilateral way), how many interpreters would vote either way?

There is no reason to believe that the Judicial Council can be relied upon to act in good faith or in a bilateral way. Recent actions regarding the model contract, discipline procedures and their refusal to meet with the interpreter associations show that. Our collective experience over the years has been that they are interested in keeping control over our profession while limiting our rights and our voice in the process. The Judicial Council and the courts can legally refuse to negotiate with contractors. Under the law, they cannot refuse to negotiate with employees.

A majority of certified and registered interpreters have already said what they want by signing the CFI/BACI petition. There are about 378 certified and registered interpreters who work in the state courts and have not yet signed the petition (although more signatures keep coming in). It is hard to say how those interpreters might vote. Based on our contact with interpreters, we believe many of them would choose employee status provided it offers them some flexibility, maintains high professional standards and doesn't make radical changes to their working conditions. We are confident we can accomplish that. Certainly if all interpreters (including those advocating for Independent Contractor status) can find a way to unite around the bill this will make us stronger. We hope you can help us do that by continuing this discussion.

5. If you or any one from CFI have answers to these questions, please e-mail them to me. There are other interpreters I work with who also want to know.

Thanks again for taking the time to communicate your questions. These are complicated issues and establishing a new system that will serve interpreters well is an ambitious project. Our profession is evolving and we must have a say in how it should evolve; we can't allow the Judicial Council to decide for us. We hope these answers are helpful, we are sure there is a need for further discussion, so please send us your feedback. Feel free to share this information with other interpreters.