Should the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf Sue?
Is there any merit to the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) litigating to advance the rights of sign language interpreters to reasonable working conditions and employment practices, and laws that defend their eligibility to work? Clearly, litigating has both a financial and a political cost and these costs should not be underestimated.
As it occurs to me, the pros and cons of RID taking a more offensive position in advocating for our rights are:
Pros of Litigation
- Cases will lead to a body of information related to appropriate working conditions and practices when employing interpreters.
- Publicly exposes organizations for interpreter abuse.
- Creates an opportunity for industry stakeholders to work together to seek accountability for business practices and working conditions.
- Imposes a financial hardship on offending organizations/individuals.
- Uncovers the facts, which assists in identifying the people that can legitimately deliver solutions.
- A demonstration that RID has a no non-sense approach to fulfilling its charge to protect and promote the interests of sign language interpreters.
Cons of Litigation
- Establishes an adversarial relationship with the private businesses and government entities that employ interpreters.
- The financial cost.
- A lost case can create a damaging precedent, which makes it more difficult to defend our interests.
- Increased scrutiny of interpreter conduct and practices.
- Heightened conflict within the industry.
- Strains collaboration between RID, private business and government entities on shared interests.
- May have to pay court costs for the other side.
Which Situations?
Endeavoring to hold individuals and/or organizations accountable for unsatisfactory working conditions is—and has been—a difficult proposition. While I am not—and I don’t believe many would be—in favor of the concept of litigating for the sake of litigating, I do believe that there are situations where we would greatly benefit should RID take a more offensive position. You may be thinking, “Well, what situations exactly, Brandon!?”
To name a couple, I believe RID should evaluate the merits of any case where an interpreter is being tried in a court of law related to their role, work product and/or or ethical practices, and get involved based on the merits of each particular case. Further, it is my view that RID should take a more offensive role when legislation is being crafted that will adversely impact an interpreter’s ability to perform their work and earn a livable wage.
In the End
RID occupies an important role, representing the voice of the sign language interpreter, and if necessary should throw a little weight around to ensure we are heard. It is one thing to inherently understand that poor working conditions or deflationary practices render an interpreter unable to deliver their art and quite another to do something about it. As interpreters, we should leverage all the resources we have to ensure we are able to do our work effectively. RID is one of those resources.
Category: Blog, Politics & Regulatory
About the Author (Author Profile)
Brandon is a nationally certified sign language interpreter and passionate industry entrepreneur. He has worked on both the practicing and business sides of the industry for the past 15 years. He is a devoted father and husband and enjoys the sport of triathlon.Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Before we entertain thoughts of litigation to advance our cause, I think we should be introspective about our working conditions and employment practices here at home, so-to-speak, and clean up our own act.
I will come back and check the posts a year from now (29 Nov 2012) to see if anyone can provide an exception to the rule that the RID is the ONLY professional organization that requires membership to maintain credentials.
The AMA doesn’t, in fact the membership of physicians in the AMA is less than 40 per cent the last time I checked. That’s right, 60 per cent of the doctors you visit do not receive the Journal of the AMA unless they decide to subscribe to it, nor are they members of their trade organization. The ABA doesn’t, although they have over 50 per cent of attorney’s as members. The APA (American Psychology Assoc) doesn’t. Neither do school systems require NEA nor a state affliate membership in order for someone to be hired as a teacher.
And don’t try to use Unions as an example, you do not lose your credentials as a Master Electrician if you are not a union member, you may have difficulty getting a job on a union job-site but you keep your license.
Just about all these organizations offer opportunities for CEUs but you do not have to be a member to receive the benefit.
How many of you have ever interpreted a job interview in which someone had to produce a membership card in any organization to be deemed eligible for a position? Only sign language interpreters have to do that to sign on to an interpreter provider agency; its happened to me.
How many of you have to join your college alumni association in order for your degree to remain valid?
People tell me I should WANT to be a member of the RID. “Want to be” and “not having a real choice” are not the same. I prefer to have a choice in what organizations I join and of having the option of voting with my wallet when I feel it appropriate.
Paul,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with your point, that as an industry, we need to “be introspective about our working conditions and employment practices here at home…and clean up our own act.” You identify a clear challenge that RID would face if it litigated for a specific set of working conditions to be present. It is no secret that as an industry (the sum of its practitioners) we often don’t agree on work practices, which is only more challenging in a struggling economy.
The question that I have is, is it possible for our industry to collectively be introspective and collectively clean up our act? Honestly, I don’t know that it is. And to wait until we figure something out allows states, who are already taking an aggressive position, to continue to define our eligibility for work and our work practices. As we know, to “undo” legislation is difficult and to negate its impact nearly impossible. Consequently, I still believe it is something as an industry we should entertain. This is a regular function for most associations representing a particular profession.
Related to your comments regarding the conflict of interest inherent in RID being a professional association and certifying body, are you suggesting that this conflict be one of the items of “clean up” prior to taking a more offensive legal position? Or, are you making the case that as an industry this conflict is something that we need to work to resolve?
Brandon,
I think it is something that we first need to correct as an organization. We, individually, do not have the same rights as those in any other trade or profession to seek a professional life without being married to a “professional” organization with whom we may not want to be affiliated.
I have seen advertisements for Federal Government interpreter positions which state: “RID Certification required” and I cringe. The way it is currently set-up, on the RID website, there is a navigation bar called “Find an Interpreter/member” with the caveat that only members are listed therein. From the RID policy, if you are not a member in good standing, you are not certified. It is not like that in any other professional organization, nor should it be.
I have talked with Government Contracting Officers to see if there is any other private organization to which someone needs to be a member to be deemed eligible to work for the Federal Govt, and of course there are none. But we have to show our membership card to show that we are certified.
Its wrong.
Your membership card is not just a membership card. The issue with RID is simply that it is a multi-purpose organization. We could strip the Views and the academic side of the RID, and then it would purely be your annual fees to maintain your certification. This would be analogous to a CPA that must pay yearly for their fees, clergy often also have similar policies. Having to pay into an organization to maintain your professional ability to function in that organization is not unique. The unique part of RID is that it has combined several elements into a single organization.
These responses confuse me. It seems as though the perspective is that RID is a professional organization that only provides professional development. By being an RID CERTIFIED interpreter a hiring entity has the validation that your skills have been evaluated. It means that the hiring entity can feel assured that you have at some level displayed a minimum of competencies that are necessary for that assignment. Being an RID member does not mean that I receive a monthly journal only and that validates my interpreting credentials. Why would you take issue with a request for validation of credentials and evaluation of skills? Many employers set degree requirements because they have a specific skill set necessary which can be achieved through educational degrees which validate a candidates minimum qualification for a job. All of the orgiizations mentioned above are professional affiliations but do not provide evaluations. You must pass state and national bar exams to practice law, you must hold licenses to practice medicine. Because there has yet to be a government agency controlling certification, it makes it difficult for a hiring entity to gauge the quality of services. Even massage therapists have AMTA certification which allows a therapist to practice nationally and is a requirement in many states. In Texas, to practice massage therapy one must either hold AMTA certification (which does not have government oversight, similar to the structure of RID) or must pass a state exam and have at least 500 contact hours of education and practical experience.