in outsourcing, profession

Interpreter Economics of Cartels and Price Fixing – Unionise or Unite?

In the last week, the previous blog post on Interpreter Price Wars sent a small flurry of comments into the inbox. A few days later someone posted a query on a Sign Language Interpreters e-group regarding price fixing. A few days after that an interesting post appeared from Street Leverage entitled: Should Sign Language Interpreters Unionize? Here follows a response:
Price fixing was an accusation many held about interpreters when the profession had years where supply and demand was in our favour. With only a few hundred interpreters in the market there was plenty of work to go around and those that were interpreting were the ones the Deaf community had decided were good enough.
Enter years of public interest in the profession, enter greater accessibility to basic BSL qualifications and a lack of understanding of the need for interpreter standards and registration, enter the creation of mainstream qualifications i.e. the dreaded NVQ.  It has served neither the interpreting profession nor Deaf people well. For every good NVQ Interpreting course, with additional teaching and high standards, there are two more who churn out candidates at lower standards for profit or even to supply an interpreting agency linked to the owners of the course.
Enter an economic crisis, enter government cuts, enter outsourcing and bring on a smidgen of the Fear i.e. will I be able to cover my mortgage this month and should I just accept that job for less fees? A handful of agencies in these market conditions jumped on a chance to dramatically cut prices of suppliers i.e. interpreters. In this way they were acting as a implicit cartel. We now have a market where the effects of an Oligopoly have been stimulated. How? Think of the market where there are a few big agencies holding numerous contracts in one local area. Or one large agency holding what is effectively a sole provider contract for a government contract, whether this is locally or nationally.
Illegal price fixing and anti-competitive behaviour is hard to prove though not impossible. The solution for many suppliers is to join a union. In the UK think farmer’s milk prices and Tesco. The National Farmers Union helped to make their story a success. Beware bad press: the Telegraph reported at the time of those horrible farmers increasing prices.
So how do Interpreters resolve the current issues in their market? Unionise or not? For many having a union is unpopular for the same points Antonio details in his post for Street Leverage.
He concludes that perhaps other methods are more suitable and uses the example of the Writers Guild of America who have organised strikes repeatedly throughout their history causing in 2007-08 chaos for American TV. Sign Language Interpreters in the UK could feasibly do this. The easier and perhaps less organised way is for interpreters to simply not drop their fees. But can we do this without a greater unity?
He points out that in the US they have RID and other organisations. Here in the UK we have three organisations for interpreters or those who may work as interpreters (moot point) plus a registration body. There used to be a one membership body and one for registration. It was easier then and we were more co-ordinated as a profession. It would be easier if this were the case now. In the field of spoken language interpreting, especially public service interpreting, there are just too many organisations. Try looking up ITI, CIoL, SPSI, PIA, NUPIT alongside the Say No to ALS and No to Peanuts campaigns. There has been some great work done in getting questions discussed in parliament. Ultimately this work would be a lot more powerful were there less confusion and more unity. Strength in numbers as it were.
Antonio raises other questions which can be tailored for the UK:
How can we talk about unionising to increase awareness and an understanding of market forces in our profession?
What workshops do we need to provide to empower interpreters to run themselves as businesses earning reasonable fees and enabling them to stay in the profession?
How do we reach the increasing number of interpreters who are not part of any organisation and do not understand the effects their actions may have on the wider profession?
What other gaps in the profession are there that we need to consider and resolve?
If you have the answers or would like to respond please leave a comment below. There will be much more to say on this topic…

Write a Comment

Comment

  1. Here in the U.S., so many colleges and universities now offer courses in interpreting for the deaf. Consequently, interpreting is no longer considered a specialized skill and the market has become somewhat saturated in the past decade and I do not believe it is the economy playing a role. In fact, ever since we have started the video relay service (VRS), we’re now experiencing the opposite. Many interpreters moved to VRS call centers in faraway cities. That’s the very reason we’re experiencing a severe shortage of interpreters here in Orange County, California, for courts, job interviews, and so forth.

    • Interesting to see the effects VRS has had in the U.S. We have yet to experience that here.
      I think some agencies here are using the economy as an excuse to drive down prices, which effects the competition and can create a downward spiral effect.
      The fact there are more of us now and we are seen as less specialised definitely does not help. Less experienced people are doing certain jobs too and it ultimately means a reduction in quality for the Deaf consumer of interpreting services.

  2. Thanks, I found this really interesting… 
    I’ve seen quite a few jobs sub-contracted out recently via Remark, where the agency has clearly skimmed money off the interpreter fee and stated that they can only pay the interpreter ‘££’ (insert nominal amount) but what I’m unclear about are the legalities of doing so…
    If they are claiming the interpreter fee as part of their admin fee, isn’t this stealing from the client?

    • Depends how the agency bill the client and their transparency as to whether it is fraud. It may the agency skimming the client in which case client should walk and find someone more reputable.
      Price fixing usually applies to suppliers not buyers which is why interpreters can not collude to set a minimum fee.
      Agency charges… a charge of £200 for interpreting and £30 for admin. Pay interpreter £150 = £30 for agency costs and £50 profit. Not stealing. It’s business. Interpreter says I’m charging £170, agency gets less profit, interpreter gets more. It’s up to the interpreter to charge what they want/can.
      This is business and market forces at work. A business will try to make more profit = squeeze the supplier for a reduced cost. To be squeezed or how not to be squeezed that is the question. i.e. unite/unionise/strike… and get really business savvy and make sure all interpreters get it…

  3. The agencies that work on a national basis have no idea of the geographical challenges for people in some areas. I get offered a 2 hour fee for work 1 and a half hours away because of the rural nature of my area. A 2 hour job equates to 5 hours out of the house and makes any other job impossible that day.
    Younger interpreters or those unsure of their skill/popularity accept these jobs and can not see why their decision has any effect on the rest of us.

  4. I have an example of price fixing from Remark! I was booked for a job that was then transfer to a new agency – The Big Word. I spoke to my clients and they informed me that they had not changed agency for any particular reason (not a budget issue) but as an NHS funded organisation they were required to use this new agency by the powers that be. (Despite my name being stated as the preferred interpreter to book), The Big Word contacted Remark! to source a BSL interpreter, their public advert stated that ‘This is a booking through an agency and this booking has to be £85 inclusive of travel’ ( is this because two agencies are taking a cut?) I can tell you that my fee for this job, which has never been disputed, was £110. My client disappointedly informed me another interpreter had been booked and asked if I would be able to work with them again in the future, sadly my response had to be, only if the agency is willing to work by my T&C. A company that claims to serve its Deaf clients hasn’t been very successful in this example, the clients and myself have a great rapport and have worked together for a period of time, I understand their background and signing style. I believe a great disservice has been performed here because of a few pounds. So, I ask, Was the final outcome of a satisfactory nature? Did the client save money AND get a fully qualified interpreter who had the appropriate experience and skills? (hmm..) Where has the rest of the monies gone? Into someone else’s pocket I suspect…
    Great BLOG btw – loving the honesty!

Webmentions

  • Interpreters: Staying in the Profession | Anonymous Interpreters 25th July 2012

    […] an earlier blogpost discussing Interpreters and Economics and asking if interpreters should Unionise or Unite there were a series of questions listed for […]

  • Weekly favorites (Feb 6-12) | Adventures in Freelance Translation 25th July 2012

    […] quality: Why you can’t afford any mistakes How Translators Can Get More Work and Clients Interpreter Economics of Cartels and Price Fixing How to begin negotiations with translation agencie Abbreviations & acronyms – the bane of my […]

  • Interpreter Economics of Cartels and Price Fixing – Unionise or Unite? | Metaglossia: The Translation World | Scoop.it 25th July 2012

    […] } #themeHeader #titleAndDescription * { color: black; } interpreteranon.wordpress.com – Today, 11:35 […]