| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Why oppose regulation of translation and interpreting professions? Thread poster: yolanda Speece
|
|---|
sarahl (X)
Local time: 06:08
English to French
+ ...
| Why regulate the profession, to start with? | Aug 2, 2005 |
Frankly, I don't think we even need such a law.
Hospitals who need liaison interpreters should probably realize that what they need is a professional service. If they don't know the first thing about it, they should probably use an agency. If they are not satisfied, then they can try another one.
I fail to see what a law would accomplish.
| | | | Peter Linton (X) 
Local time: 14:08
Swedish to English
+ ...
| Who regulates the regulators? | Aug 2, 2005 |
There may be the case for regulating in certain critical areas such as health care and legal work in courts, because a lot is at stake. But outside such sensitive areas, it is hard to see regulation as anything but what the economist Adam Smith so perceptively described in 1776:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
That sums up one... See more There may be the case for regulating in certain critical areas such as health care and legal work in courts, because a lot is at stake. But outside such sensitive areas, it is hard to see regulation as anything but what the economist Adam Smith so perceptively described in 1776:
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
That sums up one of my objections to regulation - the hidden agenda is often to reduce competition and raise prices. Another objection is summed up in my title. I have many other objections, and these are all excellently summarised by Mats Wiman above. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Rosa Maria Duenas Rios (X)
Local time: 09:08
| I am not sure a law would help | Aug 2, 2005 |
yolanda Speece wrote:
More than anything, it was designed to inform people about the
qualifications these types of translators should have.
I do not think a law is required for this. Organizations like ATA can help spread the word. What would happen to a person who translates/interpretes in the health care field without having the adequate credentials? Will s/he be fined? Sent to jail?
yolanda Speece wrote:
More often than not, people really do not know what they are hiring. It all goes back to translator myths -we joke about them but some people really believe them. This bill was designed to clear the air about translators and interpreters in this particular field. It defines both as separate entities and defines their qualifications.
Again, I do not think a law would solve the problem. I have seen what goes on in hospitals when they receive patients that do not speak English. It is true that the patients do not know much about what an interpreter should do and is expected to do. However, if hospitals wish to provide a good service (and not be sued) they need to make sure they hire good interpreters/ translators; how they make sure of this, should be left up to them, in the same way in which pharmaceutical companies have relied in "non legislated" translators for the translation of drug-related information.
If all these health care interpreters/translators were to work for the government (like in the case of judicial interpreters), then the type of regulation proposed MIGHT work, but I do not think it is feasible in the private sector.
Why not treat interpreters/translators just like physicians, lawyers, accountants, nurses, and so many other professionals? You pass an exam, you are accredited by your professional body, then you can exercise your profession. Why a law that determines even who is going to sit in the advisory committee? It really does not make much sense to me!
| | | | yolanda Speece
Local time: 08:08
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | So then, what would you do to insure this was carefully done so that it helps the profession? | Aug 3, 2005 |
You said:
It's also used as a lucrative business by those who provide the training necessary to get licensed.
With regard to this, isn't the ATA the only game in town when it comes to this at the present time?
You also stated:
How would you prove competency?
What test would you administer? What training would you require, and who would be qualified to give it.
This would come later. The important thing now is to se... See more You said:
It's also used as a lucrative business by those who provide the training necessary to get licensed.
With regard to this, isn't the ATA the only game in town when it comes to this at the present time?
You also stated:
How would you prove competency?
What test would you administer? What training would you require, and who would be qualified to give it.
This would come later. The important thing now is to set up the foundation which is why I am asking what you would recommend to insure that this was carefully done so that it helps the profession?
Thanks!!!! ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
yolanda Speece
Local time: 08:08
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
[quote]Rosa Maria Duenas Rios wrote: I do not think a law is required for this. Organizations like ATA can help spread the word.
Well, let me put it this way. Would you trust a surgeon who passed the state boards and had a license to practice in the state or would you prefer a surgeon who is a member of the American Medical Association (AMA)?
Would you trust an attorney who passed the state boards and had the OK to practice law in the state or would you prefer someone who simply purchased an ad in Findlaw.com.
Most professions seem to have a level of proficiency. Why is it that you have no problem with an ATA accreditation or accepting proficiency from this organization and not a state- regulated acceditation?
Do you know who created the ATA?
Do you know who is grading those tests?
Why is it that you have to pay for your membership, the practice tests, and the test? Why do you have to be a member to take the test?
The ATA is exactly what you are arguing against. The ATA is a bureaucracy that does more harm than good to the profession in some instances.
Why should the ATA be the only game in town? If you are truly talking about a market economy, why not offer an alternative to this accreditation. Isn't the ATA accreditation simply a monopoly at this time?
I think there does have to be a law and there has to be some regulation. In a perfect world with a perfect government and perfect people who do perfect jobs, I can see your point. But we don't live in a perfect world.
So let me ask you again: What would you change about this legislation?
[Edited at 2005-08-03 05:11]
| | | | yolanda Speece
Local time: 08:08
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Good point, Peter! | Aug 3, 2005 |
[quote]Peter Linton wrote: There may be the case for regulating in certain critical areas such as health care and legal work in courts, because a lot is at stake.
The people who created this legislation were translators and interpreters. It is a grass roots effort. There is no smoke and no mirrors. There is no funny looking man behind the great and powerful Oz. Some of these people work in legal, others work in Health care. This bill is basically for the health care field and you are right. A lot is at stake, which is why someone decided to bring this legislation to the forefront.
There is no hidden agenda. The agenda is to insure that a patient receives the best care possible and that includes an accurate and professional translation/interpretation. It is also to insure that the appropriate people are in place to render that service.
When developing this type of legislation there are going to be mistakes. Once again, I ask, how would you change this?
| | | | yolanda Speece
Local time: 08:08
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Thank you for being so direct in your answer | Aug 3, 2005 |
sarahl wrote:
Frankly, I don't think we even need such a law.
Hospitals who need liaison interpreters should probably realize that what they need is a professional service. If they don't know the first thing about it, they should probably use an agency. If they are not satisfied, then they can try another one.
I fail to see what a law would accomplish.
Would it surprise you to know that some of the people involved in the creation of this bill work for agencies? If agency representatives see the need, and people who specifically perform this type of work are behind this bill, then obviously it is not just the government involved.
If you fail to see what a law would accomplish in this respect, then do you also fail to see a need for other laws that regulate business practices, the distribution of food and medications, and other such products and services that we consume each day?
There is a need and I think you all bring up very good points but we do need something like this on the books and the best way to insure that it is done right is to find the flaws and correct them.
How would you change this legislation to where it would benefit the translator/interpreter and all other parties involved?
[Edited at 2005-08-03 05:07]
| | | | sarahl (X)
Local time: 06:08
English to French
+ ...
well, the people who call me to do conference work don't know the first thing about what I do. All they have to go on is recommendations, a resume, and the client's feedback -sometimes. That hardly qualifies them to determine whatever criteria you have in mind.
Mats explained very well how we all feel about this.
Besides, from the looks of it, they are trying to screen hospital interpreters, possibly the way they do for court interpreters. I have to admit I know nothing... See more well, the people who call me to do conference work don't know the first thing about what I do. All they have to go on is recommendations, a resume, and the client's feedback -sometimes. That hardly qualifies them to determine whatever criteria you have in mind.
Mats explained very well how we all feel about this.
Besides, from the looks of it, they are trying to screen hospital interpreters, possibly the way they do for court interpreters. I have to admit I know nothing about the liaison market so I'll pass. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Rosa Maria Duenas Rios (X)
Local time: 09:08
| Clarification | Aug 3, 2005 |
yolanda Speece wrote:
Most professions seem to have a level of proficiency. Why is it that you have no problem with an ATA accreditation or accepting proficiency from this organization and not a state- regulated acceditation?
Do you know who created the ATA?
Do you know who is grading those tests?
Why is it that you have to pay for your membership, the practice tests, and the test? Why do you have to be a member to take the test?
The ATA is exactly what you are arguing against. The ATA is a bureaucracy that does more harm than good to the profession in some instances.
Why should the ATA be the only game in town? If you are truly talking about a market economy, why not offer an alternative to this accreditation. Isn't the ATA accreditation simply a monopoly at this time?
I am not arguing especifically in favor of ATA, it is just that the organization is already there, and is composed of members of the profession, so it would be the logical place to start. But since we are talking about a Texas bill, the state's translators/interpreters association, if there is one, could also be a good place to start.
My understanding is that bar associations and medical boards are PRIVATE entities recognized by the government, and that it was these private entities who decided their professions should be licensed, and who determine the tests that need to be passed and who grades them; whether they are good or bad is another story that should be looked at separately, I believe. I am not sure if members have to pay for their membership, but it would be most logical; otherwise, how would the organizations support themselves?
And as for the ATA being a monopoly, all the boards, bars and organizations that regulate other professions are monopolies as well. And the government certification proposed by the bill would also be a monopoly, only a government monopoly. The point is that if you are going to regulate a profession, one standard sounds more logical than many different standards.
But my main point is let the members of their profession establish the criteria to regulate themselves; I do not believe this is something that governments should be doing. In orther words, I am not saying that the profession should not be regulated, I am saying that I do not think the government should do it directly, just like it does not do it with lawyers, architects, nurses, physicians, and the rest. Government should do it in the case of court interpreters because the government is the only buyer of such services.
[Edited at 2005-08-03 12:36]
| | | | | So we don't want regulation | Aug 3, 2005 |
Apparently, we do not want anybody to decide:
What our liability is
What our rights are
What our customers are to expect from us
What our knowledge should be
What a proper performance of our profession should be like
(You may add here your favorite professional concern)
Well, that's fine. We could do it for ourselves. The problem is that it seems that we cannot agree on a basic professional charter (voluntary or compulsive, but enforceable)... See more Apparently, we do not want anybody to decide:
What our liability is
What our rights are
What our customers are to expect from us
What our knowledge should be
What a proper performance of our profession should be like
(You may add here your favorite professional concern)
Well, that's fine. We could do it for ourselves. The problem is that it seems that we cannot agree on a basic professional charter (voluntary or compulsive, but enforceable) that covers some basic questions that are in urgent need of clarification. And if we cannot agree on what a translator is supposed to be paid for (and what his/her responsibility should be), it is wishful thinking to pretend that our customers know better. IMO, if we do not organize our profession, somebody else will do it.
Best regards ▲ Collapse
| | | | yolanda Speece
Local time: 08:08
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | We can't not have some kind of regulation. | Aug 3, 2005 |
I don't think anyone off the street should be able to say they can do this job when they can't just like I don't think it is right for someone to say he/she are a pilot when he/she is not, get paid for it and potentially crash a plane killing innocent people.
Why? Because that means I am or you are out of a project and this person who claims to be able to do my job takes that client's money and could potentially jeopardize someone's life.
I don't think that it is fa... See more I don't think anyone off the street should be able to say they can do this job when they can't just like I don't think it is right for someone to say he/she are a pilot when he/she is not, get paid for it and potentially crash a plane killing innocent people.
Why? Because that means I am or you are out of a project and this person who claims to be able to do my job takes that client's money and could potentially jeopardize someone's life.
I don't think that it is fair to me or you and I certainly don't feel it is fair to the person paying for that service.
So what would make it right? What would satisfy you other than saying the government should not get involved?
The government needs to get involved because at the present time, we are not doing a good job of governing ourselves.
Even businesses have some regulation in their fields.
Look at it from the view of the government. This is a profession that is being practiced in their state and there is the potential for their constituents to be hurt or killed if it isn't done right (HEALTHCARE TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION).
I understand the issue of liability and all of these things that you have brought up.
The bill, if you notice, is merely an introduction of things to come. We have to start somewhere. Some of the people that have worked to get this legislation written are people like us. They are not lawmakers but they see a need to regulate this specialty within the field.
Offer some guidance!
I just want to know how you all would make it right so that it WOULD BE beneficial to the field because it is going to keep getting submitted and sooner or later it will pass. If you see flaws, correct them. Read the bill carefully.
Right now, before anything like this IS passed, we need to determine what will make it beneficial to all involved.
We need to have translators, interpreters, associations and agencies involved because we need representation. We need to have physicians, insurance companies, etc. involved because they are going to do the contracting and they need to let us know what they need.
Once again, I must emphasize that this is a bill to form a committee to create some sort of order to a profession that is really not regulated and it needs to be.
Please don't use the ATA because they do not work in favor of the Translator/Interpreter! They work in favor of their pocket books! A government regulated agency for health care translators and interpreters will work for and protect the profession, their clients and their clients' clients.
I don't know what else to say. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
two2tango
Argentina
Local time: 10:08
Member
English to Spanish
+ ...
| What government? | Aug 3, 2005 |
yolanda Speece wrote:
Please don't use the ATA because they do not work in favor of the Translator/Interpreter! They work in favor of their pocket books! A government regulated agency for health care translators and interpreters will work for and protect the profession, their clients and their clients' clients.
Just a concern more related to translators (as I imagine interpreters to be more local, as their physical presence is required):
Since translations are a global affair where a translator in any place of the wide world can translate a job for a customer in any other place, the question of what government should be the regulator is not trivial.
Regards,
Enrique
| | | | yolanda Speece
Local time: 08:08
English to Spanish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Hello, Enrique | Aug 3, 2005 |
two2tango wrote:
Since translations are a global affair where a translator in any place of the wide world can translate a job for a customer in any other place, the question of what government should be the regulator is not trivial.
Regards,
Enrique
In this case, the law would affect only Texas. A business proprietor in Texas cannot open up shop in North Carolina unless they register that business in North Carolina and pay taxes in North Carolina. The same applies to a business proprietor in the United States wanting to open up shop in another country. It is possible but it requires getting registered in that foreign country and agreeing to abide by their rules and pay their taxes.
The same thing would apply to translators and interpreters within the state of Texas. It is a way to regulate the profession in the State of Texas.
I am not saying this would not set a precedent because I am sure it could and would.
This is why it is integral to find out what is wrong with this bill and correct it. As I stated previously, it will continue to be submitted until it does get approved.
It's better to fix it up now rather than getting it passed with flaws.
| | | | two2tango
Argentina
Local time: 10:08
Member
English to Spanish
+ ...
So, in this way, translator from Texas would be given a monopoly, leaving out translators from outside Texas.
I find this dangerous.
Enrique
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Why oppose regulation of translation and interpreting professions? | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
