Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17] >
Privatization of legal interpreting services in the UK
Thread poster: Trans_Interp
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 14:15
French to English
Allocation shortcomings? Feb 17, 2012

Peter Shortall wrote:

From the email quoted above: "the primary problem seem to be matching interpreters to jobs rather than insufficient supply"

Can anyone explain that one to me? If the supply is sufficient, why would it be difficult to match interpreters to jobs?


I took that to mean that they claim their database is bursting with interpreters in every pair imaginable, but that the system they use to find, contact and allocate them to actual assignments is pants.

How true that is, especially the "supply" aspect, I couldn't say. I believe the figure going around is that 60% of those who used to do this work have refused to do so for Absolute Language Shambles / Crapita.


 
Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: empty post
Laurent KRAULAND (X)
Laurent KRAULAND (X)  Identity Verified
France
Local time: 15:15
French to German
+ ...
Basic question Feb 18, 2012

Basic question, as I don't know much about the British system: how would such privatised legal interpreting services work in the case of a conflict of interests? Or is such a case very unlikely to happen?

 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:15
Member (2008)
Italian to English
GATS Feb 18, 2012

You won't be able to stop the privatisation of this, and of everything else.

The point of the GATS (the General Agreement on Trade in Services) is to encourage the private provision (or privatisation) of services in economies around the world. The GATS gives investors new rights and constrains government regulation of service-sector companies.

You weren't asked, and you still haven't been told. You never will be.

But if you're wondering why everything from
... See more
You won't be able to stop the privatisation of this, and of everything else.

The point of the GATS (the General Agreement on Trade in Services) is to encourage the private provision (or privatisation) of services in economies around the world. The GATS gives investors new rights and constrains government regulation of service-sector companies.

You weren't asked, and you still haven't been told. You never will be.

But if you're wondering why everything from water to healthcare to education is being privatised in all countries, you may be interested to read about the GATS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Trade_in_Services

[Edited at 2012-02-18 19:07 GMT]
Collapse


 
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 14:15
French to English
It's not about privatisation Feb 18, 2012

This is not a service that was previously an exclusively public-sector service which has now been privatised, like trains or phones or gas or whatever else. Private-sector agencies/individuals were happily providing this service previously. What happened was that the MoJ thought that this piecemeal, splintered approach was not cost effective, and that savings might result from placing a great deal of service provision in the hands of a single provider.

You might think that means ou
... See more
This is not a service that was previously an exclusively public-sector service which has now been privatised, like trains or phones or gas or whatever else. Private-sector agencies/individuals were happily providing this service previously. What happened was that the MoJ thought that this piecemeal, splintered approach was not cost effective, and that savings might result from placing a great deal of service provision in the hands of a single provider.

You might think that means our glorious Conservative, I mean coalition, free-market and local-private-sector-solution supporting government has kicked a free market of local private sector service providers into touch and instituted a state-sponsored competition-stifling private-sector quasi-monopoly in its place. If you thought that, I'd agree with you. If you said the key point was the unstoppable steam-roller of general privatisation, I wouldn't.
Collapse


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:15
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Well.... Feb 19, 2012

Welll... the title of this thread is "Privatization" (US spelling though?) "of legal interpreting services in the UK". And "placing a great deal of service provision in the hands of a single provider" is still privatisation - the kind that GATS really intended: not small-scale providers but the giant multinationals for whose benefit GATS was created.

[Edited at 2012-02-19 09:59 GMT]


 
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 14:15
French to English
Fair point Feb 19, 2012

Indeed, the title does call it that. I've always thought it odd. I think perhaps it gets viewed like that because, as you say, the end point we have reached has much in common with the end point reached after a genuine privatisation process. However, I would suggest that, in this case, the start point, not being a service that was provided largely by the public sector (by which I mean that the interpreters themselves were/are private sector providers), means that "privatisation" might not be exa... See more
Indeed, the title does call it that. I've always thought it odd. I think perhaps it gets viewed like that because, as you say, the end point we have reached has much in common with the end point reached after a genuine privatisation process. However, I would suggest that, in this case, the start point, not being a service that was provided largely by the public sector (by which I mean that the interpreters themselves were/are private sector providers), means that "privatisation" might not be exactly the right term. On the other hand, I believe some of the previously public-sector role (qualification) is now in the hands of a well-known private firm, so there is an element of privatisation in that sense.

I'm not sure the nomenclature is the main point. While doubts have been expressed about the process, I think the main issue is the end position interpreters now find themselves in given the specific private company that was selected (the main issue for readers of this thread, that is). I might be talking nonsense, but my guess is that if the T&C under which interpreters worked had been left untouched, fewer people would be moaning about "privatisation".

No, there are several issues here, and while some, such as me, may like to inject a bit of political rhetoric into our descriptions of the situation, it's not really about ideology. It's about a frankly piss-poor shower of bullshit merchants (read up on how the company founder got his first contract) now being unable to provide the service they are contracted to provide mainly because they refuse to pay the ultimate providers of that service anything like a fair fee for doing so.

[Edited at 2012-04-16 13:25 GMT]

[Edited at 2012-04-16 13:45 GMT]
Collapse


 
Tom in London
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 14:15
Member (2008)
Italian to English
shower Feb 19, 2012

Charlie Bavington wrote:

...... they refuse to pay the ultimate providers of that service anything like a fair fee for doing so.


In the same way in which privatised, lowest-bidder hospital cleaning companies hire underpaid unskilled workers to clean hospitals, and then people wonder why so many hospital patients die of infection. Or in which privatised, lowest-bidder prisoner transport contractors are hired to drive criminals to courtrooms, and then people wonder why so many prisoners escape. Similarly, privatised, lowest-bidder translators will inevitably produce (to borrow your term, Charlie) piss-poor translations.

As someone once said "you get what you pay for". This is how a market economy works. You don't get the best, you get the cheapest.


 
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 14:15
French to English
That there free market Feb 19, 2012

Indeed so, those examples are just some of many. Sadly, we seem cursed in this country with politicians (of all colours) seemingly combining two unfortunate characteristcs:
a) they know they price of everything and the value of nothing
b) an unhealthy enthusiasm for lining the pockets of their colleagues and old school chums.

In a truly free market, of course, you typically end up with a range of goods/services to suit all needs and pockets, on the basis of demand, from
... See more
Indeed so, those examples are just some of many. Sadly, we seem cursed in this country with politicians (of all colours) seemingly combining two unfortunate characteristcs:
a) they know they price of everything and the value of nothing
b) an unhealthy enthusiasm for lining the pockets of their colleagues and old school chums.

In a truly free market, of course, you typically end up with a range of goods/services to suit all needs and pockets, on the basis of demand, from dirt cheap to absolutely can't-possibly-be-worth-that-much-surely luxury items. Look at cars or handbags. Or indeed translation, in the world outside proz.

Anyway, my view is that if a large, centrally run "clearing house" style organisation was, in fact, the most effective way to run a service, the economics of that service, left to their own devices, i.e. in a free market, would have naturally gravitated to such an organisation. But that is not what happened. For anyone to claim that this centralised outsourcing arrangement is just free market economics in operation is simply false. There is nothing "free" about what is going on here. Nothing. Just because it is proposed and implemented by those who proclaim they are in favour of the free market, does not mean that a free market is what we get.
Collapse


 
Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule
Peter Shortall
Peter Shortall  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Romanian to English
+ ...
Timing Feb 20, 2012

According to the MoJ email, it's the matching of interpreters to jobs that is the problem, not a lack of willing workers, so the timing of this latest development is interesting. Is the fact that it has come just four days before the MoJ is due to reassess the situation sheer coincidence? It reminds me of the final public speech made by Nicolae Ceauşescu, after the mood of the assembled crowd turned ugly and he started making laughable promises of an extra few pennies when it finally dawned on ... See more
According to the MoJ email, it's the matching of interpreters to jobs that is the problem, not a lack of willing workers, so the timing of this latest development is interesting. Is the fact that it has come just four days before the MoJ is due to reassess the situation sheer coincidence? It reminds me of the final public speech made by Nicolae Ceauşescu, after the mood of the assembled crowd turned ugly and he started making laughable promises of an extra few pennies when it finally dawned on him that his comrades might not be entirely thrilled with their lot. I hope the interpreters have their endgame strategy worked out in case the government comes back to them cap in hand. Is there some horribly onerous penalty clause in the contract that is discouraging the MoJ from calling it a day now, I wonder? I'd also be interested to know whether the NRPSI interpreters are accepting or turning down any short-notice bookings that might be coming their way now after last week's developments.

[Edited at 2012-02-21 10:21 GMT]
Collapse


 
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 14:15
French to English
It is rather telling, isn't it? Feb 20, 2012

It does seem to rather imply that there is recognition that the rates on offer were just way too low. I doubt a fiver makes any difference to the view of the 60% of people who previously did this work and are now boycotting the company that secured the FWA. But it is significant as an admission that pay is an issue, even if the offer is derisory.

Given the doubling of the mileage allowance and this extra fiver, can we now expect new figures issued regarding the savings that are expe
... See more
It does seem to rather imply that there is recognition that the rates on offer were just way too low. I doubt a fiver makes any difference to the view of the 60% of people who previously did this work and are now boycotting the company that secured the FWA. But it is significant as an admission that pay is an issue, even if the offer is derisory.

Given the doubling of the mileage allowance and this extra fiver, can we now expect new figures issued regarding the savings that are expected to be made from this arrangement?
(I'm not holding my breath!)

I suspect, Peter, you may be right, and the MoJ is probably in for a financial hammering if they terminate early. If memory serves from past reading of Private Eye and suchlike, for some reason, these outsourcing contracts quite often result in the private firm having the relevant government department firmly by the contractual short and curlies.

[Edited at 2012-04-17 10:08 GMT]
Collapse


 
Peter Shortall
Peter Shortall  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Romanian to English
+ ...
Quid pro quo Feb 21, 2012

Online booking systems must be such a boon for agencies these days. Just think - if you ran an agency, you could pay interpreters a small fee to book themselves online (making the online booking a condition of the payment), so in addition to doing the interpreting, you could get them to take care of the booking too, reducing the number of call-handling staff you needed and cutting your phone bills. The interpreters would be doing your work for you and not getting their extra money for nothing, s... See more
Online booking systems must be such a boon for agencies these days. Just think - if you ran an agency, you could pay interpreters a small fee to book themselves online (making the online booking a condition of the payment), so in addition to doing the interpreting, you could get them to take care of the booking too, reducing the number of call-handling staff you needed and cutting your phone bills. The interpreters would be doing your work for you and not getting their extra money for nothing, so it would be a case of quid (literally) pro quo. Meanwhile, you could just sit back and put your feet up while the money came rolling in. Oh, the beauty of it!

[Edited at 2012-02-21 13:19 GMT]
Collapse


 
Charlie Bavington
Charlie Bavington  Identity Verified
Local time: 14:15
French to English
Today's report from the front Feb 21, 2012

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/local/court_frustration_over_missing_interpreters_1_3542391


(And Peter, you are far too devious!)


 
Katiebelo
Katiebelo
Local time: 14:15
If you can't beat them, write to them Feb 21, 2012

Letter to Lord McNally, Minister of Justice. To write your own letter go to the following URL and click "I want to Write to this Lord"
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=justice&pid=13129&wtt=2
Dear Lord McNally,
I am writing to you with reference to your reply to an oral question given in the House of Lords on 1st November 2011. The question relate
... See more
Letter to Lord McNally, Minister of Justice. To write your own letter go to the following URL and click "I want to Write to this Lord"
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=justice&pid=13129&wtt=2
Dear Lord McNally,
I am writing to you with reference to your reply to an oral question given in the House of Lords on 1st November 2011. The question related to existing professional qualifications granted by the Chartered Institute of Linguists and the intention of the coalition government to sideline the National Register of Public Service Interpreters that holds the names of those who hold the qualification.
Your response was: "My Lords, we are not doing this for fun. We are doing it because the present accreditation system was not working and there was a lot wrong with it. That is why we set up a new register. There were faults in the old register in the quality of assessment and we believe that, starting as we are with a new system, a new register is the most effective way of guaranteeing quality."
and
"The fact is that the old system was extraordinarily inefficient. Sometimes interpreters would get only one appointment in a week. Sometimes interpreters would not turn up, incurring costs to the court. Sometimes interpreters would subcontract to a totally unqualified interpreter. There were a lot of faults in the old system, which is why the previous Administration initiated the inquiry. Having looked at the outcome of that inquiry, we have adopted this new system, providing a new register with a single supplier. Let us see how it works. We have confidence that the system will work, that qualified interpreters will sign up to it and that they will get a volume of work that will give them a decent living."
I sincerely believe that your response is seriously misguided, on several fronts.
Firstly, how does the new system, based on a single self-regulating commercial organisation that will book interpreters; determine a rate for the job; monitor not only the quality of the interpreters’ work and need for further training and review but its own performance, improve the quality of delivery or quality assessment?
Secondly, where is the evidence to suggest that the new system, now in its fourth week, has been effective in guaranteeing quality?
Thirdly, where is the evidence that qualified interpreters have signed up to to this agreement?
Fourthly, since the UK is a signatory of the ECHR, only qualified interpreters can attend in Court. Hence there is a finite supply of interpreters for the demand. How then will the new agreement change the volume of work "that will give them a decent living"? Surely by lowering rates, the probability of earning a decent living is diminished.
Lastly, with reference to District Judge Ken Sheraton speech in court today:
"This is an issue of frustration. It is regrettable that again the organisation has not been able to supply interpreters. It makes it very difficult to proceed at a time when senior judiciary are asking that we work as swiftly as possible. This is far from being the only case affected by this and I understand it is happening across the country. If bail is appropriate with conditions I have to make sure defendants understand them, which is difficult without interpreters. I am adjourning this case until Wednesday, when I hope an interpreter will be available, but I give no guarantees."
Will you not concede that the new system is an abject failure, bound to cause a serious miscarriage of justice which will capture the attention of the mass-media.
In light of the above replies that you made in the House of Lords, I fear that if you do not heed this warning, your name will be dragged trough the mire and your credibility irrevocably damaged.
Yours sincerely,
Collapse


 
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17] >


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

Privatization of legal interpreting services in the UK







Trados Business Manager Lite
Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio

Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.

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! »