Judicial Council formed the Interpreter Act Working Group

n August of this year, in line with Recommendation 74 of the Language Access Plan, the Judicial Council formed the Interpreter Act Working Group; it was composed of court CEO’s, Judicial Council administrators and staff from the Court Interpreter Program, as well as both independent and union member employee interpreters. The Working Group was charged with reviewing and offering perspective on the present state of the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act, now incorporated into the California Government Code under Title 8, Chapter 7.5, Sections 71800 – 71829. The specific focus in the process was the four Region bargaining structure[1], the 100- & 45-Day Rule[2], and the Cross-assignment system[3]. The Working Group’s co-chairs, Judge Austin, formerly the chair of the Court Interpreter Advisory Group, and Kim Turner, Mendocino Superior Court CEO, explained that these specific topics had come to be on the group’s agenda because of commentary and inquiries from “shareholders” to language access in the courts. 

It should be noted that the Interpreter Act Working Group basically was a gathering for brainstorming ideas and perceptions about how these points in the interpreter law were functioning; the group was to determine whether these points in the law addressed the issue of language well, poorly, or so badly there must be a change, and whether that change requires a slight amendment to the law, or completely changing how the focus subject is handled within language access law. The group had the ability to make recommendations, but because of disparity in certain points of view and opinions, no recommendation was offered; instead the group compiled a summation of the variation, conflict, and agreement among the participant’s views as they relate to each one of the topics covered.

During the initial meeting of the Interpreter Act Working Group during the summer of 2017 there was commentary and questions raised concerning the lack of union member employee interpreters at the discussion. At the strong behest of a coalition of stakeholders, a total of five interpreters came to participate – four from CFI Local 39000, and one from Interpreter Guild of America, a unit in Local 39521.[4]There was value to the court interpreter union’s involvement, and value in our knowledge-base. This could be a step toward a more positive relationship between the Judicial Council and union member interpreters, the mainstays of providing language access in the courts. The feel during meetings[5]was welcoming, and non-interpreter participants were genuinely interested in the interpreter perspective; all interpreters who participated felt that we were accepted as equals at the roundtable of expertise. However, we had no illusions; we well knew that there would be disagreement, if not conflict on some of the issues, and the possibility that there would not be room for compromise on some of the discussion topics.

Both union member employee interpreter (CFI Local 39000) and independent contractor (Interpreter Guild of America) collaborated, not only during the meetings, but in preparation video chats before the scheduled phone calls. The result is aligning our combined perspective on the working group’s focus points. 

100- & 45-Day Rule

The attending court CEO’s and Language Access Services offices around the states presented the complaint that there are not enough certified/registered interpreters to service the needs of the courts; additionally, rural courts are found to have an even more dire need. The argument was that revoking the 100-day rule would remove the restraint against using independent contractors past the hundredth day, thereby creating a much larger pool to service the courts’ language needs. 

The interpreter response was that because of marginal requirements to offer employment after the 45^thday, there could be something that would truly increase interpreter resources, such as offering a full-time position after a longer period of providing services as an independent contractor. 

Cross-assignment System

The consensus within the Working Group is that the cross-assignment system is working well in some jurisdictions/regions and is inadequately meeting the language access needs in others. The large urban courts with more interpreter resources become the provider courts to those with fewer interpreters on the rosters, or varied language groups to choose from. There is a reticence on the part of resource-flush courts to share their interpreter pool, as presently it is difficult to know what their needs are far enough in advance to confidently share. Also problematic in cross-assigning is that the administrative procedures are cumbersome; centralizing the coordination toward state-wide collaboration could improve efficiencies; there was agreement that fixing this could go a long way toward better interpreter resource sharing. 

In comparison with other jurisdictions, the Sacramento Court has utilized the cross-assignment system more effectively; while other jurisdictions are only willing to cross-assign intermittent/part-time interpreters, if a full-time Sacramento interpreter is not needed for that day, the court will authorize him/her for cross-assignment. The interpreters in the group presented the following suggestions:

• In the cross-assignment system enable earlier authorization of release from the home court instead of the day before; anywhere from 2 to 5 days prior was held out as an example.
• All courts be willing to cross-assign any category of interpreter, whether full-time, part-time, or intermittent.
• In line with the Interpreter Act, courts (particularly provider courts) create full-time positions with the requisite that if not used at the home court, the interpreter would be cross-assigned. Provider courts should be given incentives to create these positions, as well as offer incentives to interpreters recruited into these positions.
• Consider making interpreters State employees, thereby allowing for sharing resources statewide, with centralized coordination.

Regional Bargaining vs. Statewide General Contract

The impetus for initiating this series of meetings was to address the regional bargaining structure; this was the issue on which the group spent the lion’s share of time. Regional bargaining is complicated for the Union in that, although there was some uniformity throughout the different contracts, there was enough disparity to cause most interpreters to gravitate toward regions with more favorable conditions, resulting in shortages in other areas of the state. All agreed that this structure is costly for all participants, rehashing the same issues with varying results for both courts and interpreters.

Although most of the participants expressed that a general state-wide contract would be preferable to the present system, the court representatives from Los Angeles and San Diego stated that they would rather be separated from any statewide structure, and bargain directly with the interpreters locally, unencumbered by other jurisdictions. Most shocking was San Diego’s suggestion that the interpreters simply be placed into the existing unions (SEIU, AFSCME) to simplify negotiations; the Union reminded the San Diego representative that union affiliation is determined by the interpreters, not local court administration. The interpreters present made it clear that CFI Local 39000 TNG-CWA is the representative of all employee interpreters in California, whether that structure be regional, or statewide.[6]Searching for a compromise, the staff leading the discussion suggested a “hybrid,” allowing the larger courts to opt-out and negotiate separate from other “regions” composed of the smaller jurisdictions. The interpreters clearly rejected the concept, mostly because in practice there is no change from the regional structure, just different names, and possibly even more groups with whom to carry out bargaining. The hybrid version is not a solution for anyone, save Los Angeles and San Diego.

Although the idea of a statewide bargaining for a general contract is advantageous to interpreters (and court administration) in many ways, there is a pantheon of kinks to be worked out:

• There is a high level of investment in local pensions plans; it is not clear if one could keep their present plan and benefits, or would one have to transfer into a State of California plan. The consensus is that a transition period would be needed to address this issue; there was a positive view for allowing present interpreters decide which benefit set is preferred. 
• It is unclear how to handle issues of seniority and standardizing pay scales; some jurisdictions have steps, while others do not. 
• As part of going to a statewide structure for bargaining, if interpreters are then made state employees, one issue is whether they will be required to relocate to address needs, similar to what is standard for other employees in the judicial system, such as judges.
• There are any number of complexities in consolidating the present four contracts into one statewide general contract. One consideration is to have a general contract that addresses the basic labor issues – salary, seniority, etc. – and then handle issues unique and specific to each jurisdiction via side letters. When pressed on that detail, the jurisdictions present did not identify the “unique/specific issues.” The result of a hybrid system could be an even larger number of sessions of meet & confer/negotiating.

 Some of the positive results of a statewide contract could lead to:

• A consistent base pay for interpreters, regardless of where located throughout the state. Interpreters who were reluctant to relocate because of impact to pay and/or benefits would not be constrained by these sorts of factors.
• More flexibility to relocate throughout the state.
• Consistency and uniformity in benefits and pensions, regardless of where located throughout the state.
• The “middle man” would be eliminated in interpreter budget considerations during the bargaining process; the state sets the budget and would be the entity with whom we directly negotiate, without the need to have the different judicial court entities involved (and possibly being obstructionist).
• All parties involved in the negotiating process would save money with a statewide approach.
• One singular advantage for the Union is that the entire local would be involved in bargaining; there is strength in numbers, and our impact on bargaining would be enhanced by focusing statewide, martialing our membership statewide, and getting results that are statewide. In a nutshell, more leverage.

In conclusion, what are we, both as court interpreters and union members, to understand from all this? Firstly, this is only a beginning that is basically a brainstorming of ideas and opinions; this Interpreter Act Working Group has compiled information to be presented to the Judicial Council, without any specific recommendations, as the group could not come to consensus as to endorsements for any course of action. We should understand that there are some notable differences of perspectives between courts and court interpreters regarding the Working Group’s subject matter, likewise, there are similar gaps in the viewpoints between the varying jurisdictions.

Union member representatives are collaborating with other sectors of certified interpreters to represent our members’ labor and professional interests at the Judicial Council. Moreover, the definitive decision as to how courts function is decided by elected representatives in the legislature, not the Judicial Council. We will have to be vigilant as to where the Judicial Council goes with this information; having a good legislative agenda and coordinated, focused lobbying efforts in the coming years will be key toward guiding Judicial Council policies and musings in a direction that brings meaningful language access to the courts, as well as protect our labor rights and professional tenets.

 In solidarity,

Janet Hudec
Tyler Nguyen
Pedro Ramírez Navas
Angie Birchfield
Michael Ferreira 

IAWG summary of work memo.pdf

IAWG_Roster_2018.pdf

Region 4 Bargaining Update

December 18, 2018 San Diego County

This morning’s negotiations started off with our lead spokesperson, Ed Venegas, addressing a big challenge your Bargaining Committee has been facing throughout these negotiations, which is release time for your Bargaining Team to prepare for the bargaining sessions, this has been and continues to be a challenge throughout these negotiations.  The region is refusing to give the committee paid time off in order to prepare for negotiating a fair and equitable contract. 
 
Ed’s opening statement: 
 
“I can go negative with this but I’m just going to lay out the facts.  Under the MOU, CFI has the ability to request time to put together proposals, analyze them and then present them for consideration. 
This committee has been working very hard and we take this job seriously. We sometimes work late into the evening from early morning. When the requests for time off are rejected or not handled in a timely manner, we then have no time to figure out other alternatives. This then presents other problems. We need to be able to get some kind of workable format. 
 
Monna Rodalouch was the lead spokesperson during this bargaining session and this was her response:
 
“You have gotten 3 paid release days, and we have very little to show for it. We are not inclined to give you more paid days. You can prepare over the phone, or through emails, or on the weekends or evenings, other units have done that” 
 
So far, your Bargaining Committee has presented proposals on 11 articles of the MOU, we presented an economic proposal and are working on VRI, and they consider this very little to show. The courts clearly do not understand that our profession is not like the other units or professions in the court. We are representing members from 5 counties. Not just one. Some of us on the committee travel almost 7 hours in one day just to get to the bargaining sessions or to the caucuses to prepare for negotiations.  Other units are only bargaining on behalf of one county. We have some very important issues to research that include legislation that other units don’t have to deal with. We have civil expansion and VRI, these are very important issues that will have a great impact on our future profession. It is not in the best interest of our profession and our members if we rush through these issues without first making sure that we dot all the “I’s” and cross all the “t’s”. We take our job very seriously and will continue to do so but it’s important that our members are well informed of the challenges we are facing throughout our efforts. 
 
During this session CFI rejected the Region’s proposal on Article 17: Intermittent Interpreters. 
 
The Courts’ proposal was to add language that would terminate an intermittent from their employment if they rejected work from the Court 5 consecutive times. 
 
Your Bargaining Team presented strong arguments on behalf of intermittents. The courts have refused to give them benefits because they claim intermittents are not committed to the courts and yet here they proposal asking for commitment from them with no promise for any benefits in return. 
 
Your Bargaining Team also argued that a lot of intermittent employees are being used full-time with no hopes for a full-time position. We presented an argument that some intermittents are not intermittents because they chose not to be. But rather, because a full-time position is not being offered to them. Even they are being used on a full-time bassis.
 
CFI also presented our economic proposal. 
The following was our proposal:
 
All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a total 26% increase to their base wage over the life of the contract. 12% upon ratification of the contract and 7% each consecutive year. 
 
Intermittent employees shall be paid at step 5 for the duration of the agreement. 
 
Mona, Region’s spokesperson, said, “Can’t say I’m thrilled with this” 
 
Your Bargaining Team presented our arguments to support why we believe this is a fair proposal. We also added that the burden of work caused by civil expansion and VRI as well as the fact that the Governor has authorized millions of dollars for civil expansion supports our wage proposal. 
 
We also indicated that employees from San Diego and Orange County have lost wages due to the retirement offset. While the reverse-pick up in Orange County continues to go up. It will go up to 6.743% in 2019. Add to this the cost of living which continues to go up and is projected to go up some more it is evident that interpreters will then be earning  a pay rate below what is required to survive in these counties.
 
We also informed the Region we are aware they have been willing to pay the independent contractors a higher wage rate while demanding that loyal employees continue doing all the extra work. This includes the added work load coming up with civil expansion and VRI. The courts’ loyalty should be with their employees and not a nonemployee independent contractor.
   
Aritlce 50: Volunteers and Interns
 
During a previous session your Bargaining Committee presented a proposal on Article 50, which was to remove this article from our contract. 
 
 We filed a request for information regarding how may volunteers and/or interns the Courts are using or have used. Their response was that at this time the courts are not using any volunteers or interns. It is your bargaining team’s position that if they aren’t using any interns or volunteers then there is no need to have this article in the contract. They replied that they would like to keep it in for recruitment purposes in order to introduce interns to this career by shadowing with interpreters and improving their skills. 
 
This article continues on the table for further discussion. 
 
Article 36: Workspace and Supplies
 
The Region mentioned this article during the afternoon session to remind us that our proposal on this article had been rejected and continues to be rejected. 
 
It is the Region’s position that there is no space in the courtroom for a chair or desk for interpreters. They indicated that they have offered alternatives such as: to wheel carts into the courtroom by the interpreter or to rope off a section in the courtroom. But, those alternatives have been declined by someone, they didn’t indicate who declined these alternatives. 
 
LouLou Tovar asked, “Isn’t there a requirement to provide ergonomic chairs to all employees including interpreters? Or are interpreters excluded from this requirement?”
 
Mona’s response was that they don’t have that requirement and that they would be willing to make accommodations if there’s a disability. 
 
Article 16: Assignments 
 
The court rejected our proposal to pay employees who are certified/registered in more than one language pair an annual 3% base wage adjustment per each additional certification/registration. 
 
Silvia San Martin argued: You are saving yourself 97% when you pay these interpreters an additional 3% because you don’t have to hire another interpreter and pay 100% of the rate and 3% is too much? Wow! 
 
Your bargaining team has been working hard and will continue to work hard at putting together more proposals to strive towards a righteous contract. 
 
We are putting up a strong fight, but we need ALL of your support to achieve the best contract possible for ALL! Our unity is our strength by presenting a united front before administration, we show our power.
 
Our next bargaining session will be on, January 17, 2019, Location TBD 
 
If you will be participating in the “Watch & Support” by taking time off to observe the negotiations, please request time off today. 
 
The team continues to encourage members to support negotiations by attending the bargaining sessions. We hope to see you there. 
 
A big “THANK YOU” to Shalom, Georgette and Gemma from San Diego for showing your support by sitting in to observe our session and participating in the “Watch & Support” 
 
 
We are in this together. UNITED we BARGAIN… DIVIDED we BEG
 
“In union there is strength. It’s the “U” and “I’ in union that makes us strong” 
 
 
In solidarity, 
 
Region 4, Bargaining Team 
CFI Local 39000, CWA-TNG
 
Maria Benitez
Jackie Ruiz
Silvia San Martin 
LouLou Tovar
Rebeca Vera
Ed Venegas- Spokesperson 

Comments from the "Watch & Support" observers - Georgette James and Shalom Solomon

The news images and stories that have come out of the recent California wildfires has been the subject much on the minds of everyone in both Northern and Southern California. Wildfires have devastated over 200,000 acres in Northern and Southern California and destroyed thousands of homes. 

During CFI’s CIMCE seminars event of November 17-18, President Bernie Lunzer informed the membership of CWA District 9’s Disaster Relief Fund which is specifically rendering aid to members, and others who are California wildfire victims.

Local 39000 would like to encourage all members to visit the link below to get informed about the scope of the disaster, and to contribute whatever you can to ameliorate the suffering of our members, and others in the communities that have hit by the worst fires in memory.

This site also has information about how to request assistance, should you be a member who has been impacted by the disaster.

This is what Union Strong is all about.
District 9 Disaster Relief Fund Webpage

[https://district9.cwa-union.org/news/disaster-relief-assistance-and-information-for-district-9-wildfire-victims]

 Sisters and Brothers-

 Let's be prepared for the next disaster, please sign-up for our training on Sat Dec 15th, 8:30 am-1 pm, if you are not able to participate, please refer someone to join our Resiliency Team, Thank you: 

I’m following up on the email your received from the President of the LA Fed, Rusty Hicks, regarding our efforts to create a Labor Resiliency Response volunteer team.

Region 4 Bargaining Update

October 22, 2018 Orange County

This morning’s negotiations started off with our “Watch & Support” getting an eye opening experience as they witnessed the court’s lead negotiator, Joe Wiley, try to bully and lash out on one of our bargaining team members, LouLou Tovar, for questioning him on his position regarding litigants having a right to bringing their own interpreter. He insisted that these interpreters do NOT need to be certified.  Our lead negotiator, Ed Venegas, requested a caucus to give Wiley time to cool off. 
 
This discussion was a result of CFI’s proposal from 9/25/18 Article 50; Interns & Volunteers. Your bargaining team requested information regarding any and all interns and volunteers that are being used to do any of CFI’s unit work. The court’s position is that they have stopped using volunteers 2 years ago and are no longer using any, anywhere in the region. 
 
The courts also proposed adding a new provision in our MOU for Union Business Leave. 
 
There was a Tentative Agreement on:
 
Articles, 22; payday- only change was employees will be required to authorize automatic deposit 
 
Article 25; Health Care- only change was the name of the General Unit in Imperial 
 
Article 28; Sick Leave- intermittent employees shall be provided sick leave under the California Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act consistent with the employer court’s policy or practice. 
 
Article 35; Safety– only change was to change the word “prisoner” to “inmate” 
 
The court rejected CFI’s proposal from 10/10/18 on Article 36; Workspace & Supplies
 
CFI proposed to add language to this article that would require the courts to make reasonable efforts to provide workspace for unit employees in the each courtroom. 
 
On October 10, 2018 the courts response to our proposal was “ We don’t think there’s a need for interpreters to have a workspace in the courtroom, since all they do is stand next to the defendant.” 
 
Your bargaining team presented some compelling counter arguments to this statement and mindset in hopes of educating the court, as a result, they agreed to put it back on the table for further discussion, on October 22, 2018, they didn’t follow through with the agreement for further discussion and simply rejected the proposal. 
 
The court insist that they treat interpreters exactly the same as they do all the other court unit members, but if that were the case, they wouldn’t have had a problem with giving us what the other unit members have in the courtroom, which is work space. 
 
Your bargaining team has been working hard and will continue to work hard at putting together more proposals to strive towards a righteous contract. 
 
Our next bargaining session will be in the afternoon, November 9, 2019 in Riverside. 
 
If you will be participating in the “Watch & Support” by taking time off to observe the negotiations, please request time off today. 
 
The team continues to encourage members to support negotiations by attending the bargaining sessions. We hope to see you there. 
 
A big “THANK YOU” to Nancy O’toole, Erica Ibarra, Adrienne Trunk , Ben Sanchez, Richard Barrientos, Frances Marin, Pam Santos for sitting in to observe our session by participating in the “Watch & Support” 

Also, “THANK YOU” to interpreters in Indio, San Bernardino and Orange County for showing your support and sending us your pictures. 

 
Your Bargaining team needs all of your support to achieve the best contract possible for ALL! We are in this together.  UNITED we BARGAIN… DIVIDED we BEG. 
 
Our unity is our strength by presenting a united front before administration we show our power. 
 
“In union there is strength. It’s the “U” and “I’ in union that makes us strong” 
 
In solidarity, 
 
Your Region 4, Bargaining Team 
CFI Local 39000, CWA-TNG
 
Maria Benitez
Jackie Ruiz
Silvia San Martin 
LouLou Tovar
Rebeca Vera
Ed Venegas- Spokesperson