California Translators, Interpreters Win Exemption From Gig Worker Bill AB5

加州口笔译员获《AB5号临时工人法案》豁免

2020-09-01 15:30 slator

本文共952个字,阅读需10分钟

阅读模式 切换至中文

California translators and interpreters (T&Is) have reason to celebrate — at least the vast majority who opposed AB5. On August 20, 2020 the State Senate Appropriations Committee approved and unanimously voted in AB 2257, an amendment to gig worker bill AB5, which went into effect January 1, 2020. Freelancers started to feel the heat even before then, as some language service providers (LSPs) canceled contracts to avoid potential penalties brought on by engaging T&Is who, under the new bill, would need to be classified as employees rather than independent contractors. Some professionals explored the option of registering their business so as to continue working, but found that certain LSPs preferred to avoid the complications of working with California-based linguists altogether. That loss of work to T&Is outside California prompted the Coalition of Practicing Translators and Interpreters of California (CoPTIC) to advocate for an exemption to AB5. CoPTIC’s premise was simple: AB5, authored by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, was designed to protect gig workers from exploitation; highly educated and specialized T&Is are not gig workers. The bill did not reflect the realities of the US language industry, CoPTIC and its allies argued, and clients compelled to become employers would take their business elsewhere. California Senate Bill 900 (SB900) initially offered hope for an amended AB5, but its May 14, 2020 hearing was canceled at the last minute, much to CoPTIC’s disappointment. Another assembly bill, AB 1850, provided an exemption for “certified translators” under Professional Services (though interpreters were exempted under “referral agencies”); after the hearing for AB 1850 was also canceled, its content was rolled into AB 2257. CoPTIC founder and longtime translator and interpreter Lorena Ortiz Schneider explained to Slator that constituents did not see AB 2257 until after the bill made it to the floor of the Senate Labor Committee — at which point they saw that both translators and interpreters had been listed under the referral agencies exemption, rather than under the exemption for professional services. Their next task, Ortiz Schneider said, was “to get the word out to the Senators, and Lorena Gonzalez herself, that we’re not misclassified, and we are professionals.” They backed up this argument with “a crucial piece of information,” Ortiz Schneider said, by fact-checking Assemblywoman Gonzalez’s May 20, 2020 statement that “4,111 interpreters had been deemed misclassified in the last five years” by California’s Employment Development Department (EDD). That is, 4,111 interpreters had been misclassified as independent contractors when they should have been considered employees. “Translators, which do written documentation, we didn’t find this misclassification,” Assemblywoman Gonzalez said. Through a Public Record of Information Act (PRIA), CoPTIC accessed EDD’s records and found that 4,111 workers, working for 72 companies, were subject to an initial audit by EDD — but that number of workers included both interpreters and translators, with no way to distinguish between the two. Although a final determination is still pending in some cases, of the 72 audits performed, only 6% of workers were incorrectly classified as independent contractors. “Only 269 of the 4,111 translators and interpreters under review ultimately resulted in a finding of misclassification,” EDD wrote in July 2020. Ortiz Schneider pointed out that since many professionals work as both interpreters and translators, and work for multiple LSPs, the true number may be even smaller. “How many of those 269 are double- or triple-counted?” she pointed out. CoPTIC published its findings and sent them to the Senators, as well as to Assemblywoman Gonzalez, ahead of the August 20, 2020 hearing and vote. Overall, CoPTIC considers AB 2257 a success. According to Ortiz Schneider, “Past iterations of the bill required workers to either be employees or businesses. It wiped out the possibility for independent contractor status, and that created a lot of disruption in our industry.” Modifications to language in the three sections that apply to T&Is specifically — the professional services, business-to-business, and referral agency subdivisions — now allow individuals to work for LSPs as sole proprietors or as business entities formed as an LLC, an LLP, or a corporation. Amended on August 25, 2020, the most recent version of AB 2257 places translators — not just certified translators, as in a past version — in the professional services exemption. Although CoPTIC also petitioned for interpreters to be included under the professional services exemption, they are listed under referral services. “The reason for placing us there stems from issues particular to the workers’ compensation interpreting space,” Ortiz Schneider said. (California interpreters have criticized the state’s Division of Workers’ Compensation for practices they say discourage clients from hiring certified interpreters.) Interpreters working in a language where certification or registration exists through certain bodies must have that certification or registration; but because certification is not available for all languages or domains, Ortiz Schneider said, “there is an exemption for languages without certification. They also added a provision that allows for other state-approved entities to credential interpreters, including educational institutions.” CoPTIC requested a grace period of at least two years to give interpreters time to comply with the new certification requirements; but the request was denied. The bill is slated to take effect immediately after California Governor Gavin Newsom signs it. Although some California politicians have called for a total repeal of AB5, Ortiz Schneider thinks this unlikely; especially considering that, on a national level, there exists a similar bill, the PRO Act, with the exact same goal in mind. (Support for the PRO Act is part of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s platform.) Colleagues in Arizona, New Jersey, and New York have already reached out to CoPTIC for guidance on fighting for exemptions to similar legislation in their states. “Of the hundreds of occupations that AB5 is affecting, there still are many that didn’t make it into this bill,” Ortiz Schneider said. “Having translators and interpreters in there is great.”
加利福尼亚的口笔译从业人员(T&Is)有了庆祝的理由——至少对于反对AB5的绝大多数人来说值得庆祝。2020年8月20日,州参议院拨款委员会同意并一致投票通过了AB2257号法案,该法案是对《AB5号临时工人法案》的修正案,于2020年1月1日生效。 自由职业者在此法案通过之前就已经感受到了压力,因为一些语言服务提供商(LSPs)会为了避免聘用T&Is可能带来的惩罚而取消合同。根据新法案,T&Is需要被归类为雇员而不是独立订约人。 一些业内资深人士了解到注册公司后可以继续进行业务,但他们发现某些特定的语言服务提供商为了避免麻烦会避免和驻加州的语言学家一起工作。 加州口笔译从业人员流失促使加州执业口笔译员联盟( CoPTIC,另称科普特 )主张豁免AB5。该联盟的主张很简单:AB5法案。该法案由州众议院议员洛伦娜·冈萨雷斯(Lorena Gonzalez)提出,目的在于保护临时工人遭受剥削;但受过专业高等教育的口笔译译员并不是临时工人。联盟及其盟友辩称,这一法案没有反映出美国语言服务行业的真实现状,而被迫成为雇主的客户会转移业务至别的地方。 加州参议院第900号法案(SB900)最初为修订AB5法案带来了希望,但该法案原定于2020年5月14号的听证会在最后一刻被取消,这使得科普特对此非常失望。另一项AB1850号议会法案规定,专业服务项下的“认证笔译员”享有豁免(但口译员享有“转介机构”项下的豁免);在AB 1850的听证会也被取消后,其内容被纳入了AB2257。 科普特创始人、长期从事口笔译的洛雷娜·奥尔蒂斯·施耐德(Lorena Ortiz Schneider)向Slator解释说,选民们直到法案提交参议院劳工委员会后才看到AB2257法案,他们看到笔译和口译员都被列入的是推荐机构豁免名单,而不是专业服务豁免名单。施耐德说,他们的下一个任务是“向参议员们和Lorena Gonzalez本人说明,归类没有出错,我们是专业人士。” 施耐德说,他们用“一条至关重要的信息”来支撑这一论点,他对冈萨雷斯议员在2020年5月20日的声明进行了事实核查。冈萨雷斯在2020年5月20日的声明中称,“在过去五年里,有4111名口译员被加州就业发展部(EDD)认定为错误分类”。也就是说,本应被视为雇员的4 111名口译员被错误地归类为独立订约人。 冈萨雷斯议员说:“翻译就是处理书面文件,我们不觉得这是分类错误。” 科普特通过《公共信息记录法》(PRIA)查阅了EDD的记录,发现为72家公司工作的4111名工人接受了EDD的初步审核——这里面既包括口译员也包括笔译员,无法区分两者。 虽然某些情况仍有待商榷,但已进行的72次审计中,只有6%的工人被错误地归类为独立订约人。EDD在2020年7月写道:“在接受审查的4111名笔译员和口译员中,最终发现只有269人被错误分类。” 施耐德指出,由于许多业内人士同时担任口译员和笔译员,并且为多个LSP工作,因此真正的数字可能更小。她指出:“在这269人中,有多少人被计算了两次甚至是三次的?” 在2020年8月20日的听证会和投票之前,科普特公布了调查结果,并将其发送给了冈萨雷斯议员。 总而言之,科普特认为AB2257是一项成功。根据施耐德所说,“过去的法案要求工人要么是雇员,要么是企业,抹掉了译员作为独立订约人的可能性,给我们这个行业带来了很大的混乱。” 对专门适用于T&Is的三个部分——专业服务,企业对企业和转介机构细分部门——的语言进行了修改,现在允许个人作为独资业主或作为有限责任公司、有限责任合伙企业或公司组成的企业实体为LSP工作。 修订于2020年8月25日,最新版本的AB 2257将笔译员——而不是像过去的版本那样仅仅是经过认证的笔译员——列入专业服务豁免范围。虽然科普特也请求将口译员列入专业服务豁免范围内,但他们被列在转介服务项下。 施耐德说:“这样子安排的原因是工人补偿解释空间的特殊问题。”(加利福尼亚州的口译员批评该州的工人补偿分配制度,他们说这种做法阻碍了客户聘用认证译员。) 口译员从事获得某些机构认证或登记的语言工作必须获得认证或登记;但由于认证并非适用于所有语言或领域,施耐德说,“没有认证的语言有一个豁免。他们还增加了一项规定,允许其他国家批准的实体,包括教育机构,颁发口译员证书。“ 科普特要求给予至少两年的宽限期,给予口译员充分时间达到新的认证要求;但这一要求遭到了拒绝。该法案将在加州州长加文·纽森签署后立即生效。 尽管一些加州政客呼吁完全废除AB5,施耐德认为这不太可能;特别是考虑到,在国家层面有一项类似的法案,即《PRO法案》,其目标完全相同。(支持PRO法案是民主党总统候选人乔·拜登政纲的一部分。) 亚利桑那州、新泽西州和纽约州的同事们已经向科普特寻求帮助指导,以争取在本州对类似立法的豁免。 施耐德说:“AB5影响了数百种职业,仍有许多职业没有写入这项法案里。”“笔译员和口译员被纳入真是太棒了。”

以上中文文本为机器翻译,存在不同程度偏差和错误,请理解并参考英文原文阅读。

阅读原文