Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9] >
Anybody in the U.S. worried about the ProAct?
Thread poster: Esther Pugh
Dan Lucas
Dan Lucas  Identity Verified
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:49
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
You don't understand because you haven't thought it through Jan 23, 2021

Sadek_A wrote:
- Companies play dirty and threaten to stop using your services, in an exploitative -hence, illegal- measure by them to maintain their ongoing abuse.

You believe it is exploitative? So you think a company should be forced use the services of a third-party contractor, even when that means that the company must give said third-party contractor all the rights and benefits of an employee, thus making the contractor indistinguishable from in-house staff, dramatically increasing fixed costs, and rendering the established agency / freelance model inoperable overnight? That's your solution?

This is exactly the kind of economically illiterate, magical thinking that got us AB5. It is not only Big Bad Corporations who have been fighting this bill. Many people were happy with the independence and flexibility offered by the freelancer lifestyle, but suddenly lost their ability to work as such in the state of California for the reasons outlined above. They're not worried about not being covered by benefits, the lack of which is a well-understood characteristic of freelance work. They're worried about being in effect priced out of the market by politicians who want to be seen to be standing up to the ridesharing companies.

The problem with translation freelancers in general is that low barriers to entry and low operating costs mean that too many people can dabble in the field without having the skill set to make sensible money. If they were economically rational they would withdraw from the translation market and sell their time for a higher price in a different line of work, but instead they accept (ACCEPT - they are not forced into it) low rates and poor conditions.

Those people are the issue. If they could just swallow their pride, walk away and take jobs in (say) retail they'd probably be happier and make more money, and the translation market would be a much better place for those of us who do have the skills. But it's a free market. It's their call.

What we don't need - manifestly - is the government trying to micromanage every aspect of a vast and immensely complex system like the economy. It demonstrably doesn't work. The state needs to set some ground rules, monitor for compliance, and keep an eye on new developments, but otherwise keep its hands to itself.

Dan


Thomas T. Frost
Kaspars Melkis
writeaway
Oleksandr Ivanov
Kevin Fulton
Irene (Renata) Liapis
IrinaN
 
Esther Pugh
Esther Pugh  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 13:49
Member (2014)
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
This is not feasible Jan 23, 2021

Sadek_A wrote:

- A government, in this case the US government, introduces an act that can alleviate, if not eliminate, such an abuse by those companies. That's the purpose of it as far as I can tell!



This is not how it works, though. If we look at California, it failed. Why? Because CA T&I agencies simply didn't hire CA translators any longer. They contracted with linguists from out of state. Likewise, if ProAct passes nationwide, US agencies will contract with linguists in Europe, Canada, et.al.

It's also incorrect that independent contractors are being taken advantage of by big bad corporations. I think I can speak for many of my colleagues if I say that if we wanted to be employed, we would be. If I had wanted to keep working for my employer, I would have not quit my W2 job, and I would have not started my own business. It's a question of "my labor, my choice".

Plus, and I can only speak for the language industry, no agency can hire full-time translators with benefits for every language pair they offer. How's that supposed to work? They may get a project in for English/Danish maybe twice a month. How can they hire a full-time Danish translator? That's why freelancers work for many clients in any given year. That's what CA leg didn't think through, hence the exemption later on by voting in AB 2257.

I get the general sentiment, though. There are many agencies that offer low rates. You don't need to work for those, however. Ideally, you have a mix of clients – direct clients, and a variety of high-quality agencies – which means you yourself must be a high-quality, well educated language service provider. If you aren't in a position to attract "good clients", you have to change your career at some point, because you won't be able to make a living. You are then free to work for an employer at any time. It's your choice to make, but, given the above, as well as what Dan Lucas said, the government can't make that choice for you, because, amongst other reasons, they're not able to change the way our particular business works.


Irene (Renata) Liapis
Thomas T. Frost
Dan Lucas
Kevin Fulton
Oleksandr Ivanov
Arjan van den Berg
Arabic & More
 
Irene (Renata) Liapis
Irene (Renata) Liapis  Identity Verified
Greece
Member (2005)
Italian to English
+ ...
We need to get involved and act asap Jan 23, 2021

There is no doubt this could completely disrupt our business in the US.
This is a major issue and I think what we should do is advocate and push so that our position can be understood. Let's keep an eye on what the ATA and other organizations are doing.
I have also written the Freelancers Union advocacy department about this and will post here when I get a response.
Their websi
... See more
There is no doubt this could completely disrupt our business in the US.
This is a major issue and I think what we should do is advocate and push so that our position can be understood. Let's keep an eye on what the ATA and other organizations are doing.
I have also written the Freelancers Union advocacy department about this and will post here when I get a response.
Their website is www.freelancersunion.com and their advocacy department can be reached at [email protected]. It would not hurt to send them more emails. They are based in NY which is one of the states that is seriously discussing this.
Collapse


Esther Pugh
Ildiko Santana
 
RobinB
RobinB  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 12:49
German to English
Filibuster rule Jan 23, 2021

Esther,

You'd better check out the filibuster rule that Schumer and McConnell are currently arguing about. As things stand today, most bills will need a majority of 60 votes to pass.

You also can't consider AB 5 without considering AB 2257.

Robin


 
RobinB
RobinB  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 12:49
German to English
Simply not true Jan 23, 2021

Esther Pugh wrote: In California, which is really the only example we have so far, incorporating did not make a difference, due to the B prong. Incorporated or not, S-corp, C-corp, LLC, you're STILL in the same line of business if you're a translator/interpreter contracting with a translation agency. That's why many of us outside of CA – me included – received more work from agencies in CA in 2020.


You should surely know that the owner(s) of an S-Corp or C-Corp is/are considered to be the employees of their own company, and hence cannot be employed twice. The California legislation never, as in NEVER, applied to S- or C-Corps.

And due to AB 2257, it doesn't apply to freelance translators and single-member LLCs either.

The primary reason why translators in CA received less work in 2020 was because stupid agencies (and their even stupider lawyers) didn't actually read the text of AB 5 in the first place. AB 2257 clarified beyond any doubt that translators are generally exempt from the restrictions, regardless of their legal form. It's not as clear-cut for interpreters, which is why more work is needed there.

For more information, check out the ATA and CoPTIC websites.


 
Lincoln Hui
Lincoln Hui  Identity Verified
Hong Kong
Local time: 01:49
Member
Chinese to English
+ ...
Same difference Jan 23, 2021

RobinB wrote:

Esther Pugh wrote: In California, which is really the only example we have so far, incorporating did not make a difference, due to the B prong. Incorporated or not, S-corp, C-corp, LLC, you're STILL in the same line of business if you're a translator/interpreter contracting with a translation agency. That's why many of us outside of CA – me included – received more work from agencies in CA in 2020.


You should surely know that the owner(s) of an S-Corp or C-Corp is/are considered to be the employees of their own company, and hence cannot be employed twice. The California legislation never, as in NEVER, applied to S- or C-Corps.

And due to AB 2257, it doesn't apply to freelance translators and single-member LLCs either.

The primary reason why translators in CA received less work in 2020 was because stupid agencies (and their even stupider lawyers) didn't actually read the text of AB 5 in the first place. AB 2257 clarified beyond any doubt that translators are generally exempt from the restrictions, regardless of their legal form. It's not as clear-cut for interpreters, which is why more work is needed there.

For more information, check out the ATA and CoPTIC websites.

Stupid people doing stupid things because of a law still counts as impact of the law.


Oleksandr Ivanov
Dan Lucas
Kaspars Melkis
Jorge Payan
Ildiko Santana
Daryo
Esther Pugh
 
Esther Pugh
Esther Pugh  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 13:49
Member (2014)
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
I think most in the U.S. know how the Senate works, incl. the filibuster Jan 23, 2021

RobinB wrote:

As things stand today, most bills will need a majority of 60 votes to pass.



That's a little off topic, but thanks for bringing it up. And I think you're a little too trusting here.

The filibuster rule can easily be abolished, if the Democrats wish to do so. A somewhat dramatic measure, but I have heard some Democrats say (including VP Harris, as well as Chuck Schumer) that nothing's "off the table", especially after the Repubs pushed Amy Coney Barrett through during an election year. They can do this with a simple Senate majority (+ the VP vote); not only is it "possible", it's being discussed, AND they already have a nice justification handy (see most recent SCOTUS nomination).

Like I already said on page 1 of this thread, Manchin from WV is the only one who might jeopardize endeavours of that type – especially WRT the abolition of the filibuster. He's publicly defended the procedure even as his colleagues have signaled openness to change. This could make it tougher, but I wouldn't rely on it.

AND: With regards to legislation, there's always the president's executive orders.

So yeah ......


 
Esther Pugh
Esther Pugh  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 13:49
Member (2014)
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
I am aware Jan 23, 2021

RobinB wrote:

You should surely know that the owner(s) of an S-Corp or C-Corp is/are considered to be the employees of their own company, and hence cannot be employed twice. The California legislation never, as in NEVER, applied to S- or C-Corps.

And due to AB 2257, it doesn't apply to freelance translators and single-member LLCs either.

The primary reason why translators in CA received less work in 2020 was because stupid agencies (and their even stupider lawyers) didn't actually read the text of AB 5 in the first place. AB 2257 clarified beyond any doubt that translators are generally exempt from the restrictions, regardless of their legal form. It's not as clear-cut for interpreters, which is why more work is needed there.

For more information, check out the ATA and CoPTIC websites.


I am a paying, certified ATA member with voting rights. Therefore, I "check out" the ATA website on a regular basis, as well as their membership magazine which I receive on a regular basis. I did communicate with the ATA directly about this topic at some point last year, as I was of the opinion that they could have done more. The ATA60 (in 2019!) was in Palm Springs (CA), for example, and AB5 wasn't even mentioned. I still can't understand this.

I have been following CoPTIC for about a year, I receive their newsletters, and I have donated. They did an excellent job.

[Edited at 2021-01-24 00:04 GMT]


 
Esther Pugh
Esther Pugh  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 13:49
Member (2014)
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Exactly Jan 23, 2021

Lincoln Hui wrote:
Stupid people doing stupid things because of a law still counts as impact of the law.


I couldn't have said it better! Thank you.


 
jyuan_us
jyuan_us  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 13:49
Member (2005)
English to Chinese
+ ...
No title Jan 23, 2021

Based on the assumption that we the linguists will be impacted, freelancers in any field will be impacted, too. All independent contractors will be knocked out of the US. That will have a huge impact on the US economy.

What about your creating an LLC and hiring translators to work full time inhouse?


[Edited at 2021-01-24 14:11 GMT]


 
jyuan_us
jyuan_us  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 13:49
Member (2005)
English to Chinese
+ ...
Fear Jan 23, 2021

Esther Pugh wrote:
and if this law goes national, US freelance translators better watch out (and look for European clients!).
Thoughts?


If all US freelance translators look for European clients, will it help drive prices even lower?


 
Liviu-Lee Roth
Liviu-Lee Roth
United States
Local time: 13:49
Romanian to English
+ ...
a stupid question Jan 23, 2021

Like many other freelance colleagues translators and interpreters I work mostly through agencies. In my particular field, in order to get a project, one needs to have clearance from the US. Government and one of the main requirements is to be a US. citizen and be in the US while working on the project. How can the ProAct impact us? The agencies cannot get linguists from abroad.

Thank you,
Lee


 
Esther Pugh
Esther Pugh  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 13:49
Member (2014)
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Just a few examples of real people affected Jan 25, 2021

https://electkevinkiley.com/ab5stories/

 
David Higbee
David Higbee
United States
Local time: 10:49
Member
Japanese to English
+ ...
It absolutely applies to freelancers. Congress does NOT understand how T&I works Mar 4, 2021

writeaway wrote:

https://www.uschamber.com/the-pro-act-h-r-2474-full-text

SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—

(2) EMPLOYEE.—Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “An individual performing any service shall be considered an employee (except as provided in the previous sentence) and not an independent contractor, unless—

“(A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact;

“(B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and

“(C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.”.



This is dangerous for our profession. Look at the ABC test. Interpreters will no longer be able to work with agencies unless we are EMPLOYEES. No thank you. The same thing happened in California with AB5. This is absolutely not positive for our profession in any way.


Esther Pugh
Esther Hermida
Ildiko Santana
 
Esther Pugh
Esther Pugh  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 13:49
Member (2014)
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
AB5 is the best example Mar 4, 2021

Thanks, David Higbee!
Thankfully, there’s a lot of activism going on right now, and many of us have reached out to legislators. I’m sure you have as well.

They’re voting on this bill in the house next week. So we should really stay on top of things - keep contacting your house representatives, as well as your senators!!


Esther Hermida
 
Pages in topic:   < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9] >


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


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

Anybody in the U.S. worried about the ProAct?







CafeTran Espresso
You've never met a CAT tool this clever!

Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer. Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools. Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free

Buy now! »
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 »