| 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
|
|---|
jyuan_us 
United States
Local time: 20:51
Member (2005)
English to Chinese
+ ...
| Thank you for the information | Mar 10, 2021 |
Dan Lucas wrote:
jyuan_us wrote:
If 60 votes are needed, what is the reason for us to worry about it?
I'm not American, but think you're referring to the use of the cloture rule to end filibusters, right? That second article I linked to above largely concerns consideration among Democrats on how to avoid the filibuster. This article from last year discusses use of the so-called "nuclear option", by which a new precedent is set, a rule can be circumvented or reinterpreted, and a filibuster broken. Here's the money quote:
Dan
| | | | Sadek_A
Local time: 05:51
English to Arabic
+ ...
| One additional point | Mar 10, 2021 |
9- I forgot to add that the Pro Act's "Under the test, workers can be considered independent contractors if their duties fall outside the scope of a company’s normal business" has the potential to smash the middle link and encourage direct contact between end clients and actual T&I service providers, thus translating into better savings for end clients and better income for T&Is.
| | | | Dan Lucas
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:51
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
| Interesting thought | Mar 10, 2021 |
Sadek_A wrote:
has the potential to smash the middle link and encourage direct contact between end clients and actual T&I service providers, thus translating into better savings for end clients and better income for T&Is.
Earlier in this thread you argued, in effect, that it is abusive if a company that finds a freelancer's rates too high decides to stop using the freelancer's services. By this standard, you would be considered abusive if you were to stop buying bread at your local bakery because you find the price of a loaf is too high. Given that the right to choose not to buy is fundamental to markets as we know them, this argument was, to put it charitably, unconvincing.
However, the idea that prong B could put the agencies out of business is interesting.
- Could US-based agencies just switch to using freelancers overseas who are presumably not covered by this law, and thus survive anyway, leaving US freelancers in the dust? (This is what I think it more likely.)
- Would direct clients be forced to bring more translation and thus project management in-house?
- In that case, wouldn't that mean tremendous inefficiency, because where 20 firms might previously have used one project manager at an agency, they would now each need somebody acting as a project manager at least some of the time? But would it matter?
- Would it mean a surge in vacancies for in-house (albeit perhaps WFH) translation staff?
Dan
| | | | Sadek_A
Local time: 05:51
English to Arabic
+ ...
| You just KEEP playing mind games! | Mar 10, 2021 |
Dan Lucas wrote:
Earlier in this thread you argued, in effect, that it is abusive if a company that finds a freelancer's rates too high decides to stop using the freelancer's services.
Nowhere in my statements you're quoting have I said that a company severing ties over rate is abusive. I said, however, that "companies [are] increasingly abusing their [freelancers'] rates".
If you are going to counter my arguments, at least don't twist my words. My statements were very clear and not open to a different interpretation.
Dan Lucas wrote:
However, the idea that prong B could put the agencies out of business is interesting.
Here you are twisting my words again. I did NOT say "agencies could be put out of business", I simply said "has the potential to smash the middle link". The middle link could still operate, whether inside or outside of the US. And, they would still keep their market share intact, but only if they play it humane. You're here asking T&Is to side with you FOR FREE, but you ain't providing -nor even willing to provide- the least trace of a compromise. This kind of stiff attitude well deserves the Pro Act and some more!
| | |
|
|
|
Dan Lucas
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:51
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
| Quoting you = "mind games"? | Mar 10, 2021 |
Sadek_A wrote:
Nowhere in my statements you're quoting have I said that a company severing ties over rate is abusive.
Here's a direct quote so others can decide. Strictly speaking you said that severing ties is "exploitative" and intended to allow companies to continue their "abuse" of freelancers. In functional terms that seems to mean the same thing.
- Companies play dirty and threaten to stop using your services, in an exploitative -hence, illegal- measure by them to maintain their ongoing abuse. But whatever.
Here you are twisting my words again. I did NOT say "agencies could be put out of business", I simply said "has the potential to smash the middle link". The middle link could still operate, whether inside or outside of the US.
It's not a question of twisting anybody's words - "smashed" is a synonym for "broken". A smashed link is unlikely to still be functional! If being quoted worries you then choose your words and your arguments more carefully. You're entitled to your opinion, and in a public forum we're entitled to comment on it.
Anyway, the issue is that I thought that in your post at 13:32 today you made a thoughtful point, which is that government regulation in the form of PRO Act could, if it also significantly damages agencies, create an artificial surge of demand for translators to work at companies, thus offsetting the problems caused by the PRO Act itself. Probably not enough to stave off damage to freelancers, but it would be better than nothing. That was the intriguing idea.
I mean it's all pretty speculative at this juncture. Hopefully the bill will stall in the Senate again.
Dan
| | | | Abba Storgen (X)
United States
Local time: 19:51
Greek to English
+ ...
| Didn't work like that in real life | Mar 11, 2021 |
Sadek_A wrote:
4- "59 million Americans freelancing, equivalent to 36% of the country's entire workforce" ( https://financesonline.com/number-of-freelancers-in-the-us/) is just a catastrophic statistic when taking into account the uncertainty of livelihood delivered by the current freelancing model. Those are a whole lot of households living in chanciness!
.....
6- The Pro Act is NOT forcing the employer nor the employee to maintain a typical 9-to-5 working hours scheme. No. It is simply forcing US agencies to grant their T&Is some of the fortune those T&Is generated for them, in the form of much-needed employment benefits!
7- The Pro Act can serve as a lead for the rest of countries wishing to support their national freelance workforce with well-deserved employment benefits, and to cut down greed by enterprises.
-- It didn't work like that in California, and it was proven that the Legislature was indeed blind, they didn't care, even after they were shown facts and pleadings not to go ahead with their proposition. But they did. All translators lost all their cooperation with agencies in an instant, just like that. Many voices, but all weak and passive and without political clout (same for photographers etc). Exemptions came too late.
-- There's no way that Translation Agencies will just hire free-lancers as employees, but if they do with a handful of them, it'll be close to minimum salary and expectation to work without refusing any projects assigned to you if you have declared the "specialty". That's what salaried work means. And if Bob's Translations hire you, you won't have the right to work for anyone else within the employment hours of Bob. What do you expect, that you will maintain current income by working for multiple employers and at the same time get free insurance and paid vacations from Bob?
-- "59 million Americans freelancing" - one large part of them are people with almost zero income hoping to make some money on YouTube or selling funny products online and on eBay, while at the same time get some of their home expenses deducted as business expenses. Another large part is actual former freelancers currently without income who are considered employed by the government because they haven't changed their status (graphic designers, musicians, photographers, freelance writers/journalists, landscapers etc). Then you have physical therapists (or so they say), business consultants, financial planners, and all sorts of service people the majority of them without a living income but only a title.
Since politicians are not aware of "how many different types of jobs are out there", they managed to destroy thousands of livelihoods in California (especially freelance writers, photographers, translators etc) under the excuse of protecting just a few voluntary Uber drivers... a lame excuse.
-- What happened was that even after the exemptions, numerous agencies preferred to take the safe route of working only with foreigners, and this privilege will even strengthen under current globalization practices, plans, and encouragement. US agencies that control 90% of the volume of our work already have large established subsidiaries and affiliates in other countries, and no US law can touch them there. One of the largest already has 3/4 of its operations abroad already. They can hire freelancers from Pakistan, but under the PRO Act, not from the US (!!!). Even video-based depositions (!) are now done with freelancers based abroad - local interpreters have completely lost the "locality" advantage. US translation companies controlling 90% of the market don't need anyone in the US anymore, thus politicians can show that "the translation market was not affected by the PRO Act".
Those that are affected, are those who won't be able to work as freelancers anymore, and their only voice is to talk to each other in forums. The PRO Act is a kill switch for US-based translators. Even if they include exemptions, agencies will prefer the safer (and cheaper) route via their foreign subsidiaries. And if translators can't find other employment here, they'd be better going back to the home country, resume their work from over there and rescind US citizenship which had become a liability for them.
| | | | Abba Storgen (X)
United States
Local time: 19:51
Greek to English
+ ...
| As far as "going Solo" | Mar 11, 2021 |
PS. As far as translators trying to get direct clients at a volume that could sustain both their living expenses and a good excuse for being freelance, that was the past. No law office or large company of any industry will give work to a "solo translator" who may delay critical projects the last moment etc.
Let alone that large companies who pay lots for translations want 25+ languages covered, and they don't want to deal with managing themselves 50 random individuals.
The idea that... See more PS. As far as translators trying to get direct clients at a volume that could sustain both their living expenses and a good excuse for being freelance, that was the past. No law office or large company of any industry will give work to a "solo translator" who may delay critical projects the last moment etc.
Let alone that large companies who pay lots for translations want 25+ languages covered, and they don't want to deal with managing themselves 50 random individuals.
The idea that a translator today can earn living+savings+insurance income through individual clients applies to less than 1% of translators, and not on a long term basis.
Everyone working as a full timer for more than 10 years can assure you of that. It would be like growing one variety potatoes in your backyard and trying to sell them to Walmart in plastic bags to make a living.
If PRO Act passes, it's game over for US-based translators (except a handful who will be hired in-house to edit other people's work and proofread PDFs on the spot for minimum salary). And many other freelancers as well. Millions of voices, but nobody else hears them and nobody will report it - it's not an "exciting" or "engaging" subject that the media will ever touch. Media-wise and policy-wise, it has about the same strength and appeal as "tonight our special report, librarians frustrated with books out of order in the shelves". ▲ Collapse
| | | | Dan Lucas
United Kingdom
Local time: 01:51
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
So, Eleftherios, reading between the lines, I'm getting the sense that you're not terribly optimistic?
Dan
| | |
|
|
|
Sadek_A
Local time: 05:51
English to Arabic
+ ...
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
It didn't work like that in California
Sometimes a medication or a dose thereof can have a side effect that can soon later be overcome by a change. But, you can't leave the patient sick, or they will die. The translation industry is now sick, and everyone around is forecasting its near death if things keep the current trajectory.
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
There's no way that Translation Agencies will just hire free-lancers as employees
When they have no other choice, they will.
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
if they do with a handful of them
It will be a (1)disciplined (2)hiring according to (3)business needs and (4)pick of the best, as opposed to the (1)chaotic (2)onboarding now based on (3)shady schemes and (4)pick of the cheapest.
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
close to minimum salary
Minimum is already on the offer, by declining peanut rates, not just declining rates.
And, salary is a vital peace-of-mind instrument, and subject to mutual agreement in the same manner it is now with rates. However, under the Pro Act, T&Is will be having a better leverage negotiating that payment (the salary), a leverage that is now held by companies whose pool of providers is currently unrestricted.
Under current freelance model: "Bob's Translations" knows Eleftherios is a good translator with average rates and Stelios is average translator with cheap rates. Bob's Translations doesn't have to pay anything other than the rate, and if they go with Stelios they will save even more. Hence, Stelios it is!
Under Pro Act: Bob's Translations is now paying employment benefits in addition to the rate. Would Bob's Translations go with Stelios again and risk spending all those benefits on an average translator that can get them into trouble with their client? Or, go with Eleftherios whose good performance warrants those Act-mandated benefits?
A bad T&I provider has every right to fear the Pro Act. But, a good one?
Outsourcers fear it too, and they should.
Not to mention scammers!
So, the Pro Act is actually like a much-needed anti-septic for the stained T&I industry.
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
expectation to work without refusing any projects assigned to you if you have declared the "specialty"
That's absolutely granted. Again, a translator that is good and not outsourcing should never fear that.
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
if Bob's Translations hire you, you won't have the right to work for anyone else within the employment hours of Bob
Why would you? You're already getting paid for them.
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
you will maintain current income by working for multiple employers and at the same time get free insurance and paid vacations from Bob?
Who said that? Not me!
If their benefits-included contract with you says they are paying you for 5 hours a day, then you give them those 5 hours. If they don't use them, not your problem.
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
people with almost zero income hoping.....without a living income but only a title
My point exactly!
What kind of fragile livelihood and economy those must be?
And, for how long should it remain so before someone takes action?
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
numerous agencies preferred to take the safe route of working only with foreigners
A side effect that can be easily fixed within the Act and any amendments thereof.
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
US agencies that control 90% of the volume of our work already have large established subsidiaries and affiliates in other countries, and no US law can touch them there
Then, what is the worry for? If the above statement is true, then they shouldn't even bother the slightest about the Pro Act.
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
They can hire freelancers from Pakistan, but under the PRO Act, not from the US
They are hiring freelancers from Pakistan before the Act, I'm sure. And, after the Act, they still can hire professionals from the US in a decent employment.
The fact that they are inherently opposed to "decent employment" doesn't mean something is wrong with the Act, US professionals or Pakistani professionals. In fact, those latter ought to be included in decent employment too for as long they're generating money for the company.
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
local interpreters have completely lost the "locality" advantage
Why aren't they working for/with the US companies' large established subsidiaries and affiliates in other countries?
Are US companies boycotting them there too?
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
The PRO Act is a kill switch for US-based translators
It's a good first step toward a sustainable livelihood through decent employment.
Other countries should follow the lead.
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
No law office or large company of any industry will give work to a "solo translator"
They currently do, and they will continue to, at a much larger scale even.
The savings will be tremendous.
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
a "solo translator" who may delay critical projects the last moment
Currently, their important projects are being delayed because:
- PM is busy handling a dozen other projects, some of which might be far more important, way larger, and better paid.
- Translator won't take the project because they are NOT:
-- Qualified;
-- Properly remunerated; or
-- On good terms with the translation company.
However, with the law office or large company of any industry picking and choosing their own translator, they guarantee (1)direct contact with the actual provider, (2)vetted qualification, (3)proper payment for both sides, and (4)a dependability that goes both ways.
Eleftherios Kritikakis wrote:
Let alone that large companies who pay lots for translations want 25+ languages covered, and they don't want to deal with managing themselves 50 random individuals.
A PM doesn't handle all languages, at best they would handle a couple, especially with high-traffic languages.
And, the same point of contact at the end client's that contacts those PMs will be the same person contacting those translators. It's exactly what the point of contact is getting paid for, and they don't necessarily have to be one single person, they could be many.
Nothing new needs to be set up!
| | | | Liviu-Lee Roth
United States
Local time: 20:51
Romanian to English
+ ...
| I have issues with pct.7 and 9 | Mar 11, 2021 |
Sadek_A wrote:
9- I forgot to add that the Pro Act's "Under the test, workers can be considered independent contractors if their duties fall outside the scope of a company’s normal business" has the potential to smash the middle link and encourage direct contact between end clients and actual T&I service providers, thus translating into better savings for end clients and better income for T&Is.
I work in a field where it is impractical for the DOJ to hire hundreds of T&I for spotted jobs. Just for this particular niche (communication between the US DOJ and foreign counterparts - just criminal matters) I work with three agencies that have a contract with the DOJ. So far, I think it is not feasible to "cut the middle link". Also, for this kind of translations one needs to be a US citizen and have clearance.
My 2 c
| | | | Sadek_A
Local time: 05:51
English to Arabic
+ ...
Liviu-Lee Roth wrote:
I have issues with pct.7 and 9
You commented on 9, but not on 7. So, I will be replying to your comment on 9.
Liviu-Lee Roth wrote:
where it is impractical for the DOJ to hire hundreds of T&I for spotted jobs
Don't you agree that in the above statement you are assuming FUTURE impracticality on behalf of the US DOJ?
As T&I providers, it's not our business how end clients tailor their processes to receive our services in a quality, streamlined and hassle-free fashion. They are the ones who need the service, have an already-established network of support-services personnel (in the case of DOJ), and enjoy the eventual savings of "cutting the middle link".
We do not need to worry ourselves with how they (will) do it. After all, contacting an individual T&I provider is not a herculean effort, it's a communication like any other communication; and, US DOJ is already part of US government that is proposing the Pro Act in the first place.
What we need to worry ourselves with, however, is the favoritism, nepotism and inclinations that could come into play at the hands of end-clients' contact person(s) in the same manner it's happening now at the hands of PMs. That's where best efforts should be directed to, for effective rules regulating how the best provider is chosen.
Liviu-Lee Roth wrote:
for this kind of translations one needs to be a US citizen and have clearance
Sure, I've already said that in point 2.
| | | | Esther Pugh
United States
Local time: 20:51
Member (2014)
English to German
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Impractical? | Mar 12, 2021 |
Liviu-Lee Roth wrote:
Sadek_A wrote:
9- I forgot to add that the Pro Act's "Under the test, workers can be considered independent contractors if their duties fall outside the scope of a company’s normal business" has the potential to smash the middle link and encourage direct contact between end clients and actual T&I service providers, thus translating into better savings for end clients and better income for T&Is.
I work in a field where it is impractical for the DOJ to hire hundreds of T&I for spotted jobs. Just for this particular niche (communication between the US DOJ and foreign counterparts - just criminal matters) I work with three agencies that have a contract with the DOJ. So far, I think it is not feasible to "cut the middle link". Also, for this kind of translations one needs to be a US citizen and have clearance.
My 2 c
It is "impractical" for the entire T&I industry, which is why in California exemptions were added to AB5 for various industries, ours included. I am not going to give a lengthy explanation about how and why it's impossible for my 20–30 clients that I work with over the course of any given year, to hire my as a W-2 employee. Nor would I want that.
I do know why lawmakers ignore the AB5 disaster, though; some simply don't read the laws that they're about to pass, which means they simply vote along party lines, and others are too afraid of the increasing union pressure. We'll see how it plays out. But to consider it a pro worker bill is ridiculous. California is the best example of how a bad law failed, and the ProAct would do the same on a national level. Everybody who can't see that probably doesn't want to look.
I am not against unions, and if people want a union job, they should get one. I am all for it. I am rooting for them. At the same time, though, I do not want my rights taken away to choose whom I work with, and under what conditions. These are the conditions I negotiate myself, and I don't need a union for that. Or a law under which everybody is considered an "employee", until proven otherwise. Seriously? That's the most un-American thing ever.
[Edited at 2021-03-12 13:57 GMT]
[Edited at 2021-03-12 13:58 GMT]
[Edited at 2021-03-12 13:58 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Sadek_A
Local time: 05:51
English to Arabic
+ ...
Esther Pugh wrote:
Impractical?
It is "impractical" for the entire T&I industry
I've already replied to Liviu-Lee Roth's projection of said impracticality, but the reply is not made public yet.
Esther Pugh wrote:
why it's impossible for my 20–30 clients that I work with over the course of any given year, to hire my as a W-2 employee
According to wording of the Pro Act, they can still hire you as a freelancer if translation/interpretation is not a business activity on their license.
However, if they are indeed 20–30 translation/interpretation agencies without a single one among them with enough work to hire you as a full-timer with benefits, then why continue with this severe fragmentation of the industry? Any nobody holding no qualification is starting a kiosk-sized translation company and leeching off of us! This has to stop!
Esther Pugh wrote:
I do not want my rights taken away to choose whom I work with, and under what conditions
The Pro Act is NOT telling you (1)who you can work with, (2)how, (3)why, (4)starting when, or (5) ending when.
It is simply looking at the T&I company/agency and telling it "you are a specialist business hiring a specialist professional, and you need to provide them with secondary benefits (other than the pay) so they won't become a liability on society while you sail smoothly in a sea of financial profits".
| | | | jyuan_us
United States
Local time: 20:51
Member (2005)
English to Chinese
+ ...
| Thank you for the good information | Mar 12, 2021 |
Liviu-Lee Roth wrote:
Sadek_A wrote:
9- I forgot to add that the Pro Act's "Under the test, workers can be considered independent contractors if their duties fall outside the scope of a company’s normal business" has the potential to smash the middle link and encourage direct contact between end clients and actual T&I service providers, thus translating into better savings for end clients and better income for T&Is.
I work in a field where it is impractical for the DOJ to hire hundreds of T&I for spotted jobs. Just for this particular niche (communication between the US DOJ and foreign counterparts - just criminal matters) I work with three agencies that have a contract with the DOJ. So far, I think it is not feasible to "cut the middle link". Also, for this kind of translations one needs to be a US citizen and have clearance.
My 2 c
I'm just curious about what "pct.” means？It appears in the title of your last post.
[Edited at 2021-03-12 21:06 GMT]
| | | | Sadek_A
Local time: 05:51
English to Arabic
+ ...
jyuan_us wrote:
I'm just curious about what "pct.” means？It appears in the title of your last post.
[Edited at 2021-03-12 21:06 GMT]
From context, it seems to mean picture (as in a scenario). It's a filename extension (.pct) that I'm guessing Liviu-Lee Roth just borrowed into a different use.
---------------------------
This article provides some good pointers on the core issues the Pro Act is supposed to fix:
https://www.peoplemattersglobal.com/article/life-at-work/the-unseen-plight-of-the-gig-economy-23725
Problems:
- Companies [hiring gig workers] have been using the tag of independent or contract workers to dodge responsibilities with regards to employee benefits and labor rights.
- The abuse of the gig workers is further aggravated by the venture capitalists who would rather pour their money into organizations which are devoid of the employee liability and do not have the overhead expenses of managing a full-time workforce making it difficult for the regular employers to compete.
- So many of these gig workers live on the edge with deadlines or the summon of an app, that they barely have any family time, social life or even a healthy life.
- It is very difficult for gig workers to get financial assistance such as loans and mortgages, as they have no stable income to show nor any business to their names, just a skill which is being used every now and then by some employer.
- Getting health insurances is yet another pain with no insurance companies extending benefits for gig workers due to the nature of their jobs.
- In short, gig workers and their families have almost no recognition in the society even for bare minimum amenities which are reserved for the “working class”.
- The struggles of selling themselves is even more unreal. They have to market themselves, handle the clients, manage the finances for running the show, manage the working capital involved without a regular income.
Solutions:
-- Governments are now concentrating on regulating the gig economy by holding companies accountable. [and so they rightfully must]
-- It’s not too late for organizations to re-engineer their talent management practices to incorporate the gig workers.
-- Building workplaces that would meet their requirements of time and space flexibility along with basic benefits such as medical coverage packages, rewards for outstanding services, minimum pay protection and a few more tangible and time bound benefits could do wonders in harnessing the gig talent.
WE, T&Is, SHOULD ALL SUPPORT ANY GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE TOWARD IMPROVING OUR EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS! WE CAN NOT CONTINUE LIKE THIS! THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WENT AND GOT ACADEMIC DEGREES FOR!
| | | | | 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? | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
