What Assembly Bill 5 Means for Linguists

On Sept 18th, California Governor Gavin Newsom
signed Assembly Bill 5 (CA AB 5) into law which will take effect in January.
The new California state law reclassifies a large number of independent
contractors as employees, making them entitled to labor protections, such as
minimum wage and unemployment benefits. While AB 5 was written with companies like
Uber in mind, the translation and interpreting industry has spoken out in
regards to how this will affect a large number of professional linguists working
in the field. Despite this opposition, the bill was passed without any sort of
exemption for translators and interpreters. Both the American Translators
Association (ATA) and the International Association of Conference Interpreters
(AIIC) have both spoken out against the law, highlighting the need for an
The author of the bill, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, has
said AB5 would punish businesses that have tried to bend the rules in the past
in regards to worker classification. However as the AIIC also points out,
“Through our profession’s long history in the United States and abroad, the
independent contractor status of conference interpreters has been shown to
work.” There are exemptions for other professions, such as real estate agents,
hairstylists and barbers, doctors, dentist and lawyers. But the bill was passed
with no exemption for linguists. As the ATA points out in their statement,
“Without an exemption, this bill would unduly lump together these independent
professionals with individual workers who do not make a deliberate choice to
provide freelance services.”
Michael Ferreira, president of the California Federation of
Interpreters Local 39000 and a supporter of AB5, highlighted to the Los Angeles
Times, “many interpreters are misclassified as independent contractors for
large national translation companies and have no control over their wages or
working conditions.” He continued, “They work solo for hours without breaks,
when best practices require team interpretation, with switches about every
While some like Ferreira, see this as a step in the right direction for individual worker protections and for allowing best practices to prevail, many more in the industry seem concerned with how this will affect the industry as a whole. This seems to essentially ban how many translation companies conduct business currently. The ATA points out that “few language service providers in our industry have sufficient work to hire individual translators and interpreters as employees for every language on the market…with the current wording of AB5, those companies would have to work with translators and interpreters based outside of California, thereby hurting the very people this bill has proposed to help as well as potentially limiting language access for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Individuals living in California.”
This is true – it would be astronomically expensive for a translation agency of any size to have to hire translators for every language they work with. Further, these companies usually look for linguist that specialize in a field, so specialist vocabulary is translated correctly. In practice, even though a translator may work wonderfully on medical texts, a translation company may still need to hire another linguist in the same language pairing who has more familiarity with financial documents. As the AIIC mentioned, this model of using databases of freelance, independent contractors has worked successfully for many years. Using freelancers allow translation companies to work with a database of linguists when the need for their languages and specialties arises. This allows for happy customers in that they have a “one-stop-shop” for all languages. While this idea of a “one-stop-shop” is relatively new in the language services industry it has helped fuel the large growth we’ve seen over the past 20 years. Without an exemption and the current wording of the bill, many in the language services industry are fearful that the growth of the translation industry will stall and, ultimately, hurt the linguists this was designed to protect.


'What Assembly Bill 5 Means for Linguists' has no comments

Be the first to comment this post!

Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.