AB5: an Orwellian “Opportunity”

2+2=5As if this world wasn’t Orwellian enough already, with the effects of our 21st-century versions of the “1984” Ministries of Love, Peace, Plenty and Truth on the news every day, our California legislators have managed to come up with a new one: the Ministry of Opportunity, designed to “protect” freelancers by putting them out of business. I am talking of course about AB5, the new law forcing companies to reclassify freelancers as employees, which went into effect on January 1.

Yes, we get it; the law was designed specifically to make it harder for Uber and Lyft to skirt labor laws by treating their drivers, who are employees in all but name, as freelancers.  This makes sense for freelancers whose work requires them to be physically in California, which means that the company would not be able to simply hire someone who lives in a different state.

But translators (among many other freelance professions that operate on a similar model) and their clients are not bound by geographic location, since projects are assigned and delivered by email. So it’s as easy as “click send” to assign a translation to someone in Texas or the Netherlands who is not hampered by ridiculous laws and won’t expose them to the threat of future legal action.

Another issue is that most translators work for many different clients, since no single agency has enough projects to add up to a full-time job in most cases. So even if every agency would by some miracle agree to enter into employment contracts with its translators, translators would be getting a salary and benefits from 20 employers. Yes, I’m sure that will be excellent for the economy and not lead to higher prices at all. What an Opportunity all around.

The sponsor of the bill, assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), has consistently responded to the firestorm of concern with a few standard phrases that offer empty reassurance, misrepresent the facts and deny the actual consequences experienced by actual people as a result of her meddling:

  •  “If you are a true independent proprietor, you can still operate as one.” Reassuring words, but the devil, as usual, is in the details. Note that you have to be a “true” independent proprietor, which, surprise, is subject to a long list of criteria that is so complex and confusing that many translation agencies have stopped working with California-based freelancers out of fear of inadvertently breaking the law and being held liable later.
  • Independent contracting jobs or freelance jobs are “not good jobs to begin with.” Really? The median annual income for translators is about $50,000, with those at the top making more than twice that. Yes, I see how forcing companies to hire people at minimum wage would be a much better opportunity for translators with their no-good 6-figure jobs.
  • And in response to one particular translator who described her own experience since this law went into effect: “I’m sorry and I feel that she does feel that way. But I don’t think it is true.” No, I’m sure all those cancelled contract notices are entirely imaginary.

Thank you, Ministry of Opportunity, for your great and marvelous works on behalf of us poor saps who thought we were doing just fine on our own terms. We now understand that the old notion of equality of opportunity is unfair, that allowing people to hire whoever they want or to work for whoever they want creates an unacceptable difference in outcome. True equality can only come about when the law stamps out every unfair opportunity. But not for lawmakers themselves, of course. Because some are more equal than others.

AB5. The name could not be more perfect and unintentionally prophetic. In the final bleak chapter of Orwell’s 1984, the government agent holds up four fingers and “corrects” Winston’s thinking until he truly believes he is seeing five. I’m grateful for the many advocacy groups who are taking action by filing lawsuits, pressuring their representatives and challenging this law in other ways. With them, I still see four.

This was my venting post; thanks for listening. In my next post I’ll talk about my personal experiences with this law, changes I’ve had to make and what we can do as translators to challenge this law.

When the Shoe is on the Other Foot – 21 Days as an Undesirable Client

Reputation is everything in freelancing — and that goes for clients as well. In don’t know how it works in other industries, but the translation world is not that big and word gets around. This is especially true for agencies: there are various online groups, sites and forums for rating agencies and naming & shaming bad players. I’m not aware of any equivalent lists for translators, but I know that many agencies have internal rating systems for the people they work with and I’m sure project managers talk.

Still, lists and recommendations only cover a fraction of everyone out there, so most of us have kissed a few frogs in our search for Prince Charming Client who pays well and on time. After many years and thousands of email interactions with potential and actual clients, like many of you I have developed the gift of “instassessment”: the ability to see at a glance whether an offer is worth my time. It’s a sliding scale, and the classification is as follows:

Just No
Anything that does not address me by name, offers stupid low rates, or uses emoji’s in the subject line

If I Must
Pays well but the agency’s translation flow or online system is so burdensome and time-consuming it’s only worth the hassle if nothing better has presented itself. For a while.

If I Can
Well-paid but unenjoyable projects for good clients. Implementing track changes, “small” jobs that consist of multiple individual files, etc.

Yes Absolutely
Pays well, good communication, interesting projects. I have a few clients that fit this bill, and I will do whatever it takes to accommodate them.

Every morning I go through my inbox pretty quickly, ignoring, rejecting or accepting offers without too much deliberation since I know what I’m looking for and what I can handle on any given day.

And then one day the shoe was on the other foot. Because of some recent changes we no longer have health insurance through my husband’s job, and here in the US that means we are required to purchase our own insurance or face penalties at tax time. However, like many government programs, universal coverage is great idea in principle and a logistical nightmare in practice. As we found out in short order, Covered California, our state version of the federal program, is so difficult to navigate that you need professional help to do it, except the profit-to-hassle ratio for insurance agents is so unattractive that no one wants to touch it.

oliver twistSo instead of the smiles and friendly service we were used to with our old insurance, all of a sudden I got a lot of “just no’s”. For three weeks I talked to one agent after another who seemed happy to have my business until I dropped the CC-bomb, at which point they all of a sudden they remembered they were “not taking any new clients”. Or, if I had left a message on their machine, they did not return my call at all.

I did have a few “if I can” responses: these were agents I had worked with before and who were willing to help in principle, but when they realized they were in over their heads they either stopped returning my calls or told me good luck but try someone else.

I was getting close to desperate when on day 21, literally hours before the deadline, a miracle happened and I found an agent who told me she could help. Shann met with me right away, powered through the application and got us on a plan that was a third of the cheapest quote I got (for the same plan) when I submitted the form myself. To say I was impressed would be putting it mildly. This business woman has created a niche specialty by working just a little harder than everyone else to figure out a daunting system, and now she’s cleaning up with all those clients no one else can help.

It was a sobering experience to go from “preferred customer” to “undesirable”, just like that. I also realized that it was not the “just no” responses that really bothered me; at least the message was clear and it was nothing personal. I had no particular expectations from any of them anyway; that’s why I sent out so many requests.

It was harder to swallow when an agent I had always had a good relationship with promised me he would be able to help me for sure, but then he disappeared for two weeks before finally sending me a link to some online plans I could have googled myself in 10 seconds. The tone of his email had also changed from super helpful to curt and impersonal. Did he just feel bad he couldn’t deliver? I have no idea. But it felt worse than all the straightforward rejections from everyone else.

Generally, the more you are invested in a relationship, whether business or personal, the stronger the sense (and expectation) of obligation. That’s why I don’t feel bad for ignoring emails from agencies that that keep contacting me with jobs at subpar rates after we have had the “we’re not a good match” conversation. Or the requests for collaboration addressed to “dear linguist”. No relationship, no obligation.

But that’s why this stressful experience also highlights the power of “yes absolutely”. This agent did the hard work to specialize and carve out a niche, and now there are not too many people who can do what she does. I was thrilled when I found her and I have been recommending her to anyone who will listen ever since. That’s how I want my clients to feel about me.  But it takes work. A lot of people have the capability. Not everyone is willing to go that extra mile.