Interpreters

---

---

SCIC, hybrid meetings: agreement on a pilot phase

At SCIC, the Interpreters’ Delegation and management reached agreement on 12 July on a pilot phase for hybrid platform meetings (meetings with on site and remote participation).
As a reminder, the negotiations lasted nearly a year, with a break of almost 3 months and a unilateral cessation of negotiations decreed at the end of May by the Director General. Thanks to a letter from all trade unions and, above all, thanks to the Resolution of the General Assembly of Staff Interpreters and a vote of support from the AIC[1] interpreters, negotiations resumed and on 12 July they finally resulted in an agreement on a pilot phase.
Unfortunately, despite the insistence of the Interpreters’ Delegation, the basic problem, the potentially deleterious sound of the platforms, dangerous to hearing health, has not been resolved in the text.
As the SCIC hierarchy has always claimed that the blocking factor was at a higher level, it is to be hoped that the post of Commissioner responsible for SCIC will be filled by someone who is sensitive to health and safety at work and has the courage to resolve the problem at its root.
In the current situation, the only option was to limit exposure.
The agreement reached is certainly not an ideal one, but all the elements are in place for the approach to work, provided that certain voids are filled in before the start of the pilot phase on November 1. The Protocol on sound and the Protocol on the monitoring of auditory pathologies will have to be completed, and solutions will still have to be found for the areas currently excluded from the agreement: it is essential that interpreters be protected in all the institutions where they work (i.e. the Commission, the ESCE, the CoR and also the Council) as well as in the areas that are currently exempt, namely missions, audits, screenings, consecutive and rare language profiles. It is to be hoped that a satisfactory solution will be found by 1 November.
The text of the agreement will be submitted to the interpreters for approval at a General Assembly at the end of September, with a second vote planned for the end of the pilot phase at the end of April.

---

[1] AIC : Agents for conference interpreting (Agents Interprètes de Conférences)

---

Negotiations at SCIC in deadlock

The interpreters held a General Assembly on 14 June 2024

The European Parliament has managed to integrate platform meetings into the working conditions. It has laid down fairly clear rules for participants’ microphones to ensure proper sound, and the workload takes account of the increased mental charge. Unfortunately, at SCIC, after almost a year, negotiations on this very subject have failed to reach a successful conclusion.

Since the negotiation meeting on February 2, and despite the request of the Interpreters’ Delegation, there has been no official negotiation meeting for 3.5 months.

Discussions had always based themselves on a draft text from the Interpreters’ Delegation, given that the hierarchy had not submitted a complete draft text. The solution proposed by the DI would meet the needs of SCIC, including Planning, would protect the health and safety of interpreters and meeting participants and, what’s more, would be more economical than the current rules (between September 23 and February 24, it would have saved over 2.2 million euros).

It was not until last Friday, May 24, that negotiations resumed.

One week before, the hierarchy had finally provided a draft text – but which “forgets” the achievements of the negotiations of 2 February, adds a “surprise” package of categories of meetings that would be exempted from the rules and includes a key provision (limitation of exposure in days per week) only for the pilot phase of 6 months.

It would seem that SCIC wishes to incorporate a new way of working (platform interpretation) without any other form of trial:

— Without guaranteeing the safety of employees (no guarantee of good sound, no guarantee of hearing health),

— Without really wishing to limit exposure (which is a second best solution anyway),

— Without taking into account the increased cognitive burden.

The Interpreters’ Delegation negotiated in good faith and made some more concessions to the hierarchy where it was able to do so.

The “final” text sent by the hierarchy does not show a willingness to succeed.

The trade unions support the Interpreters’ Delegation, which has requested a further negotiation meeting. The hope of reaching an agreement is now weak. A resolution to this effect was passed at its  General Assembly.

But it is clearly the solution that would be preferable for all concerned.

We want to avoid that solutions in this case involve social action. We always advocate problem-solving through social dialogue.

---

The General Assembly of Staff Interpreters of DG SCIC met on 14 June 2002.

Resolution adopted:

1. Deplores the decision by the Director General of DG SCIC to unilaterally break negotiations and impose working conditions on platforms in disregard of social dialogue.
2. Expresses their determination to continue providing high-quality interpretation and contribute to DG SCIC remaining both a viable and sustainable public service and an attractive employer with working conditions comparable to other institutions. Quality, reliability and safety are impossible without safe sound.
3. Confirms that working conditions on platforms must guarantee auditory health and safety for interpreters factoring in cognitive load, pursuant to article 13 of the European Charter of
   Fundamental Rights, Council Directive 89/391, and articles 5 and 6 of Commission Decision C (2006).
4. Notes that the European Parliament and Court of Justice have introduced Sound Protocols
   including use of approved peripherals as a condition sine qua non for interpreters to do their job safely.
5. Deplores that the CPPT Recommendations published on February 16th, 2023, have still not been implemented a year later.
6. Demands equality of treatment affording the same level of protection to interpreters in SCIC as in other institutions.
7. Contends that a new technology such as Simultaneous Delivery Platforms cannot be deployed before a risk analysis is conducted and a complete, consolidated, and reliable register of cases of auditory pathologies reported by interpreters is established. Neither condition is currently met, and both are legal obligations.
8. Considers that in the absence of proof that platforms are safe for interpreters, exposure levels should not be expanded beyond current levels. (Precautionary principle).
9. Mandates the Interpreters’ Delegation to pre-emptively prepare an awareness raising campaign to contribute decisively to behavioural change in the use of approved peripherals with the backdrop of potential interruptions of service so that it comes as no surprise to our clients.
10. Calls on management to go back to the negotiating table.
11. Confirms the Delegation’s negotiation mandate in its entirety.
12. Mandates the Interpreters’ Delegation, in the event of non-resumption of negotiations, to call a referendum to decide whether to pursue industrial action in hybrid meetings. The industrial action would consist in a work-to-rule approach, with no interpretation of distant participants in all simultaneous hybrid meetings on Interactio.
13. In the event of a positive referendum, mandates the Interpreters’ Delegation as the elected
    representative of all SCIC staff interpreters to contact the trade unions and request they register a strike action notice with a view to bringing Management back to the negotiation table and reach a balanced agreement acceptable for both parties.

---

Detection of work-related accidents reveals risks that are not sufficiently taken into account

In recent months, our organisation has helped several interpreters with cases of hearing problems caused by the use of sound equipment (headsets, microphones, sound platforms) in the course of their work.  U4U has also played an active role in the social dialogue aimed at guaranteeing good working conditions for interpreters at the European Parliament and the Commission.

The recent recognition of several work-related accidents related to both acoustic shock and feedback marks an important stage in our fight, in collaboration with other trade unions and the interpreters’ delegation, for a multidimensional approach to this phenomenon. We will therefore continue to fight for fair compensation for the incapacity for work and damage to health suffered by interpreters, but also for the strengthening of preventive measures, the introduction of risk studies carried out at a professional level and the modernisation of sound systems.

It should be noted that although these particular risks primarily concern interpreters, they may also affect all our colleagues, as the use of headsets and microphones has become much more widespread since the spread of teleworking and remote meetings.

We will therefore continue to monitor this issue closely.

---

The problematic sound of videoconferences and its consequences on stress and hearing health is a subject U4U has taken up since the pandemic. It is relevant  especially for interpreters, but also for all those who have videoconferences as a tool in their daily lives.

In our last edition, we analyzed the highly processed sound of these conferences as source of the problem.

Today, we present several solutions.

An article by Andrea Caniato, voice consultant, certified voice trainer (Applied Physiology of the Voice) and EU accredited conference interpreter.

Videoconferencing platforms are designed to manipulate and alter by default the way you sound. Many people, including an embarrassingly high number of audiovisual professionals, still believe that the low quality of “internet sound” is due to the internet being unstable and to connectivity problems. However, good-quality sound does not use much bandwidth[1] and it is readily achievable in this day and age. The real reason why video calls sound shallow, distant, flat and unpleasant has been explained above and it has to do with the way platforms are designed (noise suppression, automatic gain control,  unwarranted low-bitrate policies) and the type of microphones used to join online meetings: microphones built into laptops and mobile devices, videoconferencing headsets with boom microphones (including “recommended” models), centre-table microphones in videoconference rooms and the like. All of the above are designed to “improve” or “optimize” speech. The idea of improving and optimizing a voice might understandably seem desirable to the layperson, so huge amounts of new devices are sold every day to satisfy this artificially-induced need. But 95% of this processing is unnecessary and unwarranted since it creates more problems than it solves. Sound is a bit like fresh fish: its quality can only be preserved by a well-functioning “cold chain”, not “improved” or restored after it has been damaged. If a noise-filtered, AI-engineered signal will often ensure your voice is heard even if you are not using the right equipment, a natural and more faithful reproduction of your real voice will encourage people to actually listen to what you have to say.

But is high-quality sound possible on the internet?

The answer is yes. It is both possible and not particularly difficult. All you need to do is tweak the right settings on a suitable videoconferencing platform, and use a real, plug-and-play, standalone podcasting microphone. Satisfactory solutions start from as little as 25 € and are abundantly available from any online store.

Let’s start with the platform. In order to make your actual voice is heard in high definition, you need to be able to deactivate the default settings that trigger undesirable processing. Not all videoconferencing platforms allow this, as they seem to assume you are incapable of connecting a decent microphone into your USB socket.

Here is a list of platforms that will enable broadcast-quality sound:

1) By far the best performer: Zoom, in Hi-fi Mode.

When the Hifi Mode is activated in Zoom, Zoom will not process your input and broadcast the sound exactly as it is picked up by your microphone. This function was developed during the summer of 2020 to allow prestigious music colleges in the US to teach music during the Covid-19 lockdown. Once you have a decent microphone connected, you will be able to sound like you would on the TV or, if you are using a podcasting microphone (podcasting microphones start from as little as 30 €), like you would on the radio. It is genuinely that good.

The Hifi function is available free of charge to all users of an up-to-date Zoom app for Windows or Mac. It will not work from your internet browser. It has successfully been tested for over 3 years in labs and during thousands of webinars and there are absolutely no contraindications even as far as home use is concerned. It will not require too much bandwidth (video is what actually uses your bandwidth, not audio), it will not crash your computer, you will not have to sound-proof your office in order to use it[2]. Speaking at 30 cm from the microphone will automatically reduce the impact of any background noise in your room by around 90%, and whatever background noise ends up being picked up by the microphone[3], it will not annoy your listeners because it will not be made louder and more aggressive by the AI-processing you have deactivated.

Zoom HiFi is also available from mobile devices, but its performance does not compare with what can be obtained using a personal computer.

Here are the boxes you need to have checked and unchecked under “Audio Settings” :

Please note that all forms of automatic gain control, noise suppression etc. need to be deactivated or neutralized by unticking them or setting them on “auto”.

Please also note that the best results are achieved if you are using headphones (of any type) instead of computer speakers, as this will allow you to keep “echo cancellation” deactivated and further improve the quality of the sound you make.

Please also remember that if you plug a poor-sounding microphone (earbuds, integrated iPad microphone, call-centre type headset etc.) into Zoom HiFi, you will simply hear the poor sound made by your unsuitable microphone. Please also bear in mind that an “Original Sound” button will appear on the main call screen once “Music Mode” is on. You need to press that button as well to activate Hi-Fi sound properly.

2) A worthy runner-up to Zoom HiFi: Webex in Music Mode

Music mode was introduced to Cisco Webex around one year ago. Although it does not sound as impressively good as Zoom HiFi, it is still worth activating if you want to sound like a real human being. The result is perfectly acceptable when a decent microphone is used. Activating music mode on Webex is also easier than it is on Zoom: just make sure the automatic gain control function is deactivated and tick the “Music Mode” box. Under “advanced settings, make sure you are bypassing your computer’s audio drivers completely.

3) Promising the moon, delivering much less because YOUR connection is never good enough: MS Teams

MS Teams introduced a new High Fidelity Music mode towards the end of 2021 and claims that if this mode is activated, a 32kHz sampling rate at 128kbps is made available “when network bandwidth allows”. But when the network doesn’t allow, “the bitrate can be reduced to as low as 48kbps and Teams still produces good-quality audio” (source: https://support.microsoft.com). Listening tests evidence that unlike Zoom and Webex, MSTeams will probably never consider bandwdith to be sufficient to bring quality up to the required bitrate. Even when a powerful connection and a very good microphone are used, “high-fidelity” MSTeams will sound better than “basic” MS Teams, but does absolutely not compare with Zoom Hi-Fi (not even with Webex). Noise-suppressing algorithms are removed and autogain appears no longer to be working, so the option is definitely worth activating (with a couple of limitations: see below), but if you want other people to enjoy your presentation, Teams is not an option.

Blaming lower quality sound on the performance of users’ connections has long been a popular excuse in the videoconferencing business. And yet video transmission uses up 7-10 times more bandwidth than sound, so if the problem really were on the participant’s end, most people would not be able to use their webcams either… Moreover, 48kbps is hardly compatible with “good-quality audio”.

The high-fidelity music mode is found under Settings> Devices> High-fidelity music mode, but only if you have a MSTeams client AND a paid corporate license. If you do not have a paid license, a “music mode” pop-up will briefly appear on your screen if MSTeams identifies “music” in your room (!!!).

MS Teams basically makes a “better sound” option available, but only if you really know where to go looking for it, only if you have a paid license… and only if your connection is more powerful than NASA’s. In a nutshell, MS Teams does not really want you to use their hi-function, and sound quality is clearly not a priority in the MS Teams environment.

4) A bare pass: Skype

Recent versions of Skype allow users to deactivate background noise suppression and autogain, which is a good start. Bitrate is probably nothing exceptional. Deactivating those 2 functions (under advanced options) improves sound quality. Skype’s output does not compare with Zoom and Webex, but at least heavy filtering can be deactivated, which remarkably reduces signal degradation.

What about Google Meet and the rest?

On Meet and other platforms, there is not much more you can do than use a better microphone (microphones are discussed below) so as at least to reduce the amount of processing your voice is subjected to.

When you use Google Meet and basic MS Teams (and Webex, etc) your voice is bound to sound muffled and unnatural.

A good platform like Zoom HiFi will allow you to hear the actual quality of the microphone you are using. Let’s have a look at which affordable and user-friendly microphones do your timbre justice in the videoconferencing environment.

MICROPHONES

What microphones should be avoided?

The built-in microphone of your computer / smartphone / iPhone / iPad / Macbook (yes, even Macbook) webcam microphones (with a couple of exceptions), smartphone and iPhone earbuds (and all Blueetooth microphones), headsets with boom microphones (especially USB) and, above all, the microphones installed in corporate videoconference rooms (even if they were sold to your company as “miraculous”) should be avoided at all costs. They are designed with telephone quality in mind, and they actively and heavily process your voice in the ways discussed in this article (noise suppression, aggressive equalization, dynamic range compression etc). There is a huge amount of marketing behind call-centre type headsets with boom microphones and microphone arrays on the ceiling of corporate videoconference rooms. Therefore, the fact that YouTubers are recommending them, IT people are vetting them, your employer is buying you one and that all of your colleagues are convinced that they are excellent is not entirely surprising. But it is still completely wrong.

When you use these microphones, your audience will see you on screen the way they would see you on the television (possibly in high definition), but they will hear you sounding like a call-centre employee on the phone – albeit louder.

Which microphone should you use to make sure people hear your real voice?

The easiest solution is a USB podcasting or desktop microphone. This type of microphone is not intended to be used in a call-centre-type environment (where dozens of people are sitting in close proximity and simultaneously making telephone calls, from the crowded waiting area of an airport or from the terrace of a bar. This being said, these are also not the sorts of places you should be addressing a videoconference from – not if your personal image and your content are of any importance to you.

USB podcasting microphones are recording microphones, so they are designed with radio quality in mind, to pick-up the sound of your voice as faithfully as possible, without manipulating it in any significant way. Anyone can use them. All you need to do is plug one into your USB socket and select it as the default microphone in your videoconferencing platform.

Manufacturing a good microphone is not particularly expensive, and so a budget as low as 30 € will suffice to buy a microphone that will make you sound better than a talk-show host. More sophisticated microphones will cost you around 50€ and microphones giving you the equivalent of recording-studio quality will cost you between 70 and 100 €. Brands like Seiren, RØDE, Shure, AKG etc. have excellent solutions below 100 €. All you need to do is look up “podcasting microphone” in your favourite webstore.

Recommendations on specific models and makes can be found here.

USB lapel microphones are also an interesting option. They are designed to be used in interviews and broadcasting situations, so their input remains unprocessed. The USB connector will bypass your computer’s sound card and sound drivers (which are a potential source of audio manipulation). The microphone is barely visible on camera (no more visible than on the tie or neckline of a TV anchor), which will make you appear more professional. Depending on your budget and if used on Zoom (HiFi), a USB lapel microphone will give you a reasonable, perhaps even perfect equivalent of TV sound. A decent solution from a reputable brand like Sennheiser – one that enables sound quality worthy of a prime-time TV show – will cost you no more than 70€.

This type of microphone is extremely lightweight, it fits in a pouch and it is therefore very easy to carry with you if you are travelling.

Like all other types of microphones, including headset microphones[4], lapel microphones need correct placement in order to perform at their best.

[1] Excellent quality audio uses up around 10% of the bandwidth required by decent video. 96Kbps are sufficient to deliver an excellent and natural-sounding representation of a human voice and even musical instruments. A low-performing internet connection with as little as 1mbps of upload speed can broadcast excellent quality audio and video.

[2] Even if platforms insist that a sound-proof environment and a highly professional microphone are necessary to switch to their “music modes and warn users that “voice” and “speech” are better if processed by their algorithms years of practice and dozens of webinars clearly show that none of that is actually necessary. Speech processing via DSP is probably being pushed to optimize the performance of to speech-to-text engines.

[3] The “inverse square law”: https://audiouniversityonline.com/inverse-square-law-of-sound/

[4] One of the reasons why center-table microphones, headset microphones and microphones built into computers and mobile devices are heavily processed by AI-algorithms is that they are intended for incorrect use: when the microphone is kept 50 cm (or more) away from your mouth, or very close to your lips, the chances of it picking up a lot of unwanted signal are extremely high, hence the need to overprocess its output.         

---

The Covid19 pandemic has permanently reshaped office life. Introduced as a sort of emergency patch in order to keep companies and institutions working during lockdown, frequent use of videoconferencing tools has become part of the “new normal”. An ability to participate in remote or hybrid meetings via Zoom, Teams, Meet etc. reduces the need to travel, saves time and affords unprecedented access to business partners, colleagues and audiences far and wide. On paper, the potential is huge: videoconferencing allows people to fit many more meetings into their schedule, without actually leaving their office. In quantitative terms, you can get “more work done in less time”. And if you are teleworking, you can do so even from the comfort of your own home. Less traveling, less commuting, possibly more time for yourself and your family: videoconferencing is, ostensibly, a sure-fire way of improving your well-being and your work-life balance.

Yet, many videoconferencing participants’ experience of online meetings is unpleasant and tiring, and scientists are warning that “Zoom fatigue” may have serious consequences for human health, including burnout[1].  Numerous attempts have been made to explain the causes of videoconferencing fatigue, mainly based on cognitive / emotional distress and frustration due to the lack of eye contact, diminished or non-existent access to visual cues and body language, multitasking, lack of (or unnatural exposure to) other types of visual information being just some examples[2]. Under this visually oriented, cognitive perspective, the videoconferencing environment does not properly satisfy the basic, innate requirements for effective communication between human beings, which generates subconscious frustration. Frustration leads to an adverse emotional response and negative emotions, which, in turn, generate stress.

This way of explaining the problem has three major shortcomings:

a) As it is based on the media naturalness theory[3], it tends to reduce the non-verbal aspects of communication to merely visual elements for conveying emotions and creating a rapport between people. It therefore focuses on visual aspects such as eye contact, facial expressions and body language (and the absence thereof during videoconferences) and visual feedback (participants apparently feeling alienated by the sight of their own face on the screen), compounded by additional stress factors such as multitasking or asynchronicity due to system latency.

b) It considers chronic fatigue, stress and burnout as the almost exclusive potential outcomes of frequent exposure to videoconferencing.

c) It fails to explain why the same factors, or similar combinations thereof, do not lead to similar outcomes in other settings: For instance, listening to a radio programme also involves the total absence of body language, visual cues, facial expressions. Listeners typically engage in other tasks while listening to it (ironing, dishwashing, driving, cleaning, working out…), but exposure to a radio programme while performing other tasks does not appear to generate stress. Likewise, exchanging emails or writing letters involves huge, noticeable latencies (hours, days, weeks), no body language and possibly a great deal of frustration if no answer is received, but the concept of “correspondence fatigue” has never become mainstream and is not known in the scientific literature. Watching YouTube tutorials or livecasts also involves micro-latency issues (most YouTubers are very slightly out of sync), an inability to interact (a crowded chat is all you have available during a YouTube or Facebook livestream) and the absence of eye contact when the speaker is not looking directly into the camera, but “YouTube fatigue” has not become an issue either, notwithstanding its popularity and widespread use.

Faulty as this attempt to explain fatigue might be, videoconferencing stress is real and its impacts on the human nervous system have been finally proven and described by a study recently published on Nature. A team of Austrian researchers has convincingly shown that mere passive exposure (no bi-directional communication, no interaction) to less than 1 hour of videoconferencing (e.g. a university lecture) causes measurable stress and fight-or-flight reactions not seen in subjects exposed to the same lesson in face-to-face mode[4]. Significantly, these results were produced in a quiet, stress-free and controlled laboratory environment, where exposure to a videoconference call was the only potential stressor.

This means that there is something about videoconferencing that inherently causes brain fatigue and measurable autonomic-system activity, typically seen when human beings perceive the presence of a threat. This happens even with passive exposure to situations where interaction and multitasking are not required – which would rule out frustrated expectations of interaction, multitasking, eye-contact and the like as a potential source of cognitive and emotional stress.

But what threat is the autonomic nervous system reacting to? And is this threat real or imaginary?

Some light on this question can be shed by focusing on a usually overlooked variable. It is typical of videoconferencing environments and virtually absent from other, more professional forms of broadcasting and from face-to-face interaction  that both do not seem to cause any stress to recipients. This factor is the presence of degraded and heavily manipulated audio signals.

Though most people (and research teams) have so far failed to notice this, videoconference audio is highly unnatural and often heavily processed. Some of the key factors behind degraded videoconferencing sound have already been proven to:

a) cause measurable stress reactions in both human beings and test animals, even when these factors are taken individually;          
b) not to be of a visual, cognitive or relational nature.     

Let’s take a look at these stressors:

“Poor sound”.

In a study published during the early 2000s, Wilson, Gillian & Sasse[5] showed how different types of audio degradation elicited different reactions in test subjects. Some were psychological only, others were neurophysiological.            
           
On the one hand, the sound defects typically caused by poor connectivity or network issues (packet loss) and resulting in loss of speech intelligibility of content (missing syllables, words, phrases or sentences) were reported as annoying and unpleasant by test subjects, but they failed to unleash any significant physiological stress reaction. On the other hand, audio degradation caused by low-quality microphones and “loud sound” was hardly noticed by test subjects and did not therefore result in any “cognitive” complaints, but it did cause measurable fight-or-flight reactions in participants. Their nervous systems were clearly perceiving a threat that their conscious mind failed to notice and identify, even though the laboratory task was minimally engaging and did not involve any real cognitive or relational effort.

A significant impact on the human nervous system could therefore be measured as a consequence of stimuli that did not reach the consciousness of test subjects and did not cause any cognitive or psychological reaction.

Fried guinea pig brains
A recent experiment conducted by Professor Paul Avan’s team at the Institut Pasteur[6] has shown how heavily processed digital sound (in this case, heavy dynamic range compression) can literally destroy the hearing system circuitry in the brain stem of test animals at listening levels that did not cause any irreversible brain stem damage in animals exposed to far less processed signals. The middle-ear reflex (the mechanism that protects the ear from loud sound) of animals exposed to heavy dynamic range compression could no longer function properly after the experiment had been completed.
Dynamic range compression is a form of digital audio processing that can be used to “inflate” sound and to engineer a sense of perceptual loudness, while not raising peak levels.      
           
Tinnitus at the dentist’s
Dentists are particularly exposed to tinnitus and hearing loss, owing to the noise made by dental drills and the like. Studies on these drills have mostly failed to detect the presence of emissions exceeding safe limits, and dentists’ practices are usually not experienced as loud places by patients. So how are hand-held devices damaging the ears of dentists? By looking into the qualitative aspects of dental drill noise, one research team[7] has found that the noise made by these devices is concentrated in very specific ranges of the audible spectrum (2k-6kHz). Incidentally, the human auditory system is particularly sensitive to high-frequency vibration (especially in the 3k-5kHz). Opera singers leverage resonance in those areas (especially 3kHz) to override the background sound of orchestras, and infant voices deliver more energy than adult voices in the same area (especially around 4kHz) in order to attract attention. Shouting also increases energy in the same area of the audible spectrum. Delivering higher concentrations of acoustic energy around 3k-4kHz is a sure-fire way of attracting attention by causing alarm – and, to the nervous system of human beings, alarm means stress. The human inner ear has evolved to be particularly sensitive to those frequency bands. Specialized sensors are both very abundant. They are also easily damaged by acoustic trauma, which is usually caused by occasional exposure to extremely loud spikes (jet engines, gunshot) or frequent exposure over time to large average doses of noise in loud environments (e.g. factories, construction sites).  

It would appear that concentrating acoustic energy in sensitive frequency bands may harm the human ear even at much lower levels than those that, to date, have been considered unsafe. Interestingly, a study conducted in Sweden has recently found that pre-school teachers exposed to theoretically safe daily doses (75-85dB) of infant voices have a higher incidence of hyperacusis[8].

But what does videoconferencing have in common with crying children, opera singers, dental drills, overcompressed music or high average dB exposure? Is videoconferencing sound “loud” or “operatic”? Do videoconference participants shout or use dental drills during calls? And, if a psycho-cognitive model of the problem is applied, does videoconference sound lack any of the crucial elements of human communication?

Videoconferencing sound is aggressive
Not many people notice this, but the voices of videoconferencing participants and the noise they can occasionally make near their devices are extremely artificial. Videoconferencing audio is anything but natural-sounding. It’s usually piercing, metallic, slightly (or very) robotic, artificial and often muffled, even when connection speeds are very high and video is HD. In other words, videoconference sound is intrinsically “noisy”. Multiple tests of videoconferencing platforms have shown how the widespread use of AI algorithms that “optimize” voice, remove background noise, keep your voice at a constant level, regardless of how far you are swaying away from the microphone, and prevent audio feedback introduce sizeable amounts of harmonic distortion, muffle sound and reduce intelligibility. Noise-filtering algorithms have the biggest detrimental impact, since getting rid of background noise live is an AI-driven guessing game and doing it without compromising the quality of the signal (i.e. by degrading timbre) is virtually impossible. The more aggressive the filtering, the heavier the muffling, distorting and robotizing impact on the speaker’s voice. Noise filters also have a widely recognized impact on speech intelligibility, which is why additional AI algorithms are used to compensate for loss of intelligibility by engineering a sense of perceptual loudness in the signal in order for it to stand out against the background noise and make the most of the receiver’s usually undersized and underperforming computer speakers or headphones.

Put in oversimplified, layman’s terms, this is typically done in 3 ways:

a) by equalizing the signal aggressively and raising levels in a targeted manner: the signal is manipulated so that proportionally more dB (often even + 20, 25dB) are assigned to ranges of the audible spectrum where the human ear is particularly sensitive: the notorious 3k-5kHz area. This makes the sound piercing and metallic, without making it exceed theoretically safe dB levels, and clearly punches the auditory system where it is less defended. This is the AI-generated equivalent of dental-drill noise.

b) by raising softer components at a microscopic level so that they become louder than they would normally be. While the overall permissible peak dB levels are not exceeded, the average dB content of the signal is increased, while energy is concentrated in very sensitive ranges of the inner ear, as shown above. The “dental drill” is never softer than a certain level, determined by an AI algorithm programmed (or operating autonomously) without much understanding of how the human hearing system is supposed to function. This type of processing is a form of aggressive dynamic range compression (not to be confused with data compression, as in mp3) also known as “upward compression”. Measurements have shown that exposure to dynamic ranges not exceeding 10 dB is frequent in the videoconferencing and hybrid setting, which means that the sound is flat and the auditory system (especially some of its softer spots) is kept under constant, unrelenting pressure. The laws of physics are very clear regarding the effects of constant pressure concentrated in a small surface area: pressure does not need to be heavy to dig a hole if it is applied constantly and for long enough. Bed ulcers in bed-ridden hospital patients are an excellent example for visualizing how this type of signal can damage the auditory system. Published research, moreover, shows that the human auditory system activates protective reflexes (the stapedial reflex, also known as the middle-ear-reflex) even at levels considered quiet when 3k-5k bandwidths are louder than they usually would be in “natural” audio signals. The system is spotting a threat, and it tries to fend it off.[9]  

Experiments referenced above (guinea pigs) have also shown that overuse of dynamic range compression can have catastrophic impacts on the auditory components of the mammalian brain stem.

---

---

c) Whenever faced with a sound perceived as stressful or threatening (including, but not limited to, “too loud”), the human auditory system activates the so-called stapedial reflex: the tiny muscles in the middle ear contract to block that sound, thus limiting inner-ear exposure to a dangerous stimulus. However, this reflex needs a few milliseconds to kick in (latency).

AI algorithms (and careless sound engineers) that want to increase the “crispness” of consonants in order to “boost speech intelligibility” have ways of making dynamic range compression so aggressive that every consonant becomes a micro-threat to the auditory system. Consonants are rich in high-frequency content and “s” sounds can even reach up to 5kHz. Consonants usually begin with a very short spike in dB level, followed by a sudden drop (a phenomenon known as an “attack transient”). Of course, no natural consonant can rise to its maximum intensity so fast that the stapedial reflex cannot kick in if necessary. Yet, when a digital compressor is programmed in such a way as to cause these spikes to become faster than the stapedial reflex – which is perfectly possible with modern technology – the sudden spikes generated by hundreds of overcompressed consonants per minute, even at supposedly “safe” listening levels, can turn into a flurry of micro-shocks delivered to the softest spots of the inner ear.

A combination of two or more of the above factors is, unfortunately, a frequent occurrence in the videoconferencing and hybrid environment, and constitutes a clear and direct threat to the auditory system and the central nervous system of participants. It is therefore no wonder that autonomic system reactions are detected that would normally correlate with the presence of a threat or of nociceptive stimuli.

The fear subliminally perceived by test subjects in the studies by Riedl, R., Kostoglou, K., Wriessnegger and Wilson and Sasse (see above) is, therefore, real and perfectly justified!

Why overprocess sound?

The point of overprocessing through AI algorithms is to allow people to join a meeting from the street, a noisy train, a windy beach or their car and still be able to make themselves heard. It is also used to purportedly “improve” the low-quality sound made by microphones built into laptop computers. Unfortunately, measurements and experience demonstrate that these “enhancements” come at a very high, but often unnoticed price.

Videoconferencing sound is intrinsically loud, through a particular type of “loudness” that is obtained without exceeding supposedly “safe” levels – a trick already used to some degree in TV advertising. The average dB content of videoconferencing signals is measurably higher than that of “natural” sound, and these signals are inherently noisy and distorted.

To the human nervous system, the voices of videoconferencing participants are virtually screaming with operatic twang, as though they were on digital steroids.

The sources of overprocessing
Overprocessing in the videoconferencing environment is applied by multiple layers of live Digital Signal Processing (DSP) tools. These DSP tools are typically found in:

• the software managing the microphones built into your laptops, telephone, tablet computers;
• the centre-table microphones or microphone arrays your new conference room has been equipped with;
• the call-centre type headset with a boom microphone your employer is asking you to use to “improve” the videoconferencing experience;
• the videoconferencing platform;

The local installation of the room hosting a hybrid meeting.

Given that compressors work logarithmically, each layer of processing added on top of the previous ones boosts them exponentially (compressors work logarithmically), which massively escalates their negative impacts and generates overcompression.

What are the repercussions for human health?
Research has so far mainly concentrated on the impacts of videoconferencing in terms of fatigue, stress and burnout syndromes, but once overprocessed sound is understood as being the chief factor behind this type of fatigue, the link between videoconferencing stress, the auditory “threat” and auditory health problems can no longer be ignored. The following are two examples that clarify this link.

1. Digitally overprocessed sound is also a typical feature of call centres. Operators are exposed to aggressive audio signals processed by live digital signal processing devices (DSPs) in more or less the same ways as videoconferencing signals. Unsurprisingly, call centre populations are very exposed to stress, burnout syndromes[10] and typically develop auditory problems like tinnitus, hypersensitivity to sudden noise (hyperacusis), hearing loss and balance problems[11]. Needless to say, these conditions are debilitating, may be disabling, and are usually incurable.
   
   The symptoms reported by call centre operators are usually ascribed to repetitive tasks, multitasking and the assumed presence of sudden loud bursts of noise down the telephone lines – the intensity, the role and even the presence of which has never been convincingly demonstrated. The auditory issues of call centre operators are known in the medical literature as acoustic shock syndrome, but given that the symptoms appear even where sudden peaks of very loud noise are impossible because they are electronically prevented (usually by means, ironically, of … dynamic range compressors!), the very existence of this syndrome has been questioned by some researchers and its definition is controversial.
   
   What no scientific paper on call-centre populations has yet done is characterize and describe the profile of call-centre signals, which, unsurprisingly, are heavily processed by compressors, noise filters and the like to help operators “hear better” and prevent loud peaks.

2. The introduction of videoconferencing in multilingual and international communication settings (the UN system, the EU institutions, and bodies such as NATO and the Canadian Parliament) etc, and in international business meetings and conferences) where simultaneous interpreters are employed has spawned an unprecedented epidemic of auditory health problems among interpreters[12]. The symptoms are very similar to those already described in call-centre populations. Like call-centre operators, simultaneous interpreters wear headphones. Moreover, they have to listen and speak at the same time, which requires the auditory system to solve a complex puzzle known in the literature as the “cocktail party problem” and are often now on the receiving end of heavily processed sound, picked up (and manipulated by) mobile devices, built-in computer microphones and videoconferencing platforms and then reprocessed by conference room installations that were not originally designed for videoconferencing. Conference room settings often have to be tweaked in order to cater for remote interventions, and many modern installations are no longer manned even by human sound engineers, which further compounds the problem. According to various surveys, over 60% of interpreters working at international organizations have experienced auditory health problems similar to those of call-centre operators since the introduction of videoconferencing in multilingual meetings.
   
   This has made the headlines many times in Canada (where the national parliament is bilingual) and the problem has led to an interpreters’ strike at the European Parliament. Since its first use at the Nuremberg trials, simultaneous interpreting has always been a cognitively intensive task requiring a huge mental effort, frequent lack of eye contact with speakers and abundant frustration, owing to the frequent reading at top of speed of pre-prepared speeches by meeting participants, many of whom are speaking in a non-native language and may be difficult to understand. Significantly though, these stressful factors had never previously led to high incidence of burnout, let alone an epidemic of tinnitus, hyperacusis and hearing loss.

Figure 4: A combination of extremely aggressive compression and equalization during a meeting serviced by simultaneous interpreters

Anecdotal evidence of other categories of workers frequently exposed to videoconferences suggests that the problem might be more widespread. ENT doctors do not typically ascribe these symptoms to poor-quality sound because most of them have no specific training in, or understanding of, sound quality or sound engineering and they have never set foot in a call centre or an interpreting booth. Moreover, such concepts as “toxic sound” and “auditory burnout” do not yet appear in the medical literature, so doctors are typically unaware that poor sound quality is a potential risk factor. A number of teams of researchers are now investigating this, both in Europe and in North America, but evidence of videoconference signals being aggressive and overprocessed is already abundant since it is extremely easy to obtain.

Is every participant in a videoconference call experiencing burnout or auditory health problems?

The impact of overprocessed videoconference audio is obviously not being felt to the same extent by all participants. On the one hand, a certain proportion of the general population is known to be genetically more sensitive to noise and more prone to developing auditory conditions: videoconference signals might simply be driving people whose auditory systems are more fragile “by design” towards collapse. Yet, how many of those auditory systems would develop otherwise rare and disabling conditions like hyperacusis (up to 30% in highly exposed populations) if they were not being aggressively overstimulated by AI algorithms? On the other hand, noise is known to cause harm through prolonged exposure to levels that are not harmful provided that they are limited to 1-2 hours a day. For this reason, regulatory noise limits are always based on daily/weekly doses. Populations with high incidence of disabling auditory symptoms (call-centre operators and, since Covid, interpreters and conference clerks) seem to be concentrated in workplaces where multiple layers of overprocessing can easily be identified. This increases the dose (and makes its content more “toxic”) and it can therefore accelerate the damage-causing process. Workers exposed to videoconferencing in environments where fewer layers of overprocessing are applied might only require more exposure for them to end up having to report to an audiology ward. They might develop fatigue and burnout syndromes before they develop tinnitus. Tinnitus and hyperacusis may also lead to depression and fatigue. Tinnitus can keep sufferers awake at night, while the constant stress generated by the fact that everyday sounds have become harmful and even fear-inducing can take a heavy toll on one’s mental well-being. These symptoms could therefore be viewed as precursors to, or aggravating factors, of depression, fatigue and burnout syndromes.

Finally, it should be borne in mind that not all smokers end up developing lung cancer and not all factory workers exposed to asbestos have developed asbestosis. Risk factors do not necessarily produce negative impacts in each and every subject exposed to them.

Does videoconferencing really increase productivity?

Productivity can be measured in different ways. On a merely quantitative level, replacing face-to-face meetings with videoconferences allows employees and managers to take part in many more meetings than they could attend when Zoom calls were not the norm. However, on a qualitative level, the sorts of results that can be obtained from online meetings hardly compare with in-person interaction: when they are unconsciously feeling threatened and their fight-or-flight mode is activated, participants can hardly be expected to be creative, constructive, empathetic and collaborative. Optimum performance is never achieved (let alone maintained) when people are feeling threatened. Moreover, trust and credibility are key ingredients in any successful team effort or negotiation. An interesting piece of research[13] has recently demonstrated how the degrading of the audio quality of presentations has a major impact on the perceived credibility of the speaker and of their presentations’ contents. In that study, a group of scientists was asked to grade both the personal credibility of fellow scientists presenting their research and the quality of the research being presented. Presentations were recorded, then shown to two different groups of evaluators. Both groups were treated to exactly the same contents, accent, speed of delivery, presenting skills, body language etc.; the only difference was the quality of the audio signal (i.e. the timbre of the presenter), which had been deliberately degraded. It turned out that the group treated to presentations with degraded timbre found the presenters to be less credible and trustworthy and their contents to be of lesser quality. Timbre is the signature of a person’s voice. It reveals the speaker’s inner posture, the amount of tension in the muscles, ligaments and mucosal membranes, and their relative configuration. It is the audible body language of the speaker’s nervous system and inner organs. Timbre indicates to listeners what type of “object” is making a sound, what its shape is and what it consists of. Timbre makes it possible for listeners to distinguish a violin from a trumpet when they are playing exactly the same music. Videoconferencing tools do not distort the speaker’s intonation, rhythm or accent; distortion and spectral manipulation alter the timbre of voices[14].

The reason why degraded timbre has such a huge impact on the credibility of speakers is that human beings tend to be more trusting in people they feel are near to them and similar to them. Timbre contains the spectral cues that allow human beings to establish the distance between themselves and a source of sound. The voices of videoconference participants are typically deprived of part of the frequencies that signal proximity, so they may sound distant even to listeners who are wearing headphones. Alternatively, they may sound so near that they become intrusive, or come across as difficult to place in space (and therefore unreal) because some spectral components are too loud and others too soft. At the same time, most videoconference signals reproduce voices as though speakers had no forehead and no nose and merely consisted, in auditory and perceptual terms, of a neck and an oversized mouth. In real life, no human being sounds like a videoconference participant. Based on what meeting participants sound like online, the deep layers of our nervous system can hardly classify them as real human beings. Moreover, given the way some components of their voices are usually overly boosted, videoconference participants are inherently shouting. To what extent can you subliminally trust someone that looks like a human being, speaks like a human being but does not sound like a human being – and sounds aggressive to your nervous system, to boot?

Given that trust, credibility and rapport are the secret ingredients of every successful human interaction, if any meaningful results are to come out of a meeting videoconference, participants must be able to come across to their counterparts (colleagues, superiors, employees) as credible, authentic and real, and not cause them unwanted and unconscious fight-or-flight reactions.

For an HR manager, making videoconference sound natural could therefore prove to be much more useful than offering staff stress-prevention, conflict-resolution or empathy-based communication training sessions. In the age of videoconferencing, coming across as a real human being is the softest skill your employees can learn.

But can videoconference sound natural? And, if so, how?
The solutions to the problem will be explained in the next edition.

---

[1] Cranford, S. Zoom fatigue, hyperfocus, and entropy of thought. Matter 3, 587–589 (2020).Wiederhold, B. K. Connecting through technology during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Avoiding “Zoom Fatigue”. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 23, 437–438 (2020).Riedl, R. On the stress potential of videoconferencing: definition and root causes of Zoom fatigue. Electronic Mark. 32, 153–177 (2022).
[2] Riedl, R. On the stress potential of videoconferencing: Definition and root causes of Zoom fatigue. Electronic Mark. 32, 153–177 (2022).Denstadli, J. M., Julsrud, T. E. & Hjorthol, R. J. Videoconferencing as a mode of communication: A comparative study of the use of  videoconferencing and face-to-face meetings. J. Bus. Tech. Commun. 26, 65–91 (2012).     
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_naturalness_theory
[4] Riedl, R., Kostoglou, K., Wriessnegger, S.C. et al. Videoconference fatigue from a neurophysiological perspective: experimental evidence based on electroencephalography (EEG) and electrocardiography (ECG). Sci Rep 13, 18371 (2023).
[5] Wilson, Gillian & Sasse, Angela. (2002). Investigating the Impact of Audio Degradations on Users.
[6] Dos Santos, T., Bordiga, P., Hugonnet, C., Avan, P., “Musique surcompressée, un risque auditif spécifique”, Acoustique et Techniques, 99, 24-31, 2022.    
[7] Rotter K.R.G., Atherton M.A., Kaymak E. and Millar B., Noise Reduction of Dental Drill Noise, Mechanotronics 2008.
[8] Fredriksson S., Hussain-Alkhateeb L., Torén K., Sjöström M., Selander J., Gustavsson P., Kähäri K., Magnusson L., Persson Waye K. The Impact of Occupational Noise Exposure on Hyperacusis: A Longitudinal Population Study of Female Workers in Sweden. Ear Hear. 2022 Jul-Aug 01.
[9] Wiley T.L., Oviatt D.L., Block M.G. : Acoustic-immittance measures in normal ears. J Speech Hear Res. 1987 Jun;30(2):161-70.
[10] https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherelliott/2023/03/18/thank-you-for-not-calling-agents-are-on-the-verge-of-burnout-study-finds/Toker    M.A.S., Güler N. General mental state and quality of working life of call center employees. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2022.
[11] By way of example: Westcott M. Acoustic shock injury (ASI). Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 2006 Dec. Pawlaczyk-Luszczynska M., Dudarewicz A., Zamojska-Daniszewska M., Zaborowski K., Rutkowska-Kaczmarek P. Noise exposure and hearing status among call center operators. Noise Health. 2018 Sep-Oct.
[12] Garone, A.: Reported Impacts of RSI on Auditory Health at International Organisations https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OfnkWECRYJgCxNb8jxdVc_tpajMPm5id/view?usp=sharing https://www.acep-cape.ca/en/news/cape-survey-confirms-continued-parliamentary-interpreters-health-and-safety-risks-year https://www.politico.eu/article/strike-european-parliament-interpreters-walk-off-the-job/
[13] Eryn J. Newman and Norbert Schwarz, Good Sound, Good Research: How Audio Quality Influences Perceptions of the Research and Researcher, Science Communication 2018, Vol. 40(2) 246 –257.
[14] More information can be found here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/does-your-voice-sound-credible-here-why-viewers-switch-andrea-caniato/  and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGTjdpZ_Lx8

---

At SCIC, negotiations on working conditions are underway.     For the time being, in line with management’s wishes, negotiations are focusing only on hybrid meetings. Indeed, management wanted to give priority to negotiations on this part of the working conditions, with the aim of concluding them in October 2023. As the rules for hybrid meetings were set in an emergency during the pandemic and as knowledge has progressed since then, it makes sense to review these rules. The Interpreters’ Delegation (ID), as the staff representation, participated constructively in all the meetings and submitted a detailed text proposal at an early stage in the process. It is worth noting, however, that certain factors, such as the frequency of negotiation meetings, are not within the DI’s remit.     If the European Parliament (EP) was able to find a solution acceptable to all parties, what are the problematic aspects for SCIC?     On the one hand, SCIC has more meetings to cover than the EP, and the diversity of participants is greater. On the other hand, the budgetary resources available to SCIC are inferiour to those of DG Linc in the Parliament. The EP’s solution for guaranteeing good quality sound (sending compliant microphones, testing ahead of meetings, and a team of meeting managers who handle the ‘platform’ aspects during the meetings) is said to be too expensive for SCIC.    However, if we put into the equation the savings made by the Commission thanks to hybrid meetings (travel, hotel and per diem costs), it is rather surprising that not even part of this money could be used to guarantee the hearing health of interpreters and participants.     In addition, according to SCIC, there seems to be a certain reluctance in the upper spheres of the Commission regarding the system adopted by the EP: the “guarantee to be interpreted only if the equipment and set-up comply“. The reason for this reticence is apparently a so-called democratic deficit due to the link between the compliance with certain rules and the right to be interpreted. However, it is difficult to understand how this health protection measure would be more detrimental to democracy than a badge to access Commission meeting rooms or the fact that for certain languages there is simply no interpretation foreseen in the meeting.     As long as good sound quality cannot be guaranteed, hearing health must be protected by limiting exposure. The good news is that it is possible to reconsider exposure thresholds in a responsible way and still satisfy the needs of SCIC. What’s more, limiting exposure will also help avoid that always the same interpreters are exposed to platform meetings.    As the risk analysis which the ID had for some time been requesting has finally been announced for January, it would seem wise not to increase the risk before the results of this study are available.    Unfortunately, after months of awareness-raising by SCIC, it is a sad reality that at hybrid meetings hardly anyone complies with the microphone recommendations. Contrary to what we thought some time ago, we now know that headsets are to be avoided. Computer and mobile phone microphones as well as wired telephone headsets even more so. A small, compliant microphone can be found in electrical goods stores and on online websites for around thirty euros. A list of compliant and recommended microphones can be found here:

It seems that the Commission does plan to send a large number of microphones… to its own staff. This is certainly a nice gesture and should be appreciated. But is this expenditure really well targeted? Shouldn’t priority be given to those for whom it is impossible to come to the meeting room in person?     It is definitely a good thing that everybody will have the right equipment for online exchanges, but please, if you are in Brussels, for large meetings with interpretation, COME TO THE MEETING ROOM. You will have no connection problems, you will keep in touch with your colleagues, and you will spare everybody’s ears, interpreters’ and participants’ alike.

---

Eureka! Negotiations at the European Parliament have reached a successful conclusion!

On Monday 25 September, the Joint General Assembly of EP interpreters, and AICs (freelance interpreters) adopted new working conditions for interpreters, including rules for interpreting remote speakers. It took more than a year of industrial action and negotiations between DG PERS, DG LINC, Delint (the European Parliament’s interpreters’ delegation) and the two trade unions that have supported interpreters at the EP, U4U and Ethos, to reach an agreement that comprises working conditions as well as a code of conduct for remote participation in EP meetings. Both are designed to ensure that meetings take place under the best possible health and safety conditions for all. To complete the procedure, the text has still to pass through the Staff Committee and the Bureau of the European Parliament.

As for the working conditions resulting of the social dialogue, they are quite satisfactory – provided that the code of conduct “Requirements for remote participation in meetings of the European Parliament” is effectively put into practice in its entirety. The final text of the working conditions includes a guarantee to this effect: a process aiming at full implementation in the near future is foreseen. In addition, a relevant working group has been set up, which bodes well for the future.

Furthermore, the text on interpretation of remote speakers provides for several exposure limits (2 hours of remote per day, 4 hours per week and a maximum of 4 exceeding the limit of 2 hours per month, which also ensures a fairer distribution between colleagues). In addition, a high compensation (the overrun is multiplied by 3, or even by 4) means that overruns are not attractive for programming. The workload is reduced because of the strenuous character of remote and the additional mental charge it causes. It is adapted thanks to a mechanism that takes into account the actual remote time.

The EP interpreters’ GA adopted the text by an overwhelming majority.

Congratulations on this text, which could serve as a model for the other European institutions!

***

At the Commission, the situation is unfortunately quite different.

Even after the meeting between the Director General of SCIC, the Delegation of Interpreters (DI), the current and previous presidents of the CLP – A. Gonzalez, G. Vlandas, R.Trujillo – as well as C. Roques, Deputy Director General of Human Resources, the social dialogue has not yet allowed the legitimate expectations of staff to be taken into account, and even more worryingly, it has not led to a plan for a structured social dialogue. SCIC is conducting a dialogue of the deaf with the Interpreters’ Delegation and is refusing dialogue with the unions:

The promises made at the meeting have not been put into practice. SCIC is doing everything it can to exclude the elected staff representatives, the DI, from the discussions. For example, SCIC had promised that a mirror committee be set up to define a common approach for the negotiations on the ISO standard defining interpretation hubs. This norm will determine the working conditions of the whole profession in the future. The implication of the voted staff representation is essential. However, SCIC didn’t deliver on its promise.

Also, instead of taking part in the exploratory discussions with the Council on the new Service Level Agreement, the DI may expect merely to be “kept informed”, whereas, given the importance of the subject, its participation – even if only as an observer – is essential.

In addition, in the context of the overhaul of interpreters’ working conditions announced by the administration, SCIC is planning to address topics regarding which it is hard to imagine that a simple “tweaking” of the existing text (the 1987 Agreement and its subsequent updates) would suffice. For anything that goes beyond that, it would be necessary to go back to the level at which the text was negotiated: HR and the unions – with the SCIC administration and the DI as experts. The discussions to come will show whether, in the end, the level chosen is appropriate or whether a change of level will be necessary.

Once again, it seems as if the SCIC hierarchy is trying to sideline the elected staff representatives. SCIC has just created a new functional mailbox to consult interpreters directly on current negotiations. Consulting the rank and file is all very well, but that is the task of staff representation (incidentally already planned and announced), particularly during negotiations. The dialogue is to take place through the structure provided for in the Framework Agreement between the Commission and staff representation, which takes up the Charter of Fundamental Social Rights, incorporated into the Treaty.

We call on the Commission to follow Parliament’s example and organise a genuine social dialogue as soon as possible, instead of bypassing staff representation.

---

The General Assembly of staff interpreters of DG SCIC, meeting on 29 September 2023:

A) Notes the request from the Director General of DG SCIC for a recast of the 1987 Agreement on working conditions. 

B) Notes the stated objective of the recast not to undermine interpreters’ working conditions, but to find room for simplification and flexibility whilst maintaining good working conditions and work-life balance for interpreters.

C) Expresses the determination to continue providing the high-quality interpretation meeting organizers and conference participants have always expected of DG SCIC and to contribute to DG SCIC remaining both a viable and sustainable public service and an attractive employer.

D) Positively notes that DG SCIC is committed to its duty of care towards its employees and to ensuring a safe and good working environment for its entire workforce, including staff and ACI [1]interpreters.

E) Notes that DG SCIC’s working conditions are already flexible and can lead to a very heavy workload.

F) Believes that our working conditions should be broadly comparable with other international organizations (e.g. UN, EP, CoJ, NATO) and AIC’s rules, and invites DG SCIC to carry out a comparative study of working conditions.

G) Recalls that the nature of the profession confronts interpreters with a series of challenges that need to be adequately accounted for in working conditions for all meeting configurations.

H) Recalls that the cognitive and physical workload for interpreters in meetings has significantly increased since the 1987 Agreement was reached, inter alia due to the spread of “jumbo Councils”, non-oralised presentations of written speeches, greater complexity of topics, video streaming, use of digital platforms, and longer and more irregular meeting hours.

I) Is aware of the fast-paced advances being made by new technologies such as artificial intelligence, but is convinced that quality human interpreting has and will continue to have a crucial role to play in EU decision-making and European multilingualism.

J) Confirms its commitment to integrate new technologies that are safe and fit-for-purpose.

K) Notes that DG SCIC is negotiating an ISO norm on Hubs that will largely determine the working conditions of the future.

L) Mandates the Interpreters’ Delegation as the elected representative of all SCIC staff interpreters to open exploratory talks with DG SCIC about a recast of the 1987 Agreement, according to the principles below:

The recast must:

• Protect the workforce. A sustainable business model for DG SCIC is dependent on healthy interpreters.
• Promote job satisfaction and ensure work-life balance.
• Guarantee appropriate, adapted working conditions for interpreters, which take account of the workload, potential health impacts and additional cognitive load linked to new modes of working and interpreting.
• Further contribute to the established quality of interpretation provided by DG SCIC.
• Be fit for the new working environment with hybrid and remote interpreting settings, so that participants use approved equipment and technical set-up.
• Better acknowledge out-of-booth work activities as part of the workload.
• Include rules on fairer workload distribution.
• Remedy identified shortcomings of the current framework.

M) Takes positive note of the fact that representatives of AIIC will be involved in the talks, with observer status.

N) Takes positive note of DG SCIC management’s commitment to negotiate a new SLA (Service Level Agreement) with the Council of the EU which fully respects our working conditions

O) Requests of its representatives to keep interpreters informed via inclusive and participatory channels, to seek guidance regularly from all booths and to organize a general assembly when necessary. Any partial result of the negotiations will be conditional on the approval of the final package by a referendum, according to the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

---

New working method for interpreters: how has the situation of interpreters evolved in the different institutions?

At the EP, negotiations on a Code of Conduct, « Requirements for remote participation in EP meetings », and on the incorporation of this new working method into the Working Conditions are continuing.

In principle, the Code of Conduct is definitely a step in the right direction. Based on its raison d’être, the protection of the health of both interpreters and participants in hybrid or remote meetings, it covers the essential aspects of correct remote participation: appropriate equipment (unidirectional microphone), equipment to avoid (headset microphones, Bluetooth microphones, mobile phone wire microphones, built-in microphones of PCs, tablets and telephones), a quality image, a good connection and a calm working environment. All this, plus a sound test.

If this Code of Conduct were mandatory, we could rightly speak of a quantum leap for health and safety in the EP workplace.

Unfortunately, although the recommendations are clear and strong, they are not mandatory. We are left to rely on the common sense and goodwill of MEPs who, we hope, know that the interpreters who have served them faithfully for so many years are not acting on a whim, but are pursuing a more than legitimate objective: the hearing health of all meeting participants.

This lack of a clear framework complicates the negotiations on the integration of remote interpreting into working conditions. How can we define the extent to which we can resort to a work formula if we don’t know exactly what form it will take and with what probability it will be dangerous or not?

Remote interpreting is explicitly described as an “inferior form of simultaneous interpreting” in the IIA-RI (Interinstitutional Agreement on Remote Interpreting, also known as Hampton Court).

Since then, technology has indeed advanced and in recent years we have been virtually obliged to develop this form of interpreting. However, remote interpreting is far from being the same as face-to-face interpreting. From a quality perspective, going on site is always the first option.

The interpreters can see the gestures and facial expressions of the speakers, they can observe everything that is happening in the meeting room, communication is possible between the interpreters and their clients (often by gesture or eye contact, but also by talking to each other), and it is less easy to forget the interpreters when additional documents are distributed.

The absence of these aspects increases the cognitive load. The latter is aggravated by uncertain health protection due to a non-mandatory Code of Conduct. However, a well functioning Code of Conduct is the sine qua non for extending working conditions. Only a transition period that functions as a trial period can guarantee that it works in practice.

If remote only happened exceptionally for very high-level work or in emergencies, that’s one thing. If it is used as the usual mode of presentation, working conditions will suffer. They should therefore be adapted. On the one hand, they should expressly include the “remote” mode of working with all its facets, and on the other hand, something in return should balance out what is in fact a deterioration in working conditions.

Even if there are still important elements to be defined, both in terms of substance and procedure, we are confident that it will be possible to find a solution in Parliament with DG Linc.

At the Commission, we are faced with a problem concerning working conditions in a number of respects and social dialogue, as it is currently being practised, fails to provide a solution.

The area of new modes of interpretation is a huge grey area, with no clear and lasting rules in sight :

– For meetings on platforms, SCIC is still applying the working conditions of the pandemic (IPA) which, moreover, are being applied with a good dose of “creativity”.

For the time being, management is not open to negotiations to find a long-term solution.

At the Council, even for meetings served by SCIC, no set of rules is respected for visioconferences, which are coming closer and closer to remote meetings, which means that the problems of remote access are well and truly present.

– As for hybrid meetings with a low remote participation rate, known as MIPs (Mostly in Person Meetings), a pilot project is underway to collect data. However, what is possible at the EP (collecting data, finding solutions for recording the speaking time of remote interpreters, differentiating the duration of the meeting from the duration of the Interactio connection), seems to be impossible at the Commission.

According to Scic, the data has indeed been collected, but it is unusable.  And yet, as a major Interactio customer, SCIC should even be in a position to ask for a technical feature that would make it possible to record remote working time automatically.

The pilot project scheduled to run from October to January has already been extended.  As it is due to expire soon, the Interpreters’ Delegation asked what the next step would be. The administration does not seem to be in a hurry to negotiate.

– Regulating platform work in the long term is entirely possible. Working conditions on platforms could even be much more flexible than at present (even though Tempe will always be more strenuous than work on site), provided that good quality sound can be guaranteed. To find a solution to the problem of potentially harmful sound, the EP is working with internationally renowned experts. At the Commission, SCIC did receive the CPPT’s recommendations in February, but the procedure has been bogged down ever since. The Interpreters’ Delegation’s proposals on this subject have not been discussed.

Current working conditions are also suffering :

As a reminder, SCIC was originally conceived as an inter-institutional service for the Commission and the Council. In the end, it became a Commission interpretation service, providing services to the Council, the EESC and the CoR in return for payment.

There is currently a shortage of interpreters on the labour market, which limits the opportunities for SCIC to engage. At present, the Commission is asking for more meetings to be served (which is normal, since it is its interpreting service), so SCIC must provide more resources for the Commission.

At the same time, it does not want to reduce the service provided to the other institutions (on the one hand, it is bound by Service Level Agreements (SLAs), on the other hand, it needs this income, being one of the few DGs that have to earn part of their financial resources themselves).

This situation has several repercussions.

– some of the requests for interpretation (from within the Commission, but also from outside, from the Council and the Committees) cannot be met. The institutions in question therefore try to engage themselves. This is possible, given that they are not bound by the SCIC’s working conditions. We see hourly contracts, contracts for work from home, paid at a rate that is clearly below the rules, and non-regulatory working hours.

Current working conditions are also being eroded.

The workload is distributed very unevenly. The SBC, an purely internal indicator (different from the KPIs for external use) that would help to rebalance the workload, is biased and little used.

Missions are being carried out to impossible timeframes (time to arrive at the airport), and problematic practices are becoming established (Mission Order accepted – but with certain conditions, which means additional costs for the mission leader, without the latter being informed).

At the beginning of May, the SCIC announced that an Action plan to better satisfy demand for interpretation had been drawn up for the coming year. This plan was established without prior consultation of the Interpreters’ Delegation. At a meeting requested by the DI, certain aspects could be smoothed out. The fact remains, however, that a rule concerning extra-statutory work patterns, although recently negotiated, has been further restricted unilaterally.

Compensation for exceptionally long working hours, hitherto decided and when necessary negotiated on a case-by-case basis, has now been fixed as a flat rate without any consultation of the Interpreters’ Delegation. – According to SCIC, the Agreement would allow such a decision to be taken without consulting staff representatives. The ID is still waiting for a precise answer to the question of where such a provision would be found.

In addition, the fixed day for the work of staff representation has recently been called into question. (Until now, Planning had to ask staff representatives for their agreement when it came to giving up their “staff representation” day to work in high-level meetings. In future, the burden would be reversed and it would be up to the DI members to claim it once they see that they are scheduled in a team on an ID-day).

All this does not augur well for the renegotiation of working conditions (the 1987 Agreement and its Annexes which have updated it over the years) which has already been announced for after the summer.

Furthermore, sensible proposals from the Delegation (adapting teleworking abroad to the professional reality of interpreters in a post-pandemic context as well as a feasible solution for the holidays in French speaking Belgian schools) have been brushed aside without any convincing explanation. 

While this situation is having an impact on current working conditions, the work of the ISO Group, in which some SCIC representatives (but not staff representatives) are participating, is likely to jeopardise working conditions for the entire profession in the long term. The ISO Group is currently working on a standard governing booths used for a hub. A hub is a working arrangement that separates the meeting room from the place where interpreters gather to work. Since the Commission has no experience of working with a hub, it would make sense to first define the working conditions for this kind of arragnement in the framework of social dialogue, and only then work out the technical aspects of the box (booth) that is supposed to house this type of work.

What’s more, such an undertaking could be based on an idea of optimisation: if we opt to forego the advantages of face-to-face work on site (see above), we might as well try to avoid the disadvantages (confined space, poor ventilation, sub-optimal sound insulation, lack of daylight) all due to the necessity to integrate the booths into the meeting room. We could imagine generous, well-insulated booths with adequate ventilation, daylight and, why not, windows. In fact, if interpreting means doing office work (on a screen), we might as well have offices like all the other civil servants, just fitted with the necessary  technical equipment.

Strangely enough, the opposite seems to be the case.

It is not without reason that mobile booths, whose ventilation and soundproofing are suboptimal by definition (a mobile booth is the exception to a booth, which in itself constitutes an exception to labour law) are not planned as a permanent solution. It goes without saying that a booth should have a large front window, if only for reasons of visual ergonomics.

An ISO standard that falls below current standards could be the perfect pretext to justify a downward revision of working conditions. It would be a fait accompli prior to the negotiation of the Agreement which, it should be remembered, was negotiated between the trade unions and HR, assisted by the interpreters as experts ; a recast should happen in the same format. We need to get back to the table of a social dialogue worthy of the name with staff representatives to discuss acceptable working conditions for the staff concerned.

---

U4U, alongside European Parliament interpreters: a long-term solution sought for early 2023

U4U, alongside interpreters, a long-term solution hopefully by early 2023Thanks to a social dialogue initiated by some unions – U4U, USL and Ethos – the EP interpreters have obtained satisfaction on transitional measuresThe pandemic has changed the way we all work, especially interpreters. Interpreting is team work and used to be carried out on site. As a result of social distancing and work online, remote conferences and platforms have become a part of interpreters’ lives. Unfortunately, this new way of working has proven to be complex and even dangerous. It increases the cognitive load considerably and may even pose a risk to the hearing health of both interpreters and participants. Because of the lack of knowledge and experience at the beginning of the pandemic, 44% of EP staff interpreters suffered from hearing problems.But as platforms also have some practical advantages, we now know that online meetings and platforms are most likely here to stay, so it seems consistent to integrate them into the working conditions of interpreters in order to ensure health and safety in the workplace for all.Initially, the administration was reluctant to engage in dialogue. It took several strike notices by U4U and USL to bring them to constructive negotiations.For the first time, the social dialogue took place in the presence of the two unions that had launched the strike notice. Although Human Resources and DG Linc were initially hesitant about this approach, it resulted in an Interim Agreement on 17 October. The past two and a half months have been used to collect data and to prepare measures.A long-term agreement on working conditions is in sight for the beginning of 2023. We are convinced that by adopting the same format, a constructive collaboration between all actors, interpreters’ representatives, trade unions, DG Linc and Human Resources, it will be possible to find a satisfactory solution for both interpreters and administration.Beyond the good results obtained and the hope for the near future, this negotiation has shown the added value of a social dialogue conducted with the trade unions. This is a model for the future of social dialogue at the EP.

24/01/2023

---

Interpreters’ delegation to the Commission: SCIC by-elections

The Commission’s Delegation of Interpreters (DI) began its mandate in October 2021. It has done a remarkable job, allowing it to function smoothly during the pandemic and then gradually return to normal.It worked hand in hand with the delegations of freelance interpreters and the European Parliament (EP). Hearing health while working on platforms is the subject of a resolution that was voted by 94% of the interpreters present at a joint General Assembly of Commission, EP, staff and freelance interpreters.In June 2022, three members (out of 9 in total) decided to leave the ID. The ID continued to function legitimately as allowed by its Rules of Procedure. The idea was to complement the SDI team to meet the impending challenges interpreters will face in defending their profession. On 3 October, by-elections (optional according to the Rules of Procedure) were requested from the CLP for this purpose. On 7 October, some interpreters called for a referendum to remove the current ID. However, their text does not mention any reason for this request.The CLP decided to proceed with the elections (the electoral board is convened, the call for candidates is open, voting will start on 6 December). The request for a referendum will then be processed.We call on interpreters to stand united and vote in the by-elections to complete the delegation. With this vote, you can ensure that interpreters are better represented. Let the ID (enlarged after the elections) do its work – it is by the results that it should be judged at the end of its mandate, as in any democracy.21/11/2022

Multilingualism Day 24 September 2022

Multilingualism Day 2022Multilingualism Day is your opportunity to go behind the scenes of the Parliament with the greatest linguistic diversity in the world: Get an idea of how the European Parliament works in 24 languages! Meet our interpreters, translators and other multilingual staff, learn more about their work and visit the Chamber.Multilingualism ensures that all EU citizens can follow the work of their democratic representatives in any of the 24 official languages. Linguistic and cultural diversity is one of the EU’s strengths. It is enshrined as a fundamental value in the EU Treaties. On Multilingualism Day in the Parliament, you can experience this diversity directly.Multilingualism Day 2022 will take place both online and on-site at the European Parliament in Brussels.But we should not forget that interpreters are protesting against their working conditions in the Parliament. Celebrating multilingualism should be accompanied by proper treatment of those who contribute to it.

U4U welcomes this event and reiterates its commitment to multilingualism, which has been an integral part of the European DNA since the very first European regulation (1958). This regulation broke with the practices of international organisations by making citizens, and not just states, the beneficiaries of European law. From the outset, it committed the European Union (then the European Economic Community) to publishing legal and political documents in all the official languages.

Respect for linguistic diversity reflects a radically new approach to supranational governance and anchors democracy in the construction of Europe. This commitment remains unchanged today. A recent example is the platform for the Conference on the Future of Europe, which was held from May 2021 to May 2022: discussions and contributions were able to take place in all the official languages of the Union with the help of automatic translation, and the conclusions should now guide the work of the institutions that committed themselves to it.

Join us on site or online to celebrate linguistic diversity and European democracy!

Documentation :

The European Union as intercultural mediator: multilingualism

Linguistic diversity and the French language in Europe

Interpreters : habemus pactum

U4U – Union syndicale Luxembourg – Ethos Europe

European Parliament: a successful negotiation with the unionsThe following inter-union leaflet reports on a successful negotiation with the unions. It is a practice that shows that social dialogue can achieve useful results for the staff and for the institution. We want this practice of social dialogue to become widespread.

Habemus pactum! A first step to a solution on interpreter working conditionsAs the old saying goes, where there’s a will there’s a way! The will we are talking about is that of the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola. Thanks to her personal commitment as guarantor of social dialogue in the House, an interim agreement was finally reached to launch negotiations between DG LINC, DG PERS, the interpreters’ representatives and the trade unions concerning interpreter working conditions in the new context of multilingual remote participation. We would like to wholeheartedly thank the President for giving social dialogue a chance and showing that she genuinely cares for the well-being of EP staff. We would like to thank the Head of Cabinet of President Metsola – Alessandro Chiocchetti – whose fairness, openness and pragmatism made the agreement possible. We were glad to see that he attaches great importance to multilingualism as an integral part of the legislative work of our Institution.We would also like to acknowledge the constructive spirit and contributions of all parties involved. The interpreters’ representatives showed once again their creativity and loyalty to the Institution by submitting workable proposals. The two trade unions who lodged the strike notice – U4U and USL – showed unwavering support for the interpreters’ cause and negotiated effectively by their side. DG LINC finally showed openness to accept balanced compromises.Of course, this interim agreement is just a first step towards a final understanding on more permanent rules. A lot of work remains to be done. We stand ready to engage in meaningful negotiations scheduled to start in the week of 7 November 2022 as agreed with our counterparts. On the other hand, we expect that DG LINC honour their commitments, including clear and timely information of all meeting organisers.Moreover, good sound quality and cooperative speaker behaviour are paramount to allow interpreters to do their job properly while interpreting remote speeches and to protect their health. Should those preconditions fail to materialise, interpreters might be unable to interpret despite their best efforts. Therefore, an enhanced awareness-raising campaign on a Code of Conduct on multilingual remote participation is a crucial commitment that DG LINC must live up to from the very beginning and for the entire duration of the negotiations and beyond.Any negotiation requires mutual trust. We are ready to do our part and for that we announce the withdrawal of the strike notice effective immediately. Now is the time for flexibility and pragmatism in full respect of staff health and decent working conditions. Like we said, where there’s a will there’s a way…

09/11/2022

European Parliament: where do we stand on the conflict with interpreters?

During the pandemic, DG Linc in the Parliament started working on platforms very early on. The technology was thought to be safe, thanks to a pilot project. Unfortunately, it turned out that the technology chosen was not appropriate, 44% of staff interpreters are now affected by auditory problems.The EP interpreters’ delegation therefore sought dialogue with hierarchy to define a framework that would guarantee the health and safety of interpreters when interpreting speakers participating online.Unfortunately, this request was in vain and, even worse, without any social dialogue, the hierarchy decreed that platform work would be included in the pre-pandemic working conditions without further ado.But platform work is more tiring, the cognitive load is greater and the risk of being exposed to sound that is harmful to health is higher.The interpreters’ delegation tried again to communicate with the hierarchy but in vain.This final refusal of social dialogue was the last straw. In June 2022, the EP’s staff interpreters decided to take social action by working to rule. They went to work every day. They interpreted the speakers on the spot, but not the participants online.As there is no a framework agreement in the EP, the situation was likely to remain deadlocked. DG Linc decided not to requisition interpreters for the most important meetings, but to “outsource”: it hired non-accredited interpreters below tariff, which is a clear violation of the right to strike.It took several meetings between the interpreters, the Human Resources’ Director and a strong involvement of the EP President’s office and of the three trade-unions that supported the strike, U4U, Ethos and USL, to reach an agreement in principle in early October.Even if the details are still to be negotiated, this is finally a good example of social dialogue. To be continued.

05/11/2022

Health and safety for interpreters!

On Friday 16 September, the first joint General Assembly of Commission and European Parliament interpreters, both staff and freelance, has taken place. The aim of this GA is to articulate the demands of all interpreters in the European institutions: Health and safety at work must be guaranteed.Indeed, having been declared critical staff for the functioning of the institutions, interpreters, both at the Commission and at the Parliament, have been physically present at work from the beginning of the pandemic. Unfortunately, it turned out that the technology chosen for remote meetings was not appropriate. The result was an unprecedented incidence of hearing problems (vertigo, nausea, hyperacusis, tinnitus, loss of frequencies, etc.) among interpreters. At the Parliament, which has used this technology on a larger scale, 44% of interpreters suffer from acoustic problems, at DG SCIC, 27 people have self-reported to the Interpreters’ Delegation, 16 of them with medical certificates.In order to avoid long-term disabilities and to ensure a safe environment for both interpreters and all participants in meetings, the Interpreters’ Delegations request:- On site participation as soon as reasonably possible (Commission and EP staff in Brussels, present in another building in the European district) ;- Adaptation of the working conditions (legislative framework) to take into account the specificities of remote interpretation ;- An obligation for active online participants to use peripherals (microphones) and connection settings that allow compliance with ISO standards ;- Support from all trade unions, especially for the EP interpreters’ work-to-rule, which up to now is only supported by Ethos, USL and U4U.

Resolution of the General Meeting

Why are European Parliament interpreters on strike?

Why are European Parliament interpreters on strike?U4U is one of the two trade unions supporting EP interpreters and Delint (EP interpreters’ delegation) in their strike for decent working conditions. They denounce a worrying situation that affects the hearing health of the whole profession, even of all participants in remote meetings. This article is a useful read.In fact, under the current legal and technical circumstances interpretation from the floor is provided, but no remote speeches are interpreted. The EP interpreters’ struggle concerns all staff and in particular SCIC, the Commission’s Directorate-General for Interpretation.U4U supports this action as well as the interpreters’ demands :

• An immediate end to the illegal hiring of « strike-breakers » by the EP (non-accredited interpreters, hired via an external service provider under non-compliant conditions) and negotiations for a minimum service as practiced in the main European institutions;
• Closing the legal vacuum by including work on platforms (Interactio etc.) in the negotiated working conditions;
• Ensuring health and safety at the workplace by a mandatory use of appropriate devices (microphones etc.) by the participants.U4U asks the EP administration not to block the social dialogue, which is the only way to solve this conflict in the interest of the Institution and the staff.

05/07/2022

The EP unilaterally introduces new working conditions for interpreters

Two unions (U4U and USL) give notice of a strike by interpreters at the EP and denounce a flagrant lack of social dialogue

Letter from U4U dated 27 June 2022

Dear Madam President

I would like to thank you for your reply to the strike notice concerning the interpreters at the EP. I would also like to thank you for your willingness to pursue social dialogue, without which we cannot achieve a good climate within the institution. I would also like to draw your attention to your administration’s practice of using a non-accredited external sub-contractor to replace striking staff under degraded conditions. As a reminder, requisition procedures exist in the European institutions for the benefit of all, but are ignored at the EP. The practices that your administration is proposing to introduce do not correspond either to the spirit or to the rules of a European civil service. If such practices became known to the outside world, for example through the press, the good image of the European Parliament, to which we, like you, are committed, would be seriously compromised.

U4U will be represented this afternoon at the social dialogue meeting proposed by you, by a member of its management: Maria Lengenfelder. I would like to ensure that other useful participants are also present for the rest of the dialogue via a remote connection.

Finally, as we have had the opportunity to discuss with Mr Knudsen, we believe that the framework agreement governing relations between staff representation and the institution is largely obsolete and needs to be reformed. The absence of a modern framework governing industrial relations within the EP partly explains the current deadlock.

Thank you for your attention to this letter. Please accept, Madam President, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Georges Vlandas
President

Letter to President Roberta Metsola

Dear Madam President,

First of all we would like to thank you for your reply and for listening to the interpreters’ representatives. We sincerely hope that your commitment is the beginning of a process to reach a satisfactory solution for all parties concerned in the interests of our Institution. We will take part in the meeting called by the Director-General of DG PERS on your behalf for tomorrow at 14.30. Let us take this opportunity to ask you to give mandate to a representative of your cabinet to attend the meeting and follow the entire process until a final solution is found.

We would like to stress that it is very unfortunate that such meeting is not held earlier as it will coincide with the beginning of the programmed industrial action. In spite of that, we will make a constructive contribution as we have always done.

However, we regret to inform you that DG LINC Management does not seem to share our will to negotiate a way out of the current impasse with openness and good faith. They have decided to provide the simultaneous interpretation service for a number of meetings (e.g. AFET Interparliamentary Committee meeting of tomorrow 27 June 2022) by resorting to an external provider, namely Kudo. The AFET team will cover 24 languages and will be composed of two interpreters per booth. The interpreters were recruited with a half-day contract, they were asked whether they were familiar with Interactio but were not told who their client would be. Such information was disclosed to them only after signing the contract. Such unprecedented and extreme decision by DG LINC is problematic for many reasons from an operational, legal and social dialogue point of view.

From an operational standpoint, not all recruited interpreters are accredited to work for EU institutions. EU accreditation has always been a guarantee of the professional quality of freelance interpreters and has always allowed the EP to provide the high-quality interpretation service that MEPs and other meeting participants rely on for their work. This guarantee has now been brushed aside by DG LINC’s rash decision.

Secondly, the team originally assigned to the AFET meeting was partly composed of staff interpreters. Those colleagues have been taken out of the meeting and not all of them have been redeployed to other meetings. This shows a cavalier management of scarce human and financial resources.

Thirdly, many interpreters on the team will be working from home, thereby increasing the chance of technical incidents and lowering the overall quality of interpretation.

This decision is unheard of in that statutory meetings had always been serviced in-house even before the pandemic and even during peak periods of the interinstitutional calendar, when the market was virtually depleted of accredited freelance interpreters. By proceeding in this fashion, DG LINC has deliberately breached a number of rules in force.

Firstly, the decision constitutes a flagrant violation of the right of collective bargaining and action enshrined in Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Instead of negotiating a solution to the current conflict, DG LINC has decided to replace their staff with external staff, thereby de facto emptying the right of collective bargaining and action of its meaning. Moreover, DG LINC is in breach of Article 31 on fair and just working conditions of the Charter, which lays down that “every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity”. Faced with a collective action from their own staff who are trying to protect their health against toxic sound, DG LINC not only neglected their duty of care by not protecting the interpreters’ health, but they also externalised the problem by exposing external staff to the same hazard.

Secondly, the interpretation arrangement in question is in breach of the Agreement on Working Conditions and the Pecuniary Regime for Auxiliary Conference Interpreters (ACIs) recruited by the Institutions of the European Union as well as the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. The former does not allow half-day contracts, whereas the latter lays down that freelance interpreters are subject to the same working conditions as staff interpreters when they work for the European Parliament. DG LINC has therefore opted for social dumping at the European Parliament, the institutions that champions workers’ rights.

Thirdly, Article 10.1 of the Interpreters’ Working Conditions concerning manning strength has been flouted as only two interpreters per booth have been deployed to the meeting instead of three interpreters per booth.

Fourthly, DG LINC has breached Article 3.1 of the Code of Conduct on Multilingualism (Bureau decision of 1 July 2019), which states that interpretation for statutory meetings “shall be provided exclusively by the Directorate-general for Logistics and Interpretation for Conferences”, i.e. with the deployment of staff interpreters and accredited freelance interpreters.

All of the above is a very bad omen for the process that is about to start under your auspices. DG LINC is once again failing to recognise the importance of social dialogue in the House. Regrettably, DG PERS has adopted the same policy: according to the rules in force concerning industrial action and strike, DG PERS should have used the five-day notice to negotiate the scope and practicalities of a guaranteed minimum service with the trade unions who had submitted the strike warning. Today’s AFET interparliamentary meeting could have been included in such minimum service and the interpreters would have guaranteed the simultaneous interpretation service. Instead, DG PERS’s Director-General, Mr Knudsen, wrote to the trade unions on 24 June (7 days after the strike warning was sent) to invite them to a meeting on 27 June, that is the first day of collective action. That shows utter disrespect for the rules and the interlocutors. This is not the first time that DG PERS ignores the rules on work stoppages. The European Parliament was condemned by the Court of Justice in Ruling No. T-402/18 for unlawful mass requisitions of interpreters.

In light of the above, we ask that DG LINC’s decision on the provision of the interpretation service for the AFET Interparliamentary meeting taking place today and for any other meetings with a similar arrangement be revoked and that staff interpreters and accredited freelance interpreters recruited directly by DG LINC according to the lawful procedure be assigned to those meetings. Furthermore, we ask that a negotiation on a regulatory framework on multilingual remote participation be launched as soon as possible with a view to finding an agreement before the summer recess. As a sign of goodwill, and despite the fact that DG PERS has not approached us to negotiate a minimum service as they should have done according to Article 6 of the Annex to the Framework Agreement of 1990 between the EP and the OSPs, we are willing to call off the actions for tomorrow, 27 June 2022.

Yours sincerely,

U4U     USL

Lettre from the President (Original en FR)

Dear members of the Bureau of the Delegation of staff interpreters,

I would like to thank you for the fruitful meeting we had last Thursday and for our open and comprehensive discussions on the situation concerning remote interpretation in the European Parliament.

I acknowledge that without your dedication it would not have been possible to continue our work throughout the pandemic and on behalf of our Institution I thank you.

Following the lapse of the extraordinary measures on 12 June 2022, we are currently moving towards new working methods of committees, allowing Members to intervene remotely under specific circumstances. The Constitutional Affairs Committee is tasked to propose the necessary changes to the Rules of Procedure in this regard. It is now our shared responsibility to ensure the carrying out of all necessary activities of the Parliament in the best possible way, after a very difficult period for all. I have carefully listened and examined your requests and I am fully committed to assist in finding appropriate solutions in the interest of our Institution.

I have therefore asked Parliament’s administration to start gathering all relevant information in order to properly assess the impact remote interventions under the new working methods of committees will have on the interpretation services you provide.

Moreover, by letter attached to this email, I informed the trade unions U4U and Union Syndicale Luxembourg that I have tasked Mr Kristian Knudsen, Director General for Personnel, along with Ms Agnieszka Walter-Drop, Director General for Logistics and Interpretation for Conferences, and our medical service, to begin a social dialogue with a view to reach a common position in the interest of the service and the smooth running of Parliament.

The social dialogue, of which I am the guarantor, has now started. As you rightly pointed out in an email earlier, a strike would be disruptive for the Parliament’s functioning and stressful for everyone involved. I therefore believe that the social dialogue should be given the chance it deserves to address the problems you raised in our meeting and to allow Members of Parliament to fully exercise their mandate.

I am sure that the discussions starting on Monday will bear their fruit. You can count on my engagement and my full support as I do on your sense of responsibility as demonstrated throughout the last two years.

Best regards,

Roberta Metsola

President’s reply of 22 June 2022

Strike notice sent on 17 June 2022 Extension of strike notice until 12 September 2022

Exchange of e-mails between the unions to prepare strike notice.

Health of Hearing I – Health of Hearing II

Commission interpreters need our support

The Commission’s interpreters need our supportThe pandemic hit interpreters hard. This profession has been very flexible and has shown great resilience and goodwill.Interpreters were declared critical personnel and have been on deck since the first hour.Social distancing measures and the cramped space of an interpreting booth are not compatible.During the first lockdown, the Interpreters’ Delegation agreed with the administration on interim working conditions to ensure the continuity of the institutions’ operations (Business Continuity). These exemptions from normal working conditions were limited to the first lockdown.Unfortunately, the SCIC administration did not respect this time limit. Today, two years after the start of the pandemic, the working conditions of interpreters are in a state of flux.While the workload has indeed increased again, violations of working conditions that put the health of interpreters and the possibility of providing quality work in question are accumulating.In order to avoid a general exhaustion, the Interpreters’ Delegation therefore asked for a codification of derogations : sustainable working conditions respecting both quality and health requirements were to be negotiated for the period of the crisis.These negotiations started in December and have not yet been concluded. The Interpreters’ Delegation is constructive, it has made concessions wherever reasonable and responsible. It wishes to find a solution that allows SCIC to function while guaranteeing the health of the interpreters and the quality of their services.However, while these solutions, applied with some skill, should be fairly low cost, they would not be for free. SCIC needs budgetary support by the Commission. SCIC cannot finance the legitimate compensation for crisis measures during a pandemia from its budget alone.What is unacceptable, however, is to pass the disadvantages of working under in a pandemic only to the interpreters, both statutory and freelance.The Service is chronically understaffed. Several interpreters have chosen early retirement because of deteriorating working conditions. As to free-lance interpreters, the cost of the quarantines of freelance interpreters due to stricter tracing conditions at the Commission than in Belgium cannot be financed by cancelling freelance contracts that are considered contact-cases according to the (stricter) Commission rules, but not according to Belgian rules. Some freelancers avoid SCIC engagements as much as possible.And yet, SCIC cannot function with the necessary flexibility without freelance interpreters.Interpreters need the support of the Commission, also in the face of the Council, SCIC’s most important client, in this crisis management effort.Negotiations have reached an impasse.U4U considers that CLP and even the unions must be involved.We call for an inter-union meeting to finally resolve this problem, which is unworthy of a major European employer.

08/02/2022

Letter from CLP Brussels to DG SCIC dated 09/02/2022

Dear Director-General

The Bureau of the Commission’s Staff Committee in Brussels has today been informed of an intense social dialogue currently underway at SCIC. This dialogue concerns the work of interpreters during a pandemic. We understand that, for the time being, the dialogue has not led to a solution acceptable to our interpreter colleagues. A final meeting is scheduled for next Thursday.

Beyond this deadline, in the absence of an agreement, and after discussing it with you, we will ask the trade unions to resume discussions. The rules governing the profession of interpreter were established in the past following an agreement with the trade unions. In the absence of an agreement with the delegation, any departure from these rules must be discussed with these same trade unions. The CLP intends to alert them to this prospect. Finally, the CLP is aware that the solution to the problems discussed cannot be the responsibility of your General Management alone. In order to meet the legitimate expectations of interpretation staff, whether officials or freelancers, SCIC needs the support of the Commission. And CLP supports such an approach.

I look forward to meeting you. Please accept, Madam, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Georges Vlandas
Chairman of the Commission’s CLP in Brussels

Coming out of confinement at SCIC: taking maximum account of staff wishes

It’s time to get out of confinement. Some are trying to get back to the way things were before, while others are continuing to work from home. For the interpreters, it’s trial and error. During the confinement, meetings with participants and interpreters had become impossible. In search of an alternative, DG SCIC has gone down the road of videoconferencing, with all its attendant complexities (see more below).

The time has come to break the confinement. Some are trying to get back to the way things were before, while others are continuing to work from home. For interpreters, the backbone of international institutions and truly multilingual, it’s a trial and error situation. During the confinement, meetings with participants and interpreters present had become impossible. In search of an alternative, DG SCIC went down the road of videoconferencing, with all its attendant complexities.

Slowly, normal meetings are resuming. The objective being understanding, wearing a mask is problematic. The sound quality with a mask is probably close to that of a participant with a poor internet connection, but talking for a long time with a mask is very tiring. Distancing yourself is therefore all the more important. But there’s a problem here too!

An interpreting booth is cramped, 3.20m x 1.80m x 2.30m for three people in normal circumstances, which corresponds to a volume of air of just over 4m3 per person. This is minimal compared with Belgian legislation, which stipulates an air volume of 10m3 per person for work spaces in normal operation.

What’s more, distancing, even with a mask, is designed for large ventilated spaces and short exposures – yet face-to-face meetings last several hours. So a solution had to be found. Initially, SCIC opted for the approach of not having interpreters of the same language working in the same booth: they were divided between several booths so that one booth (disinfected) was occupied by only one person.

This system can work, but only when the number of languages spoken is relatively limited. (Option taken by the European Parliament, which limits itself to working with only 8 languages). The number of rooms equipped with a sufficient number of booths makes it impossible to offer all the working languages at the same time in several conferences.

The Council, particularly impatient to resume working in a face-to-face configuration, therefore examined several possibilities: a complement using mobile booths, a solution that would prove impossible given the lack of cooperation from the system supplier; coupling two rooms, which would appear to be technically impossible (in the 21st century?); and finally separating the booths with Plexiglas to accommodate two interpreters.

It was this last option that won out at the Council: a plexiglass window separating the two halves of the booth (independent as far as air-conditioning is concerned, we are told), but leaving an open space towards the ceiling and the back of the booth (50cm and 1m respectively). Both the Commission’s and the Council’s Medical Services gave the go-ahead, while the European Parliament’s Medical Service deemed the risk too high and rejected the proposal.

(On 4 June, interpreters were faced with a fait accompli and had to refuse to work with this system, for which an official position from the SCIC is still awaited).

How can a solution deemed dangerous by the European Parliament be safe by the Council? Can the Medical Service be sure that the risk involved will be acceptable? Has it surrounded itself with the necessary expertise? As a reminder, in the Member States, pandemic measures have been defined by pools of specialists in the field. Has the Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee (CPPT) been consulted?

Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to apply the precautionary principle and push for solutions 1 and 2 (mobile cabins or coupled rooms), or at least to improve the separation so that it really divides the cabin in two?

Sensitivities about future working conditions differ, which is understandable. Everyone has their own life and is entitled to their own opinion.

But face-to-face meetings mean participants who have travelled through stations and airports, colleagues who know each other and whose lives will have returned to normal, including contact between children in nurseries and schools. To avoid the risks, let’s take every precaution.

26/06/2020

See also the European Parliament dossier…

A heads-up on plexiglas and some pieces of information.

By SCIC INTERPRETERS DELEGATION Friday, June 26, 2020

Breaking news: Plexiglas, Interactio, working in the Council.

The Delegation is writing to you directly for the first time in months. During those months, we’ve been present on the forums where we’ve encouraged discussion to take place in the hope that this would bring the service together and keep a sense of “one service” at a difficult time.

It’s partly been successful with some very long and interesting threads, but the ID has also been told that we should resume more formal email type communication.

We have, of course, done everything possible to engage constructively with management on the big issues of the day: the plight of our AIC colleagues, returning safely to the booth, keeping the service working (including the smaller booths) and working conditions for platforms.

We have agreed working rules for platforms that are “interim” pending proper negotiations, we form part of a “task force” which studies all the Rapports de Séance and the questionnaires that come from interpreters working platforms, we agreed at the GTP level and with heavy conditions, to go down the plexiglas path in an attempt to get the smaller booths back in the saddle in the council, but opted not to in the EESC because the airflows are not convincing. That doesn’t conclude the matter in the EESC but means that more work needs to be done. More on Plexiglas below.

Sadly, there are still issues with many files.

• We had a meeting this morning with the CLP and representatives of two staff trades unions to discuss the recent petition for AICs. This is an AIIC dossier but representatives of the ID will be present on Wednesday when the CLP meet with our Director General and AIIC
• During the same meeting, we confirmed and were comforted by promises of full support from the CLP and two unions if –as we have at times feared- we are forced down the road of a “concertation”-based negotiation under the framework agreement in the presence of the unions, SCIC and DG HR in order to obtain reasonable working conditions for the platforms.
• At lunchtime today, we met with the DG and her Directors in order to explore an alarming development in our relationship with the Council Secretariat. It appears that the GSC would find difficulties working within the framework of the four scenarios which we have agreed for platforms with the Programming Unit. In turn, we informed management that staff would not be able to accept working for the Council on platforms under standard working conditions. (particularly since at the moment, standard working conditions means two per booth even in some large regimes and in plexiglas). Management appeared to understand our message that 4 hour sessions, à deux, without break, on platforms, in the council working environment would bring the staff out in droves. A General Assembly has been penciled in for September if our belief (that we see eye-to-eye with top management on this) is not confirmed.

Finally, a note on plexiglas. During a test of the partitions that took place in the Berlaymant Schuman room this week, a source of smoke was used to test how efficient the partitions are at preventing aerosols or, in this instance, fine white smoke, from transiting to the other side of the booth if the partition doesn’t reach the ceiling. In short, they don’t. If smoke is emitted at head height whilst standing, it drifts straight over the partition and settles gently on the other side.

This is bad news because the partitions in the Council rooms also don’t reach the roof of the booths. Therefor we are issuing this warning to colleagues after raising it with management. We’ve also asked for tests with smoke to be carried out in the Council. We stopped short of asking that meetings stop in plexi equipped rooms in the Council on the basis that smoke emitted at mouth level (where you’d be working) did not make it to the other side and that the airflows in Council buildings are slightly different in that a more forceful down flow is produced. A suivre.

There are other issues which were not discussed in either of our meetings today but which are on our radar. They appear in telegraphic form below. We will post this on the forums as well, because our AIC colleagues stay in the loop that way and we like the idea that sometimes it generates discussions – which will stay firmly within the moderation policy, will they not.

TWO PER BOOTH

The problem.

Two interpreters per active language are assigned to meetings with more than 6 passive languages. This is a breach of the Agreement. It stems from a letter the D.I wrote on March 13 to the Director General where we proposed measures for the immediate health crisis and only where the number of languages and meetings were kept to the absolute minimum: see (DI FFH 13 March)

If we make the assumption that plexiglas dividers will ultimately be adopted more or less everywhere, then SCIC’s intention is clearly that this infringement of the rules will persist until the end of social distancing. I.E sometime next year when a vaccine is available.

Therefore many colleagues who have never really experienced two per booth work must assume it is their new normal.

It will increase relay and lower quality.

The solution

An end date: either July 31, or end of week on week off or end of phase 2

Interactio: a fortiori there is no reason to allow irregular assignments of two per booth for regimes above 6 passive languages yet that seems to be happening.

CONSECUTIVE

The problem

Programming do not apply rules to video conference interpreting in consecutive mode or webex because “it’s not a platform” despite the worse sound and greater stress (e.g. impossible to dialogue with speaker)

The solution

Apply rules according to length. For example:

<4 hours: two chevaux and 30’ break after 2h OR No break and NAB

>4 hours: two monolinguals plus one Cheval. No break. No NAB

Max 6 hours