As our colleague H. Ciolkovitch told us so eloquently at the Geneva mini-sectoral on 2 March, we are a rare commodity, highly qualified specialists whose work is highly stressful; we work in real time and we are always available. We must urge the Negotiating Delegation to recognise these strengths and make full use of them to get us the deal we deserve, not the deal CCAQ wants to give us. We are unique, and we should surely earn more than steno-typists, plumbers and electricians. Or have we, collectively, so little sense of self-worth that we are willing to lie down and be steamrollered yet again?

This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance; CCAQ will not make this same mistake again in the negotiations. I sincerely hope that the Negotiating Delegation, with the full support of all members of the sector, will have the courage and the vision to take full advantage of CCAQ’s blunder and get the very best for us all.

 Reply

Just a few ideas I would like to share with colleagues with respect to the forthcoming negotiations with CCAQ. Most are my own, but some have been borrowed from other colleagues during chats about our future.

The current negotiations mark a turning point in the interpreters’ relations with CCAQ. For the first time in a very long time (as long as I can remember), the negotiations have gone beyond the normal two days of polite natter followed by a civilised world sectoral during which we were all informed of the result and were invited to vote in favour. Instead of that, CCAQ came out blustering and demanding more for less, bringing into question the very foundations of the Agreement. In other words, they made a major tactical and strategic blunder. They have opened the door to serious and detailed negotiation. We now have the golden opportunity to achieve a new agreement which will safeguard our acquired rights while at the same time earning just recompense for our services. Here are just a few examples of what we could aim for:

First of all, it should be made very clear that the Agreement conditions are the rule, and any arrangements with individual organisations are simply demonstrations of our extreme flexibility. The rules are there to be respected, and can only be waived with the full agreement of both parties (although the waiving always seems to benefit them and not so much us…).

I for one have never understood why our colleagues in Rome earn less than those in Vienna, who in turn earn less than I do in Geneva. Or why I earn less when I go abroad than when I stay home. My mortgage certainly stays the same no matter where I work, and my staff colleagues earn the same basic salary wherever their duty station may be. Could we not have one single rate (as in the EU) throughout the world, based of course on an increase in the current Geneva rate?

On the rate itself, we in Geneva currently earn the approximate daily equivalent of a P4-5 net basic salary. The basic salary is only a part of what our staff colleagues actually earn, since they are entitled to post adjustment, home leave, education grant, sick leave, pension, etc. In other words, I am not just cheaper, I am incredibly cheaper. And even more so if I am domiciled in Rome or London. Moreover, the rate itself is based on the erroneous assumption that we work 8 sessions for 7 days’ salary. In reality, we work most of the time on the basis of five-day contracts (if we are very lucky) or even 1, 2, 3 or 4 day contracts, and so do 8 session for five days’ salary, 7 for 4, etc. No wonder they like us so much. Since CCAQ has offered us the possibility of questioning the system, could we not try to recover some of the real loss in our earnings? While on this subject, might I point out that a five-day contract involves 8 sessions, and a ninth session, if worked on an exceptional basis, requires compensation of 3 days’ salary. The organisation is then also entitled to a tenth session under the same contract.

 Reply