VRS Interpreter Health and Policy

Summary

• Report examines health and safety risks for American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters in Video Relay Service (VRS).
• Focus on Sorenson Communications and ZP Better Together, dominant VRS providers with private equity ownership.
• Evidence from academic research and interviews shows severe physical and mental health impacts and high burnout.
• Interpreter burnout and turnover contribute to a manufactured interpreter shortage and reduced service quality for Deaf users.
• Companies and the FCC are criticized for failing to meaningfully address occupational risks or engage interpreters.

Action Items

• (Ongoing – VRS providers) Engage interpreters through independent unions and associations; refrain from anti-union efforts and bargain in good faith.
• (Ongoing – VRS providers) Collaborate with researchers and interpreter organizations to redesign jobs, improve breaks, and adjust call policies.
• (Ongoing – VRS providers & researchers) Participate in consensus planning including FCC, Deaf consumers, interpreters, and academics.
• (Ongoing – FCC) Reevaluate VRS regulations with all stakeholders, including Deaf associations, interpreters, and VRS users.
• (Ongoing – FCC) Assess reimbursement flows to interpreter wages/benefits; require transparency on how funds are used.
• (Ongoing – FCC) Make stakeholder engagement and rulemaking more open and accessible to the public and VRS users.

VRS Industry Overview

• VRS enables Deaf and hard-of-hearing users to communicate with hearing people via video-based ASL interpretation.
• Calls are placed through VRS providers; interpreters appear on video to interpret in real time.
• Service is free to users; the FCC reimburses providers per minute to comply with the ADA.
• Providers must meet standards: 24/7 availability, answer 85% of calls within 10 seconds, maintain confidentiality.

Major Providers and Ownership

Academic Evidence on Health, Safety, and Shortage

Key Research Findings

• Longitudinal work by Pollard and Dean (RIT):
  • 2005/2010 work: VRS and K-12 settings show higher psychological distress than other interpreting contexts.
  • 2021 cortisol study: Biological evidence of stress dysregulation among interpreters; validates survey-based findings.
  • Occupational health problems (cumulative motion injury, burnout) are a major cause of interpreter shortage.
• Bower 2015 (Stress and Burnout in VRS):
  • Vast majority of interpreters reported experiencing burnout; many currently struggling.
  • High stress causes many to limit VRS hours or leave VRS altogether.
• Roman & Samar 2015 (Workstation ergonomics):
  • Only 18.8% of surveyed VRS interpreters reported no interpreting-related pain.
  • VRS among highest musculoskeletal risk settings.
• Wessling & Shaw 2014 (Persistent Emotional Extremes):
  • Majority who limited hours or left VRS did so due to stress from working conditions, management, or colleague interactions.
  • Identified “coping” pattern: interpreters reduce VRS hours, change shifts, move to community work, or fully exit VRS.

Documented Health Hazards

Research Recommendations

• Reduce call volume per interpreter and increase break time.
• Adopt team-based models similar to 20/20 rule (20 minutes interpreting, 20 minutes rest).
• Redesign jobs to balance demands with controls interpreters can exert.
• Employers must take primary responsibility for structuring healthier work environments.
• Convene a consensus planning conference including FCC, major VRS companies, interpreters, Deaf and hearing consumers, and researchers.
• Recent (2025) research abstract characterizes company and FCC failures as “dereliction” in addressing VRS occupational health risks.

Working Conditions in Practice

Call Pace, Metrics, and Breaks

• Company systems track interpreter activity to the second.
• Interpreters report an average of about 10 minutes per hour not taking calls.
  • This time also covers bathroom, water, stretching, equipment issues, and supervisor communication.
  • Not equivalent to true rest breaks.
• VRS practice: often 50 minutes actively interpreting, 10 minutes break, versus recommended 15–20 minutes before switching teams in other interpreting contexts.
• Policies at Sorenson and ZP Better Together:
  • Encourage maximized “time available” for calls.
  • Break usage metrics can be used to reward or punish interpreters and affect schedule bidding.
  • Taking more than ~10 minutes per hour is against policy; taking less allows “banking” time.
• Interpreters describe near-zero time between calls, sometimes measured in seconds:
  • Make it difficult to drink water, use the bathroom, or mentally reset.
  • Leads to constant “boom boom boom” calling with no decompression after traumatic calls.

Physical Pain and Ergonomic Support

• All interviewed interpreters reported physical pain (wrist, arm, neck, back).
• Lack of employer-provided ergonomic training.
• Some employers offer small stipends for equipment, but many interpreters pay out of pocket for:
  • Ergonomic chairs, desks, braces.
  • Medical care, copays, therapies.
• Example of inadequate support:
  • Interpreter using a TENS unit for back pain was questioned only for possible cell phone use, not health needs.
  • No escalation to HR or safety review despite clear signal of health issues.

Exposure to Abuse and Trauma

• Interpreters frequently handle calls with:
  • Inappropriate comments and behavior.
  • Disparaging or harassing language.
• Black and LGBTQ interpreters face especially intense discriminatory behavior; offenders are outside company policy control.
• Interpreters often report harassment to management but perceive little support or action.
• Witnessing traumatic events during live calls (e.g., physical assault during a call) leaves interpreters shocked and shaken without debrief or structured support.

Staffing and Queue Pressures

• Reports of chronic understaffing:
  • Leads to long queues for Deaf users and increased workload for interpreters.
• Financial structure:
  • FCC reimburses per minute; interpreters are paid hourly.
  • Incentive exists to minimize staffing while still meeting FCC speed-of-answer metrics.
• Companies often approve overtime only after queue spikes:
  • Results in last-minute OT recruitment.
  • Both Deaf users and interpreters experience negative effects.
• Documented cycle:
  • Experienced interpreters leave or reduce hours due to stress.
  • Fewer experienced interpreters increase stress on remaining staff and degrade service quality.
  • Turnover perpetuates interpreter shortage and stress.

Case Examples

Summary of Interpreter Experiences

Common Themes Across Case Studies

• Transition from part-time to full-time VRS often triggers or worsens physical pain.
• Mental fatigue and burnout spill over into personal life, reducing ability to socialize or engage outside work.
• Interpreters reduce hours, downgrade from full-time to part-time, or leave VRS entirely as primary coping strategy.
• Strong interest in unionization as a tool to improve conditions and secure voice in decision-making.

Unionization and Corporate Response

• Interpreters launched an organizing campaign with OPEIU (Office and Professional Employees International Union) in September 2024.
• Goals include:
  • Improving working conditions.
  • Addressing issues affecting the Deaf community.
  • Securing meetings with employers and corporate owners.

Company Reactions

• Sorenson:
  • Publicly stated in March 2025 its intent to remain free of third-party representation.
  • Has not agreed to meet with interpreters regarding conditions and collective bargaining.
• ZP Better Together / Teleperformance:
  • Teleperformance signed a global labor framework with UNI Global Union in 2022.
  • Has not applied those commitments to U.S. employees or responded to OPEIU’s demands.
• Interpreters report lack of meaningful engagement by corporate owners (Ariel, Blackstone, Teleperformance).

Decisions (Implied or Recommended)

• VRS providers should:
  • Shift from recruitment-first to retention-focused strategies by improving working conditions.
  • Redesign workload expectations to align with evidence-based standards (e.g., shorter active interpreting intervals).
  • Stop policies that indirectly reward skipping breaks or overworking.
• FCC should:
  • Ensure that reimbursement structures support adequate wages, benefits, and safe staffing levels.
  • Require transparency in how reimbursements are allocated (wages vs. research, debt service, other spending).
  • Facilitate multi-stakeholder processes including Deaf users and interpreters.

Open Questions

• How will VRS providers concretely revise scheduling, break policies, and performance metrics to reduce health risks?
• What specific percentage of FCC reimbursements currently flow to interpreter wages and benefits across major providers?
• Will Teleperformance extend its global labor commitments to U.S.-based ZP Better Together interpreters, and on what timeline?
• How and when will the FCC structure a comprehensive stakeholder process that includes interpreters and Deaf consumers?
• What enforcement mechanisms will ensure providers adhere to any new health, safety, and wage standards established?