A decision by or on behalf of a group of economic competitors (like the interpreter members of a state affiliate chapter) to explicitly or implicitly threaten to boycott any proposed or existing contract in order to influence the rates set forth in that contract raises very serious antitrust concerns. While there is no clear definition of what constitutes an implicit boycott threat, all members and RID affiliates must be very careful in making statements that might be construed as a veiled boycott threat.
Although it may seem obvious that below-market rates will decrease the pool of interpreters willing to work under a given contract, stating such on behalf of a RID-associated group may still be construed as an implicit boycott threat. If there are interpreters who are willing to accept the proposed contractual rates and/or those stated rates appear to benefit the consumers / providers of interpreting services, the risks of antitrust exposure are even greater.
While the impact of proposed contractual rates on the available pool of interpreter and the Deaf community’s access to services is a logical argument against rates that are perceived by some to be sub-market, statements made by or on behalf of competing interpreters regarding appropriate rates need to be carefully crafted, need to focus upon the consumer’s perspective and not the financial interests of the interpreters, and warrant careful review, including the advice of counsel prior to dissemination.