By Fardous Bahbouh, Researcher & Consultant on Labour Rights, Public Policy, and the Political Economy of the Translation Industry

Seriously, what comes to your mind when you hear the phrase “Better Together”?

No, not the love song by Jack Johnson.
Not the campaign for keeping Scotland in the UK.
Not the UK’s debates to stay in the EU.

Would you believe me if I told you it was the title of a recent conference organised by the Association of Programmes in Translation and Interpreting Studies (APTIS), UK and Ireland, held at UCL in November 2025 — and sponsored by industry actors?

“Better together” sounds warm, collaborative, even inevitable. It suggests alignment of interests, mutual benefit, shared purpose.

But better for whom?

When universities and commercial translation companies position themselves as natural partners, the language of collaboration can sometimes obscure structural tensions — particularly around labour conditions, outsourcing models, and the distribution of value in the translation market.

---

Structural Realities of the Translation Market

The premise of this post is simple: good translation jobs require good translation companies.

If translators experience rate compression, unpaid waiting time, opaque procurement systems, and growing precarity, these are not isolated individual misfortunes. They are shaped by the companies that structure the market.

And when academic institutions align too closely with those same companies — especially in publicly sponsored events — critical distance becomes harder to maintain. Universities have a responsibility not only to prepare students for the market, but to analyse that market rigorously and independently. Collaboration should not mean intellectual capture.

“Better together” may be an appealing slogan. But unless we are prepared to ask difficult questions about power, incentives, and accountability, it risks becoming a comforting phrase that smooths over uncomfortable realities.

---

Why Labour Protections May Miss Translators

As the UK moves forward towards improving labour rights protections — including for people on zero-hour contracts — there is a deeply uncomfortable irony in the translation and interpreting sector.

Most translators and interpreters will likely remain excluded from these protections. Not because they lack economic vulnerability. Not because they lack dependency on agencies for work. But because they are classified as “vendors,” “suppliers,” or “small businesses.”

This classification is not neutral. It reshapes labour into commerce, reframes dependency as entrepreneurship, and transfers risk downward while preserving control upward.

In practice, many freelance translators and interpreters operate within highly asymmetric supply chains: rates are often set externally, contracts are standardised, payment terms are imposed, and meaningful bargaining power is limited. Yet the formal label of “independent provider” places them outside the scope of protections designed for economically dependent workers.

If labour reform expands in theory but excludes those reclassified as micro-enterprises in practice, then the reform risks reproducing the very inequalities it claims to address.

Good translation jobs require good translation companies. And good governance requires universities capable of analysing those structures objectively — not merely participating in them.

---

Looking Ahead

To improve outcomes for translators, we must examine the structures that shape their work — including the role of companies, procurement systems, and institutional partnerships. Only by maintaining independent scrutiny can universities fulfil their mission of fostering both knowledge and justice in the sector.

Because good translation jobs do not appear by accident. They are produced — or constrained — by organisational design.

---

Note:

For a fully referenced and theoretical analysis, please see my previous articles on this blog. For example, I have elaborated On the Ethical Risks of Translation Academics “Collaborating” with the Industry Without Adequate Critical Engagement and Objective Analysis  – Lingua Media Connect, developing these arguments in greater depth and including academic references. The article also include a critique of APTIS for granting membership to the Association of Translation Companies (ATC), a move that further risks obscuring labour rights and presenting an overly rosy framing of the translation industry.

I have additionally explored How much does the translation industry cost our society by underpaying its largely precarious workforce? – Lingua Media Connect and about Confronting Critical Blind Spots in Sustainability Discourse in Translation Studies: Advancing Ethical Labour Practices and Critiquing Profit-Driven Models – Lingua Media Connect. You might also want to read the critique of a n the societal costs of current unfair arrangements in the translation sector, as well as the implications of the recent collaboration between ITO, CIOL, and ATC: Why Are Translators’ Rights Always Said to Be “Discussed Elsewhere”? Institutional Alignment with Commercial Interests as an Ethical and Strategic Failure – Lingua Media Connect.

Disclaimer: This article reflects the author’s independent analysis and does not represent any institutional position. It is not connected to, commissioned by, or endorsed by the University at which the author is completing doctoral studies.