I came across the claim that translators cannot go on strike in an academic book on translation and capitalism. I am interrogating this assumption as part of my work on re-politicising translation labour and developing a theory of change for the UK translation and interpreting industry. My interest is not simply whether translators can strike, but why collective action is so often treated as absent, unrealistic, or irrelevant within discussions of the profession. I suggest that dominant narratives centred on individual adaptation and resilience may contribute to making alternative forms of collective action less visible, narrowing how change is imagined within the profession. The systematic absence of collective action from the repertoire of imagined responses to industry change can therefore render it largely unthinkable by omission.

On the surface, this claim about translators “not being able to strike” might seem plausible. Translation work is fragmented, often freelance-based, and rarely organised under a single employer. However, there are examples of collective action, such as the 2020 Netherlands interpreters and translators strike and repeated strikes by UK court interpreters. The question therefore becomes more complex: if collective action is assumed to be impossible or irrelevant, what mechanisms remain for improving pay, conditions, and job security?

This raises a more fundamental issue: why is collective response so often absent from discussions of the profession? Academic studies and professional forums increasingly document that translators and interpreters are operating under growing financial and professional pressure. Rates in many sectors have stagnated or fallen, competition has intensified, and AI-driven tools are reshaping expectations around speed, cost, and production. Yet despite these pressures, there is relatively limited sustained collective visibility compared to other sectors experiencing similar structural change. This raises a further question: why does significant economic pressure so rarely translate into coordinated responses by translators?

One possible explanation lies not only in the structure of the industry itself, but in how that structure is interpreted and described. Within narratives that individualise responsibility, collective responses become not only practically difficult but also less visible and less central to professional imagination.

The problem of individualised responsibility

A dominant narrative within the profession emphasises individual adaptation. Translators are encouraged to respond to change through upskilling, specialisation, technological competence, entrepreneurship, and personal resilience. None of these responses are inherently problematic. But together they can shift attention away from structural questions about how value is distributed in the industry, where bargaining power sits, and what forms of collective leverage might exist.

In this framing, change becomes something individual translators must manage, rather than something that might also require collective organisation or coordinated pressure. This concern does not arise in isolation. In previous articles, I have explored the ethical risks of translation academics collaborating with industry actors without sufficient critical engagement, the growing influence of industry organisations within academic spaces, and the assumption that collaboration is inherently beneficial. I have also examined how professional and industry bodies frequently frame contemporary challenges through the language of skills shortages, talent pipelines, adaptability, innovation, entrepreneurship, and partnership. These narratives are not necessarily wrong, but they can leave limited space for discussions about power, bargaining capacity, labour rights, or collective organisation.

My interest in the claim that translators “cannot go on strike” therefore forms part of a broader inquiry into how professional realities are described, who shapes those descriptions, and what possibilities for change become visible—or invisible—as a result.

At the same time, I acknowledge the challenges created by the fragmentation of the profession — multiple employers, freelance contracting, globalised competition, and weak collective infrastructure — fragmentation is not the same as the absence of collective capacity. It is a condition that makes certain forms of collective action more difficult to organise. Therefore, we need to analyse why there is so little discussion of alternative forms of collective organisation or coordinated leverage.

Looking beyond translation, other fragmented professions offer useful comparisons. The 2023 Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike in the United States illustrates what coordinated industrial action can look like in a closely related creative labour sector facing similar pressures around pay structures, authorship, and the impact of AI. While translators were not strike participants, translators publicly expressed solidarity with these actions, highlighting shared concerns around remuneration, recognition, and technological change. This suggests that the underlying pressures are not unique to translators, but that the visibility and organisational form of response differ significantly.

Another useful example is farmers’ protests. Many farmers are independent business owners rather than employees, yet they have organised large-scale collective action, including highly visible protests such as bringing tractors into city centres. These actions are not traditional strikes in the legal sense, as they do not involve withdrawing labour from an employer. Instead, they rely on visibility and coordinated expression of shared economic grievances. This is not to equate farming with translation, but to show that fragmentation does not automatically prevent collective mobilisation; it shapes the form it takes.

One prominent feature of translation work is that it is often mediated through agencies, distributed across borders, and embedded in supply chains where individual translators are rarely seen as collective actors.

My aim is to open a more critical discussion about how change might be achievable and what its starting points could be. If the profession is assumed to be structurally incapable of collective action, then the space for imagining alternatives is narrowed from the outset. Revisiting this assumption is not about insisting that strike action is the primary or most realistic tool available. It is about asking why collective responses are so rarely foregrounded, and whether the dominant narrative of individual responsibility plays a role in that absence.

About the author
Fardous Bahbouh is a researcher and broadcast interpreter specialising in labour rights and the political economy of the translation and interpreting industry. Alongside her academic research, she continues to work with agencies and production companies that value interpreters and translators and provide fair working conditions. She also runs a small translation company and does not generalise critiques of unfair intermediaries to all translation companies or agencies.

Blog Image

Richard A Carter / https://betterimagesofai.org / https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/