The misconception of “My staff interpreter isn’t working a full 40 hours”

I’ve been hired into staff interpreting roles more than once over the last few decades—schools, programs, offices, and community settings where the need for access is real and constant. And almost every time, the same moment arrives:

At some point, a well-meaning manager looks at the schedule and asks (or quietly wonders),“Why aren’t you interpreting 8 solid hours a day?” Or the sharper version: “My staff interpreter isn’t working a full 40-hour week.”

If you’re an employer reading this: I get why it looks confusing. If you’re an interpreter reading this: you’ve probably lived this conversation.

So let’s name the misunderstanding plainly:

A full-time interpreter is not expected to interpret continuously for 40 hours a week. Full-time employment includes interpreting and the essential work that makes interpreting accurate, safe, and sustainable.

This article is here to help you explain that—clearly, professionally, and without apologizing for having a human nervous system.

Why this misconception happens

Most employers have never been taught what interpreting actually is.

From the outside, it can look like “just showing up and signing.” If someone is physically present for eight hours, it seems logical to assume they can “do the thing” for eight hours.

But interpreting isn’t one task. It’s a high-demand cognitive performance—real-time bilingual processing, decision-making, and production. That performance has limits. When we ignore those limits, the outcome is predictable: accuracy drops, errors rise, injury risk increases, and burnout follows.

It’s not about work ethic. It’s about human capacity.

The VRS comparison: why “an hour of interpreting” isn’t really an hour

Many interpreters understand this immediately through the VRS lens.

In Video Relay Service, the industry has long recognized that interpreting requires built-in recovery time. Even highly skilled interpreters can’t do nonstop, high-intensity interpreting hour after hour without quality and health consequences.

A rough way to describe it:

• 60 minutes scheduled does not equal 60 minutes of sustainable, high-quality output

• One “hour” of interpreting is often closer to 45–50 minutes of peak performance, with a necessary break to reset

And here’s where employers get understandably confused: not all interpreting assignments stress the brain and body in the exact same way.

A fast, unpredictable, high-stakes phone call can be more taxing than a slower-paced meeting with visuals and context. So sometimes an interpreter can manage a longer stretch—but that doesn’t mean it’s safe or appropriate to schedule that stretch all day, every day.

The variability of assignments is exactly why staffing models must be flexible—and why a blanket expectation of “8 hours of interpreting per day” is unrealistic.

The core truth: full-time hours include more than “hands moving”

A full-time interpreter’s work week includes time that makes interpreting possible, accurate, and ethical—especially in staff roles where you’re supporting a whole environment, not just one appointment.

So what is the interpreter doing during the workday if not actively interpreting every minute?

A lot—much of it invisible unless you understand the job.

What employers are actually paying for in a full-time interpreter

1) Effective communication—not nonstop signing

The goal is not “continuous output.” The goal is effective communication.

That requires:

• accuracy and completeness

• appropriate register and tone

• consistent access over time

• reliable performance that doesn’t collapse by Thursday

If you schedule one interpreter as if they’re a machine, you don’t get “more access.” You get more mistakes.

2) Breaks are not perks. They are safety equipment.

Interpreting requires:

• intense concentration

• constant language switching

• rapid problem-solving

• continuous physical output (upper body, eyes, posture, breathing)

Breaks protect:

• accuracy

• physical health (repetitive strain injuries are common in this field)

• cognitive performance

• long-term retention (people quit jobs that ignore reality)

This includes what I call bio breaks—the normal bodily needs every worker has, plus the extra recovery needs that interpreting demands.

If your access plan collapses because the interpreter took a bathroom break, the plan was never adequate.

3) Teaming and switching isn’t “extra”—it’s quality control

In many settings, best practice is team interpreting with rotation (often around 15–20 minutes in high-demand situations).

Why?

Because interpreters need:

• active monitoring by another bilingual professional

• support catching errors in real time

• backup for numbers, names, fingerspelling, rapid turn-taking

• a second set of eyes for both languages

An interpreter cannot reliably “self-check” everything while producing output. That’s not a character flaw. It’s how the brain works under load.

When you don’t staff for teaming, the interpreter is forced to choose between:

• accuracy and completeness

• or simply surviving the day

That’s an unfair position for everyone involved—especially the Deaf/Hard of Hearing person depending on access.

4) Preparation time is interpreting time (even if you don’t see it)

Interpreting is only as accurate as the interpreter’s access to:

• agenda topics

• terminology

• names and roles

• background context

• materials (slides, handouts, policies, curriculum, etc.)

Prep time can include:

• reviewing content and building vocabulary lists

• coordinating with teams about specialized terms or classroom expectations

• identifying potential access barriers before the event

• setting up strategies for a specific person’s language needs

Skipping prep doesn’t save time. It shifts the cost into the interpretation as:

• pauses

• repairs

• omissions

• misunderstandings

• reduced trust

5) Coordination is real work in staff roles

Staff interpreters don’t just interpret. They often coordinate access across an ecosystem.

That may include:

• schedule management across multiple departments/teams

• triaging urgent requests

• arranging coverage (and substitutes)

• communicating boundaries and realistic capacity

• documenting services and patterns of need

• planning for events, emergencies, assemblies, trainings, evaluations, travel days

This is what allows a program to function without constant chaos.

6) Documentation and admin tasks protect everyone

Many roles require:

• service logs

• documentation of requests and coverage gaps

• incident reports (when access fails)

• compliance notes

• invoicing or internal tracking

• communication with supervisors and stakeholders

This isn’t “extra paperwork.” This is the evidence base that helps an organization plan staffing and prevent repeated access failures.

So… what does a realistic “40-hour week” look like?

A full-time interpreting position can absolutely be a 40-hour job.

But that week will include a mix of:

• active interpreting time

• preparation time

• coordination time

• documentation/admin time

• transitions/travel time

• breaks and recovery

• meetings and collaboration

And the ratio changes depending on:

• pace and density of communication

• number of consumers

• number of locations

• complexity of content

• emotional intensity and stakes

• whether there is team support

Here’s a plain truth many employers need to hear:

If your environment requires near-continuous access, one interpreter is not a staffing plan. It’s a burnout plan.

Why this matters for employers (even if you’re not “trying to be unfair”)

When employers push for nonstop interpreting, they tend to see these predictable outcomes:

• increased errors and miscommunications

• strained relationships (because access feels inconsistent)

• higher sick time and injury claims

• faster turnover (and rehiring costs)

• a reputation that makes hiring harder

• ongoing access complaints and crises

In contrast, when employers staff realistically, they get:

• higher-quality access

• consistent services across the week

• healthier staff and better retention

• smoother operations

• fewer emergencies and last-minute gaps

This is not “interpreter preference.” It’s operational reality.

A simple way to explain it to your boss (copy/paste)

If you’re an interpreter and need language you can use:

Option A: “I want to make sure I’m meeting the needs of the role in the best way possible. Interpreting is very different from most desk work—it’s real-time bilingual performance, and accuracy drops when fatigue sets in.

My full-time hours include not only interpreting, but also the preparation, coordination, documentation, and recovery time that allow me to interpret accurately and consistently throughout the week. That structure helps me provide reliable access day after day.”

Option B: “That’s a really reasonable question, and I’m glad you asked. Full-time interpreting doesn’t mean interpreting every minute of the day—it means supporting effective communication across the whole week.

Interpreting requires sustained concentration, and when it’s scheduled nonstop, accuracy and quality suffer. My schedule includes interpreting along with the work that makes it effective—prep time, transitions, documentation, and recovery—so that communication stays clear and consistent.”

Option C: “My goal is to provide consistent, effective access—not just be present. To do that safely and accurately, interpreting has to be scheduled in a way that reflects how the work actually functions.

A sustainable model includes interpreting time along with preparation, coordination, and recovery. That’s what allows me to maintain quality and support communication over the full work week.”

Option D: “I want to make sure I’m supporting communication as effectively as possible. Interpreting is cognitively demanding, and full-time interpreting roles are structured to include both interpreting and the work that supports it—like prep, documentation, and recovery time.

That balance helps ensure accuracy and consistency throughout the week.”

Conclusion: The goal is access that lasts all week—not access that collapses by Wednesday

The misconception that a staff interpreter should be “interpreting every minute of a 40-hour week” comes from not understanding what interpreting actually demands.

A well-designed access plan doesn’t squeeze one interpreter until the quality breaks. It builds a system that supports:

• effective communication

• accuracy over time

• ethical practice

• interpreter health and retention

• stable, predictable coverage

If your organization needs full-week access, plan for staffing that can actually deliver full-week access.

Help this become a shared resource (call for contributions)

If you’re an interpreter reading this, I’d love to grow this into a stronger public resource.

Please contribute below:

• What setting do you work in? (education, medical, corporate, government, etc.)

• What’s a common misconception you’ve had to correct?

• What has worked when explaining staffing needs to an employer?

• Do you have a respectful, anonymized example that helped a supervisor “get it”?

• Any research links, policy language, or best-practice documents you’ve used successfully?

Let’s make this something interpreters can point to—so we don’t have to reinvent this explanation alone, job after job.