Is it Still Half Full if it's the Wrong Half of the Glass?
How do you qualify success? For some people it's quantification through the use of statistics--which can bite you in the hiney if you're none too clever about them.
Case in point: This overly perky blog about the "wildly successful" AAMT convention, wherein they have to lump in the exhibitors to bolster the number of attendees to what they think is a respectable number of 827. So take out the vendors (including the hotel staff?) and what do you have, maybe 400 members actually in attendance? I suppose that's a better turnout than when they decided to vacation in Hawaii, but still. . . Considering they claim a membership over 7500 (mind you, this includes sweetheart deals like the press release on August 16, 2007, wherein CBay agreed to automatically make their employees members--swelling membership by 6000 paper tigers!) I'm not so sure this is a respectable showing. Even if you shrug off the inflated number of attendees, that's barely 10% of the membership who cared enough to show. To contrast, I believe the Little People of America have about 6000 registered members and about a fourth of them manage to attend their annual national convention. I think even the accordion enthusiasts rate a better turnout than AAMT. . .
Another giddy reference is to this MT survey, based on 3809 responses. Again, I'm not sure if that's a statistically relevant number, given that there are supposedly about 100,000 MTs in the US and the results are undoubtedly skewed wildly because a majority of those MTs have not even found their way online and to the communities that linked to the survey. (I seem to recall that the largest MT message board, MT Chat, has over 18,000 registered users, though that includes many who aren't current users--still, a more respectable membership percentage, though AAMT considers us The Great Unwashed). So--what are the conclusions of this great scientific treatise?
* First of all, MT is an aging population, over 95% female.
* Over half have training--predominantly the newer generation who have no opportunities to learn on the job as in days past.
* Over 30% of MTs are the sole wage-earners in their household, many hanging by the skin of their teeth thanks to plummeting wages.
* Over half are paid based on production (a recipe for quantity over quality, IMHO).
* "Cost pressures on the industry are putting MTs in a precarious financial position, potentially hurting recruitment and retention." That is to say, wages are plummeting and that job as a WalMart greeter is starting to look like a better deal.
* New MTs are not exactly flooding the field (see above for obvious explanation). . .
* . . . except for overseas, where younger men actually might predominate.
* Speech recognition is replacing transcription.
* Offshore MTs are not only replacing the US workforce, but are helping to drive the wages down for those of us remaining.
* The final statement sums it up fairly well: ". . . it is imperative for the industry that the proper incentives, career trajectory, and general recognition be in place to keep MTs committed to the profession. " (Too little too late, doncha think?)
Of course, this is the same organization that has gotten really excited about their "Dress for Success" campaign (I'm not linking to the URL because Firefox has declared it an "attack site" for viruses/hackers), because a snappy business suit will certainly make people forget they consider MTs mere typing monkeys. Again, ignore that statistic from the survey above, wherein over 70% of us actually work from home and a disturbing number still consider the ability to work in their jammies a perk. . .
The message I get here is that AAMT is hurting (she says as much in the blog first cited) and they're looking to promote credentialing (individuals, schools, and corporate suckers alike) and yet another Book of Style (save your money and use this one for free!) for that badly needed cash infusion that helped send their leader to live in DC.
Honestly, I'm not sure how this whole thing can be bandied about as a victory for the Airheads, except that they seem to believe it will help them sell their credentials to MTs silly enough to believe that alphabet soup after their names is going to change the direction this industry is headed. I have just been pointed to the annual report of a major MTSO in which they disclose a major quarterly loss--but never fear, because it's largely due to startup investments in speech recognition technology and offshore training, which means the future's bright for the stockholders standing on the shoulders of the little people crushed in the stampede. Despite assurances that we are in a "normal summertime slump," that doesn't hold up because there is a progressive shortage of work available and none of my peers have seen the like before. It is no longer just curiouser and curiouser--it's getting downright scary to us peons. (Whatever happened to honesty in the workplace?)
As for my stubborn insistence on the use of "AAMT" (which is much more manageable than "The Organization Formerly Known as AAMT"), I remain unapologetic. Though few outside the MT community know them even by that, I guarantee a majority can't remember the new acronym at all. A rose (hardly) by any other name, and all that. I was especially amused by a conversation in the NCRA message board, wherein the tumor registrars are debating whether THEY should consider a name change. Best reply so far referenced AAMT's ill-advised push to call us "medical language specialists" to gloss over the fact that transcriptionists are quickly disappearing, hauling out my favorite old analogy of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. A CTR stated succinctly that one is a "certified tumor registrar," which seems to convey the job well enough and satisfy the self esteem of a majority. 'Natch, I agree wholeheartedly--a name means bupkis if it's just wrapping up the same threadbare package with a new ribbon.