Why you would hire newbies over experienced MTs

Although the Letter to the Editor (September 2006 issue of Plexus, now AHDI's Matrix publication) is a year old, the topic being discussed is still current.

I stumbled on this discussion at MT Stars. The comments divide about half and half between MTs who are outraged at the perceived insult - and MTs who seem to have a grasp of the underlying problems that prompted the Letter to the Editor.

I'm not sure I agree with Dee Thomas that I'd hire someone new because they have better tech skills. You can teach (most) people tech skills. What is more difficult to do is break bad habits. The reason I would hire someone new over someone with experience is they usually have fewer bad habits to break and less attitude about corrections.

MTs with experience don't want to face the uncomfortable reality that all experience isn't good experience. They also don't want to own up to the possibility that they've been doing crappy work for the last 15 years. In situations where "experienced" MTs haven't worked out for AlphaBest, I get:

"Your QA is too picky." There are variations of this theme, but this is the main one. MTs are surprised that there is actually a core group that meets the standard measure of 98% or better and on a consistent basis. How QA is to blame for noticing that there are words missing, words misspelled and wrong words, I'm not quite sure. And what we noticed is that MTs would skip past an entire page of errors marked in red (considered critical, such as missing and wrong words) and zero in on punctuation corrections, which count for only 1/4 point (as opposed to 2 points for critical errors). They'll go to the wall over comma placement while blithely ignoring major errors in their transcription. And, if terminated, will continue to focus on the minor corrections. I've had MTs who score less than 90% on accuracy - you don't get there by misplacing punctuation, folks - send me angry e-mails about what a good MT they are and how picky we're being over a few commas. I quit arguing with them. It's a complete waste of time and, unfortunately, there's no shortage of companies they can go work for. They will go on being a mediocre MT and someone will continue to pay them to do it and because they're employed, they will continue to believe their experience is good and that AlphaBest was just unreasonably picky. They will add years to their experience and continue to believe that because of this, they have more value than a new graduate who is teachable and eager to learn how to do the job right.

I also notice that nobody has a problem with how QA is done until their accuracy takes a nosedive. Somehow, QA is to blame for their errors - and yet, nothing has changed about the QA process. Some MTs don't want to own up to the possibility that they've stopped proofing as carefully, have outside distractions that have impacted their ability to do a good job, or just plain don't care any more.

The other theme is: "That's the way I've always done it." As in "for the entire 15 years of my excellent experience, nobody has ever corrected me when I used that incorrect term and I resent you telling me I'm wrong." I understand this. It's embarrassing to be caught in an error, especially one you know you've been making for years and nobody ever corrected you on before. You get this horrified feeling as you recall how many times you've done it and how many records must contain that error. Is it really a good idea to admit you've been doing it wrong for the past umptyjillion years?

Then there's: "I've never used the BOS." Folks, I frequently share the general frustration and derision with the organization that professes/has professed to represent medical transcriptionists. However, there's a major misunderstanding about the BOS. It wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of BHOLs. They don't change it just to generate revenue. It is a compendium of medical industry style guidelines, primarily the AMA and JCAHO, and any facility that is JCAHO accredited will require it. If your experience is primarily private practice clinics, you most likely have never used it and didn't need to. But what that tells your prospective employer is you aren't suited for acute care, large clinic, or academic medical center accounts. Complaining about it implies that you aren't teachable.

So why would a service prefer newbies? Newbies are like a blank page, waiting to be written on. The only preconceived notions they have are the ones they were taught in their program and frequently the MTSO has a good idea of what was taught. Dee Thomas, for example, has been involved in MT education for years. They take correction more willingly, without the baggage of "that's the way I've done it for years," or the misconception that years of experience = ability. I've seen MTs with 2 years of experience whose work is head and shoulders above that of MTs with 20 years of experience. Practice doesn't make perfect - perfect practice makes perfect.

Newbies also don't have a preconceived notion about their worth. MTs with years of experience expect to be offered a certain amount and they get upset when they aren't. Some of them are worth it, many are not. I frequently found that MTs who demanded to be started at a higher rate of pay because of their experience simply weren't worth it. The ones who were worth it - and knew it - were willing to start at a lower rate because they were confident they would demonstrate their value quickly and be rewarded for it. They were right. The rest got terminated because they weren't worth what they thought they were and they'd left themselves no room for adjustment.

MTs who are really, really good and care about doing a good job are rare. The unfortunate reality is in this business is that (a) those MTs frequently aren't rewarded and (b) mediocre MTs will never have trouble finding work. This has become a "warm body business." Get the lines out, clean them up (if that) and get them to the client. Five mediocre MTs and one QA person can put out more lines than five really good MTs that you can't find to hire because math is constant and unchanging - 100% of zero will always be zero.