| User | Thread poster: Susanna Martoni Very classic topics: an outsourcers' clause |
|---|
Susanna Martoni 
Italy
Local time: 22:26
  Member (2009)
Spanish to Italian
+ ...
|
Hi everybody.
I am asked to sign an agreement from an outsourcer.
I would like to know your opinion about this clause. Is it any standard clause for you?
At first sight, I have to say I am a bit reluctant:
Contractor shall proactively work in collaboratively with Company and respond to any complaints without undue delay. If after investigation or formal Quality assurance reviews any of the work is found to be of substandard quality, Company reserves the right to deduct such monetary amount that has been invoiced by Contractor; in the case where Company has already made payment to Contractor, Company will require repayment within 7 days of Company’s request; if such repayment is not made upon demand, Company reserves the right to make deductions from future payments.
Interpretation: if at any time we find some "inconsistency" or whatever, we reserve the right no to pay your future invoices.
Thank you in advance,
Susanna
| | | |
Lesley Clayton
France
Local time: 22:26
French to English
+ ...
| | I wouldn't sign it | Jan 19 |
| Susanna Martoni wrote:... Company reserves the right to make deductions from future payments. |
|
The question that comes to my mind is: if my work is so bad that it's not worth paying for, why would they want to use me again for future work?
There's nothing in the clause either about how it is decided that work is substandard, nor that you are given the opportunity to correct this substandard work.
I wouldn't sign it.
| | | |
Alina - Maria Chiteala
Romania
Local time: 23:26
Member (2011)
English to Romanian
+ ...
|
Dear Lesley Clayton,
There are moments when our work is not quite as good as it should be. Stress related problems, overload, etc. So it is possible to have one bad job. If this doesn't happen in all jobs - maybe there is another issue and the translator is a good one after all.
I do not see anything wrong in this logic or in the clause stated above.
| | | |
nordiste
France
Local time: 22:26
Member (2005)
English to French
+ ...
|
Lesley Clayton wrote:
There's nothing in the clause either about how it is decided that work is substandard, nor that you are given the opportunity to correct this substandard work.
|
|
| | | |
Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 22:26
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| | Cross it out, but... | Jan 19 |
Susanna Martoni wrote:
If ... any of the work is found to be of substandard quality, Company reserves the right to deduct such monetary amount that has been invoiced by Contractor; in the case where Company has already made payment to Contractor, Company will require repayment ... |
|
Cross it out and tell the agency that they should simply not pay you until they are satisfied with the translation. Paying you should be a signal that your translation has passed their quality control procedures.
If they want the ability to dispute the paid amount on the ground of quality issues after payment was already made, it can only mean that they fear that their own quality control systems might fail and that they will then try to hold you liable for their inability to have spotted problems before delivering to the client.
| | | |
Susanna Martoni
Italy
Local time: 22:26
Member (2009)
Spanish to Italian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | | Thank you very much | Jan 19 |
for your suggestions.
I am meditating about them...
Ciao,
Susanna
| | | |
Phil Hand
China
Local time: 04:26
Member (2011)
Chinese to English
| | It's certainly a classic | Jan 19 |
My thought is this: we may not want or like this clause, but what is an outsourcer supposed to do? They need to have some mechanism by which they can not pay the translator if the quality is no good. If you don't like this mechanism, suggest to them an alternative.
Samuel has given you one idea - I don't like it myself, because it seems like an invitation to an outsourcer not to pay my invoices on time. But it's a possibility. Personally, I think the clause suggested to you is reasonable, though you might want to ask the outsourcer what their investigation mechanisms are.
| | | |
Janet Rubin
Australia
Member (2008)
German to English
|
Phil Hand wrote:
If you don't like this mechanism, suggest to them an alternative.
Samuel has given you one idea ... you might want to ask the outsourcer what their investigation mechanisms are. |
|
The key issue here is not that they might dispute the quality (and penalize you for it) - but *how* they can dispute the quality and *prove* that their dispute is valid.
If you trust this outsourcer in other respects (if they have a good reputation e.g. Blue Board, if they have communicated with you thus far in a professional, courteous, honest, and cordial manner, if all indications are that they are legitimate and respected, etc.), then by all means amend this clause to state how you propose handling quality disputes.
The worst that can happen is that they say "no" - but they might start a genuine dialog with you about their procedures, and they might possibly even accept your terms. So really, you have nothing to lose except the time it takes to rewrite the clause.
| | | |
The translation workplace 
Translation news