Proofreading job issues Thread poster: Anne Seerup
|
|---|
Anne Seerup
Ireland
Local time: 08:16
English to Danish
+ ...
Before Christmas I did a proofreading job of a document, which happened to be of really poor quality and was done by 2 seperate translators. It had neither been spellchecked and each translator had used different terminology and there were lots of other issues as well. I did point out the very poor quality and the file was littered with red remarks when I delivered it back.
Now they happen to have done some extra quality check on it and they found more errors in it, that I had not spotted... See more Before Christmas I did a proofreading job of a document, which happened to be of really poor quality and was done by 2 seperate translators. It had neither been spellchecked and each translator had used different terminology and there were lots of other issues as well. I did point out the very poor quality and the file was littered with red remarks when I delivered it back.
Now they happen to have done some extra quality check on it and they found more errors in it, that I had not spotted within my allotted time and they now want to deduct from my payment.
Since I have already been paid they are going to deduct from other job payments. I do not believe they are legally entitled to do this, and this quality check is solely internal. ie. it does not involve the end client at all, so they are not facing any financial burden from this.
It is not as much the financial deduction as the principle in this way of operating business that I cannot accept. I have just told this client that I no longer wish to cooperate with them. They are a major client of mine and I have worked with them for over 4 years. However, at the moment they are constantly attempting to lower the rates and they only pay in USD which is not excactly great at the moment.
I would like to hear your opinions on this issue. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | You are absolutely right | Feb 5, 2008 |
Anne, you are absolutely right and should stand your ground. Regardless of the quality of your work, once you have been paid for a project, that project should be done. It is very unprofessional for this client to complain about the quality of your work after the fact. It is their responsibility to review the document and make sure they are satisfied with your work before they pay you--most clients do this as standard practice.
Furthermore, it sounds like you clearly communicated to... See more Anne, you are absolutely right and should stand your ground. Regardless of the quality of your work, once you have been paid for a project, that project should be done. It is very unprofessional for this client to complain about the quality of your work after the fact. It is their responsibility to review the document and make sure they are satisfied with your work before they pay you--most clients do this as standard practice.
Furthermore, it sounds like you clearly communicated to the client that there were extensive problems with the document and that you did as much as you could within the allotted timeframe.
After working with you for four years, they should be courteous enough to discuss with you any dissatisfaction with your work and set clear parameters for future projects, rather than "deducting pay" from other projects. That is ridiculous. From your email, it even sounds like this whole thing may be a ploy to try to get you to accept lower rates. ▲ Collapse
| | | | David Singer
United Kingdom
Local time: 08:16
Swedish to English
| Could not agree more | Feb 5, 2008 |
Yvette's reply sums up my own views too. If they are going down that shakey road of cutting costs by paying in a cheaper currency and going for 'lower rate' suppliers then allow them to go the way of the devil but do not let them drag you down there. Maybe it your time to raise your game by saying no to nonsense and looking for others who you would prefer to work with?
| | | | Anne Seerup
Ireland
Local time: 08:16
English to Danish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Re. Proofreading issue | Feb 5, 2008 |
David Singer wrote:
Yvette's reply sums up my own views too. If they are going down that shakey road of cutting costs by paying in a cheaper currency and going for 'lower rate' suppliers then allow them to go the way of the devil but do not let them drag you down there. Maybe it your time to raise your game by saying no to nonsense and looking for others who you would prefer to work with?
Now they always insisted in paying in USD, and I was the greater fool for accepting this job, as I had already decided to prioritise EU clients, and I was busy enough anyway.
Judging by the quality of the translation, they are really going for discount, and the translators' deadline was terribly tight as I recall, so I declined doing the translation job, and I was then begged to Proofread instead (not Edit).
I just find it problematic that I can be held responsible and penalised for work performed by other people, and I would be reluctant to work for them again under such conditions.
I was alotted a certain amount of hours to read and find errors with emphasis on certain things, and I did find quite A LOT, and I did point out to them, that the translation was not of appropiate quality. That was my job done!
I got paid early January, and now a month later I hear that their internal reviewer found more errors.
Here is what the client wrote: "I don't think it would be a solution for you to stop working with XXX and I'm sorry if you feel like that. We do appreciate your skills as a linguist. However, when we receive a complain we need to investigate it and apply discounts to the parties involved. There is no need for this to interrupt our cooperation."
Bear in mind that this "complaint" was not even from the End client, but from the agency's own internal reviewer.
This is just so retarded! Not that I am bothered going down that route, but I do wonder I would stand legally in such a matter?
| | |
|
|
|
| Too little too late | Feb 5, 2008 |
Anne,
For what I infer from your comment, assignments are totally individual, and I do believe payment cannot be retracted, unless it is to do with tax, fraud, etc.
You did warn them, and, on top of that, according to what you stated, you have done extensive 'repair works' to the text.
Maybe you should start considering pursueing a different client who doesn't bully you, and doest trust you, and, as per usual, whatever the client says is NOT THE ONLY word ... See more Anne,
For what I infer from your comment, assignments are totally individual, and I do believe payment cannot be retracted, unless it is to do with tax, fraud, etc.
You did warn them, and, on top of that, according to what you stated, you have done extensive 'repair works' to the text.
Maybe you should start considering pursueing a different client who doesn't bully you, and doest trust you, and, as per usual, whatever the client says is NOT THE ONLY word they take.
In doing so, they won't be able to deduct this job
As life gets more and more expensive ... are we suppossed to earn less and less?
I would definitively give it a thought, and a try.
Good luck,
Alfredo ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Swindling schnorrers! | Feb 5, 2008 |
Anne Seerup wrote:
Here is what the client wrote: "I don't think it would be a solution for you to stop working with XXX and I'm sorry if you feel like that. We do appreciate your skills as a linguist. However, when we receive a complain we need to investigate it and apply discounts to the parties involved. There is no need for this to interrupt our cooperation."
Bear in mind that this "complaint" was not even from the End client, but from the agency's own internal reviewer.
Anne,
Unless you know what it means, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnorrer
You refused to translate that for whatever reason. They got two people less able than you to do it, and then gave you a few hours to fix the resulting disaster. It's their game what you were manipulated into.
So they paid you, which means you delivered the salvaged job you managed to do in the alotted time. Finito! Game over! So they should bite the bullet and never hire these two translators again.
But instead they want to pinch some money from your future jobs because of their mistake! And they still want you to work for them after they steal from you? That's utterly unacceptable.
I'd tell them that if their internal reviewer is soooo much better than you are, they should use him/her and not bother you. Otherwise they'll soon be asking you for freebies in exchange for that botch-up they'll say you did!
| | | | Anne Seerup
Ireland
Local time: 08:16
English to Danish
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | It is the project managers own mess | Feb 5, 2008 |
José Henrique Lamensdorf wrote: Anne Seerup wrote:
Here is what the client wrote: "I don't think it would be a solution for you to stop working with XXX and I'm sorry if you feel like that. We do appreciate your skills as a linguist. However, when we receive a complain we need to investigate it and apply discounts to the parties involved. There is no need for this to interrupt our cooperation."
Bear in mind that this "complaint" was not even from the End client, but from the agency's own internal reviewer. Anne, Unless you know what it means, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnorrer You refused to translate that for whatever reason. They got two people less able than you to do it, and then gave you a few hours to fix the resulting disaster. It's their game what you were manipulated into. So they paid you, which means you delivered the salvaged job you managed to do in the alotted time. Finito! Game over! So they should bite the bullet and never hire these two translators again. But instead they want to pinch some money from your future jobs because of their mistake! And they still want you to work for them after they steal from you? That's utterly unacceptable. I'd tell them that if their internal reviewer is soooo much better than you are, they should use him/her and not bother you. Otherwise they'll soon be asking you for freebies in exchange for that botch-up they'll say you did!
A schnorrer! Learned a new word there
Now that we are all being penalised, maybe I should just ask the PM if she also gets a reduction in the monthly wages for not managing this project well, e.g. by splitting this rather large text between 2 people and not making sure they at least exchanged terminology questions (swapped TM or whatever), not giving them a proper deadline, and finally taking the appropiate measures upon getting the proofread text back full of red marks.
I'd bet, that someone is in trouble in their job and is trying to shift the blame here. It is easier to blame the "Linguists" as they call us and cover it all up by making us "offer a reduction".
Oh well, I don't think I have any outstanding invoices with them, so they will be waiting a while for that "Offer".
Next time they cannot find anyone to do that large job, well it won't be me, and they might just loose that end client to another agency.
I just get so irritated with the way these agencies behave sometimes.
They seem to forget that "freelancers" are actually smaller businesses providing a service, and not some random employees that they can threathen with their job.
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Proofreading job issues | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
