| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Agency refuses to pay because they had to proofread! Thread poster: Viktoria Gimbe
|
|---|
Karin Adamczyk (X) 
Canada
Local time: 02:44
French to English
| Agencies can make comments too | Sep 1, 2005 |
Leylaw wrote:
Once the agency learns that its commercial name is associated with a complaint highlighting dubious business practices, it is likely it will exercise more caution next time it deals with language contractors. In addition, this exposure may work as a powerful deterrence to other agencies whose business practices may be categorized as borderline. You never know, the agency may pay you after all. This might be the case as the result of being placed in the limelight for its dysfunctional business agenda to your detriment.
Just remember that agencies can make comments too and that negative comments on quality of work won't be a shining star on your reputation.
Do you really believe you can bad mouth a company and expect them to change their minds?
You people have some terrible business ethics. You can't just send in shoddy work and then yell foul. It will catch up with you.
Karin
| | | | | always look at the bigger picture | Sep 1, 2005 |
Karin, I do share your view that one should always deliver quality work on time, and take all the steps necessary to achieve that (like not taking on something you can't handle).
However there is a part of the bigger picture to consider here. What it boils down to is that an agency can't simply flat out refuse to pay. If I buy a computer component which is fauly, I must *return* it to the vendor, wait for them to confirm that it is in fact faulty, and then accept their offer of a *r... See more Karin, I do share your view that one should always deliver quality work on time, and take all the steps necessary to achieve that (like not taking on something you can't handle).
However there is a part of the bigger picture to consider here. What it boils down to is that an agency can't simply flat out refuse to pay. If I buy a computer component which is fauly, I must *return* it to the vendor, wait for them to confirm that it is in fact faulty, and then accept their offer of a *replacement*. Only in exceptional circumstances will I be *offered* a refund. I cannot simply cancel my credit card transaction.
The differences are quite apparent. Here the agency is assuming that since it still has the money (it owes to the translator, a kind of bargaining chip) it can tell the vendor what to do. This is unnacceptable. Agencies must not be allowed to dictate terms. Just because most translators are small businesses it doesn't mean that we should allow ourselves to be bossed around by agencies (which are often just as small). Of course, the best way to do that is to be a true professional and provide quality work - this is the best way to get power over agencies both in respect of price and terms of cooperation. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Karin Adamczyk (X)
Canada
Local time: 02:44
French to English
| Sorry, I don't agree | Sep 1, 2005 |
Konstantin Kisin wrote:
However there is a part of the bigger picture to consider here. What it boils down to is that an agency can't simply flat out refuse to pay. If I buy a computer component which is fauly, I must *return* it to the vendor, wait for them to confirm that it is in fact faulty, and then accept their offer of a *replacement*. Only in exceptional circumstances will I be *offered* a refund. I cannot simply cancel my credit card transaction.
When returned within a certain time period, stores issue refunds or replace the faulty equipment. The difference here is that there are no deadlines involved.
Translation is not a commodity and customers have real deadlines with real consequences when the deadlines are not met.
Back to my original reply, if they had to postpone a meeting, don't think there are no expenses involved. Should the end client bear all those costs and pay for the translation?
It boils down to the fact that the translator saw context was a problem and did not take the necessary steps to ensure a quality product could be delivered. She simply went ahead and delivered whatever resulted.
She showed no respect towards her client or her work whatsoever and was only concerned with delivering a job to receive payment. If it were me, she would be the last person I would turn to to fix the damage.
Karin
| | | | | Agency needs to pay up | Sep 2, 2005 |
Karin Adamczyk wrote:
When returned within a certain time period, stores issue refunds or replace the faulty equipment. The difference here is that there are no deadlines involved.
This depends largely on the country. Just try getting a refund for anything in France and you'll see! Also, goods and services rendered are not the same. To take the common comparison between translators and plumbers (which we all hate, I know ), if a plumber installs a new faucet for you and you later find that it leaks, your options would be to 1/get the plumber to fix the work for free, or 2/ if you don't trust the plumber to fix it properly, acknowledge that you chose the wrong plumber for the job, pay to have someone else fix it, and consider extra money paid the cost of tuition in "the school of life" as someone said earlier in the forums. Next time you'll be more careful, get recommendations, write up a more specific contract to protect yourself prior to ordering work, etc.
Karin Adamczyk wrote:
She showed no respect towards her client or her work whatsoever and was only concerned with delivering a job to receive payment. If it were me, she would be the last person I would turn to to fix the damage.
Karin
This may be true, but it was the agency's decision to work with her, and correcting sub-standard work is part of the agency's cost of doing business, IMO. They should just pay her and then not work with her again and let that be the end of it.
By the way, I am a freelancer *and* outsourcer.
This has not happened to me yet in either role (knock on wood) but if it did, I would question *my choice* of translator in addition to blaming the translator for shoddy work. While you can never be 100% sure, there are a lot of things you can do to make sure the people you work with are reliable.
Regards,
Sara
| | |
|
|
|
Karin Adamczyk (X)
Canada
Local time: 02:44
French to English
| It will happen to you, just wait | Sep 2, 2005 |
Sara Freitas-Maltaverne wrote:
Also, goods and services rendered are not the same.
I said that in my comment
To take the common comparison between translators and plumbers (which we all hate, I know ), if a plumber installs a new faucet for you and you later find that it leaks, your options would be to 1/get the plumber to fix the work for free, or 2/ if you don't trust the plumber to fix it properly, acknowledge that you chose the wrong plumber for the job, pay to have someone else fix it, and consider extra money paid the cost of tuition in "the school of life" as someone said earlier in the forums.
You must have lots of money to throw around to unqualified people.
First of all, I make sure I find reliable people from large companies that can fix problems or that are concerned about their reputations.
If someone does shoddy work for me, they get to fix it or they don't get paid. They get to replace the dresser they scratched before I sign any receipts or turn over a cheque.
If they don't fix the problem, I don't pay them and look for someone else to go through the same baloney until someone does the job right, in the meantime paying who knows how many people for shoddy work? There is no logic to this.
If I have to hire someone else to fix a problem, I wait until I know the work / product is good and then I pay.
Next time you'll be more careful, get recommendations, write up a more specific contract to protect yourself prior to ordering work, etc.
A contract won't protect you from lousy work.
This may be true, but it was the agency's decision to work with her, and correcting sub-standard work is part of the agency's cost of doing business, IMO.
WHAT?
You (meaning all of you) are sending out one hell of a bad message to potential clients. Reading this, I would make sure I stay as far as possible away from hiring such people.
This has not happened to me yet in either role (knock on wood) but if it did, I would question *my choice* of translator in addition to blaming the translator for shoddy work. While you can never be 100% sure, there are a lot of things you can do to make sure the people you work with are reliable.
Wait. If you outsource, it will happen to you. Things will change then, if it happens enough, trust me.
There may be lots of things you can do to check whether people are reliable, but nothing to guarantee it.
One supposedly very reliable translator I hired a few years ago just seemed to disappear from the face of the earth a couple of days after he was supposed to start a translation. It was a huge job and I only heard from him later to confirm he was working on it, but it did not sound good. I asked for his portion earlier, and sure enough, only about 5% of the text had been done and it was not usable -- all it was were fuzzy matches from memory quickly edited.
I am going to stop responding now because it is clear to me that too many translators in this forum feel this way.
This is not a place to look for qualified translators.
Good luck,
Karin
Regards,
Sara
[/quote]
| | | | Marc P (X)
Local time: 08:44
German to English
+ ...
| Agency refuses to pay because they had to proofread! | Sep 2, 2005 |
I am going to stop responding now because it is clear to me that too many translators in this forum feel this way.
Not all of us do, Karin.
Marc
| | | | Karin Adamczyk (X)
Canada
Local time: 02:44
French to English
MarcPrior wrote: I am going to stop responding now because it is clear to me that too many translators in this forum feel this way. Not all of us do, Karin. Marc
I know That's why I specifically chose the words *too many* and actually, that is only based on this thread.
| | | | | This is overstepping a bit, IMO | Sep 2, 2005 |
Karin Adamczyk wrote:
You must have lots of money to throw around to unqualified people.
WHAT?
You (meaning all of you) are sending out one hell of a bad message to potential clients. Reading this, I would make sure I stay as far as possible away from hiring such people.
This is not a place to look for qualified translators.
I am sure that many of the contributors to this forum who don't happen to agree with your views are successful translators who provide quality work.
My business is booming, but I do try to avoid "throwing my money around to unqualified people" if at all possible.
In short, I think that this kind of generalization about "such people" is overstepping a bit. Why isn't it possible to disagree on the situation the poster is dealing with without insulting those who have views that differ from your own?
Edit: I apologize for "overstepping" a bit myself and posting a reminder of the rules, a job best left to moderators. Said reminder now removed.
Regards,
Sara
[Edited at 2005-09-02 15:16]
| | |
|
|
|
Ralf Lemster
Germany
Local time: 08:44
English to German
+ ...
| Keep it matter-of-fact, please... | Sep 2, 2005 |
Hi all,
Sara is right in asking:
Why isn't it possible to disagree on the situation the poster is dealing with without insulting those who have views that differ from your own?
Exactly. Let's disagree, but please respect other people's views.
BTW there are lots of professional translators at ProZ.com (talking from own experience), just as there are less professional contributors (ditto...). The community reflects the real world.
Best regards,
Ralf
| | | | | Viktoria should be partially paid... | Sep 2, 2005 |
if the agency uses part of her work. I think 50% would be fair. Then, the agency can go somewhere else. The problem is that on paper we all look very professional, but being a good translator is not only down to qualifications, it's also matter of knowing how to run a business. I can see that Viktoria has 'only' 3 years' experience - no offence - and that might count towards the problem. Learning how to be a professional translator takes time.
Peace and love... ... See more if the agency uses part of her work. I think 50% would be fair. Then, the agency can go somewhere else. The problem is that on paper we all look very professional, but being a good translator is not only down to qualifications, it's also matter of knowing how to run a business. I can see that Viktoria has 'only' 3 years' experience - no offence - and that might count towards the problem. Learning how to be a professional translator takes time.
Peace and love...
Giovanni ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Karin Adamczyk wrote:
and actually, that is only based on this thread.
A well-founded comment from every perspective then...
| | | | Leylaw
English to Spanish
+ ...
| The Predator Agency Part II (Response to K. Adamczyk) | Sep 3, 2005 |
1) Adamczyk: Just remember that agencies can make comments too and that negative comments on quality of work won't be a shining star on your reputation.
Response: While you are exclusively focusing upon the right of the agency to single out potential translators for poor job performance, you are neglecting the central part of my initial interjection. That was, the highlighting of the steeling of labor (lack of payment) on the grounds of encountering “marginal” errors withi... See more 1) Adamczyk: Just remember that agencies can make comments too and that negative comments on quality of work won't be a shining star on your reputation.
Response: While you are exclusively focusing upon the right of the agency to single out potential translators for poor job performance, you are neglecting the central part of my initial interjection. That was, the highlighting of the steeling of labor (lack of payment) on the grounds of encountering “marginal” errors within the final delivery. As follows you will find the platform supporting my objection to the exploitative behavior of the agency.
It is a known fact that the agency informed the service provider about the necessity of proofreading to correct the errors. It is also a fact that the agency used this excuse for avoiding compensation. Another germane fact is that these errors were corrected and the same text (the product of Viktoria’s labor) was subsequently used in the final elaboration of the presentation with the exception of the minor errors. Why is it possible to presume that the agency used Viktoria’s labor in the final product? At the end of Viktoria’s denunciation, she indicated that the agency sent her back the final corrected version for her examination. After she revised the cited document, she discovered that there was a 1% discrepancy between her initial work and the corrected version. At the very least, she should have been compensated for the job she performed since the agency clearly hijacked 99% of her work. This revision of the facts corresponds to the central core of my interpolation on behalf of Viktoria.
You may argue that the agency had the right to refuse to compensate the contractor on the basis of poor job performance. Even if this rationalization stood as a valid point of departure for determining the outcome of any business transaction, the fact remains that the agency used 99% of our colleague’s labor without granting her a well deserved compensation. Given that this is what really transpired between the contractor and the agency, then it is illogical to sustain your inflexible position against our colleague simply because her work was not thrown in the garbage. On the contrary, the product of her labor was used in its totality (with some modifications) to elaborate the final Powerpoint presentation.
For whatever reasons, the agency decided to cast a label on Viktoria’s performance as inadequate. It is very puzzling to entertain this episode because, as she claimed, her initial work was 99% on the mark according to the final product presented to the client. At this crossing, let’s suppose that the agency suddenly adopted the policy of Zero-Tolerance for mistakes. After revising her work, the agency had the option no to hire her again to comply with its novel in-house policy. However, instead of paying Viktoria for this last task, while notifying her about her elimination within the agency’s database, the agency arbitrarily decided to disenfranchise Viktoria without compensation. At the end of the day, it was highly unethical to use the shield of “a few mistakes found within the text” as an excuse to avoid paying for rendered translation services.
Furthermore, just because agencies have the option of “negative listing” the services providers of their choice; this does not necessarily translate into the adoption of a posture of inertia. This is even more so, given that the issue of poor job performance was a fabrication of the agency to evade its duty to compensate our colleague.
If people are the subject of exploitation of labor or any other unsavory occurrence at the workplace, they also have the liberty to share their negative experiences with others to minimize future victimization of this genre. For sure, this agency does not monopolize the market of translations jobs. Otherwise, it would be a corporate conglomerate owning the labor of every translation professional. However, since this is not the case, people should not be intimidated by a dynamic that seems highly improbable. This agency is not a feudal lord with the ability to overpower everyone under its domain. Therefore, any action taken to accentuate its malpractice must not be dictated by the element of fear of disenfranchisement. Besides, the public exposure of this agency as a predator within this forum was offered only as “an option” for the protection of the members of this community. Individuals may have multiple avenues or strategies to face a similar situation. This was only one among many.
2) Adamczyk: Do you really believe you can bad mouth a company and expect them to change their minds?
Response: The elaboration of a warning for other translators within the community about the potential hazards of dealing with this particular agency can hardly be labeled as a “bad mouthing exercise”. Thus, if the agency refused to pay for Viktoria’s labor, there is nothing inappropriate about unmasking this unscrupulous dynamic on the part of the entity in vogue. In fact, this warning could not even be categorized as an act of defamation against the agency. This is certainly the case because its components would embrace documented statements underscoring the avoidance of payment on the part of this business organization. In other words, the totality of elements behind the denunciation of this agency would be based upon a factual occurrence: Our colleague did not get paid for service provided. It is plainly inexcusable not to pay for the labor of individuals. Again, this is certainly so, given that there is an indicator suggesting that Viktoria’s work was edited and subsequently used by the agency. As such, the agency deserves to be avoided by other translators.
In regard to the likelihood of changing the course of questionable business practices by unmasking how commercial establishments conduct their business agenda, there is a procedure in the business world utilized by consumers called boycott. The manufacture of a general warning against this agency will produce the equivalent effects of a consumer boycott. Indeed, formal and informal boycotts are very effective strategies in changing business activities. This tactic is not extracted from the realm of metaphysics. It is a substantial and regular practice in the domain of consumerism in which individuals stand in concert against fraudulent, abusive, and exploitative business entities. Just look into it.
3) Adamczyk: You people have some terrible business ethics. You can't just send in shoddy work and then yell foul. It will catch up with you.
Response: In the preceding statements there are two solid although misguided elements of qualifications. The first refers to the denomination of those who criticize the agency for avoiding the compensation of labor as “unethical”. At the same time, this assumption is supported by another ill-advised supposition suggesting that those who are in the trenches with our colleague Viktoria would demand premium payment for marginal work performance. A scrutinized reading of the multiple entries in the present forum cannot produce evidence of this particular demand among its participants. On the contrary, the central theme behind those who criticize the agency is clearly a voice of censure toward the exploitative conduct of the agency per se. Any proclamation made beyond this discrete boundary is the equivalent of an empty vessel. As a general civil rule, it is not very cordial to denominate others as unethical without having any evidence about unethical practices among those who are the recipients of this pejorative label.
It is very remarkable you have taken the time to lecture, (with an accusatory tone) those who offered solidarity to Viktoria on the grounds of possessing a terrible business ethics. You have done so, while totally neglecting the unethical behavior of the agency in the context of literally pilfering our colleague’s work.
The second element of qualification I have found in your discourse refers to a mistaken and prejudicial assumption underscoring a deficient quality in the work performed by the contractor for the agency. Other than her complaint about the lack of compensation and her admission of certain mistakes within the final product of her labor, Viktoria did not produce a transcript of the work she performed for this business entity. Since this transcript is missing in her initial communication within this forum, it is highly presumptuous and abrasive to qualify her work as “shoddy work”.
Even if this qualification was made in a general sense, its genesis derived from a flawed and impertinent assumption about her performance on this task. The presence of certain correctable mistakes in her final delivery does not necessarily reflect the overall proficiency and genuine competence of this contractor in the translation business. Having said this, it also is understandable that this rationalization may be an unintelligible formulation to those individuals who advance the illusion of being capable of living in the land of perfection.
If the problem was of contextual nature when the contractor faced the original text, then it is pertinent to enunciate another generic issue related to this and many other translation jobs. This is in reference to the common usage of inadequately designed language structures and a barrage of incongruent presentation formats found in original texts. This observation is in contraposition to the potential limitations among readers in comprehending an issue that may or may not be in the realm of common familiarity. Given this state of affairs, it could be argued that a lecture on nuclear physics might be “decently” ascertained (providing for different degrees of educational preparation) by any attentive listener if the individual conveying the message within this realm of science uses an eloquent discourse. Probably, our colleague confronted a very ambiguous translation job. As the result of this ambiguity, she incurred in some mistakes. These mistakes, in turn, were the basis for the agency to refuse its compensatory obligation. Now, if the principles of causation are to be followed, then it is obvious that the genesis of the mistakes she committed were rooted in the original text the agency provided. Since she delivered the job on time, the agency could have come back to her with an opportunity to rectify the errors. Instead, the agency contacted her only to dismiss her without payment.
At this point, it is impossible to know with certainty the nature of the text confronted by our colleague Viktoria. Simply, as it was previously stated, she did not make available the work she performed under the auspices of the predator agency for anyone to make an “objective or subjective qualitative assessment” on the essence of her work. As a professional courtesy, she should have been given the benefit of the doubt in terms of professional treatment inside and outside this forum. After all, and according to her own admission, she has been working for the same agency for a long time without any impasses until the agency decided to shift gears to her detriment. It is certainly unreasonable to sustain that Viktoria’s job performance became unacceptable all of the sudden and therefore, without deserving compensation.
The criticism unleashed toward Viktoria’s work has been based upon a deficient appraisal of the impasse involving the agency and the contractor. This inadequate evaluation has been mainly supported by unwarranted assumptions targeting her competence as a service provider. This examination has been conducted without entertaining the exploitative essence of the relationship between the parties in question. As such, the cited examination of the facts has been inappropriate. This exploitative relation obviously places the agency in the position of advantage vis a vis the contractor. Within this relation, the agency is in a location of predominance which allows its control over the final outcome of the interaction between itself and the contractor. As a matter of fact, the agency did control the end result of the business transaction. It utilized its position of supremacy to decide not to pay Viktoria for her job on dubious grounds. The only option she had was to formulate this denunciation within this forum to seek guidance. Although she encountered some gestures of solidarity, she also found a hostile stance fueled by erroneous assumptions about both her competence and the overall situation negatively affecting her.
Finally, the act of “assuming” without property and tangible basis is a privilege persons may have in their repertoire as free agents. This may be so, even if this kind of privilege is without any discernible, constructive, and practical purpose. Unfortunately, the indiscriminate usage of this kind of privilege will eventually catch up with free agents.
Leylaw. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
pcovs
Denmark
Local time: 08:44
English to Danish
| So well said - in so many words ;o) | Sep 3, 2005 |
So careful not to offend, weighing the matter at hand.
| | | | | Why only 50%? | Sep 3, 2005 |
Giovanni Guarnieri MITI, MIL wrote: if the agency uses part of her work. I think 50% would be fair. Then, the agency can go somewhere else. The problem is that on paper we all look very professional, but being a good translator is not only down to qualifications, it's also matter of knowing how to run a business. I can see that Viktoria has 'only' 3 years' experience - no offence - and that might count towards the problem. Learning how to be a professional translator takes time. Peace and love... Giovanni
If the agency used 99% of her work, why should she get paid only 50%?
A seriuos agency ALWAYS proofread/check translators' works before delivering them to their customers...it is normal (and logical) that there are 1% changes.
Francesca
| | | |
baroni wrote:
If the agency used 99% of her work, why should she get paid only 50%?
A seriuos agency ALWAYS proofread/check translators' works before delivering them to their customers...it is normal (and logical) that there are 1% changes.
Francesca
Because we need to take into consideration the damage caused to the agency's end-client and the agency itself. I don't think WinAlign is a good way to check what kind of changes have been implemented. Maybe it was just 3 words in a few sentences, but those 3 words might have changed the meaning of the sentences entirely. If the agency was so upset, I believe they must have had a reason, i.e. the translation was poor (because of the lack of context), it took a lot longer to proof-read and this caused major problems between the end-client and the agency. Also, if the translation turns up to be difficult because of the lack of context, then the translator should have informed the agency. Submitting a job which contains guesswork is not very professional. I believe the agency is entitled to get a discount also on the basis of the lack of professionalism showed by the translator
Giovanni
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Agency refuses to pay because they had to proofread! | 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! » |
| | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
