Negative blue board comments about agencies

I was privately contacted by a Proz member (Platinum member too) who demanded to know why I had rated a company with a '1' if he had enjoyed such a great relationship with them. Well, I obviously hadn't.

Sven Petersson wrote:

The Blue Board was created on my suggestion. I envisaged a VERY SIMPLE system, but failed catastrophically in my endeavours to convince ProZ.com to keep it SIMPLE and FUNCTIONAL.

The original concept was:

A simple binary choice: Yes, I would work for this agency again / No, I would not work for this agency again.
No space for any comments by the translator, thus avoiding the risk of upsetting any agency, and consequential libel suits!
No space for any comments by the agency.
Translator updateable, enabling the Blue Board to reflect current status.

The original concept was based on very simple ideas:

A solid string of “Yes” would have been a positive indicator.
A solid string of “No” would have been a negative indicator.
Details about reasons for “No” were to be dealt with in private communications between translators.

What we now have is a system that is worse than no system, sort of a safety line that breaks under less than a man's weight.

The agency mafia quickly discovered how to work the system:
1. Hand out a small job to a new translator and pay for it double-quick.
2. Encourage the translator to make a Blue Board entry.
3. Enter “Thank you very much!” as response to the “Yes”, and block thereby any further entries from the translator.
4. Give the translator a big job and neglect paying for it.
5. Start from “1” with another translator.

I apologise humbly for having failed to convince ProZ.com to keep it SIMPLE and FUNCTIONAL.

Aleksandra Kwasnik wrote:

Some time ago I've been contacted by the secretery of a small agency to do some simultaneous interpreting job. In the BB I found just one entry saying: "1: They are threatening to sue me for saying here why I won't work for them again - I'll let you guess what they don't want me to say."

I contacted the translator who wrote me some details about her very unpleasant (and short) cooperation with the agency (no feedback after receiving a translation, afterwards: no payment; then: "less payment, because the translation was horrible" etc.; it took her several months to get SOME money).

I decided to give it a try anyway (because I want to gain as much experience in the booth as I can), but be cautious and checked the "business conditions" at their website first. There I found the clause saying that they are paying after being paid by the client, which lead me to refuse politely their offer with a hint to that clause. Two days later I received an answer that they will include the clause "payment after 30 days" into my contract so I agreed.

I did the job, had a chance to learn a great new colleage, the end client was also very satisfied with our job, which she repeated several times.

Two weeks later I received a phone call from the company owner herself (which did not contact me before as I did manage everything with her secretary) YELLING at me (so that other people present in the room could hear her) and starting the conversation like this: "So! Now I will tell you how to behave properly and professionally as you seem not to know what the rules are."

I very silently told her not to yell at me, but she continued.
I learned that my colleague (the one I met while doing this job), who has been working for her regularly, finally got fed up with being paid up to three months later (!) and decided to include "my" clause (saying "payment after 30 days") into his next contract. When we met we of course did talk to each other and he complained about the payment practices and I of course did suggest this solution which I think at least appropriate.

The owner was not amused at all and told me that I will be contacted by her lawyer because I should have kept confidentiality about our contract terms. She was also agry because her secretary did sign my contract including that clause and told me that I was a "bloody beginner not knowing how to behave in a professional way" and trying to play tricks on her. She continued yelling that she will never ever give me another job, I told her that I will never ever work for her again and once again told her to stop yelling, but as she did not I just hang up.

In the end I got paid 6 weeks later.

Then I received a call for entry for the agency in question. I was wondering what to entry, my first thought was to enter "1" with a hint to late payment and the "communication practices", but I knew what her reaction should be (as I remembered the entry from the other colleague) and did not want to be contacted by this person in any case. So I did enter a "3" and - deciding to be diplomatic - added "Late payment, sometimes very unfriendly."
The agency's answer was: "Inexperienced interpreter, snooty, tends to dodge contract terms" - heh, heh

Now I'm angry about myself that I behaved so cowardly because I think that other colleagues should be warned about this company.
I mean: OK, I sometimes get paid late by my other clients too, but this client build up a Christmas buffet for me when I happen to work in her agency around Christmas time (true story, maybe I'm just spoilt...

But on the other hand I really don't want to waste my time and nerves for idle discussions with yelling clients.

Dear Moderators: What should be done in such cases?
Aleksandra

[Edited at 2005-08-31 17:00]

PECELLIN wrote:

Now, what happens when a colleague questions your BB entries?
I was privately contacted by a Proz member (Platinum member too) who demanded to know why I had rated a company with a '1' if he had enjoyed such a great relationship with them. Well, I obviously hadn't.
Sometimes agencies trick their new translators into contacting others who have rated them badly, and I personally find this practice despicable. It made me feel insulted, questioned beyond good taste and practises and, why not say it, betrayed.

Zyntia.

Adela Van Gils wrote:

Dear Aleksandra,
I'm not a moderator but if that's the way our colleagues fill out the BB, I dont need to look at it anymore. Yee! If you dont want the client to contact you, block him/her on your email and politely hang up when he/she calls.
But if you use the BB, use it where its for, to inform your colleagues as good as you can.
Adela

005-08-31 17:00]

Sven Petersson wrote:

The Blue Board was created on my suggestion. I envisaged a VERY SIMPLE system, but failed catastrophically in my endeavours to convince ProZ.com to keep it SIMPLE and FUNCTIONAL.

The original concept was:

A simple binary choice: Yes, I would work for this agency again / No, I would not work for this agency again.
No space for any comments by the translator, thus avoiding the risk of upsetting any agency, and consequential libel suits!
No space for any comments by the agency.
Translator updateable, enabling the Blue Board to reflect current status.

The original concept was based on very simple ideas:

A solid string of “Yes” would have been a positive indicator.
A solid string of “No” would have been a negative indicator.
Details about reasons for “No” were to be dealt with in private communications between translators.

What we now have is a system that is worse than no system, sort of a safety line that breaks under less than a man's weight.

The agency mafia quickly discovered how to work the system:
1. Hand out a small job to a new translator and pay for it double-quick.
2. Encourage the translator to make a Blue Board entry.
3. Enter “Thank you very much!” as response to the “Yes”, and block thereby any further entries from the translator.
4. Give the translator a big job and neglect paying for it.
5. Start from “1” with another translator.

I apologise humbly for having failed to convince ProZ.com to keep it SIMPLE and FUNCTIONAL.

Katja Virtanen wrote:

Hello everybody,

I agree that BB really is uselful and should give as much information as possible for colleagues - at least the reason for the rating.

From the agency's point of view, it is also very useful (or COULD be...) for the agency in case they wanted to have some feedback and even improve their professonal behaviour!
I started up with my own agency some time ago after having worked as a "normal" free lancer for a long time, and I was really looking forward to my agency's first ratings. To be honest, I was really puzzled after receiving a 4!! What could I do better? I think it's a fair way to learn from feedback, and if you are not doing anything suspicious, what's there to worry?

On the other hand, I've had this year 2 non-payment cases - I did a translation for 2 different agencies and never got paid. I rated them with 1 and claimed the non-payment. The agencies never answered publicly or otherwise,...and it's not difficult to know why!! They've gone busted already!!

This obviously didn't answer the question, what is there to do in these cases...but I just wanted to share the thought that agencies could just accept the criticism and learn from it and not blame the translator. I think it's just so low.

Katja