Beware of the so-called global translation companies!

Mats Wiman wrote:

Tough stuff!

During my 7 years of work as a professional translator I have more a and more come to single out one type of customer for which I will not work:

THE MULTINATIONAL TRANSLATION AGENCY.

Reason: Most, but not all, are arrogant exploiters which make translation a tedious slavery.

Their appoach is characterized by:

”We are big and beautiful and we call the shots here.”
”You are to do what you’re told or else….”

They put one-sided contracts before you to sign, containing ridiculous clauses stating all you should do including threats to pay nothing if…. or even bestowing themselves the right to extort damage money from you if…whereas they themselves have to do very little as part of the contract.

It’s also natural to them to start negotiating AFTER you’ve made your offer, almost almays with the argument the ”more is to come if you do well….” (something the will repeat to the next ’victim’). Very often nothing much will materialise.

Especially cute is that the often start by breaking their own rules. We yesterday got a rush job to which we nodded a Yes. After that, they started to exert pressure on price and demand a shorter delivery time than the already short one. ”As a global company, a contract is mandatory…bla, bla… I’ll send you the contract…”. They did not – it arrived by snail-mail today with a lot of unacceptable clauses, one of them being that I should meticulously abide by the conditions laid out in the Purchase Order as well as their General Business Conditions.
And: They did not send a PO and of course not the GBC.
To their surprise (we should be grateful…) we have told them that we will not enter into a business relation with them.

These companies normally tells you to conform to all normal rules of the trade, which you have honoured during all 7 years of being a freelance translator:
· Do not reveal your customers to anyone
· Do not tell anyone the contents of the text
· Do not transfer the full text to anyone but your customer
· Do not ’steal’ your customer’s customer

Many of us certainly find it insulting to be told to obey these self-explanatory rules and the listing of them creates a sort of mistrust right at the start of what is hoped to be a mutually prosperous cooperation..

We should also check the spelling. REALLY!
We should print the text on paper and if we can’t, they could do it for us @ 1 cent a word… INDEED!
We should proof-read our own text. ERROR 1: Wrong party. ERROR 2 It carries a price.
We shall make a maximum of 15 spelling errors out of 50 pages of text or else….

Typical for so-called global companies is also that the often toss you around when it comes to problems:
”For this matter you’ll have to talk with Mr X at our New York office…. ” , ”For payments, our Paris office is responsible….”, ”The files you’ll have to send to Miss X at our Brussels office….” etc. etc.
I.E.: Global is truly a negative factor.

Another negative factor: To become and stay big, with their hydrocephalus overhead they have to hire low-cost non-linguistic staff, that hasn’t a clue about translation or Trados/Déjà Vu/SDLX etc. They also have to squeeze the translator for all possible discounts, be it volume, repetitions or because of empty promises about future work.

Summing it up:
We have had the best experience with small and medium-sized agencies based at one location and with one boss and with a few to many years of experience. Our seven-year old partners sent us half a page of policy and asked us: ”Do you agree?” That’s how it should be done – period!

Thanks for letting me let my steam off!

Mats J C Wiman
Übersetzer/Translator/Traducteur/Traductor > swe
http://www.MatsWiman.com
http://www.Deutsch-Schwedisch.com
http://www.proz.com/Pro/1749
(Proz.com moderator (deu>swe))
Träsk 201
SE-872 97 Skog
Schweden/Sweden/Suède/Suecia
Tel:+46-612-54112 Fax:+46-612-54181 Mobile:+46-70-5769797








[Edited at 2003-10-24 12:39]

Anne Lee wrote:

What about the terms of payment which are usually 60 days from the end of the month? Minus the charges for the bank transfer, of course, because 'this is a big job, so it won't hurt you'.

Williamson wrote:



I used to work for Mendez (now part Bowne, I believe), one of the big guys.
The advantage with them was that you were given a framework conctract,which was coupled to quality regulations. You knew what you had to adhere to. They paid end of month +60 days, but they paid like clockwork.
If not, a phone call to their accountant was enough to recieve payment.
From a linguistic point of view and from a terminological point of view, their assignments were very interesting and always a defiance. It is a fact that such translation companies are much better structured than the small agencies.
My experience with the small agencies is that in 90% of the cases, you have to phone a couple of times before you get paid.
As other markets offered better rates and shorter payment-terms, I stopped working for them.
With regard to end of month + 60 days: By now the 30-days rule should have become law in all EU-countries.

[Edited at 2003-10-25 13:03]

jamesholl wrote:

"With regard to end of month + 60 days: By now the 30-days rule should have become law in all EU-countries".
Is that a new EU regulation? If so, where can I find it?
Here in Spain, the norm is 60 days.

Article 3
Interest in case of late payment
1. Member States shall ensure that:
(a) interest in accordance with point (d) shall become payable from the day following the date or the end of the period for payment fixed in the contract;
(b) if the date or period for payment is not fixed in the contract, interest shall become payable automatically without the necessity of a reminder:
(i) 30 days following the date of receipt by the debtor of the invoice or an equivalent request for payment; or
(ii) if the date of the receipt of the invoice or the equivalent request for payment is uncertain, 30 days after the date of receipt of the goods or services; or

Ralf Lemster wrote:

One common misconception, however, is that the directive establishes 30 days as the only admissible term of payment. See Article 3:

/quote]

Therefore, if the purchase order you receive from an agency states 180 days and you accept it, this does not constitute late payment as defined in the directive. Of course, the key question is if you want to accept such terms - I certainly wouldn't.

Best regards, Ralf

As we can see, an unjustified contractual 180 days payment delay could be considered nevertheless as a factor of abuse.