| דפים בנושא: [1 2] > | Can agencies dock your pay due to errors found during spot checks? מפרסם התגובה: Karin de Jong
|
|---|
Hi. I've just received an e-mail from one of my clients, a translation agency, in which they say they are going to reduce payments if errors are found during spot-checks. Bearing in mind that my work is not being proofread most of the time, obviously to save money. This is what they say:
Spot Check Results: If the defect rate in the spot check results is higher than 0.3%, we will have the right to deduct 3%~20% of the interpreter's total fee for the month in combination with the fol... See more Hi. I've just received an e-mail from one of my clients, a translation agency, in which they say they are going to reduce payments if errors are found during spot-checks. Bearing in mind that my work is not being proofread most of the time, obviously to save money. This is what they say:
Spot Check Results: If the defect rate in the spot check results is higher than 0.3%, we will have the right to deduct 3%~20% of the interpreter's total fee for the month in combination with the following criteria.
Defect Rate Deduction Percentage
0.30%-0.35% 3%
0.36%-0.40% 6%-10%
0.41%-0.50% 11%-15%
Above 0.5% 20%
Effective date: July 1
Guys, is this even legal? Can they do this? Opinions please....
Regards, Karin ▲ Collapse
| | | | | I never accept such terms | Jul 2 |
I never accept that sort of penalty schemes because they are likely to be a source of endless discussion, time waste and frustration. Many reviewers falsely claim that preferential changes are errors because of insufficient understanding of their own language. Even if you end up winning the discussion, you may end up wasting 2 hours per task.
Also, a client that wants to impose such micromanagement is not a client I could get along with.
For an existing client, I would ... See more I never accept that sort of penalty schemes because they are likely to be a source of endless discussion, time waste and frustration. Many reviewers falsely claim that preferential changes are errors because of insufficient understanding of their own language. Even if you end up winning the discussion, you may end up wasting 2 hours per task.
Also, a client that wants to impose such micromanagement is not a client I could get along with.
For an existing client, I would tell them that I would no longer provide service if they introduce these terms.
If they feel the need to do things like this, what they really need is better translators, but too many people in this industry think they can keep rates down and get high quality at the same time.
[Edited at 2024-07-02 12:25 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray 
הולנד
Local time: 01:24
חבר (2006)
מאנגלית לאפריקאנס
+ ...
| If you agree to it, sure | Jul 2 |
Karin de Jong wrote:
Guys, is this even legal? Can they do this?
If you agree to it, sure, yes. What's disconcerting, however, is that the deduction is not per job but per month. This means that if you do poorly on a single, low-paying job, you may end up with a massive charge because 20% of a month's worth of work is much, much more than 20% of a small job's payment. I'm not happy about the per-month thing.
| | | | Karin de Jong
אוסטרליה
Local time: 07:24
מאנגלית להולנדית
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | My thoughts exactly | Jul 2 |
Thomas T. Frost wrote:
I never accept that sort of penalty schemes because they are likely to be a source of endless discussion, time waste and frustration. Many reviewers falsely claim that preferential changes are errors because of insufficient understanding of their own language. Even if you end up winning the discussion, you may end up wasting 2 hours per task.
Also, a client that wants to impose such micromanagement is not a client I could get along with.
For an existing client, I would tell them that I would no longer provide service if they introduce these terms.
If they feel the need to do things like this, what they really need is better translators, but too many people in this industry think they can keep rates down and get high quality at the same time.
[Edited at 2024-07-02 12:25 GMT]
My thoughts exactly, Thomas, thank you for that.
| | |
|
|
|
Karin de Jong
אוסטרליה
Local time: 07:24
מאנגלית להולנדית
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | It's crazy, isn't it? | Jul 2 |
Samuel Murray wrote: Karin de Jong wrote:
Guys, is this even legal? Can they do this? If you agree to it, sure, yes. What's disconcerting, however, is that the deduction is not per job but per month. This means that if you do poorly on a single, low-paying job, you may end up with a massive charge because 20% of a month's worth of work is much, much more than 20% of a small job's payment. I'm not happy about the per-month thing.
I agree with you, Samuel, thanks for your input. I do not agree to the terms.
| | | | | I suppose you need to ask yourself two questions | Jul 2 |
1. Do I make that many errors?
2. If not, why am I working with an agency that uses translators who do?
| | | |
Basically this means they can deduct money from your fee at their own discretion, possibly for completely spurious "errors" or preferential changes. Don't accept it.
| | | | | I've looked into this before | Jul 2 |
https://cbavington.com/blog/2014/11/05/oh-look-a-penalty-clause/
Short answer: in some jurisdictions (particularly civil law jurisdictions) such clauses are probably legit, but it depends on the level of penalties they decide to stipulate.
In others (such as England & Wales), penalties merely designed to encourage performance are not allowed (because pen... See more https://cbavington.com/blog/2014/11/05/oh-look-a-penalty-clause/
Short answer: in some jurisdictions (particularly civil law jurisdictions) such clauses are probably legit, but it depends on the level of penalties they decide to stipulate.
In others (such as England & Wales), penalties merely designed to encourage performance are not allowed (because penalties need to relate to actual losses incurred - liquidated damages).
So it probably depends where the agency is based and which jurisdiction governs your contract with them. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
IrinaN
ארצות הברית
Local time: 18:24
מאנגלית לרוסית
+ ...
What do they pay for spotless translation? If 0.25/word and upward for a full word count without discounts and funny matches, supported by a written commitment to supply at least 20000 words/month, provide feedback with error claims within 1 week, and keep penalty ceiling of no more than 20% total, then I might consider . Otherwise:
"Dear former client,
It is with a heavy heart that I must claim irreconcil... See more What do they pay for spotless translation? If 0.25/word and upward for a full word count without discounts and funny matches, supported by a written commitment to supply at least 20000 words/month, provide feedback with error claims within 1 week, and keep penalty ceiling of no more than 20% total, then I might consider. Otherwise:
"Dear former client,
It is with a heavy heart that I must claim irreconcilable differences and file for a divorce. I shall cherish my best memories of our previous cooperation for the rest of my natural life."
Sincerely,
Your truly,
Me, dearest."
Update: WOW! I haven't even noticed the "interpretation spot check." Percentage of what?!?!?!? A total count of said words? Your agency is a loony bin that hired a starving post-lobotomy lawyer, nothing to discuss or explain, run!
[Edited at 2024-07-02 15:05 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Read it gain, slowly - then give 'em a thick ear! | Jul 2 |
Karin de Jong wrote:
Hi. I've just received an e-mail from one of my clients, a translation agency, in which they say they are going to reduce payments if errors are found during spot-checks. Bearing in mind that my work is not being proofread most of the time, obviously to save money. This is what they say:
Spot Check Results: If the defect rate in the spot check results is higher than 0.3%, we will have the right to deduct 3%~20% of the interpreter's total fee for the month in combination with the following criteria.
(...)
Regards, Karin
That kind of penalty scheme might be valid in the case of someone providing court interpretation services, for example, but it is clearly not applicable to your work as a translator (regardless of whether they bother to proof-read your output).
If this 'agency' doesn't know the difference between translation and interpretation, just give 'em a thick ear and forget them.
| | | | Peter Motte
בלגיה
Local time: 01:24
חבר (2009)
מאנגלית להולנדית
+ ...
| Are they mixing up terminology? | Jul 3 |
Are you working as a translator or as an interpreter for them?
They mention: "the interpreter's total fee".
Are they mixing up terminology?
In that case, they don't look like a serious agency to me.
| | | | Daryo
הממלכה המאוחדת
Local time: 00:24
מסרבית לאנגלית
+ ...
Jennifer Levey wrote: Karin de Jong wrote:
Hi. I've just received an e-mail from one of my clients, a translation agency, in which they say they are going to reduce payments if errors are found during spot-checks. Bearing in mind that my work is not being proofread most of the time, obviously to save money. This is what they say:
Spot Check Results: If the defect rate in the spot check results is higher than 0.3%, we will have the right to deduct 3%~20% of the interpreter's total fee for the month in combination with the following criteria.
(...)
Regards, Karin That kind of penalty scheme might be valid in the case of someone providing court interpretation services, for example, but it is clearly not applicable to your work as a translator (regardless of whether they bother to proof-read your output). If this 'agency' doesn't know the difference between translation and interpretation, just give 'em a thick ear and forget them.
In interpreting if anything is unclear you can (and should) always ask for clarification on the spot - if you start sending "garbage" one way, nothing usable will come back and the whole thing will grind to a halt. So, never mind the feasibility / the practical aspects, the idea of doing this kind of "spot checking" on court interpreters is even less applicable, simply nonsense - interpreting either works or it doesn't.
I wouldn't touch this agency with a barge-pole.
The idea of "spot-checking" translations implies that they DO NOT routinely check what they deliver to their clients (great service to final clients!!), but love to have a good excuse to reduce payment for a full month worth of work based of finding errors (real or not) - presumably in s.t. that they have already delivered and have been paid for in full (great way of "making friends" with translators!).
| | |
|
|
|
Edward Potter
ספרד
Local time: 01:24
חבר (2003)
מספרדית לאנגלית
+ ...
| Past experiences with them | Jul 6 |
Have you ever worked for them before? If so, have you had any issues with them in practice?
If this is a new customer you still might give them a chance and see how it goes.
Why not accept a bit of work from them and see how they are in practice?
| | | | Zea_Mays
איטליה
Local time: 01:24
חבר (2009)
מאנגלית לגרמנית
+ ...
Edward Potter wrote:
Have you ever worked for them before? If so, have you had any issues with them in practice?
If this is a new customer you still might give them a chance and see how it goes.
Why not accept a bit of work from them and see how they are in practice?
Given how the clause is worded (up to 20% deduction of the _total_ they owe you, interpreter instead of translator), and the fact that the agency would actually be bound by the four-eyes principle, I would give them NULL chance.
[Bearbeitet am 2024-07-06 18:50 GMT]
| | | |
Penalty clauses are nothing new, but I'm transfixed by this particular system. A 0.30% rate means you've got some wiggle room – three "defects" per 1000 words before the first penalty kicks in, but… there's nary a mention of weighing these defects, that is, a simple typo seems to hold the same weight as a critical mistranslation. This defeats the whole purpose of ensuring quality work. On top of that, as worded this penalty applies to your rate for all projects, not just the o... See more Penalty clauses are nothing new, but I'm transfixed by this particular system. A 0.30% rate means you've got some wiggle room – three "defects" per 1000 words before the first penalty kicks in, but… there's nary a mention of weighing these defects, that is, a simple typo seems to hold the same weight as a critical mistranslation. This defeats the whole purpose of ensuring quality work. On top of that, as worded this penalty applies to your rate for all projects, not just the one with the issues, which is frankly insane.
Instead of dealing with the constant back-and-forth with spot checkers that is bound to happen under this flawed system, some unethical translators will be tempted to just turn in barely edited machine translation output. They'll soon figure out they'll always have way more than 5 defects per 1000 words anyway, so their rate is essentially docked 20% across the board (but hey, it's MT, I'm sure you can output at least 3x more words easily). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[Edited at 2024-07-08 12:38 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | דפים בנושא: [1 2] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Can agencies dock your pay due to errors found during spot checks? | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
| | 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
