| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | Is courtesy dead - agencies think they own you and owe you nothing Thread poster: Michael Tovbin
|
|---|
Robert Forstag 
United States
Local time: 14:48
Spanish to English
+ ...
| Give what you get | Jan 9, 2016 |
I also prefer "closure" (i.e., some communication, within a reasonable time frame, after I have been initially contacted, that my offer has been accepted, proposing a counteroffer, or stating that the job initially proposed has been assigned to another translator).
And yet, as Samuel points out, there really is not much difference between not hearing back within a reasonable time and getting an e-mail that says, "Thanks but no thanks."
There is one large agency out ther... See more I also prefer "closure" (i.e., some communication, within a reasonable time frame, after I have been initially contacted, that my offer has been accepted, proposing a counteroffer, or stating that the job initially proposed has been assigned to another translator).
And yet, as Samuel points out, there really is not much difference between not hearing back within a reasonable time and getting an e-mail that says, "Thanks but no thanks."
There is one large agency out there that manages to combine "the worst of both worlds" in this respect (i.e., phony friendliness in the initial communication with [often] no follow-up at all if they don't like your proposed offer). I'm not sure which I find more irritating....
The solution here, in terms of your not wasting time and setting clear limits for people who operate this way, is to state your own terms in response to their initial offers (e.g., "I can offer to do this job for X cents per word, provided I receive confirmation of assignment within the next 15 minutes.") If your proposal is not subject to negotiation, then state that as well.
What I find highly objectionable is any kind of prolonged back and forth regarding a proposed job that ends up leading to nothing. Putting my life in abeyance for more than 15 minutes or so while wondering whether I will be spending the next 5-10 hours working on a project (and perhaps having to change plans or lose sleep) is not acceptable. And the greater the intensity of the work involved, the less acceptable any such situation.
This means, in practice, that if you are contacting me at 6:00 p.m. proposing a job requiring me to crank out a translation of 5000 words before I call it a night, you had better not waste too much of my precious time before you come to a decision.
[Edited at 2016-01-09 15:32 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | The good, the bad, and the ugly | Jan 9, 2016 |
Translation agencies exist in all shapes and sizes.
Trying to keep it short and simple, some of the ways they envision translators (because they can't actually "see" them online) include, though not being limited to:
1. Valuable business partners (I only work for these - at least more than once).
2. Lazy bastards who never deliver on time.
3. A stairway to financial heaven, IF they are cheap enough.... See more Translation agencies exist in all shapes and sizes.
Trying to keep it short and simple, some of the ways they envision translators (because they can't actually "see" them online) include, though not being limited to:
1. Valuable business partners (I only work for these - at least more than once).
2. Lazy bastards who never deliver on time.
3. A stairway to financial heaven, IF they are cheap enough.
4. Beggars who should be grateful forever, if once assigned a small an low-paying job.
5. Insanely expensive vendors, who shouldn't be touched with a barge pole, to keep the agency a profitable business.
6. Speed demons, who can (and must!) do miracles for peanuts.
7. Wealthy retired people who do it for fun, so they don't need the money.
8. My way, or the highway!
Additions to the list are welcome. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Rude company = bad company | Jan 9, 2016 |
Would you actually want to work for an organisation that lacked even the basic good manners to reply to people applying to work there? I wouldn't. (I'm not talking about those 'call for translators' adverts, but adverts for specific positions).
A few months ago I applied for some work with a company like this. They asked for: (1) a filled-in application form, (2) scanned copies of all my university degrees and certificates, (3) an 800-word personal statement, (4) examples of work, ... See more Would you actually want to work for an organisation that lacked even the basic good manners to reply to people applying to work there? I wouldn't. (I'm not talking about those 'call for translators' adverts, but adverts for specific positions).
A few months ago I applied for some work with a company like this. They asked for: (1) a filled-in application form, (2) scanned copies of all my university degrees and certificates, (3) an 800-word personal statement, (4) examples of work, and (5) three (yes, three) references before they would consider the application.
I quite fancied the job and was more than qualified for it, so like a fool I complied with all these demands. And yes, you guessed it, they didn't reply. Not even a one-sentence email.
The worst part was knowing I had bothered three former clients for references for nothing (never again).
I don't think this appalling attitude is more prevalent in translation than anywhere else - it's a general problem with some employers. I have been on the other side of the fence, too - in a company having to reject applicants. We always sent every applicant a polite reply. It takes less than 5 minutes to generate a formulaic reply, and not much longer to send them out to the rejected applicants. If organisations can't even be bothered to do that much, I wonder how they treat their clients. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Dan Lucas
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:48
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
| I feel for you | Jan 9, 2016 |
J. Gardiner wrote:
The worst part was knowing I had bothered three former clients for references for nothing (never again).
Although I do undertake short unpaid tests for potential clients, I have a policy of not supplying references.
My natural skepticism suggests to me that if I have to trouble three established clients to get registered at one potential client the risk/reward ratio is unfavorable. Especially since the potential client may never send any business your way.
Some people will argue that their clients don't mind providing references. Maybe not once. But twice? Five times? How many times can you do it before a client gets fed of being pestered by agencies?
If you're only going to ask once I question whether is it worth doing it at all, when one considers that the best outcome for you will still only be registration at one potential client. Poor rewards.
If it's a direct client who will be asked for references the situation is even more risky. There's nothing to stop the agency (the one asking for references) from marketing their own services to the client who you nominated to provide the reference. In theory you could lose all three to the agency.
Not worth it. I'm sure you know that in your heart. Put it down to a moment of weakness and move on.
The Golden Rule: the more hoops they ask you to jump through, the less likely they are to be a good business counterparty to a freelancer. The longer I'm in this business the more persuasive this view becomes.
Regards
Dan
| | |
|
|
|
| Totally agree | Jan 9, 2016 |
@Dan Lucas
Yes, you're absolutely right, especially about references, and the inverse relationship between number of hoops and promising job. Looking back on it, I just think 'what was I thinking?'.
However I still find it hard to get my head around the mentality of not replying to applicants. Whether people are applying for jobs as CEOs or toilet cleaners, they deserve to be treated with simple courtesy, and I worry about the demoralising effect of this lack of courtes... See more @Dan Lucas
Yes, you're absolutely right, especially about references, and the inverse relationship between number of hoops and promising job. Looking back on it, I just think 'what was I thinking?'.
However I still find it hard to get my head around the mentality of not replying to applicants. Whether people are applying for jobs as CEOs or toilet cleaners, they deserve to be treated with simple courtesy, and I worry about the demoralising effect of this lack of courtesy on young people entering the job market for the first time. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Dan Lucas
United Kingdom
Local time: 19:48
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
| We've all done it | Jan 9, 2016 |
J. Gardiner wrote:
Looking back on it, I just think 'what was I thinking?'.
Well, who hasn't had that experience at one point or another. Momentary lapses of reason and all that.
Dan
| | | | Michael Tovbin
United States
Local time: 13:48
Member (2006)
Russian to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | state your terms | Jan 10, 2016 |
Robert,
Thanks very much for the suggestion. However simple it sounds, stating my terms and getting closure this way never occurred to me. I will practice it now.
As for references, I find them absolutely useless. You can always find three or more friends to vouch for you, and, I agree, disclosing names of direct clients, if corporate references are required, is not a good idea. I have found the ProZ feedback from clients and colleagues to be a good solution. They are a... See more Robert,
Thanks very much for the suggestion. However simple it sounds, stating my terms and getting closure this way never occurred to me. I will practice it now.
As for references, I find them absolutely useless. You can always find three or more friends to vouch for you, and, I agree, disclosing names of direct clients, if corporate references are required, is not a good idea. I have found the ProZ feedback from clients and colleagues to be a good solution. They are agencies, most likely, and you do not have to ask for the reference: it is already there. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Robert Forstag
United States
Local time: 14:48
Spanish to English
+ ...
@Michael:
You are very welcome.
I myself learned the hard way that imposing my own terms was necessary. This was a result of dealing with the consequences of failing to do so. Specifically these consequences included the following:
1.
Spending 30 minutes, an hour, or even several hours in an e-mail exchange about a job that I often ended up not being assigned.
2.
Having the sneaking suspicion that my generous open-endedness allowed the PM ... See more @Michael:
You are very welcome.
I myself learned the hard way that imposing my own terms was necessary. This was a result of dealing with the consequences of failing to do so. Specifically these consequences included the following:
1.
Spending 30 minutes, an hour, or even several hours in an e-mail exchange about a job that I often ended up not being assigned.
2.
Having the sneaking suspicion that my generous open-endedness allowed the PM to go ahead and, having my offer in hand, shop for a cheaper rate knowing that, if worse came to worse, she could always come back to me.
3.
Putting personal plans on hold while waiting for a response that would inform me as to whether I would be spending the next 5 to 10 hours translating something, and/or be up half the night doing so, etc.
4.
Having spent an inordinate amount of time in e-mail exchanges about a job with a very urgent deadline and losing valuable time (and creating added stress for me) when I indeed was assigned the job in question (e.g., having 3 hours rather than 4 to turn around 3000 words).
Additional suggestion:
Unless a trusted client of long standing is involved, I respond to any e-mail about a "potential job" (i.e., whether this might be available later that same day, the next day, or in a couple of weeks) as follows: "I am available as of now, but I will not be able to confirm availability until such time as you actually offer me the work in question."
* * *
None of what I've suggested here or in my previous message guarantees that you will get a particular job, but following these guidelines will at least give you a measure of control over the management of your professional activities, and will let your potential and actual clients know that they are not dealing with a doormat.
[Edited at 2016-01-11 15:01 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Samuel Murray wrote: Michael Tovbin wrote:
Why do agencies believe they can discard a translator like a used condom? Have you ever been contacted by an agency, replied, and then heard nothing back? That is perfectly normal in any business. As the client/customer, you are not required (by any moral requirement) to continue the communication with a potential service provider. Nor are you required to state specifically that you are breaking off communication.
I need to respectfully disagree with that, Samuel. Morally speaking, you need to see a human, not a vendor, in a fellow human being, and the minutiae of courtesy might perhaps not be of extreme importance, but they are not irrelevant either. Showing disrespect to others is more relevant.
Next, e-mail correspondence between educated professionals has higher requiremens than you'd be expect of a random chap that walked into a shop straight from the street, who still should normally know better than wandering off without a goodbye, anyway.
There is little excuse for modern corporate communications thinking that good manners are inefficient because they don't directly relate to maximizing your efficiency in core areas.
Speaking of which, would you actually prefer it if clients were to reply to your reply by saying "We don't want to talk to you anymore"? What would you consider more polite: simply fading away, or abruptly saying good bye?
That I agree with, though. There are also client queries I don't reply to.
Jenny Forbes wrote:
If the agency approached you personally about a specific job, you replied with a quote and then you heard no more from them, yes, I think that's annoying and rather rude, but it's not unusual.
There's also the issue of implied booking, Jenny. Agencies sometimes reply only after a couple of hours, or next day, simply confirming that they've assigned the project to you. I'm quite sure they wouldn't appreciate being told that you've become unavailable in the meantime. Until they reply, you just don't know. That's obviously quite one-sided, it puts their convenience above your justified business needs and interests in a mutual relationship (including one-off transactions). This is not to take the significance of that behaviour out of proportion, but the one-sidedness is there.
[Edited at 2016-01-12 10:19 GMT]
[quote]Dan Lucas wrote:
J. Gardiner wrote:
The worst part was knowing I had bothered three former clients for references for nothing (never again).
Although I do undertake short unpaid tests for potential clients, I have a policy of not supplying references.
Same here. No references, but also no tests unless I know the reviewer is to at least approach the skill threshold. I sometimes ask agencies what makes them think that their proofreader could test me better than a commission appointed by the Ministry of Justice did. Once, I told an agency I could give them a *sample* but only on condition they didn't call it a test (they didn't take me up on the counteroffer). This is because sworn translators, members of associations etc. owe a certain duty of care to the dignity of the profession, and allowing themselves to be tested and graded by just about anyone and his dog runs counter to that, as it misrepresents the requirements of our work and the difficulty of it.
[Edited at 2016-01-12 10:30 GMT]
| | | | Adrian MM. (X)
Local time: 20:48
French to English
+ ...
| Collegiate translators & interpreters acting as unwitting agents | Jan 14, 2016 |
We need to be careful about adopting the 'them & us' mentality or, as euphemistically called these days: mindset and be mindful of blurred lines, as in a well-known non-original song.
There have been unreported, but arbitrated cases (some on the British Isles) where interpreters and translators have - on an informal and fragmentary basis - passed on a job enquiry, owing to work overload or an unknown source-language, to a colleague who then obliges, before the brief is confirmed or ... See more We need to be careful about adopting the 'them & us' mentality or, as euphemistically called these days: mindset and be mindful of blurred lines, as in a well-known non-original song.
There have been unreported, but arbitrated cases (some on the British Isles) where interpreters and translators have - on an informal and fragmentary basis - passed on a job enquiry, owing to work overload or an unknown source-language, to a colleague who then obliges, before the brief is confirmed or countermanded, and never gets paid, so looks to the intermediary for payment.
This scenario has been misdescribed in a UK I&T journal, paradoxically by a DE>EN translator, as an Arbeitgeber-to-Arbeitnehmer = employer-to-employee relationship when what was more to the point was an Auftraggeber-to-Auftragnehmer = principal-to-agent matrix.
Also, some ex-translators run agencies and are usually more efficient and courteous than their non-linguist counterparts who have no interest in linguistic progress, but maximum profit margins for the least effort, feedback and unacceptable confidentiality agreements.
[Edited at 2016-01-14 17:30 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [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 » Is courtesy dead - agencies think they own you and owe you nothing | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
| | 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
