| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | Change in payments for MT work: repeats are now free Thread poster: Robert Haslach
|
|---|
| Did it once, no real problem other than in my head ;-) | Apr 4, 2011 |
Krzysztof Kajetanowicz wrote:
It would be useful to hear about other people's experience. I've been asked to ignore 100% matches a couple of times and each time I was told (without even asking) not to review them.
I did actually agree to this for a regular job, for a while. In the end I resented the time I was spending "processing" 100% matches, time I wasn't getting paid for (it was just long lists of software strings, for what it's worth), and I stopped doing it. It was made 100% clear that I would not be held responsible for that content, so that wasn't the issue. It was purely the time spent.
And if it is made 100% clear at every stage, there isn't an issue - we are free to choose.
My issue with this situation as it stands is that so far, all we know is they've said "we're not paying", with no indication as to the associated consequences of that decision. Yes, it is a bit of an academic discussion, but not entirely pointless
[Edited at 2011-04-04 16:06 GMT]
| | | | Marina Aleyeva 
Israel
Local time: 18:15
Member (2006)
English to Russian
+ ...
Krzysztof Kajetanowicz wrote: Marina Aleyeva wrote:
I think there IS potential insecurity in making such agreements. (...) You know you act unethically and still you do it, consciously. If it’s not perpetration of a “good faith” principle, what is it then? Would such behaviour not be considered violation if legally challenged? Who knows!
In other words, whatever agreement between you and an agency may be, it may not have validity in court. And even if you are not charged in the end, you’ll still face all the joys and headaches of being sued. Think of it. Nah... you're not selling your translations to a child. You're selling it to a business run by professionals, and language professionals to be exact. The legal/ethical considerations you mentioned could refer to a food producer who does not warn consumers that they might get diarrhea. Definitely not to a B2B relationship, particularly (but not necessarily) if you alert the agency (which you shouldn't have to do) that the outcome may be garbage. [Edited at 2011-04-04 15:53 GMT]
It does not matter who you sell your work to. For one, there seem to be no legal limitations to the good faith principle, or am I wrong? It's all about you and your wrongdoings that may cause damage to the end customer/user of your your work, for example a mistreated patient. Can you guarantee that yourself as well as an agency will not be sued by that patient or his/her relatives? And, don't you have mercy for him/her? Can you afford to take this responsibility, morally at least if not legally? I can't.
| | | | Krzysztof Kajetanowicz (X)
Poland
Local time: 17:15
English to Polish
+ ...
Marina Aleyeva wrote:
It does not matter who you sell your work to. For one, there seem to be no legal limitations to the good faith principle, or am I wrong?
The Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general assumption of the law of contracts, that people will act in good faith and deal fairly without breaking their word, using shifty means to avoid obligations, or denying what the other party obviously understood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_covenant_of_good_faith_and_fair_dealing
I don't see how this could be violated when I agree to only translate a part of a text and to deliver it, plus 100% matches, to an informed business partner well aware that the two should not be put together. Lack of good faith is about deception. I don't do deception.
It's all about you and your wrongdoings that may cause damage to the end customer/user of your your work, for example a mistreated patient. Can you guarantee that yourself as well as an agency will not be sued by that patient or his/her relatives? And, don't you have mercy for him/her? Can you afford to take this responsibility, morally at least if not legally? I can't.
Well, in my case it was about aesthetics more than anything (marketing materials and non-technical corporate procedures – HR, business conduct and stuff like that – that nobody reads).
I don't do medical translations, so I don't have real dilemmas about potentially hurting the uninformed Ms. Smith and I don't have to wonder if I have mercy. I'm only responsible for what I deliver, and I do deliver what I've agreed to deliver. The outcome lands on the end client, a business that maybe should've chosen a better agency, or the agency itself. I don't care if the agency gets sued. It might do them some good, in fact, should they think that a 100% match is always an appropriate translation and does not need to be reviewed.
Granted, I don't like situations like these – fortunately they've been few and far in between so far – but I have no ethical dilemmas whatsoever, let alone legal.
[Edited at 2011-04-04 17:17 GMT]
| | | | Andrej
Local time: 18:15
Member (2005)
German to Russian
+ ...
| The client is a king as Germans say (but maybe a stupid one) | Apr 4, 2011 |
Marina Aleyeva wrote:
You know you act unethically and still you do it, consciously
No, I do not act unethically as I warn them beforehand. The customer wants free 100% matches and repetitions. OK, I do not like such things but the client is a king. I notify the customer in advance that there could be some problems and in this very case I would not be responsible for them. Usually I even send some examples although it costs time and time is money. Sometimes I even send silly results of this approach during the work I do to show the customer what he will get at the end.
But if the customer insists on free 100% matches and repetitions and agrees with my statement (see above) and takes the responsibility this are his problems, not mine. It is he (or she) who acts unethically in this special case and takes all the risks although I said him about in advance. This is not a play, this is a real world and I want to have a foolproof position in such cases.
Krzysztof Kajetanowicz wrote:
Granted, I don't like situations like these – fortunately they've been few and far in between so far – but I have no ethical dilemmas whatsoever, let alone legal.
Seconded.
[Edited at 2011-04-04 17:24 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Andrej wrote: Marina Aleyeva wrote:
You know you act unethically and still you do it, consciously No, I do not act unethically as I warn them beforehand. The customer wants free 100% matches and repetitions. OK, I do not like such things but the client is a king. I notify the customer in advance that there could be some problems and in this very case I would not be responsible for them. Usually I even send some examples although it costs time and time is money. Sometimes I even send silly results of this approach during the work I do to show the customer what he will get at the end. But if the customer insists on free 100% matches and repetitions and agrees with my statement (see above) and takes the responsibility this are his problems, not mine. It is he (or she) who acts unethically in this special case and takes all the risks although I said him about in advance. This is not a play, this is a real world and I want to have a foolproof position in such cases. Krzysztof Kajetanowicz wrote:
Granted, I don't like situations like these – fortunately they've been few and far in between so far – but I have no ethical dilemmas whatsoever, let alone legal. Seconded. [Edited at 2011-04-04 17:24 GMT]
Fully agree Andrej! For starters, it's unethical not to pay anything for 100% matches & repetitions in view of the necessity of thoroughly checking whether all of these matches fit the context. Of course, the agency does realize this, but it's all part of the 'let's lower the rates as much as we can' endeavour.
| | | | Marina Aleyeva
Israel
Local time: 18:15
Member (2006)
English to Russian
+ ...
Andrej wrote: Marina Aleyeva wrote:
You know you act unethically and still you do it, consciously No, I do not act unethically as I warn them beforehand. The customer wants free 100% matches and repetitions.
It does not matter whether you warn your client or not. You act unethically because you violate the good faith principle (to do work as faithfully as possible to the best of your knowledge). You also act unethically towards the end user of your work. You know they may suffer, and you still do it. The fact that your customer is involved in the wrongdoing, or the fact that you both sign a written agreement confirming wrongdoing, does not make it less wrong.
Andrej wrote:
I notify the customer in advance that there could be some problems and in this very case I would not be responsible for them.
...
But if the customer insists on free 100% matches and repetitions and agrees with my statement (see above) and takes the responsibility this are his problems, not mine.
We are yet to see the first court decision in a lawsuit like that. Until then, who is and who is not responsible is pure theory. But as I said, even if you are not held responsible, you'll still be facing all the headaches of a lawsuit.
[Edited at 2011-04-04 18:27 GMT]
| | | | Rodion Shein
Russian Federation
Local time: 18:15
English to Russian
+ ...
| Nothing of the kind | Apr 4, 2011 |
Marina Aleyeva wrote: Andrej wrote: Marina Aleyeva wrote:
You know you act unethically and still you do it, consciously No, I do not act unethically as I warn them beforehand. The customer wants free 100% matches and repetitions. It does not matter whether you warn your client or not. You act unethically because you violate the good faith principle (to do work as faithfully as possible to the best of your knowledge). You also act unethically towards the end user of your work. You know they may suffer, and you still do it. The fact that your customer is involved in the wrongdoing, or the fact that you both sign a written agreement confirming wrongdoing, does not make it less wrong. Andrej wrote:
I notify the customer in advance that there could be some problems and in this very case I would not be responsible for them.
...
But if the customer insists on free 100% matches and repetitions and agrees with my statement (see above) and takes the responsibility this are his problems, not mine.
We are yet to see the first court decision in a lawsuit like that. Until then, who is and who is not responsible is pure theory. But as I said, even if you are not held responsible, you'll still be facing all the headaches of a lawsuit.
Sounds strange to me. What about standard disclaimers? Do you really think that corporations act unethically and abuse the end user, when insert the following statements?
The information presented in this document is for informational purposes only and may contain technical inaccuracies, omissions and typographical errors.
In no event will XXXX be liable to any person for any direct, indirect, special or other consequential damages arising from the use of any information contained herein, even if XXXX is expressly advised of the possibility of such damages.
It's all about possible legal protection, rather than ethical (or unethical) behaviour. Do you suggest rejecting such projects at all?
| | | | Marina Aleyeva
Israel
Local time: 18:15
Member (2006)
English to Russian
+ ...
| Quite the opposite | Apr 4, 2011 |
Rodion, such disclaimers are made in case the company does everything they can to present correct information but still is aware that there may be errors, for example when information may become outdated at the date of publication. "We have done everything we could but there still may be errors that we may not know about/cannot prevent. These errors are not intentional." - this is what it says. In this thread, we are discussing the case of a translator being involved in an activity that h... See more Rodion, such disclaimers are made in case the company does everything they can to present correct information but still is aware that there may be errors, for example when information may become outdated at the date of publication. "We have done everything we could but there still may be errors that we may not know about/cannot prevent. These errors are not intentional." - this is what it says. In this thread, we are discussing the case of a translator being involved in an activity that he/she knows beforehand is wrong, that is, being fully aware that the end user (e.g. a patient) may suffer and still doing it. I am not a lawyer and do not know to what extent this is an abuse of law, but to me it's an obvious abuse of ethics and a potential source of problems that I'd rather stay away from.
[Edited at 2011-04-04 19:20 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Rodion Shein
Russian Federation
Local time: 18:15
English to Russian
+ ...
| It has nothing to do with ethics | Apr 4, 2011 |
Marina Aleyeva wrote:
...but to me it's an obvious abuse of ethics and a potential source of problems that I'd rather stay away from.
When the client says: "Hey, guys, DO NOT check those matches and repetitions", I just follow the client's request. Any possible error are unintentional, although possible.
By the way, please pay attention to the following phrase of the standard disclaimer:
...even if XXXX is expressly advised of the possibility of such damages.
A company may be perfectly aware of some problem, but assumes no responsibility. Unethical?
Have you ever translated projects, where the client requests using glossary terms, even if they are incorrect?
My position is that I have to do my job to the best of my ability, in strict compliance with the agreement terms and client's guidelines. I always notify my client of possible issues to the best of my knowledge, and if I get explicit instructions after that, I never hesitate to follow.
It's business, but not a "save the world" acitivity. Finally, I have neither the time nor inclination to teach my clients moral lessons.
| | | | Marina Aleyeva
Israel
Local time: 18:15
Member (2006)
English to Russian
+ ...
Rodion Shein wrote: Marina Aleyeva wrote:
...but to me it's an obvious abuse of ethics and a potential source of problems that I'd rather stay away from. When the client says: "Hey, guys, DO NOT check those matches and repetitions", I just follow the client's request. Any possible error are unintentional, although possible.
I'll try to explain it for the third time: You consciously and willingly do something that you know beforehand other people may suffer from. This is unethical, and the fact that you do it at your client's request does not make it any more ethical. Your client has nothing to do with it. It's about you and only you.
By the way, please pay attention to the following phrase of the standard disclaimer: ...even if XXXX is expressly advised of the possibility of such damages.
A company may be perfectly aware of some problem, but assumes no responsibility. Unethical?
No, it's a completely different case. The company tries to warn you that despite all efforts there still may be problems that the company is aware of but that are beyond its control. The company does an ethical thing warning you. However, that does not mean that the company consciously messed things up and is now simply waving all the responsibility for that. That would be an abuse and I doubt that, if sued, it would get away with such a disclaimer. But then again, I am not a lawyer.
Have you ever translated projects, where the client requests using glossary terms, even if they are incorrect?
No, and I am not going to start.
My position is that I have to do my job to the best of my ability
By getting consciously involved in something that you know may and very likely will cause mistakes that you know may cause other people suffer, you are already not doing your job to the best of your ability.
in strict compliance with the agreement terms and client's guidelines.
Any unethical job can be done in strict compliance with the agreement terms and client's guidelines.
I always notify my client of possible issues to the best of my knowledge
Again, this is a different case. Encountering issues during the course of your work and warning your client is one thing, and getting consciously involved in something that you know beforehand is wrong is another. In most cases you cannot withdraw from a project once you have started to work on it, but you can avoid getting involved in something that you know requires consciously making mistakes. In the first case, you do not have a choice. In the second, you do. Feel the difference.
It's business, but not a "save the world" acitivity.
So would you kill people if you were paid for that and had an agreement warning the client of the potential damage to your victim's health?
[Edited at 2011-04-04 21:32 GMT]
[Edited at 2011-04-04 21:32 GMT]
| | | | Rodion Shein
Russian Federation
Local time: 18:15
English to Russian
+ ...
| Mixing up the ideas | Apr 4, 2011 |
Marina Aleyeva wrote:
No, it's a completely different case. The company tries to warn you that despite all efforts there still may be problems that the company is aware of but that are beyond its control. The company does an ethical thing warning you. However, that does not mean that the company consciously messed things up and is now simply waving all the responsibility for that. That would be an abuse and I doubt that, if sued, it would get away with such a disclaimer.
But then again, I am not a lawyer.
Can we consider it a disclaimer?
It's always amusing to read expert opinions expressed by non-experts.
Marina Aleyeva wrote: Rodion Shein wrote:
It's business, but not a "save the world" acitivity.
So would you kill people if you were paid for that and had an agreement warning the client of the potential damage to your victim's health?
I'm afraid, you failed to put the terms of such contract clearly enough for me to answer your question in a more detailed form. Still, the more general answer is that I would never enter into any agreement that could result in any intentional damage to my client or any third party. Although you're not a lawyer, I would really appreciate it, if you could be a bit more careful when selecting the wording. And please do not mix up the ideas.
| | | | Marina Aleyeva
Israel
Local time: 18:15
Member (2006)
English to Russian
+ ...
Rodion Shein wrote: Marina Aleyeva wrote:
No, it's a completely different case. The company tries to warn you that despite all efforts there still may be problems that the company is aware of but that are beyond its control. The company does an ethical thing warning you. However, that does not mean that the company consciously messed things up and is now simply waving all the responsibility for that. That would be an abuse and I doubt that, if sued, it would get away with such a disclaimer.
But then again, I am not a lawyer.
Can we consider it a disclaimer? It's always amusing to read expert opinions expressed by non-experts.
Please do not try to distort what I am saying. I have not said anything to imply that this is an expert opinion. I have clearly stated that I am not an expert. This is why I am trying to talk about ethical implications that are obvious to me and not about legal ones.
I'm afraid, you failed to put the terms of such contract clearly enough for me to answer your question in a more detailed form.
I think the terms are clear enough?
Still, the more general answer is that I would never enter into any agreement that could result in any intentional damage to my client or any third party.
Yet an agreement discussed in this thread implies exactly that - an intentional, albeit indirect, damage to a third party.
Although you're not a lawyer, I would really appreciate it, if you could be a bit more careful when selecting the wording. And please do not mix up the ideas.
I do not. I think this is a good example of how dangerous a statement like "It's business, but not a "save the world" activity" can be.
| | |
|
|
|
Andrej
Local time: 18:15
Member (2005)
German to Russian
+ ...
Marina Aleyeva wrote:
You act unethically because you violate the good faith principle (to do work as faithfully as possible to the best of your knowledge).
Please be polite and do not throw such accusations here and excuse for your abusive statements. I do my part of work well enough to have many satisfied clients. I emphasize: my part of work. If you want to do other's part of work for free, no matter good of bad, I can just repeat: it is your problems, not mine. I see that now you are trying to do the work of a lawyer and preacher at the same time. This is the difference between us, as I do only the things I can. And please do not preach here that I have to give my work and time for free. If you do your work in such a way it does not mean that I have to do it identically. I do business, you do "ethical things" (in your strange interpretation, but it is up to you).
You destroy the market and claim to be an "ethical translator". Consider the fact that this are you and other translators with such approach who enable the customers to believe that free repetitions and 100% matches are quite normal as "these silly translators will act ethically and make this hard work for free".
[Edited at 2011-04-05 07:24 GMT]
| | | | Rodion Shein
Russian Federation
Local time: 18:15
English to Russian
+ ...
| Understand your SOW | Apr 5, 2011 |
Marina Aleyeva wrote: Rodion Shein wrote:
Still, the more general answer is that I would never enter into any agreement that could result in any intentional damage to my client or any third party. Yet an agreement discussed in this thread implies exactly that - an intentional, albeit indirect, damage to a third party.
Have you ever heard about such ideas as "scope of liability" and "obligations of the parties concerned"?
Marina Aleyeva wrote: Rodion Shein wrote:
Although you're not a lawyer, I would really appreciate it, if you could be a bit more careful when selecting the wording. And please do not mix up the ideas.
I do not. I think this is a good example of how dangerous a statement like "It's business, but not a "save the world" activity" can be.
Once again, it's always useful to understand what your scope of work (liability, obligations) is and do your job to the best of your ability. All other "ethical" attempts (they have nothing to do with real ethics) are just "good intentions" without any measurable result — that's what I call "saving the world".
Now I would like to request once again that you should kindly refrain from accusing your colleagues of unethical business practices.
[Edited at 2011-04-05 07:01 GMT]
| | | | IPtranslate (X)
Brazil
English to Dutch
+ ...
Andrej wrote: Marina Aleyeva wrote:
You act unethically because you violate the good faith principle (to do work as faithfully as possible to the best of your knowledge). Please be polite and do not throw such accusations here and excuse for your abusive statements. I do my part of work well enough to have many satisfied clients. I emphasize: my part of work. If you want to do other's part of work for free, no matter good of bad, I can just repeat: it is your problems, not mine. I see that now you are trying to do the work of a lawyer and preacher at the same time. This is the difference between us, as I do only the things I can. And please do not preach here that I have to give my work and time for free. If you do your work in such a way it does not mean that I have to do it identically. I do business, you do "ethical things" (in your strange interpretation, but it is up to you). You destroy the market and claim to be an "ethical translator". Consider the fact that this are you and other translators with such approach who enable the customers to believe that free repetitions and 100% matches are quite normal as "these silly translators will act ethically and make this hard work for free". [Edited at 2011-04-05 07:24 GMT]
Couldn't agree more...."good faith"??????? Don't make me laugh!
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Change in payments for MT work: repeats are now free | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
