Unusual provisions in interpreting contract? Auteur du fil: Mariane Lambert
|
|---|
Mariane Lambert 
Allemagne
Local time: 19:22
Membre (2014)
anglais vers français
+ ...
Hello,
Some time ago, I was approached by an agency based in the EU for an interpreting assignment.
It seemed to be reputable at first, but after exchanging back and forth, they sent me a contract to sign, and that’s when I realized that the agency was connected to another LSP that had been banned from posting jobs on proz due to a significant number of negative reviews related to payment issues.
I ended up declining to work with them as a result, but I a... See more Hello,
Some time ago, I was approached by an agency based in the EU for an interpreting assignment.
It seemed to be reputable at first, but after exchanging back and forth, they sent me a contract to sign, and that’s when I realized that the agency was connected to another LSP that had been banned from posting jobs on proz due to a significant number of negative reviews related to payment issues.
I ended up declining to work with them as a result, but I am still wondering about two provisions in the contract that raised some concerns. I would be curious to know if you have ever encountered them in your translation/interpreting practice and if my concerns were warranted:
1) A provision prohibiting the supplier (translator or interpreter) from posting any negative feedback on any publicly accessible platform in case of a dispute so long as the dispute is not officially resolved by a court.
2) A provision requiring the supplier (interpreter) to have a fellow interpreter fill in for them in the event where they could not complete the assignment. The replacement interpreter would have to agree to work within the same terms agreed upon by the original supplier and be approved by the agency.
In light of the negative reviews for delayed/non-payment issues, I construed the first provision as a threat to translators and interpreters aimed at dissuading them from posting any negative review (on the proz Blueboard for example) even if the agency failed to pay them. I may be wrong though. I had never seen such a provision in my 10+ years as a freelance translator, but what is your experience?
Regarding the second provision, I had never come across something like that before either, but I am newer to interpreting, so it could be standard practice for interpreting assignments, and I was simply unaware of it. To the seasoned interpreters out there, do you usually have to provide a replacement if you’re unable to complete the assignment (because of a sudden illness or other unforeseen circumstance)? I understand that it may be good practice to help out a client in such a situation as it might put them in a difficult position. Even so, making that a contractual obligation seems a bit extreme to me.
I would love to read your thoughts on the matter.
Thank you!
[Edited at 2025-04-04 14:29 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Mario Chávez
États-Unis
Local time: 13:22
Membre (2024)
anglais vers espagnol
+ ...
| Right to be skeptical about those clauses | Apr 4 |
Mariane,
It seems that we translators and interpreters should always carry a fine-tooth comb to pore over these agreements, since arbitrary clauses are sprouting all over the place.
Back in the day, some translation agencies in the USA required their providers (us) not to work with the agency's competition. That type of clause is legally unenforceable and it only serves the agency's interests.
The do-not-disparage clause is not only appearing in the interpr... See more Mariane,
It seems that we translators and interpreters should always carry a fine-tooth comb to pore over these agreements, since arbitrary clauses are sprouting all over the place.
Back in the day, some translation agencies in the USA required their providers (us) not to work with the agency's competition. That type of clause is legally unenforceable and it only serves the agency's interests.
The do-not-disparage clause is not only appearing in the interpretation agreement you were sent. When my full-time position was eliminated last year, I had to sign an agreement to get my severance package; the agreement included a clause to not write disparaging things about this ex employer in social media or elsewhere. Since I'm not in the habit of badmouthing former employers anyway, I signed it to get my severance package. However, one is forced to stop and think why a successful company is so fearful of so-called negative comments or feedback. To me, it's a Big-Brother effort to curtail free speech and inform others.
Now, to your second provision: it seems to me that this agency is offloading its own responsibility to find a replacement onto your shoulders. They want you to do some project management for free. I'd say no way. ▲ Collapse
| | | | kd42
Estonie
Local time: 20:22
anglais vers russe
| A note about praising your ex-employer, client, or praying for them every night on a hilltop | Apr 4 |
My idea is that your counterpart may include anything into the NDA, severance agreement, lease, but in reality and in a court of law the effective legislation prevails, and this makes all these whims null and void.
| | | | William Bowley
Royaume-Uni
Local time: 18:22
espagnol vers anglais
+ ...
Similar to that stated by kd42, terms in a contract must generally be reasonable, fair and lawful for them to be enforceable, i.e., a contract can state anything, but the law always prevails.
For example, you could happily sign a contract stating you must dance naked in the street on Tuesdays, and as entertaining as some people may find that, you would be under no obligation to comply and there would be no consequences for you were you not to comply.
In the case of your... See more Similar to that stated by kd42, terms in a contract must generally be reasonable, fair and lawful for them to be enforceable, i.e., a contract can state anything, but the law always prevails.
For example, you could happily sign a contract stating you must dance naked in the street on Tuesdays, and as entertaining as some people may find that, you would be under no obligation to comply and there would be no consequences for you were you not to comply.
In the case of your specific example, point 1) in particular is almost certainly unenforceable in reality. Point 2) is for the client's convenience. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Srini Venkataraman
États-Unis
Local time: 12:22
Membre (2012)
tamoul/tamil vers anglais
+ ...
| The second condition | Apr 19 |
This is weird. An agency picks you for your skills in interpreting and your credentials How can you get a passable substitute- really the onus is on the agency. All you can do is tell them your inability to do the job because of xxxxxx,vv etc ASAP. They have to locate a substitute.
| | | | Daryo
Royaume-Uni
Local time: 18:22
serbe vers anglais
+ ...
| The point is elsewhere | Apr 19 |
This:
2) A provision requiring the supplier (interpreter) to have a fellow interpreter fill in for them in the event where they could not complete the assignment. The replacement interpreter would have to agree to work within the same terms agreed upon by the original supplier and be approved by the agency.
is NOT what it seems. And it's far from being 'wierd' - if you know the logic behind it.
This has NOTHING to do with the agency seriously expecting you ... See more This:
2) A provision requiring the supplier (interpreter) to have a fellow interpreter fill in for them in the event where they could not complete the assignment. The replacement interpreter would have to agree to work within the same terms agreed upon by the original supplier and be approved by the agency.
is NOT what it seems. And it's far from being 'wierd' - if you know the logic behind it.
This has NOTHING to do with the agency seriously expecting you a find a replacement if you get ill.
This a kind of 'boilerplate clauses' dreamed up by lawyers protecting the revenues of their clients. It's used by all kind of businesses, not only translation agencies.
The point is to prevent 'independent contractors' who are in fact disguised employees from ever claiming any rights attached to employment. And to prevent the taxman from claiming from these business all kind of taxes employers have to pay on salaries paid to normal/regular employees - but NOT on invoices from 'independent contractors'.
In case you wonder what I'm on about, search for 'rule IR53' in UK. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Daryo
Royaume-Uni
Local time: 18:22
serbe vers anglais
+ ...
an independent business, this kind of 'boring details' are as important as knowing at least the basics of how to conduct due diligence on new clients.
| | | | Mariane Lambert
Allemagne
Local time: 19:22
Membre (2014)
anglais vers français
+ ...
AUTEUR DU FIL
Thank you all so much for taking the time to respond! Your valuable insights are very much appreciated.
The sad thing is that the head of this agency is themselves a working conference interpreter who most likely would never agree to such terms, let alone not being paid for their services...
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Unusual provisions in interpreting contract? | 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 » |
| | 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 » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
