| Pages in topic: [1 2] > | How to warn others of a company with iffy contract terms? Thread poster: Melina Kajander
|
|---|
A while back I was asked to sign a freelancer agreement with a company I had already done a test for; but the conditions were such that I very obviously could not sign it. It included, among others:
"You further agree that:
(a) you will be available at all times on reasonable notice to provide the Translation Services as and when the Company may require
5. You may accept and perform engagements from other companies, firms or persons which do not place you in a c... See more A while back I was asked to sign a freelancer agreement with a company I had already done a test for; but the conditions were such that I very obviously could not sign it. It included, among others:
"You further agree that:
(a) you will be available at all times on reasonable notice to provide the Translation Services as and when the Company may require
5. You may accept and perform engagements from other companies, firms or persons which do not place you in a conflict of interest with the Company and which will not be detrimental to the Company’s business. You agree that you will not accept any position, employment or engagement from any person, firm or company which is or may be in competition with the Company without the express written permission of the Company’s Managing Director."
(Both go directly against every principle of freelancing, of course.)
It's especially annoying to find a company has such impossible terms, after already having done a test for them etc. (which is a standard requirement nowadays); I'm sure no translator in their right mind could sign this contract, and yet this company is still advertising on Proz.com... So I'm asking, is there an instance where to notify of such a company with very suspect contract terms?
[Edited at 2023-08-09 07:58 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Payment Practices | Aug 9, 2023 |
You can add a comment on www.paymentpractices.net even if you have not worked for the outsourcer. This site has fewer restrictions than the Blue Board, but there is an annual fee of $20.
Of course we cannot accept that sort of abusive clauses. I always ask to see any documents to sign before completing any test.
| | | | | Not exactly what you asked, but.... | Aug 9, 2023 |
.... assuming you do not intend to work with them, have you raised your points with them?
I mean, I agree entirely. Certainly in UK, one of the criteria for determining self-employment versus employment is the ability to decline work. That clause a) would definitely cause HMRC to lean towards defining the relationship as one of employment, not freelancing.
And clause 5 is nonsense. How can you possibly tell whether a company "may" be in competition? (Do they mean "may" ... See more .... assuming you do not intend to work with them, have you raised your points with them?
I mean, I agree entirely. Certainly in UK, one of the criteria for determining self-employment versus employment is the ability to decline work. That clause a) would definitely cause HMRC to lean towards defining the relationship as one of employment, not freelancing.
And clause 5 is nonsense. How can you possibly tell whether a company "may" be in competition? (Do they mean "may" or do they mean "could" or "might"?)
Have you considered asking them what they are playing at? Are they in a country where that kind of provision does not cast doubt on the freelancer's status? Or are they simply ignorant of the typical rules/principles governing the relationship?
Perhaps you should just name them. Then I could start working with them, decline some work because I want to be on holiday, get HMRC on the case, secure a ruling that I'm an employee, and get paid while I'm on the beach. Ker-ching !! ▲ Collapse
| | | | Dan Lucas 
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:01
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
Charlie Bavington wrote:
And clause 5 is nonsense.
Indeed, at least in the UK. The default approach of any judge towards a restraint of trade clause would be one of deep skepticism.
Dan
| | |
|
|
|
It looks like they don’t know the difference between being an employee and a freelancer. You should tell them that freelancers are individuals who are self-employed and have more than one client for whom they work, while employees are individuals working full time for an employer. If a freelancer is specialized in a certain subject matter, all the companies he/she works with belong to the same economic sector and are in some degree of competition between them, though they may not target a simi... See more It looks like they don’t know the difference between being an employee and a freelancer. You should tell them that freelancers are individuals who are self-employed and have more than one client for whom they work, while employees are individuals working full time for an employer. If a freelancer is specialized in a certain subject matter, all the companies he/she works with belong to the same economic sector and are in some degree of competition between them, though they may not target a similar market segment… ▲ Collapse
| | | |
Thomas T. Frost wrote: You can add a comment on www.paymentpractices.net even if you have not worked for the outsourcer. This site has fewer restrictions than the Blue Board, but there is an annual fee of $20. Of course we cannot accept that sort of abusive clauses. I always ask to see any documents to sign before completing any test.
That's actually a good idea, may try it from now on; I just didn't think of that, as the T&C are usually pretty standard and straightforward. And one may always ask it, but companies may not oblige, they seem to have their own way & order of doing things (Of course, one can always decline cooperation with them, but I'm afraid that would leave many companies to work with...)
And thanks for the info, but I'm not willing to join a paid site just for this one case, of course.
| | | |
Charlie Bavington wrote: .... assuming you do not intend to work with them, have you raised your points with them? I mean, I agree entirely. Certainly in UK, one of the criteria for determining self-employment versus employment is the ability to decline work. That clause a) would definitely cause HMRC to lean towards defining the relationship as one of employment, not freelancing. And clause 5 is nonsense. How can you possibly tell whether a company "may" be in competition? (Do they mean "may" or do they mean "could" or "might"?) Have you considered asking them what they are playing at? Are they in a country where that kind of provision does not cast doubt on the freelancer's status? Or are they simply ignorant of the typical rules/principles governing the relationship? Perhaps you should just name them. Then I could start working with them, decline some work because I want to be on holiday, get HMRC on the case, secure a ruling that I'm an employee, and get paid while I'm on the beach. Ker-ching !!
The company was / is, to my knowledge, UK based! I'm not sure naming & shaming is allowed here (?), but I can tell you in a PM, if you wish.
Yes, I did raise all of the points with them; firstly, a vague round-the-bush reply, but after my feedback about the last point, 5, no reply at all (and soon after, they posted another ad here on Proz)... So, they clearly wouldn't have budged about that.
| | | |
Maria Teresa Borges de Almeida wrote:
It looks like they don’t know the difference between being an employee and a freelancer. You should tell them that freelancers are individuals who are self-employed and have more than one client for whom they work, while employees are individuals working full time for an employer. If a freelancer is specialized in a certain subject matter, all the companies he/she works with belong to the same economic sector and are in some degree of competition between them, though they may not target a similar market segment…
Hmm, to me it seemed they did intend to hire freelancers / self-employed - the company being UK based, they should really know the difference - but just didn't really care... I may just have to go & look at their latest job posting here on Proz, to check whether they explicitly state it, but it was my understanding that they did want freelancers. which makes this all the more baffling.
| | |
|
|
|
| Link not allowed | Aug 10, 2023 |
Ok, I also tried to make a post linking to their latest job ad here on Proz, but was told it's not allowed (that's more or less as I had understood, alas). So anyone wishing for that info would need to contact me via PM (if it's allowed even there). But yes, in that latest ad, they did specifically mention they are looking for freelancers. Baffling!
[Edited at 2023-08-10 12:53 GMT]
| | | | | Hanlon's razor | Aug 10, 2023 |
I'm a Hanlon's razor kind of person.
So, I'm more inclined to think this is down to ignorance than malice.
On that basis, I'd view any naming as only naming, not naming and shaming
Nonetheless, my curiosity is aroused, so if you're willing to share privately, I'd be interested (& I won't name them publicly afterwards!).
| | | | Kay Denney
France
Local time: 00:01
French to English
The first clause, for me, does not hint at an employer-employee relationship. It's more like slave-owner-slave, because employees do at least get paid leave.
Although I can quite see the agency explaining in the court of law that the "on reasonable notice" bit implies respect for the freelancer's right to refuse work. "Reasonable" is sufficiently vague to do a fair bit of very heavy lifting.
| | | | | If you want the work, just sign it. | Aug 13, 2023 |
They've just lazily cut and pasted a contract from the internet without reading it. They're never going to enforce it, and they're not trying to scam or exploit you.
I wouldn't waste time pointing out the contract's shortcomings to the customer or 'warning' other translators. Just humour them, and sign it.
| | |
|
|
|
Dan Lucas
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:01
Member (2014)
Japanese to English
| I wouldn't waste time either... | Aug 13, 2023 |
philgoddard wrote:
I wouldn't waste time pointing out the contract's shortcomings to the customer or 'warning' other translators. Just humour them, and sign it.
...but do you want to transact business with the kind of company that goes out of their way to copy and paste a contract template off the internet instead of paying a solicitor a few hundred quid to draw up a minimal, sensible agreement?
By their deeds you will know them.
Dan
| | | |
Kay Denney wrote:
The first clause, for me, does not hint at an employer-employee relationship. It's more like slave-owner-slave, because employees do at least get paid leave.
Although I can quite see the agency explaining in the court of law that the "on reasonable notice" bit implies respect for the freelancer's right to refuse work. "Reasonable" is sufficiently vague to do a fair bit of very heavy lifting.
Yes, I guess so.
Dan Lucas wrote: philgoddard wrote:
I wouldn't waste time pointing out the contract's shortcomings to the customer or 'warning' other translators. Just humour them, and sign it. ...but do you want to transact business with the kind of company that goes out of their way to copy and paste a contract template off the internet instead of paying a solicitor a few hundred quid to draw up a minimal, sensible agreement?
Exactly So I couldn't & wouldn't do it. (Loss of some income, possibly great, but what else can you do...)
| | | |
Dan Lucas wrote: philgoddard wrote:
I wouldn't waste time pointing out the contract's shortcomings to the customer or 'warning' other translators. Just humour them, and sign it. ...but do you want to transact business with the kind of company that goes out of their way to copy and paste a contract template off the internet instead of paying a solicitor a few hundred quid to draw up a minimal, sensible agreement? By their deeds you will know them. Dan
To me, it's a red flag when an outsourcer either cannot be bothered to ensure their conditions are fair for both parties or, worse, think they can abuse their situation to enforce one-sided and unreasonable conditions. It's a warning that they may also not play fair in the future, so I don't sign that sort of conditions.
Many times, I have pointed out such problems in conditions. Some outsourcers are willing to find a compromise.
Others wheel out excuses such as, 'we can't change anything because the wording has been approved by our QA manager'.
Some pretend it is just a matter of 'explaining' their conditions, as if I were too stupid to read them.
Then there are those who say, 'oh, but we have never applied that clause'. (So why was it added to the conditions in the first place?)
Others again claim, 'but all the other vendors have signed it, so there is no problem'. (So will those other vendors pay my costs if something goes wrong because of unreasonable conditions?)
Yet another reaction is that 'they are standard conditions for the industry'. (They are not.)
Some French outsourcers are now going overboard with demands for tax certificates because they don't read their own tax regulations properly. These requirements only apply to foreign contractors physically carrying out work on French territory, but such outsourcers mistakenly burden all vendors across the world with nonsensical bureaucracy, as if France had been assigned the role of global tax inspector. When you point it out to them, they either go silent, as if one had violated a sacrosanct French taboo consisting of never questioning any requirement for endless but unnecessary red tape, or stubbornly deny it but without providing any justification. Again, not the sort of people in whose company I would feel confident.
| | | | | 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 » How to warn others of a company with iffy contract terms? | 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 » |
| | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
