May 1st, 2006 | Agencies, Business, Essays, Translation | No Comments
A new trend regarding contracts
By Stafford Hemmer
A recent discussion on the NCTA web forum suggested that agencies are dispensing with a generally more lenient attitude toward employment terms and conditions in favor of a more legally airtight, formalized contractual relationship sealed by notarization. This article summarizes the viewpoints of several NCTA members who participated in the discussion.
When an agency engages an interpreter or translator, the respective contractual obligations are established by countersignature to the relevant documents, typically confidentiality and independent contractor agreements. Not uncommonly, both parties forego even these most basic of conventions—whether intentionally or by default—and work with each other on the basis of verbal agreements reached on the phone, or written covenants established by an exchange of emails. Yet these circumstances seem to be changing.
NCTA member Naomi Baer recently confronted this situation and asked fellow members, “Is anyone else being asked more frequently to notarize employment applications in order to get an assignment?” The case at hand pertained to a confidentiality agreement and a “proprietary agreement” that the agency wanted notarized by the translator-interpreter before consenting to give her the assignment. Although it was for a small project, the expectation was that it might lead to more serious work down the road. And yet the concept of having to pay to get set up to work with an agency seemed problematic, given the range of agencies Naomi has worked with, and given that, in general, she had no way to know if it would pay for itself over time.
Notarization refers to the certifying of documents by a notary public—an officer authorized by the state (such as California) who can also administer oaths, take acknowledgments, and take depositions if the notary is a court reporter as well.
“This new phenomenon seems to have reached epidemic proportions,” replied long-time NCTA member Peter Gergay. “Agencies that did not require notarized statements before, do so now, and nowadays new agencies with which I begin to do business tack it on almost routinely.” Not all NCTA members share the opinion that this phenomenon is so common; indeed, another long-time member, George Plohn, who has been a freelancer since 1990, translating into and from ten language combinations, claimed to have never heard about such a requirement.
Whether or not the trend is pervasive, both experienced translators agree on one thing: compliance is generally advisable. Peter replied that he uses a standard text that had been originally drawn up by educational credentialing institutions for diplomas and transcripts and subsequently approved—a long time ago—by government agencies and the ATA; he kindly volunteered to send interested colleagues a sample. He also added that he bills for the reimbursement of these charges ($10 per document) as well as for his time in getting the translations notarized. George added that he “would not hesitate to satisfy such a requirement if it would bring business.” But he also pointed out that his bank provides this service free of charge, and suggests that translators should find out from their own financial institutions if they provide such a free service; if not, he suggests opening a small account at another bank that would.
Clients often ask agencies, and ultimately translators, to obtain notarizations, for instance of a translated college transcript or birth record. In most cases, the notary is merely certifying that the translator presenting the documents has properly identified himself or herself to the notary. The notary is not attesting to the accuracy or veracity of the translation itself. So what does an agency gain by asking its contractors to get signatures to an employment contract notarized? Other than the obvious additional legal gravitas derived from the signature and stamp of a notary public added to an otherwise valid contractual relationship, it is difficult to extrapolate from the group list discussion why agencies are increasingly asking contractors to provide these notarizations.
Still, there was consensus among translators, interpreters, and agencies alike that understanding the phenomenon of notarization is important. Wrote Michael Alioto, who runs an agency based in Italy, “There is a lot of confusion in the U.S. translation market about rules that are either non-existent or vague at best.” He points out that this is not the case in Europe, where agencies often deal with notarized documents, and especially in the context of the Hague Convention. (Michael’s clients have Italian estate matters that have to be addressed via various powers of attorney). As Michael says, “Because we do many translations for direct clients and attorneys, I found this subject needs to have a legal foundation that is understood by all.”
Feb 1st, 2006 | Business, NCTA Info, NCTA Meetings | No Comments
By Rafaella Bushiazzo
December is traditionally the first occasion for members back from the ATA Conference to report on what they have seen. Candidates for the Board of Directors are also introduced, and awards given. This past December, the General Meeting also featured a useful presentation on invoicing software.
After general announcements regarding upcoming events, candidates for NCTA Board elections were introduced: Andrea Wells, Evan Geisinger, Naomi Baer, Song White, and Stafford Hemmer. All are professional translators and interpreters eager to share their own skills and time with the Association. The introductions were followed by an awards ceremony for three NCTA members: Stacey Ramirez, Juliet Viola, and Michael Metzger.
Stacey, as Translorial’s Advertising Manager, has succeeded in increasing the volume of advertising in our publication in just over a year on the job. Juliet, our long-time NCTA Administrator—the person that new members contact first—is NCTA’s “Institutional Memory,” the soul of the organization who so often helps board members with information and thoughtful advice. And last but not least, Michael, our former two-term NCTA President and Ad Manager and Webmaster before that, has devoted immeasurable time and effort to the Association. All three were rewarded for their extraordinary volunteer service; Juliet and Stacey with a year of free NCTA membership and Michael with an honorary Lifetime membership. The organization thanks you once again for all your great work and looks forward to your continued involvement with NCTA!
ATA Conference Report
The afternoon continued with a panel discussion about the 46th ATA Annual Conference in Seattle in November. Three attendees shared their personal experiences with the audience.
For Tatyana Neronova, a Russian-English interpreter, it was her first time at the conference and served as a wonderful introduction to the organization. She spent a lot of time participating in the activities of the Slavic division, where she was made to feel at home. She participated in several sessions, met many interesting people working for important institutions, and had promising contacts with several agencies. Despite all the activities that kept her very busy, Tatyana found time to volunteer at the NCTA table!
Ayano Hattori, a Japanese-English translator, was also a newbie at the ATA Conference. She attended several business and computer technology lectures and participated in some social events with the very active Japanese division. She told us about the Job Market Place, a table where attendees can leave their business cards and resumes in order to be contacted by companies and translation agencies. Ayano met many friendly people, learned a lot, and said she felt that the conference was definitely worth attending.
The last comments were from Shayesteh Zarrabi, a Farsi-English translator, who also attended for the first time. Shayesteh was representing Accent on Languages, the translation agency for which she currently works. She found the sessions to be very useful, particularly the Déjà Vu and TRADOS workshops. The only detail that she would like to see improved is the size of the conference rooms, which are now too small for the size of the crowds attending the lectures. She concluded by encouraging translators and interpreters to visit the booths set up by translation companies and to use this opportunity to establish contacts for the future. Other members in the audience shared their own recollections of the ATA Conference and added useful information, insights, and perspectives.
Invoicing tools presentation
After a very encouraging report on the financial situation of the association by our Treasurer Barbara Guggemos, the General Meeting continued with a presentation of the most-used invoicing programs for freelance translators. The subject raised so much interest among the audience that it is likely that NCTA will organize a workshop on this theme. NCTA President Tuomas Kostiainen, and English-Finnish translator, presented Quickbooks, Basic Edition 2003. Among other features, Tuomas likes the way the program creates invoices and enters them into the program’s bookkeeping functions at the same time.
Next, Christine Lemor-Drake, a English-French translator, showed us Customer Pro-File, a friendly and inexpenive invoicing system that runs on both the PC and Mac. In addition to invoicing in multiple languages, it features other built-in modules including Client Manager, Report Center, Event Scheduler, Expense Tracker, Money Converter, and others.
Finally, Tetu Hirai, a Japanese-English translator, presented PractiCount & Invoice, the Standard Version. This program not only generates invoices but can also count words and characters, including Asian ones. It allows the user to exclude numerals and to change the settings according to personal needs.
The General Meeting ended with a festive mailing party that gave us the opportunity to network and have fun all together while sticking stamps and envelopes!
Feb 1st, 2006 | Business, Opinion | No Comments
The Trials and Tribulations of Getting Paid (if at all)
By Ayano Hattori
Ah, if collecting money were only as joyous as it sounds. To most of us, payment is harvest; when the fruits of our labor are expressed with a dollar sign followed by multiple digits (the more the better), we get a sense of justified satisfaction. This, in turn, reinforces our very existence as professional translators. After all, without payments we would simply be volunteers. If you’re one of those people that has never had any difficulties receiving payment, consider yourself lucky—very lucky. More than likely, though, you have had such difficulties and, I’m sorry to say, no matter what the law says or how well you translate, the risk of late or non payment will always be present.
A discussion was sparked recently in the NCTA online forum when one of our colleagues posted a response made by an agency after repeated inquiry regarding an overdue payment. The agency, a corporate member of ATA, replied that its “policy requires … paying [its] translators and editors upon the receipt of customer payment.” The agency reasoned that these measures are taken to stay “financially stable.”
Although I had never seen such small print in translation contracts before, I am all too familiar with it. I have found them in contracts from one of my specialized areas, the architecture and construction industry. It is commonly known as “pay when paid,” and unfortunately sometimes turns into “pay if paid.” These clauses put a tremendous burden on the subcontractor. Depending on the industry, the longer this chain of subcontracting extends, the longer one has to wait for the actual money to trickle down, if ever.
The legality of such clauses have been a hot-button issue and multiple states (including California and New York) have had legislative actions against such clauses. Late payments ultimately have greater impacts on smaller businesses because of the financial impact one missing payment could have. It has been such a problem that the Prompt Payment Act was introduced to help regulate the payment standards even for the U.S. government.
As in the case of our NCTA member/colleague, independent translators are in a contractual relationship with the agency, not the end user. Because the translator is not participating in the selection process of the original monetary source, the responsibility of collecting payment in a timely manner should be left to the agency (the party in contractual agreement with the end user), not the translator. As with any responsible business, translation agencies need to be able to account for the monetary lag between paying their independent contractors and getting paid by the original source, if or when such cases arise. It is the basic fundamentals in preserving the wellbeing of suppliers of the translation service and ultimately the business itself.
The Better Payment Practice Campaign states on its website: “As well as being unethical, the practice of deliberately paying later than the agreed terms is wrong for sound economic reasons:
-
It weakens your organization because it harms your reputation.
-
It damages your supply sources and strains your relations with suppliers.
-
It weakens the economy as a whole because it constricts growth.
-
Late payment is often taken as an indication that the buyer is in difficulties. If you create this impression with your suppliers you may find that their terms worsen.”
Some tips for decreasing risks and “confusion”: As with any business decision, know your options and choose carefully. Select payment terms and collection methods that you feel are comfortable and competitive. Check with your state (or country) laws for legalities and amounts.
-
Know your client. Do a little digging on the Internet for any “priors” an agency may have.
-
Have your payment terms in writing by stating them in a contract.
-
Take an advanced payment or retainer before the job begins.
-
Issue invoices on time and note the contractual terms. Use special payment terms if you feel this client is risky.
-
Charge interest and/or late fees.
-
Offer discounts for early payment.
-
Allow different methods of payment.
-
Sometimes, it’s a matter of convenience. If you can afford to make it easier for the client to pay, it may be worth it. Considerations include electronic transfers, accepting foreign currencies and Internet payment systems like PayPal.
-
Have insurance, such as Legal Expense insurance (an option if you feel you may have to use legal expenses to collect). Underbidding by extreme percentages and letting translators “fight it out” in online bids is only creating artificially low pricing that confuses clients and hurts our profession as a whole.
If we can establish personal contact, even if only over the phone, often the transaction can be brought back to a human interaction, where we have a chance to bring the focus back from price to precision, and thus re-establish the meaning of value.
Actions after the fact
Here are some paths you may choose to pursue if the client doesn’t pay on time.
-
Be persistent; remind the client consistently but professionally of the work provided and the payment terms agreed upon.
-
Help others know the risk of working with this client/agency. Post in online forums and payment practice lists.
-
Write to translation/interpretation organizations to help educate the larger business community on sound business practice. (Try places such as ATA Business Practice Education committee.)
-
Get someone else to do the job by utilizing collection agents.
-
Pursue non-court action through third party negotiation, mediation, conciliation or arbitration.
-
Seek the assistance of debt collection lawyers and legal agencies for either/both advice on the current law and use of one in other actions.
-
Take legal action through the court system.
Feb 1st, 2006 | Book Review, Business, Reviews | No Comments
Review by Stafford Hemmer
Translation Contract: A Standards-based Model Solution by Uwe Muegge, 100 pages, Authorhouse, 2005, ISBN: 1418416363
Translation Contract: A Standards-Based Model Solution is a toolkit in book form. Author Uwe Mr. Muegge dices the contractual relationship between translation buyer and vendor into a collection of checklists and work order forms. Using DIN 2345, ÖNORM D, and ASTM F15.48 standards, Mr. Muegge aims at four basic goals: improving communication between translation vendors and translation buyers, structuring and standardizing translation projects, improving efficiency, and improving quality. His intended audience includes “translation buyers and vendors who do not have comprehensive contractual agreements in place … and [those] who do not have much experience in the translation and/or localization field.” If this toolkit were presented in electronic form, it would be a hit. But in its present book form, Translation Contract misses its mark.
At skeptical first glance, publisher AuthorHouse should have considered condensing the booklet prior to its publication. “Section A: Master Data,” a full 21 of the booklet’s 100 pages, is a sparse presentation of basic contract elements that could have all fit into a one-page form. Indeed, the data fields presented in this section are obvious requisites to any valid and enforceable translation contract. But do neophyte freelancers or contract-deficient agencies really need four pages of prompting lest they forget to incorporate buyer and vendor contact info into their newly structured contracts?
The meat is in Sections B-H. Mr. Muegge guides readers on identifying and defining translation services, documents, textual and formal considerations, hardware and software used, additional agreements, and review procedures. Each section starts with a one-sentence “overview” of the objective; for example, “Section E: Formal Considerations. In this section, the contractual partners reach agreement on specific formal aspects of the translation project.” Here, Mr. Muegge succeeds in highlighting salient contract issues that users can take into consideration when structuring translation projects and contracts. The three-page “Appendix: Overview of Translation-Related Standards” adds value by filtering ISO standards, and listing references to Internet-based resources, thereby perhaps warranting the booklet’s $15.50 cover price. Still, the two-page set of definitions that preface the book, including such gems as, “target language: A target language is a natural language. Translation professionals use a target language to translate to,” could do with a little polish.
Mr. Muegge’s comprehensive approach is important for closing the loopholes found in various model contracts, such as those from ATA. Perhaps, then, the only thing wrong with this book is precisely that: it’s a book. His target audience certainly would have been better served if he delivered Translation Contract as a software product, because that data medium would enable the author to deliver the comprehensiveness he seeks to provide. In addition to presenting a useable boilerplate contract, the checklists and work order forms would then become more valuable to users because they could then be downloaded and modified. Mr. Muegge could also spend more time fleshing out the terminology, and delivering more information about the translation-related standards upon which the booklet is based, rather than just list them. If, in the future, Mr. Muegge decides to present Translation Contract in electronic format, he’ll be sure to hit the bull’s-eye.
May 1st, 2005 | Business, Opinion | No Comments
By Chantal Wilford
Every so often, someone asks about translation rates in NCTA’s online discussion group and, predictably, the debate about whether or not we are permitted to discuss rates in public resumes. This debate is healthy, and, more than that, necessary. Here, in an occasional series of opinion pieces on subjects of relevance to our association, NCTA member Chantal Wilford weighs in on the subject. Her views do not necessarily reflect those of Translorial, or NCTA. Cited documents relating to the Federal Trade Commission investigation and conclusions can be found at http://www.tipsfortranslators.com/ftc.asp.
A number of translators are unwilling to mention their rates in public or even participate in a general discussion of translation rates. This reticence stems from a presumed fear of the Federal Trade Commission, which once investigated the ATA for providing rate guidelines. The issue involved in that case was alleged price fixing at the association level, which is indeed illegal.
But what of a simple mention of rates in answer to someone’s legitimate question? This, in my view, is clearly a separate matter. Some communication on the subject is important. How else are translators to advertise our services? How can clients know if they are paying a fair price … or not? How can newcomers to the profession have any idea of what reasonable rates for translation are? And how to value their own services against them? Nonetheless, some translators fear that if they mention their rates in public, they may be found in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.
What are antitrust laws?
Antitrust laws protect trade and commerce from unlawful restraints, price fixing, and monopolies. In the eyes of the law, freelancers are independent businesses that are in competition with each other. We may not collude to fix prices to customers or collectively bargain for higher pay. In the past, groups of independent professionals have adopted anti-competitive practices through their trade associations. Indeed, The Chronicle of April 1990 published the State Department Schedule of Rates for translation: $80 per 1,000 words for general material, $86 for semi-technical material, and $92 for technical material. That was about the last time The Chronicle published rates, as the FTC started to take note shortly after that. Such publication of rate schedules could be seen as price fixing, which is in violation of antitrust laws.
What constitutes price fixing?
Price fixing is the cooperative setting of price levels or range by competing firms, which would otherwise be set by natural market forces. So in the most extreme case, if we competitors all agree to sell our services at a specified price, and we receive profits from such an agreement, we could be found in violation of price fixing laws.
The ATA voluntarily adopted antitrust policies and included the following wording in its Procedures Relating to Gathering and Publishing Information on Rates, which was approved by the ATA Board of Directors on March 24, 1990:
“Members should be encouraged to take seriously the antitrust risks of rate discussions and the risks of other actions that might be seen to encourage rate fixing. For example, distributions by members to other members of comments/observations/suggestions on rate issues present a risk of antitrust violation. Members should recognize that because of antitrust laws, the subject of translation rates is one issue that simply should not be discussed among members of ATA.”
The ATA’s rates guidelines program thus ceased and a strict policy of neutrality and objectivity in matters pertaining to rates was initiated, mere months before the FTC began its investigation in December 1990. The 3½-year investigation closed in 1994, primarily because the ATA had “adopted an unequivocal policy never to resume such [alleged price fixing] activities.” The inquiry cost the ATA around $250,000 in legal fees alone.
Understandably, it seems some people have interpreted these events to mean that under no circumstances should translators be allowed to mention their rates, except presumably to their own clients. Indeed, I believe the FTC investigation (which was neither a lawsuit nor an indictment) has made people overly cautious and very quick to try to silence those who dare question the issue.
The ATA is not the only translators’ association to draw scrutiny from the FTC. The FTC found that the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) had violated US antitrust laws in 1997 by engaging in a “comprehensive scheme to eliminate price competition in virtually all aspects of conference interpreting.” However, some translators’ associations in other countries issue rate guidelines every year. In today’s translation market, where jobs are sent around the globe at the click of a mouse to take advantage of price differences, time differences and other factors, we need to be aware of these and other factors that contribute to the range of translation rates—and ultimately to our own bottom line.
So what can we discuss?
I believe there is a significant difference between mentioning rates and fixing prices. We are, after all, free to advertise our rates wherever we choose, whether it be on our websites, in our email signatures, or in ads we may take out in Translorial—or, of course, in The Chronicle. I therefore do not see any wrong in telling colleagues about my rates when I’m asked. I do not advocate that everyone charge similarly to me, only that they try to charge what they need to charge to make their business profitable, taking into account all their business and living expenses.
I openly advertise my rates on my website. These are based on my own personal circumstances, specialization, and language combinations and vary according to a number of project-specific factors. So for me, there is no “standard” rate even within my own language combinations. At best, I have an average rate. In my opinion, what you charge should be what the market can bear and what you feel your time and work are worth. As for what you earn, that depends entirely on your own circumstances and motivations. That, I can understand, is nobody’s business.
Sep 1st, 2004 | Agencies, Business | No Comments
By Catherine Theilen Burke
Translators are hired based on their knowledge and mastery of language. Part of NCTA’s mission is to provide information and professional development opportunities for translators. The following article reviews how ISO 9001 standards affect translators, and how translators can position themselves to offer their services to agencies having received ISO 9001 certification.
The ISO 9001 standards originally represented the efforts of 148 countries to agree to norms in regards to the production and manufacture of technical products. Although translation is regarded as a service, a process of certification has nevertheless been developed and implemented to verify the integrity of an agency’s internal processes, thereby allowing clients of ISO 9001-certified companies to enjoy an increased level of confidence in the services—high-quality, accurate translations—they obtain.
The ISO 9001 standards are updated from the ISO 9000 standards to reflect a more modern understanding of quality and current business practices. These new standards differ from the originals in several important ways. First, the role of the client in the relationship is expanded, incorporating from the very beginning the client’s needs and wishes. Communication is emphasized between agency administration and personnel. Staff training is a critical component; everyone must have access to information. And all steps of a project—and the people handling each step—are accessible.
ISO 9001 also requires an agency to have implemented sophisticated, accessible project management software systems that include all relevant information about a translator, such as technical expertise and area specialties. In addition, a business with 9001 certification must also demonstrate ongoing progress toward process improvement through feedback from staff, clients, and vendors.
For translators, ISO 9001 mandates a formal hiring process that includes such steps as applications, tests, and reviews. An agency must change from a subjective model of intuition to an objective list of requirements. The translator becomes a vendor, whose work is now one step in a series of procedures toward the end product of a quality translation. A file for each translator is established by the agency, containing documentation of that individual’s credentials and qualifications—data that ISO 9001 inspectors would verify during the agency certification process.
It is important to note that ISO certification is not just a stamp of approval; by encouraging agencies to comply with established best business practices, the process is designed to help organizations improve productivity and efficiency, which in turn results in a host of benefits including lowered costs (work doesn’t have to be redone as frequently) and therefore higher profits, access to new markets, and, ultimately, attractiveness to customers—some of whom are even beginning to request certification.
The process of certification for an agency is not without cost, however, in terms of both time and money. The application process is very elaborate, and involves literally adding a bureaucratic layer to an organization, including dedicated staff to manage all administrative matters pertaining to the application process, to audit and review all procedures for developing products, and to create all systems of review. This represents a substantial investment in personnel and resources for a small agency.
What’s more, any insufficiencies revealed in the audit must be corrected before the application can go to the next step in the process of certification. For example, the editing process is described in detail: Who is responsible? At what level? How is fact checking, proofreading, and formatting performed? How is each step reviewed and checked?
Because of some or all of these considerations, not all translation agencies believe certification is worth the investment involved, including those agencies that know they produce quality translations with their current systems and processes, and have excellent reputations. What’s more, fear of revealing practices that required large investments over the course of time can also deter some organizations from seeking certification; these agencies tend to regard their work methods as proprietary, and require anyone working at the agency to sign a confidentiality agreement to not disclose the systems and processes used.
For agencies, the need for certification is still an open question: a balance of the investment vs. the marketing opportunity that the endorsement implies. For freelance translators marketing themselves to ISO-certified agencies, an understanding of the standards and requirements can be useful, in terms of a knowledge of the process and a willingness to be tested. And once a translator has worked for such agencies, satisfactory performance may be used as an endorsement in applications to other agencies.
ISO certification is an annual process, so translators can be assured that the agency has made a commitment of striving to meet high quality control standards. The agency will have in place methods of reviewing work, a designated editing process, and opportunity for feedback—all of which is always a good sign for a translator.
For further reading:
http//www.iso.org — The official website of the ISO.
http//www.the 9001store/intro-to-ISO-9001 & http//www.isoeasy.org — Commercial websites selling products that aid in understanding the standards.
Sep 1st, 2003 | Business, Interviews, Localization, NCTA Members | No Comments
By Andrea Bindereif
At the May 2003 general meeting, Anna Schlegel, Global Content Manager at Xerox and long-time member of NCTA, presented a Q&A session about the localization market for translators. Originally from Spain, Anna had made the exciting transition from freelance translator to in-house translator and then project manager during the boom years, in the mid- and late 1990s. She has worked for some of the biggest companies in the industry, such as Cisco Systems and Xerox, and has experienced the transformation of the translation field firsthand. We captured Anna’s view of the localization industry in an interview.
TL: Anna, tell me a little bit about yourself. Where are you from, when and why did you come to the US, and how did you start as a translator in this country?
AS: I am Catalán. I come from a little beautiful village called Olot, at the foot of the Pyrenees, not far from Perpignan. I came to the States in 1992, and I had already started my own little translation business in my head flying over in the plane, thinking what I would do in this country if I were not accepted into an MBA Program.
TL: How was the translation industry when you started working here? And how was it in Spain back then?
AS: When I started here in the States I had WordPerfect, there were no translation tools, and I was already being paid 11 cents a word. Localization and Globalization were really scary words to me at that time, but I already wanted to learn more about them.
In Spain, I had worked at a software engineering firm, translating manuals into English, and I was being paid the equivalent of $5 an hour. That was in 1990. That was also my fifth year of studies in German philology, and I needed the cash to survive in Barcelona. Then I came to the States. To get by, I also had to teach English and German. I didn’t know how to get into the translation market back then.
TL: How did you make the transition from freelance to in-house translator at one of the biggest tech companies?
AS: I got a phone call one day from a desperate HR employee at Cisco saying, “We hear you are good, can you start tomorrow?” The next day I got an anxiety attack, but I started anyway. It was awful. I was sitting in a conference room with all these corporate folks with paradigms, visions and objectives, Q1s and levels of effort, suits and PowerPoints full of acronyms. I thought I would die.
I found out later that a Silicon Graphics employee for whom I had done telephony translations had recommended me for the position. He was Andreas Ramos. I will always remember his name, and I don’t know if I would ever have worked in these powerhouses otherwise.
TL: How important was translation work for high-tech companies in the 1990s, and how much respect did translators enjoy?
AS: The work was very well paid, we were already able to telecommute, and we learned TRADOS and other tools. It was fun, but also scary because we were just translators trying to navigate the bureaucracy in these really big corporations.
TL: How has your own role as an inhouse translator for high-tech companies changed over the years?
AS: I started as an in-house translator and was promoted several times in the course of three years. Those were the good old days… I went from consultant to in-house translator to project manager to program manager II to leading a small team. And now to leading the globalization effort for a bigger operation of 28 websites.
TL: Can you tell us a bit about the development of software localization and globalization?
AS: It is key to be part of the very first stages of whatever software application you’re working on, and you need to raise your concerns right at the requirements phase. You want to follow its development all the way until implementation. Some companies, or should I say groups, are better than others in engaging the global folks at the outset of software development. Globalization really happens through education of software developers and close collaboration with your stakeholders.
Also, you need to find the kinds of people who can bridge technology and the business side of why you need a global tool. Communication and being at the same level is key.
TL: Do you remember the early translation tools, and can you tell us how they’ve developed over the past few years?
AS: I remember working with TRADOS. I still own it, but I rarely use it anymore; I am more on the management side of globalization now. Our current vendor is moving away from creating an internal tool and going back to TRADOS.
I am still surprised to see all these companies spending humongous amounts of money trying to create tools that don’t integrate well.
TL: What is required from a translator today in comparison to the mid-1990s? What is a typical profile of a translator specializing in localization?
AS: I don’t think that much has changed for the profession in itself, other than the tools we use are better and computers are faster. What has changed in the newer versions of translation memory programs is that nowadays we have better tools to freeze tags. I can remember destroying all kinds of code…
I’d say that a typical profile would describe someone who uses computer-assisted translation tools, understands the business he/she is working for, asks about terminology, has a good relationship with the project managers. And is someone who understands what the project entails, who needs to know what not to touch in a translation, who knows about HTML, XML, or whatever format is needed. Although now we do have good file processing that can freeze code.
TL: What does a typical workday look like for you?
AS: As a Global Content Manager at Xerox, I am in meetings all day with translation project managers, web managers and my senior managers, trying to coordinate 28 countries. I am on the phone with South Africa, India, France, Egypt, Brazil - you name it. We brainstorm about what countries need to have, content-wise, to make their business successful. Most projects start in the US, then we follow up for other regions.
TL: How important is knowledge of translation tools for a translator today? And what is a good way of learning to use CAT tools?
AS: To those not familiar with translation tools, I would suggest downloading demos from TRADOS and IBM. I would start there. I think a translator who is here to stay in the profession and wants to go into localization needs those kinds of tools.
I am not talking here about translating resumes or fliers or business cards. I don’t think you have to have CAT tools for those, but it definitely helps on those bigger projects.
TL: What would you recommend to a translator to stay competitive in the field?
AS: Market yourself, get ATA-accredited, put yourself out there even if it is scary. And take those jobs that scare you; you can always take a partner in crime. Learn by doing, write to corporations, or take tests with translation firms that are looking for freelancers.
Keep evolving with whatever is needed.
TL: Where do you see translation five and ten years from now?
AS: More and more, US corporations are leaving globalization up to the foreign countries. I see less being paid from the US and more being relegated to other countries: it is up to them if they want something translated. That is where things are heading, to my mind. This is a tough business. Budgets are tight, and things get translated only if they will bring in money and are key to the success of the business. I also see less centralization. Globalization customers within the corporation are not forced to use a particular vendor or another corporate unit; it is preferred, but not mandated, in most of the corporations I know. This hurts the business, in my opinion. I am for a centralized approach, if it is well leveraged and well run.
TL: Thank you for talking with us, Anna.
May 1st, 2000 | Business | No Comments
NCTA director Essam Elmahgoop has received the following letter from Richard Paegelow of Inline Translation Services in Glendale. Thanks, Richard. - ed.
”I am writing as a member of NCTA about an issue that was quite hot two years ago: the EDD’s infamous rules on who is and who is not an independent contractor in our industry. I worked with Nassey [Pourfathi] of Atlas Interpreters and other corporate members of NCTA on this issue and helped to finance and develop a model contract (which was totally misunderstood by many members of NCTA, as you probably know). This issue really never went away…
”During the past two years I have become involved in the San Fernando Chamber of Commerce as a board member and co-chair of the government affairs committee. Much to my surprise and pleasure, I have found that the independent contractor status determination issue is one that involves small business all over the state. In fact, there is now a bill in the State Assembly (AB 2737) that would help solve some of the problems of our industry. Two very useful web sites are www.calchamber.com and the State of California web site (see links on the calchamber web page), where you can get copies of the bill and status updates.
If there is still interest in this issue in the NCTA, I would hope that you, your committee, and/or the board could write their local representatives in the State Assembly. In the meantime, I have written my local reps and hope to have the government affairs committee of the San Fernando Chamber take a position and do the same. Attached is a copy of my letter which you are free to use as a model letter or a draft letter for interested parties.” - Richard S. Paegelow
April 15, 2000
Mr. Jack Scott
State Assemblyman, 44th District
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assemblyman Scott:
I am writing to strongly encourage your support of legislation such as Assembly Bill 2737 introduced by Bob Margett and Jim Cunneen. This bill will help resolve a major problem facing many small businesses which encounter different and conflicting rules on determining who is an independent contractor. While this legislation does not change the classification of any worker, it will force the EDD to follow more closely the well-known IRS twenty-factor test for independent contractor status determination.
From personal experience, I know that the EDD promulgates rules which vary significantly from the IRS guidelines. In our industry - language translation and interpretation - the EDD has ruled that if a translation company pays its contractors before we get paid by our clients, that is evidence of an employee/employer relationship rather than one of independent business contracting for services. This EDD ruling even defies common sense! We have always paid our contracted translators very quickly and independently of when we get paid by our clients. Quite reasonably, our contracted translators have refused to sign contracts which follow the EDD’s guideline on this issue. As a consequence, we now send written translations outside the State of California or abroad whenever possible, even though there are many highly qualified translators in California working as independent businesses.
You support of AB 2737, and any other legislation which forces state agencies to conform to the IRS guidelines for independent contractor status determination, will be most welcome by small business throughout the state.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Richard S. Paegelow
Managing Director
Inline Translation Services
