Is transparency a requirement for agency rate policies?

Annie Sapucaia wrote:



I believe BB is solely about paying on time as promised, but if you go to Payment Practices, you can write comments about your interaction with the agency, and that might make more sense in this case, as yes, getting paid on time is definitely NOT the only consideration I would make when working with an agency.

I would let this agency go - I certainly would not lower my rates. Whatever their issue is, they do have a right to stop giving you work, just as you have a right to stop working with them (I agree, the lack of transparency is infuriating, but the only solution to this is to dump them if you can't handle how they operate). And do you really want work from these people if they asked you to halve your rate after ten years of working with them?? If I accepted that, I'd just be resentful every time I did a job, and that's not a great way to feel running your own business.

Tom in London wrote:

I presume that's because the other translators are just as good as me, but cheaper

Michael Newton wrote:
Blacklisting can be a two-way street.

Mervyn Henderson wrote:

They keep an eye on invoice number sequences, too. Say you issued your monthly invoice to them as number 123, and then maybe 127, then 134 ... this tells them you still have other customers....

Mervyn Henderson wrote:


They keep an eye on invoice number sequences, too. Say you issued your monthly invoice to them as number 123, and then maybe 127, then 134 ... this tells them you still have other customers, whereupon they up the workload until they see the invoice numbers getting closer together, showing that you are working less and less with others. When suddenly you're issuing number 212, then 214, then 216, then 217, then 218, more or less consecutive over a prolonged period, they know the translator has been ditching others for them and is now vulnerable. And then they start using the other cheaper translators. After a few months, having burnt quite a few boats with other customers, the translator may come begging.

Michael Newton wrote:
Framing such behaviour as normal or reasonable simply because the perpetrator is a freelancer rather than an agency is wrong.

you cannot insist that others behave in a way that you find congenial.

The Misha wrote:

But what about vile buggers like yours truly here who use a separate invoice sequence for each of his or her clients? Now, that would through a monkey wrench into that whole thing. Serves them schemers right, eh?:)))

Dan Lucas wrote:

I say that not because I want to have a pop at the original poster, for whom I have no little sympathy, but because some freelancers don't have a good grasp on what behaviour is acceptable and what is not. If you read the first post in this thread carefully and didn't wince at the way it all unfolds, you should probably reflect on what you think you know about how businesses (and indeed people) work.

Don't do things like this. Don't chase agencies relentlessly if they decide not to work with you. Don't argue with them when you haven't got a legal leg to stand on. If I were a PM at an agency I would never again deal with a freelancer who badgered me like this. If I were a PM at an agency and I came across this post on the ProZ.com forum, I would make a mental note to avoid this freelancer. I can't find anything constructive about this entire episode. Am I the only one who sees this?

Maybe the agency was rude, maybe not, but in commerce there will always be bruising encounters and experiences. Outside the strict confines of a contract - which doesn't seem to apply here - you cannot insist that others behave in a way that you find congenial. You cannot harass them into doing things the way you would like them to do things. That's the lesson here, along with the need to avoid dependency on one client.

Catherine Pawlick wrote:
I am sorry, Dan, if you feel that I was "harrassing" or "badgering" an agency when I sent one email (to various people but it was 1 message not 5 and not 10)

Dan Lucas wrote:

I swallow any residual chagrin, smile politely if a little frostily, then grit my teeth and get back to work. Move on. Move up. It's no easier for me than it is for you, but it's the path of least damage to everything but one's pride.

Dan

Dan Lucas wrote:

It sounds like they no longer want to work with you, so they're not responding. You're refusing to accept that and are demanding that they answer your questions. Just imagine what Blue Board would be like if not responding to inquiries or not working with freelancers became commonplace:

"I emailed Agency ABC with my CV, offering to work with them. They didn't respond. This is very unprofessional, so I gave them a 1 rating."

That kind of feedback wouldn't useful to me as a user of the Blue Board. It would make the whole thing unworkable.

I understand that you're unhappy, and that you feel hard done by, but you're potentially trying to penalise another business because they're not acting in accordance with your expectations outside the context of a transaction or an ongoing contract. You don't have the legal right to demand that they comply with your expectations of good behaviour, and while you might feel you have a moral right, the attempt to exercise that purported right clearly isn't helping you financially or emotionally. The world is full of disappointing clients. It's time to move on.

Michael's comments from earlier in the thread are spot on: "Please don't spend anymore of your valuable time on these reprobates. Look for new clients and don't put all your eggs in one basket."