| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Agency changes payment terms (30->60 days) Thread poster: Niels Stephan
|
|---|
kimjasper 
Denmark
Local time: 04:53
Member (2006)
English to Danish
+ ...
PCovs wrote:
It does say right here:
'All these matters gave reason for the EU Commission to interfere with Directive 2000/35,
which envisages that purchasers are required to pay their suppliers within a month of the
receipt of the goods. In fact, according to the directive, payments must be made:
- 30 days after the date that the debtor received the invoice, or a similar valid request for
payment.'
"Envisage" does not mean "require".
I think your source is quoting out of context, and it looks to me as if this isolated quote distorts the content. Here is the full segment of this quote in the directive. The sentence in your quote seems to only describe the default if other terms are not agreed:
===
(b) if the date or period for payment is not fixed in the contract, interest shall become payable automatically without the necessity of a reminder:
(i) 30 days following the date of receipt by the debtor of the invoice or an equivalent request for payment; or
(ii) if the date of the receipt of the invoice or the equivalent request for payment is uncertain, 30 days after the date of receipt of the goods or services; or
(iii) if the debtor receives the invoice or the equivalent request for payment earlier than the goods or the services, 30 days after the receipt of the goods or services; or
===
Here is a direct link to the directive:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0035:EN:HTML
| | | | pcovs
Denmark
Local time: 04:53
English to Danish
| I do have the text | Apr 14, 2010 |
And to me, alle these sentences say that late payment charges can be imposed without sending a reminder after 30 days from receipt of an invoice, or - in the absence of an invoice - 30 days from receipt of the goods, so I don't really see where the payment terms are not fixed to a maximum of 30 days?
Below a quote from the actual document:
'1. Member States shall ensure that:
(a) interest in accordance with point (d) shall become payable from the day follow... See more And to me, alle these sentences say that late payment charges can be imposed without sending a reminder after 30 days from receipt of an invoice, or - in the absence of an invoice - 30 days from receipt of the goods, so I don't really see where the payment terms are not fixed to a maximum of 30 days?
Below a quote from the actual document:
'1. Member States shall ensure that:
(a) interest in accordance with point (d) shall become payable from the day following the date or the end of the period for payment fixed in the contract;
(b) if the date or period for payment is not fixed in the contract, interest shall become payable automatically without the necessity of a reminder:
(i) 30 days following the date of receipt by the debtor of the invoice or an equivalent request for payment; or
(ii) if the date of the receipt of the invoice or the equivalent request for payment is uncertain, 30 days after the date of receipt of the goods or services; or
(iii) if the debtor receives the invoice or the equivalent request for payment earlier than the goods or the services, 30 days after the receipt of the goods or services; or...'
I guess we are reading this in two different ways.
I understand the freedom to agree on other payment terms as the freedom to agree on shorter payment terms, because the 30 days payment term IS actually stated as the standard within the EU, although I can think of one particular country which has completely failed to understand this
But okay, I guess you could say that there is no specific law saying that it MUST be so if that's what you're after.
But then I guess that in case you don't sign af contract with the client where the client states payment terms, then the above rules do apply with the 30 days net terms, so there's a workaround ▲ Collapse
| | | | kimjasper
Denmark
Local time: 04:53
Member (2006)
English to Danish
+ ...
(i), (ii) and (iii) are evidently sub clauses to (b), so I still do not see anywhere that max 30 days payment terms are required.
Also, this would not make it necessary to discuss a new directive covering exactly that. Here is a recent link fro... See more (i), (ii) and (iii) are evidently sub clauses to (b), so I still do not see anywhere that max 30 days payment terms are required.
Also, this would not make it necessary to discuss a new directive covering exactly that. Here is a recent link from the local Danish debate (in Danish):
http://www.erhvervsbladet.dk/erhvervsklima/eu-vil-saette-en-stopper-lange-kreditter ▲ Collapse
| | | | Babelworth
Congo, Democratic Republic
Local time: 03:53
English to French
| Hard decision | Apr 14, 2010 |
Hello,
I am/was working for them too. I tried to negotiate:
1) One of their clauses said linguists had to pay if ever client claimed a refund due to poor quality. I wanted this clause removed because I assume my liability stops with agency, not their client. In case they didn’t want to remove this clause, I suggested they determine amount (%) to be paid in such case so that I don’t sign for an amount I can’t control. Their reply – NON NEGOCIABLE
2) They said there is a... See more Hello,
I am/was working for them too. I tried to negotiate:
1) One of their clauses said linguists had to pay if ever client claimed a refund due to poor quality. I wanted this clause removed because I assume my liability stops with agency, not their client. In case they didn’t want to remove this clause, I suggested they determine amount (%) to be paid in such case so that I don’t sign for an amount I can’t control. Their reply – NON NEGOCIABLE
2) They said there is a late delivery penalty, I agreed but I suggested they add a “late payment penalty” that they’d pay me… Reply – NON NEGOCIABLE
3) Payment terms, I told them I understood they are facing financial problems, I suggested they keep paying me on a 30 days payment term but for any clients paying them late, I’d accept also late payment assuming they sent me a notification. Reply – NON NEGOCIABLE
It is a very good agency and I enjoyed really working with them, but I suggested they inactivate my account after they have paid all my invoices. Am awaiting for their reply…
[Edited at 2010-04-14 09:54 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| That poor, poor agency. | Apr 14, 2010 |
Cristina Heraud-van Tol wrote:
The company is doing this to save itself. Probably many of its direct clients do pay within 30 days or less, so they could send you the money by that time.
..but then, they won't do that even if they could, will they?
However, a few of their clients (their number could be increasing) are not very punctual, they can take up to 10-20 extra days in paying, and if you consider that the company probably hires many other translators besides you (and has to pay other personnel and services), then they have to take out of their pockets huge amounts of money to pay on time due to their previous 30-day-payment policy. This of course, is a problem for the company and its accounting department
Awwwwww.
So if you don't give in to this payment deadline extension, you clearly have no heart at all.
| | | | Williamson
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:53
Flemish to English
+ ...
Do you mean Italians interpret the guideline as payment after 60 days?
Whatever laws, some deep-rooted habits are hard to change.
--
In summary, even if some MEPs lobby to twist the Commission proposal from 30 into 60 days as is mentioned in the Danish text, you are still the entrepreneur.
Like the two examples mentioned above, it is up to you to decide your payment terms and act accordingly. Your suppliers are no charity institutions, you are not a charity institution ... See more Do you mean Italians interpret the guideline as payment after 60 days?
Whatever laws, some deep-rooted habits are hard to change.
--
In summary, even if some MEPs lobby to twist the Commission proposal from 30 into 60 days as is mentioned in the Danish text, you are still the entrepreneur.
Like the two examples mentioned above, it is up to you to decide your payment terms and act accordingly. Your suppliers are no charity institutions, you are not a charity institution and the agency is not a charity institution, but makes a living on the margin they get from translators (and late payments) to start and to grow.
Business is not about "love" or "compassion", but about figures. If the figures are not correct, there is a "crisis".
Non-negotiable equals "No, I won't work for you. Bye".
[Edited at 2010-04-14 09:41 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Having a heart is a mutual thing | Apr 14, 2010 |
tectranslate wrote:
So if you don't give in to this payment deadline extension, you clearly have no heart at all.
It depends on how they treated you before, i.e. if they had a heart when they had money too.
One client, after many years of faultless payments on the dot, who never quibbled about my rates, once went through hard times. I told them that I would gladly go on serving them; while I wouldn't be able to give them the usual priority, I'd give them the shortest non-urgent turnaround possible, and let them pay me when and if they could. Now and then it took more than 60 days, but they never failed.
Another one who always negotiated hard to trick me into doing more work and getting less money, and never bothered to pay me before the third or fourth notice, was suggested to find another vendor; I would be always too busy to meet their deadlines.
| | | | | Policy vs. making an exception now and again | Apr 14, 2010 |
You're absolutely right, José. There's nothing wrong with asking a business partner with whom you've got a trustful relationship to give you a break occasionally.
But as a default business practice or policy, it's simply unsustainable. Or if it is in fact sustainable, then that is only due to the gullibility and lack of self-appreciation that characterizes some (many?)... See more You're absolutely right, José. There's nothing wrong with asking a business partner with whom you've got a trustful relationship to give you a break occasionally.
But as a default business practice or policy, it's simply unsustainable. Or if it is in fact sustainable, then that is only due to the gullibility and lack of self-appreciation that characterizes some (many?) freelance translators.
Just my two cents. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
RobinB
United States
Local time: 21:53
German to English
| Just to clarify | Apr 14, 2010 |
PCovs wrote:I understand the freedom to agree on other payment terms as the freedom to agree on shorter payment terms
No, it can be longer, too.
because the 30 days payment term IS actually stated as the standard within the EU, although I can think of one particular country which has completely failed to understand this
No, it is the standard payment term for the purposes of the directive, no more than that.
If another payment term is agreed by the parties, it takes precedence over the provisions of the directive, as transposed into national law. In other words, if the parties agree on payment at 60 days, the statutory provisions only kick in after 60 days - provided, of course, that the parties have not explicitly opted out of the statutory provisions governing interest on late payments.
It really has to be emphasized that the directive merely addresses the issue of interest on late payments, and does not lay down any form of statutory maximum payment terms. I'm astonished at the frequency with which this directive is misinterpreted on ProZ (but OTOH, maybe I shouldn't be...)
| | | | pcovs
Denmark
Local time: 04:53
English to Danish
| You misunderstand | Apr 14, 2010 |
RobinB wrote: PCovs wrote:I understand the freedom to agree on other payment terms as the freedom to agree on shorter payment terms No, it can be longer, too.
Yes, I see that, okay.
because the 30 days payment term IS actually stated as the standard within the EU, although I can think of one particular country which has completely failed to understand this No, it is the standard payment term for the purposes of the directive, no more than that.
I don't mean in this text or any other legal text. I mean that EU has stated that the standard would be 30 days.
Also, last year an addendum was made to the late payments directive imposing 30 days payment terms on public bodies and the like, so it is actually the working standard for EU if not in any directive.
- provided, of course, that the parties have not explicitly opted out of the statutory provisions governing interest on late payments.
Where does it say that the parties can opt out of these regulations altogether??
This is ridiculous
[Edited at 2010-04-14 20:43 GMT]
[Edited at 2010-04-14 20:44 GMT]
| | | |
Williamson wrote:
Ben, could you post link to the law with regard to payments in B2B in the US. If somebody knows a link in Canada to such law, please post it.
It varies by state, but in general payments in the US are regulated by U.S. Code Title 31, Subtitle III, Chapter 39, § 3903
See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/usc_sec_31_00003903----000-.html
It provides 2 options globally. They are:
(A) the date payment is due under the contract for the item of property or service provided; or
(B) 30 days after a proper invoice for the amount due is received if a specific payment date is not established by contract;
It also micro-processes payment schedules depending on the product or service. If you're selling meat, for example, you are required by law to pay within SEVEN days.
So, all I've got to say is: KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!
You can ALWAYS slap these directives in any client's face looking for extended payment terms, and they will always go red. They bank on you not knowing what the law provides. The moment you agree to that extended pay period, however, you are granting them undue credit and giving free financing. Sometimes it's OK if you are busy and have regular payments coming in. But that should only be a 1 time thing. This is why I say to compensate for it by doubling your rates. They'd be much happier to agree to 30 days and then possibly pay 30 days worth of interest for a late payment if they reeeeeeeeally want to extend the pay. But by that time, they're already paying with fire, as you would already have a legal right to sue or send collectors after them or do whatever the law claims as being reasonable pursuit of your money. So, don't let these agencies push you around. All business is negotiable. Period.
[Edited at 2010-04-15 00:40 GMT]
| | | | Williamson
United Kingdom
Local time: 03:53
Flemish to English
+ ...
PCovs wrote: RobinB wrote: PCovs wrote:I understand the freedom to agree on other payment terms as the freedom to agree on shorter payment terms No, it can be longer, too. Yes, I see that, okay. because the 30 days payment term IS actually stated as the standard within the EU, although I can think of one particular country which has completely failed to understand this No, it is the standard payment term for the purposes of the directive, no more than that. I don't mean in this text or any other legal text. I mean that EU has stated that the standard would be 30 days. Also, last year an addendum was made to the late payments directive imposing 30 days payment terms on public bodies and the like, so it is actually the working standard for EU if not in any directive. - provided, of course, that the parties have not explicitly opted out of the statutory provisions governing interest on late payments. Where does it say that the parties can opt out of these regulations altogether?? This is ridiculous [Edited at 2010-04-14 20:43 GMT] [Edited at 2010-04-14 20:44 GMT]
Parties can also agree to pay after 7 days, 14 days, 30 days, ....
Why does my caterer wants to be paid 7 days after receipt of invoice?
Please quote the opt out clause of these regulations. I thought that E.U.-law (supranational law) has to be implemented into national law of the Member-States, which has been the case with this guide-line and as far as I remember you can not "opt out" of a law. Where in the guide-line is this opt-out clause and where is it to be found in German law?
| | |
|
|
|
RobinB
United States
Local time: 21:53
German to English
| General legal principle | Apr 15, 2010 |
PCovs wrote:Where does it say that the parties can opt out of these regulations altogether??
It is a general principle in law that two parties to an agreement can agree not to apply specific statutory provisions, provided that what is entered into is in itself not illegal and not immoral, it is not entered into under duress, and that a fair balance is maintained between the legitimate interests of the parties to the agreement.
In the case at hand, for instance, it is perfectly possible for the parties to agree that payment will be made after 60 days, but that any late-payment interest will only be payable after 120 days. In such a case, however, it would be reasonable to expect the interest payable to be materially higher than would be the case after 60 days, e.g. Euribor + 10% rather than Euribor + 3%.
On a general note, though, I really don't understand all the fuss about this Big Agency changing its payment terms to 60 days. If their freelance translators were to collectively turn round and tell them "No way", the agency would back-track on this unilateral change in the payment terms very quickly, I'm sure.
This agency's freelance translators have a lot more power than they evidently assume they have. I'm convinced it would do them and the industry a lot of good if they were actually to exercise that power, rather than rolling over on their backs and allowing themselves to be abused in this way. Again.
This agency needs the freelances much, much more than the freelances need the agency: demand actually outstrips supply in the translation industry. Are they going to wake up to that fact? Or will they just carry on accepting ever more disadvantageous conditions being imposed on them, and then complaining about it, time after time, on forums and bulletin boards?
| | | | Niels Stephan
Germany
Local time: 04:53
Member (2009)
English to German
TOPIC STARTER | Which collective? | Apr 15, 2010 |
RobinB wrote:
On a general note, though, I really don't understand all the fuss about this Big Agency changing its payment terms to 60 days. If their freelance translators were to collectively turn round and tell them "No way", the agency would back-track on this unilateral change in the payment terms very quickly, I'm sure.
Honestly I am happy to see the discussion returning to the initial topic.
I totally agree with you here, the important point however is the collectively. There is no collective of freelancers, everybody is talking to them on their own.
I was wondering why nobody discussed that publicly so far, trying to do exactly that, collect opinions and create a collective response. As long as everybody thinks "if I say no and everybody else says yes, the only thing that happens is me losing a client", they win. In the end everybody has to know their own boundaries and how far they are willing to go, but it is good to hear other people's opinions, especially as the discussion and some private mails made it clear that there are far worse things in the change than the change in payment terms, which to me seemed bad enough on its own.
| | | | Laurent KRAULAND (X)
France
Local time: 04:53
French to German
+ ...
| Will this one do for starters? | Apr 15, 2010 |
Niels Stephan wrote: RobinB wrote:
On a general note, though, I really don't understand all the fuss about this Big Agency changing its payment terms to 60 days. If their freelance translators were to collectively turn round and tell them "No way", the agency would back-track on this unilateral change in the payment terms very quickly, I'm sure.
Honestly I am happy to see the discussion returning to the initial topic. I totally agree with you here, the important point however is the collectively. There is no collective of freelancers, everybody is talking to them on their own.
http://www.proz.com/forum/business_issues/162544-new_theory_about_some_of_those_rates.html
Of course, it is not an organised collective in the sense of a "trade union" or "international and professional association", but there are other places in which the awareness for the need of simply saying "No" to abuse is growing by the day, be it about rates, payment deadlines, turnaround times, mandatory uses of X or Y CAT tool and more.
And what do you say about the emergence of suggestions related to new translation business models, such as the one described here? http://ow.ly/1rw8S
[Edited at 2010-04-15 08:36 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Agency changes payment terms (30->60 days) | 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! » |
| | 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
