Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Czechlist] restricted competetion

Expand Messages
  • Michael Grant
    ... That s an interesting point. I ve always understood those clauses to refer to direct assignments from the end client, not assignments from another agency
    Message 1 of 27 , Sep 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      >I think it should
      >also be limited to THAT project and THAT client. For example, a contract for
      >a Ford job should not prevent you from doing GM and Chrysler work from
      >another agency.

      That's an interesting point. I've always understood those clauses to
      refer to direct assignments from the end client, not assignments from
      another agency that happen to be for the same end client. After all,
      your agreement is with the agency in each case, not with Ford. I
      can't recall that any of the contracts I've seen would prohibit you
      from doing a Ford job for another agency (and certainly not GM or
      Chrysler jobs), but maybe I've misunderstood their intent all along.

      Michael

      --
      BLUE DANUBE international communication services
      The Central and East European Language Source!
      <http://www.bdanube.com>, <mailto:bdanube@...>
      Tel. (+1-512) 336-8911, Fax (+1-512) 336-8954
    • JPKIRCHNER@aol.com
      ... A couple years ago there was a massive corporate litigation job that was too big for one agency to handle, and there simply seemed not to be enough
      Message 2 of 27 , Sep 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        >>I think it should
        >>also be limited to THAT project and THAT client. For example, a contract for
        >>a Ford job should not prevent you from doing GM and Chrysler work from
        >>another agency.

        >That's an interesting point. I've always understood >those clauses to
        >refer to direct assignments from the end client, not assignments from
        >another agency that happen to be for the same end client. After all,
        >your agreement is with the agency in each case, not with Ford. I
        >can't recall that any of the contracts I've seen would prohibit you
        >from doing a Ford job for another agency (and certainly not GM or
        >Chrysler jobs), but maybe I've misunderstood their intent all along.

        A couple years ago there was a massive corporate litigation job that was too big for one agency to handle, and there simply seemed not to be enough competent Cz=>Eng translators in the world to handle it. Literally EVERYONE I KNEW who was literate in both languages had worked on it at one time or another. More than one agency seemed to be trying to attract the same translators over to their side to work on the job, and these fidelity contracts had to be introduced. That's the only such contract I've ever had.

        Jamie
      • Michael Grant
        ... I remember it well. I got in on it pretty late because it started around the time I was leaving Prague for the US, but it still brought in several thousand
        Message 3 of 27 , Sep 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          >A couple years ago there was a massive corporate litigation job that
          >was too big for one agency to handle, and there simply seemed not to
          >be enough competent Cz=>Eng translators in the world to handle it.
          >Literally EVERYONE I KNEW who was literate in both languages had
          >worked on it at one time or another. More than one agency seemed to
          >be trying to attract the same translators over to their side to work
          >on the job, and these fidelity contracts had to be introduced.
          >That's the only such contract I've ever had.

          I remember it well. I got in on it pretty late because it started
          around the time I was leaving Prague for the US, but it still brought
          in several thousand dollars' worth of work. Must have pretty much
          made the whole year for the folks who started earlier.
          But I don't think I'd ever agree to work for only one agency--too
          much like being an employee. I don't think I'd agree not to work for
          the same end client for different agencies either, since I'd hate to
          be cut off if the agency does something to screw up their
          relationship with the client.

          Michael

          --
          BLUE DANUBE international communication services
          The Central and East European Language Source!
          <http://www.bdanube.com>, <mailto:bdanube@...>
          Tel. (+1-512) 336-8911, Fax (+1-512) 336-8954
        • Jirka Bolech
          ... I wonder if more views will be posted. Jirka Bolech
          Message 4 of 27 , Sep 1, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Michael Grant wrote:

            > Two years is about the maximum I'd accept. Remember, that's two years
            > after you stop working for that agency.

            I wonder if more views will be posted.

            Jirka Bolech
          • JPKIRCHNER@aol.com
            ... Well, to me, if the agency messes up and loses the client, then that should mean out of the exclusivity agreement. Jamie
            Message 5 of 27 , Sep 1, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 9/1/00 3:28:47 PM, mgrant@... writes:

              >I don't think I'd agree not to work for
              >the same end client for different agencies either, since I'd hate to
              >be cut off if the agency does something to screw up their
              >relationship with the client.

              Well, to me, if the agency messes up and loses the client, then that should
              mean out of the exclusivity agreement.

              Jamie
            • Michael Grant
              ... Maybe it should. The thing is, you usually never know when you ve lost a client, you just don t hear from them again. Michael -- BLUE DANUBE
              Message 6 of 27 , Sep 1, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                >Well, to me, if the agency messes up and loses the client, then that should
                >mean out of the exclusivity agreement.

                Maybe it should. The thing is, you usually never know when you've
                "lost" a client, you just don't hear from them again.

                Michael

                --
                BLUE DANUBE international communication services
                The Central and East European Language Source!
                <http://www.bdanube.com>, <mailto:bdanube@...>
                Tel. (+1-512) 336-8911, Fax (+1-512) 336-8954
              • JPKIRCHNER@aol.com
                ... But on a very long project that some people may have cleared time for, some agencies will tell you that they have lost the project to someone else. This
                Message 7 of 27 , Sep 2, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 9/2/00 9:18:17 AM, mgrant@... writes:

                  >>Well, to me, if the agency messes up and loses the client, then that should
                  >>mean out of the exclusivity agreement.
                  >
                  >Maybe it should. The thing is, you usually never know when you've
                  >"lost" a client, you just don't hear from them again.

                  But on a very long project that some people may have cleared time for, some
                  agencies will tell you that they have lost the project to someone else. This
                  has happened to me before.

                  Jamie
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.