A Pragmatic Eye

(I surely have to include the occasional Wodehouse reference in here, too…?)

Another great post in Miguel Llorens’s blog. My jaw did indeed slow hang lower and lower as I read first that they thought they deserved some credit because they pay people, and second that the 5% cut is somehow justified by the allegedly excellent (but unquantified) productivity gains brought about by the TW. I note the use of another weasel word in that section, namely “share”.

However, I would like to raise an eyebrow, speaking as one of those he mentions who maintains Lionbridge have the right under a free market to attempt to impose such a cut (subject to contractual procedures being observed), as regards the description of their action as “feudalism”. In microcosm, perhaps, if you interpret their actions as a misguided assumption that freelancers are beholden to them and no other. But not in any wider sense.

We are not vassals, tied to the land and the landowner, with no choice but to accept what scraps the aristocracy throw our way. We don’t need to actually revolt. We have choices. I suggest we (by which I mean those involved with Liox – I am not, in fact, in that unfortunate number) exercise them, and if enough of us do so, then that serves the purpose of a revolt, again in microcosm, and Lionbridge’s fiefdom would, unless they changed their approach, go the way of the fiefdoms of history.

And that is probably enough posts about Lionbridge for now.

Update Fri 12th Nov: Seems Miguel Llorens might be letting the adulation get to his head. Hurling around even minor vulgarities just sounds like someone trying to be both big and clever. Either that or, as others have pointed out, mysteriously angry. Notwithstanding my agreement with the underlying argument, it’s all getting a bit tired and repetitive now, and points are being confused. Llorens’s first three points are effectively the same. Clearly (to me!) Walsh’s point about software companies asking for 10% was to point out other industries are worse (not, however, that two wrongs make a right, it just means two industries have players behaving badly). The simple response to Walsh asking why Q2 figures were used is that they were the latest available at the time. And so on. I’m not sure simple abuse, which is all point eight is, is the way to continue the nascent debate. I can only deduce that is not the plan.
I suppose I ought to post some of this there, not diss the geezer behind his back 🙂

Update 2: Fri 19 Nov: (Probably frightfully bad form to add stuff in this way – wouldn’t do it if there were comments, honest) Interesting, I was not the only one to be a little critical of Miguel Llorens’ last Liox-related effort. My post to his blog, as replicated (in part) above was far from the only one criticising his tone and language.  The trend continued on Sat & Sun. Miguel, previously a frequent responder to those who comment on his blog, was mysteriously silent and offered no justification, explanation, nothing. On Monday 15 Nov, the blog had vanished. By Tues 16th parts had re-appeared here. Needless to say, the comments did not follow, and still have not.