French term
France
Native in: English
temps de présence
As part of CDI (OPEN-ENDED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
)
"La période d’essai peut être rompue par l’employeur en respectant un délai de prévenance dont la durée varie selon le temps de présence dans la société du titulaire du présent contrat soit :"
| 4 +3 | time employed |
philgoddard
|
| 4 +1 | time worked |
Michael Grabczan-Grabowski
|
| 4 | length of service or period of service |
Eloise Taylor
|
| 4 | duration of the probationary period to date |
Chris Milne (X)
|
May 5, 2020 13:56: writeaway changed "Field" from "Law/Patents" to "Bus/Financial" , "Field (write-in)" from "OPEN-ENDED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT" to "in an OPEN-ENDED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT"
May 5, 2020 14:04: Jennifer White changed "Level" from "PRO" to "Non-PRO"
PRO (1): Daryo
Non-PRO (3): mchd, Rob Grayson, Jennifer White
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
United States
Six languages into flawless English
Native in: English
Works in: German to English, French to English, Spanish to English, and 4 more.
time employed
| agree |
Michael Grabczan-Grabowski
: Yes, that works.
2 hrs
|
| agree |
Tony M
3 hrs
|
| neutral |
Daryo
: calling someone who is on trial "employed" is mildly misleading (same as caling interns "employed") and technically not what is said in the ST. Whoever wrote this contract must have avoided any mention of "employment" for some damn good reason ...
18 hrs
|
|
I'm not interested in your opinions, and I'm not going to bother discussing them, just as you ignore everyone's responses to your constant barrage of disagrees.
|
|
| agree |
ph-b (X)
21 hrs
|
United Kingdom
MA, 4 years of translation experience
Native in: English (Variant: UK) 
Works in: French to English, English
length of service or period of service
Statutory minimum notice period are established according to the length of service, as follows:
- at least 2 weeks, for a period of service of more than 6 months but less than 1 year;
- at least 1 month, for a period of service of more than 12 months but less than 5 years;
- at least 2 months, for a period of service of more than 5 months but less than 10 years;
- at least 3 months, for a period of service of 10 years or more.
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/eplex/termmain.showCountry?p_lang=en...
For the purpose of calculating entitlement to sick pay the period of service shall be the period of continuous service from the date of appointment to the first day of absence.
The length of time paid is linked to your length of service.
| neutral |
Tony M
: Under circs. other than a trial period, this would be my preferred term; but in this specific context, it's not really applicable.
3 hrs
|
|
I see what you mean - this probably would be more relevant for a longer amount of time employed!
|
|
| neutral |
Daryo
: this person is on "période d’essai" - you would need some poetic licence to call that period a period of "service" and in the contract there is only a mention of pure "présence".
18 hrs
|
Canada
Affordable. High Quality. Native English
Native in: English (Variants: British, UK, South African, US, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand)
Works in: Spanish to English, French to English, Polish to English
time worked
You could translate the sentence like this:
The employer may end the probation period by giving notice, the duration of which will vary according to the amount of time worked in the company by the contracting party, namely:
or
The employer may end the probation period by giving notice, the duration of which will vary according to the amount of time the contracting party worked in the company, namely:
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 hrs (2020-05-05 18:03:37 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
@ Tony M
It's the word time that may make one think of hours, else "time" should be replaced with "days." "Days worked" would be readily understood, not so?
However, we can't be so sure that they are referring to days, as the text doesn't indicate what measure of time is used exactly. What is most likely is that they're counting days, but who knows, they could be desperately counting the hours until the employee's probation period is over. ;-)
| agree |
Yolanda Broad
6 mins
|
|
Thanks for the feedback, Yolanda.
|
|
| neutral |
Tony M
: I don't really think this is ideal, as ambiguous: we're not really talking about how many hours they might have worked, but how many days they have been employed by the company. 'time worked' usually relates to an hour basis
53 mins
|
|
I see where you're coming from, but if somebody were to ask you, "For how long did you work in your previous company?" the context would imply months or years. I think the context here indicates days more than hours. In isolation, "time worked" = hours.
|
|
| neutral |
Daryo
: you are maybe equating too quickly the time of "being present" with "working"
16 hrs
|
|
As someone who has been through various probation periods at companies, I can tell you that I still worked and got paid for it. A clearly defined probation period does not risk any misinterpretation for a longer-term work contract in future.
|
duration of the probationary period to date
| neutral |
ph-b (X)
: True in context, but is it a translation of temps de présence (the question)?
1 hr
|
|
Perhaps not but it is a good fit for the context imho and I like to think that the poster would have been able to suss out 'time worked/employed' on their own.
|
Discussion
Whoever wrote this contract avoided like the plague any mention of "work" or "employment" when talking of "une période d'essai"
Firstly, you don't have access to the entire contract, so you haven't read the rest of it and you can't be sure. Secondly, read the text again:
La période d'essai peut être rompue par l'employeur ...
If there's an employeur, there's an employé. To suggest otherwise would be contrarian for the sake of it and ludicrous. An emploi is a job.
At most, I would agree that you could translate it like this:
The employer may end the probation period by giving notice, the duration of which will vary according to the contracting party's actual attendance time in the company ...
However, I've never seen it phrased that way in work contracts.
In work contracts, you typically talk of "time employed," as Phil mentioned, or the amount of time worked at a company. The probation period is still an employment period, and there is no controversy about calling it a period in which work was carried out. There is also no danger of future responsibility of providing work if the probation period is clearly defined in a contract.
The definition provided by ph-b leaves no room for doubt that it relates to a work contract and that it, therefore, involves the activity of work. There is no point in beating around the bush and calling it something else to avoid the fact that it involves work.
It's not the translator's business to decide that "how long he/she was present in the company" is the same as "working" or "being employed"
For all we know it's quite possible that during this "période d’essai" this person wasn't "working" at all but was going through some training, and the future employer wanted to leave open the option to part company with the potential employee if they don't show they are capable of following the training.
Point of method: these "little details" could make a not so little difference in case of litigation - they are hardly on the same level as some inconsequential chit-chat that could be lightly labelled "Non-Pro".
@ Chris Milne
you said it first, do you want to put your suggestion as your answer?