May 18, 2009 15:13
15 yrs ago
French term
désintérêt
French to English
Bus/Financial
Law: Contract(s)
employment contract
This is in a letter describing the conditions under which a company would have to pay compensation if they were to remove an employee from his position.
I'm struggling to find the right term.
"Suite à notre dernière conversation, il a été convenu d'un commun accord que si la société XX ne souhaitait plus continuer son évolution avec l'aide de votre collaboration et sans motifs autres que faute grave ou désintérêt total de votre activité, la société XX se verrait contrainte de vous verser en guise de dédommagement..............."
I'm struggling to find the right term.
"Suite à notre dernière conversation, il a été convenu d'un commun accord que si la société XX ne souhaitait plus continuer son évolution avec l'aide de votre collaboration et sans motifs autres que faute grave ou désintérêt total de votre activité, la société XX se verrait contrainte de vous verser en guise de dédommagement..............."
Proposed translations
(English)
| 4 +2 | disinterest |
Katarina Peters
|
| 4 +1 | total lack of active involvement |
YorickJenkins
|
| 3 +1 | total lack of interest |
bowse123 (X)
|
| 3 +1 | total lack of commitment |
Tony M
|
| 4 | unnecessary nature of your position/job |
MatthewLaSon
|
| 3 | decrese of interest |
Diana Donzelli-Gaudet
|
| 3 | carelessness of your activity/work |
Euqinimod (X)
|
| 4 -1 | loss of interest |
JWood&Co (X)
|
Proposed translations
+2
41 mins
Katarina Peters
Canada
Canada
Native in English
Works in field
Canada
Accuracy and A1 presentation
Native in: Hungarian 
, English (Variant: US)
Works in: English to Portuguese, Portuguese to English, Hungarian to English, and 13 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
16
Selected
disinterest
...total disinterest...
the word does exist in English, if you want to be faithful to the original,
the word does exist in English, if you want to be faithful to the original,
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
Tony M
: Yes, it does exist... but it can be something of a faux ami, since there are lots of situations where the meaning is not quite the same. / I still have some reservations...
14 mins
|
|
Yes, but in this case it's right on: "...your total disinterest in your activities..." - perfectly clear to me - can't see any "faux ami" there. The guy was just not interested in his work, that's all.//Fine, you're entitled to your opinion!:)
|
|
| agree |
elisabeth tiffany (X)
1 hr
|
|
Thank you elisabeth!
|
|
| neutral |
MatthewLaSon
: Hi Katarina! In response to your comment to Tony: It's the employer who finds the employee's position unnecessary (désintérêt). These are the conditions in which the employer would provide compensation, not the other way round. Lots of confusion on
6 days
|
|
Thank you for clarifying, Matthew. In this case, my answer still stands, it would then be "our total disinterest in your activities".
|
|
| agree |
Suzanne Deliscar
40 days
|
|
Thank you Suzanne!
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Selected automatically based on peer agreement."
2 mins
Diana Donzelli-Gaudet
Native in French
The right word at the right time!
Native in: Italian (Variants: Milanese, Standard-Italy) , French (Variant: Standard-France)
Works in: English to Italian, French to Italian, Italian to French, and 3 more.
decrese of interest
or lack of interest
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
Tony M
: 'decrease' would imply some change, which is not specifically implied in the original.
15 mins
|
+1
31 mins
total lack of interest
.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
: Stays nice and neutral, non-commital and faithful to the original.
1 hr
|
|
thanks
|
|
| neutral |
Tony M
: The only problem is, it doesn't say on the part of whom, which I think is implied in the FR, but not quite so implicit in the EN...?
5 hrs
|
| neutral |
MatthewLaSon
: It's the employer who no longer has interest in your position, not that the employer is being careless in his job (se verrait contrainte = would deem it necessary to). I guess you could get away with your translation, too.
3 days 6 hrs
|
2 hrs
carelessness of your activity/work
...
+1
21 mins
French term (edited):
désintérêt total
total lack of commitment
I think it's important to consider the term as a whole.
Usually, I'd have said 'detachment', but I don't think that would really work here; I know that 'commitment' would more usually translate 'engagement', but I think in this case, where it is being used in a negative sense, it is justifiable for 'désintérêt' as well.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 heures (2009-05-19 02:24:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Maybe it would be easier if the sentence were turned round to something like 'failure to show any interest in your work' — though again, that hardly addresses the objectivity issue that Nikki has raised...
Usually, I'd have said 'detachment', but I don't think that would really work here; I know that 'commitment' would more usually translate 'engagement', but I think in this case, where it is being used in a negative sense, it is justifiable for 'désintérêt' as well.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 heures (2009-05-19 02:24:17 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Maybe it would be easier if the sentence were turned round to something like 'failure to show any interest in your work' — though again, that hardly addresses the objectivity issue that Nikki has raised...
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
Nikki Scott-Despaigne
: The way I read this, "commitment" is subjective and thus strays from the original with its "désintérêt" which is much more of an objective thingymajig.
1 hr
|
|
Yes, good point, Nikki!
|
|
| neutral |
bowse123 (X)
: same problem: it doesn't say on the part of whom......
10 hrs
|
|
Thanks! My own feeling is that 'commitment' is clear-cut in that respect; one expects commitment from an employEE in a rather different way than one might expect it from an employER; not quite the same as 'disinterest', if you get my drift...?
|
|
| agree |
Sandra & Kenneth Grossman
12 hrs
|
|
Thanks, Sangro!
|
|
| disagree |
MatthewLaSon
: I was right with the first answer you disagreed with. "Se verrait contrainte" is referring to the conditions in which the employer would find it necessary to provide compensation, not the other way round. I was right all along, and should not have hid
2 days 13 mins
|
|
I feel sure the idea is correct, even if the way of expressing it could certainly be improved upon.
|
|
| agree |
JWood&Co (X)
: you might be right - I think what they're saying is something like: if we no longer require your collaboration for reasons other than serious (grave) misconduct or a complete lack of dedication your behalf...
6 days
|
|
Thanks, Nils! that's certainly the general tenor of how I read it....
|
+1
23 hrs
total lack of active involvement
Either this or Tony's M's "lack of commitment" unless we are all wrong and the meaning has to do with profitability (see discussion). I disagree with suggestions that include the English word "interest". Not being interested in French is usually rendered by "manque d'intérêt" not "désintérêt". For me, "désintérêt" is not a passive lack of interest as it is in English, but about a lack of involvement or commitment.
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Tony M
: I totally agree with your comment about the use of the word 'interest' in EN
20 hrs
|
| disagree |
MatthewLaSon
: These are conditions in which the employer would deem it necessary to provide compensation: unnecessary nature of your position (désintérêt total) or major mistake made in terminating the employer (se verrait contrainte = would deem it necessary).
2 days 7 hrs
|
| agree |
JWood&Co (X)
: you might be right - I think what they're saying is something like: if we no longer require your collaboration for reasons other than serious (grave) misconduct or a complete lack of dedication your behalf...
5 days
|
3 days 6 hrs
unnecessary nature of your position/job
Hello,
Posting this a second time as I allowed a "disagree" to throw me off big-time. LOL. My own fault!!! This has happened to a few times on here.
First of all, all the confusion came about because of the phrase "se verrait contrainte", which means "will (would) deem necessary to provide compensation."
My second guess was right.
The employer will financially compensate you should they terminate you on grounds that your position is unnecessary (désintérêt total), or that there was a serious mistake made with regards to your termination (should not have been the case that your position was terminated, but it turned out to be the case).
I hope this helps.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 days (2009-05-24 16:52:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Phrasing is not exact but very close:
"We disagree with the Appeals Court's conclusion that "the record discloses several possible bases for the board's decision." McDonough v. Plymouth County Personnel Bd., supra at 790. There was no basis to suppose, as the Appeals Court suggests, that the board might have concluded that "the reorganization was neither carefully considered nor consistent with sound penology," or that "the sheriff had used a genuine reorganization as a pretext for discharging Novero." Id. at 790- 791. The case was tried on the theory that there was no "genuine reorganization," not that the reorganization was ill conceived or used as a pretext. The simple focus of Novero's case was that there can be no valid job reorganization where one job is replaced by its functional equivalent in a single new position, and such a "reorganization" may not provide "just cause" for discharge. See Cambridge Hous. Auth. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 586, 590 (1979). Cf. McNeil v. Mayor & City Council of Peabody, supra. Contrary to the Appeals Court's observation about the board member who quoted from Cambridge Hous. Auth. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, supra at 589, the board member was not commenting on the wisdom of the reorganization or the use of a genuine reorganization as a pretext for adverse action, but on the genuineness of the reorganization itself. He was questioning whether a job properly could be considered abolished as "unnecessary" or "no longer necessary" where it has been replaced by a new position that was its functional equivalent. See McDonough v. Plymouth County Personnel Bd., supra at 791, nn.6 & 7. The only reasonable conclusion to draw from the board's decision is that two board members determined that the sheriff failed to show that Novero had been discharged for just cause based on a genuine reorganization"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vo...
Posting this a second time as I allowed a "disagree" to throw me off big-time. LOL. My own fault!!! This has happened to a few times on here.
First of all, all the confusion came about because of the phrase "se verrait contrainte", which means "will (would) deem necessary to provide compensation."
My second guess was right.
The employer will financially compensate you should they terminate you on grounds that your position is unnecessary (désintérêt total), or that there was a serious mistake made with regards to your termination (should not have been the case that your position was terminated, but it turned out to be the case).
I hope this helps.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 days (2009-05-24 16:52:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Phrasing is not exact but very close:
"We disagree with the Appeals Court's conclusion that "the record discloses several possible bases for the board's decision." McDonough v. Plymouth County Personnel Bd., supra at 790. There was no basis to suppose, as the Appeals Court suggests, that the board might have concluded that "the reorganization was neither carefully considered nor consistent with sound penology," or that "the sheriff had used a genuine reorganization as a pretext for discharging Novero." Id. at 790- 791. The case was tried on the theory that there was no "genuine reorganization," not that the reorganization was ill conceived or used as a pretext. The simple focus of Novero's case was that there can be no valid job reorganization where one job is replaced by its functional equivalent in a single new position, and such a "reorganization" may not provide "just cause" for discharge. See Cambridge Hous. Auth. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 586, 590 (1979). Cf. McNeil v. Mayor & City Council of Peabody, supra. Contrary to the Appeals Court's observation about the board member who quoted from Cambridge Hous. Auth. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, supra at 589, the board member was not commenting on the wisdom of the reorganization or the use of a genuine reorganization as a pretext for adverse action, but on the genuineness of the reorganization itself. He was questioning whether a job properly could be considered abolished as "unnecessary" or "no longer necessary" where it has been replaced by a new position that was its functional equivalent. See McDonough v. Plymouth County Personnel Bd., supra at 791, nn.6 & 7. The only reasonable conclusion to draw from the board's decision is that two board members determined that the sheriff failed to show that Novero had been discharged for just cause based on a genuine reorganization"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ma&vo...
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
YorickJenkins
: You might be right but can you give examples of it used like this?
2 days 16 hrs
|
|
Sorry, I misread your comment. No, I don't have any examples in French, but I'm almost sure this it the meaning. It makes perfect sense to me. Have a nice day!
|
-1
10 mins
loss of interest
(for your services)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 days (2009-05-24 17:42:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I think Tony's right actually - what they're saying is something like: if we no longer require your collaboration for reasons other than serious (grave) misconduct or a complete lack of commitment on your behalf..
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 days (2009-05-24 17:54:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I like YJenkins' total lack of active involvement which might also be rendered as 'complete lack of dedication' - though I think total lack of active involvement sounds more like professional legalese - past this point I have nothing further to add -
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 days (2009-05-24 17:42:02 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I think Tony's right actually - what they're saying is something like: if we no longer require your collaboration for reasons other than serious (grave) misconduct or a complete lack of commitment on your behalf..
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 days (2009-05-24 17:54:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I like YJenkins' total lack of active involvement which might also be rendered as 'complete lack of dedication' - though I think total lack of active involvement sounds more like professional legalese - past this point I have nothing further to add -
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
Tony M
: 'loss of' would imply some change, which is not specifically implied in the original. Not quite sure where the 'for' comes from...?
8 mins
|
|
you might be right - I think what they're saying is something like: if we no longer require your collaboration for reasons other than serious (grave) misconduct or a complete lack of dedication your behalf...
|
|
| disagree |
MatthewLaSon
: Hi again. These are conditions in which the employer would deem it necessary to provide compensation: unnecessary nature of your position (désintérêt total) or wrongful termination. It's "se verrait contrainte, which is "would deem it necessary"
6 days
|
|
Hmm. the way I'm getting it is yeah they are talking about compensation - but also the two exceptions where compensation would not be necessary - 1 - if you screw up 2- if you do nothing at all
|
Discussion
It does seem like they're talking about "un total désintérêt financier pour la Société de votre activité."<br><br>Wouldn't "désintérêt" (working carelessly) be under "faute grave"?
I hid my last answer because I was reading as in what conditions they will compensate, even though I was on to this idea (so easy to misread something, which really throws you off)<br><br>Yes, the grammar is weird, and that makes me very suspicious. Natural French doesn't read like that, imho. You can "se desintéresser de quelque chose", but not "avoir du désintérêt de quelque chose"? Yes, I've seen "désintérêt de quelqu'un pour quelque chose" but the "de votre activité" can't "disinterested", no (subject here) <br><br>Yes, but the employee may receive compensation for partial unprofitability, however that would be determined or proven. Besides, wouldn't the employer know what constituted "complete unprofitability" in one's contract (supposed to know lol)? Maybe not, but... We would need more context, but at least we are thinking.<br><br>
I a
Mind you, thinking about it, we do say « s'intéresser de quelque chose », don't we? So I suppose the use of 'de' with 'désintérêt' perhaps isn't as odd as we might at first have thought — I guess it's just the way it sounds to my non-native ears!
Do also consider the grammar of "désintérêt de votre activité." When it's about one's attitude towards something, it would read "désintérêt pour votre activité", not "de votre activité"(on a du désintérêt pour quelque chose).