As we know, translators have been working with computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools, in highly technologized work environments, for a number of years already (e.g. Kenny 2011). The list of CAT tools keeps growing and very few translators – be they freelancers or salaried employees – can afford to shun such tools as electronic dictionaries, term banks or translation memory systems (TMs), for example. The implementation and widespread use of translation tools have undoubtedly brought about changes to the way in which translators work (translation processes, workflows, etc.). While many of the tools translators use have allowed them to become more efficient – by quickly accessing information that would have otherwise taken hours to locate – other tools have provoked mixed reactions. Such is the case with TMs. Although TMs have many undeniable benefits (Bowker 2002; Kenny 2011), they have nonetheless caused some concern among translators (Garcia 2007; Kenny 2011; LeBlanc 2013). However, what seems to have unsettled translators the most is not so much the tool’s inherent design (e.g. the fact that some TMs encourage text segmentation), but more so the shifts in administrative and business practices that have, in some cases, accompanied TM implementation. In some instances, TMs have led translation services and translation service providers (TSPs) to impose certain guidelines that have caused some disquiet among translation professionals. In the eyes of many translators, some of the new guidelines – most notably, those pertaining to the establishment of productivity requirements and the enforced recycling of previous translations – represent a radical departure from what was done beforehand, and, more importantly, may have an effect on translators’ professional autonomy and their overall professional satisfaction.