Job Discussion Forums

[hash]

......

[nomad soul]

Hash:

I'm posting my comments even though you deleted your response to me.

Nothing creepy about not specifying salaries, especially if pay is calculated based on certain criteria relevant to the position and candidate's individual qualifications. This is the case for most direct-hire, EFL university positions as well. Besides, look at those ads and compare the qualifications of those pilot instructor positions to the ESL instructors. Apples and oranges. And yes, ESL instructors should be paid less than expert pilots and specialized engineers. Seriously, these military instructors are subject matter experts using highly technical language while the ESL instructor is introducing his class to some mundane aspect of American culture.

I've worked in both the private and government sectors in the US. Sometimes salary was indicated in the job posting, other times it was a range, or not at all. No biggie. But if it's such a major concern for you, then only consider applying to job ads that state the exact salary. Problem solved.

[hash]

Nomad Soul said:

Nothing creepy about not specifying salaries, especially if pay is calculated based on certain criteria relevant to the position and candidate's individual qualifications.

I'd like to believe you, but I can't. When only 1 job out of a 5 page list of published jobs gives the salary, I find it a little creepy. Why just this job? The reasons you give sound good, but on close inspection, they simply are not credible.

And it's more than that. Even if there are convincing arguments for the salary "issue" (and there aren't), that doesn't explain the total silence on the "benefits" side of the equation at all. Again, it's ONLY the ESL job that goes into housing, bonus etc etc. Why? Why don't the other job postings even mention HOUSING?

No, NS, there are reasons why this is happening and I'd like to know what they are. It can't be dismissed so lightly. And I think it has to do with the HUGE disparity between what ESL teachers get and what everyone else gets.

But if it's such a major concern for you, then only consider applying to job ads that state the exact salary. Problem solved.

I'm sure that EVERYONE who gets an offer at some point knows what his salary is going to be, so there's no problem to begin with.

[moomama]

You all bring up valid points.

The base salary is $42k. There are allowances for cell phones and overseas living allowance. They take out medicare and SS. If you are out of the country for more than 330 days you should claim exempt.

It ends up being a little under 3800 USD; if you opt for 401k then more gets taken out.

When I signed up for the job, B3H listed the base salary on the advert. At some point they started making this "package" deal to attract more applicants. If they don't tell you the salary break down in the first couple of correspondences, (for me) that is an indication of the people you will be dealing with.

Personally, I think they are crooks and bloody liars.

This is B3Hs first try in the ESL field. They are novices down to their last cell.

[nomad soul]

[hash]

Moomama
Thanks for the breakdown of the benefits. But this is not the issue I'm discussing. Everyone knows what the benefits/salary is for the ESL job because that's published information. My point is NO OTHER JOB ON B3H's MAIN WEBSITE mentions either salary or benefits. Why? Why are only ESL teachers singled out in this way? What's the reason? (I've already mentioned what I think the reason is).

Nomad Soul
First of all, when I mentioned your name, I was obviously pulling your leg. I know very well you're female and are not eligible for this particular job.- That's why I said the employer did not mention m/f.....since he didn't, presumably you are eligible for the job based on their ad (even though everyone knows you're not). I'm somewhat surprised you took this the wrong way. I wasn't stating a "fact". I was stating an anti-fact.

What's my solution to this issue? Depends. If I were desperate for a job, I'd say nothing and would toe the line no matter what it was and totally ignore everything that's being said on this board, period. If I were interested in the job but had other irons in the fire, I'd inquire about it and see what happens after that. If I were totally uninterested but curious, I'd go on a web job board and ask about it as I'm doing here.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to help B3H because they're hemorrhaging ESL teachers by the planeload and they're probably wondering why.

Further, let me say this: no other employee in one of these military type contracts has as many "contact" hours with the "client" in a classroom as an ESL teacher has.

In contrast, your typical "military instructor" basically gives a power-point presentation for a couple of hours a day to a couple of classes for a couple of weeks and then the "course is over" until the next one starts 3 months hence during which time he sits at a desk and "prepares" for the next course.

If any of these so-called high-powered military instructors had classes 5 or 6 hours a day with the kind of students your typical ESL class contains for weeks and months on end, day after day, hour after hour, I guarantee they wouldn't last 2 weeks at the podium.

The fact is, ESL teachers on military contracts are paid slave wages for the kind of abuse they have to put up with in an extremely antagonistic environment.

They face fierce hostility from the students, the company, the client, their co-workers in non-ESL sections, the publisher of the DLI materials and on down the line. That's why so many teachers leave when they finally realize this.

As I've said before elsewhere, ESL teachers are not in the least bit welcome or wanted in these military contracts. These English teaching units have been shoved down the collective throats of these companies as part of the deal and these companies have had to accept providing ESL instruction before getting their contracts approved. Ever since then, your typical ESL teachers have faced contempt and ridicule and an enormous amount of resentment the minute they sign on to one of these military contracts (and many non-military contracts too).

Under these circumstances, a take-home pay of more or less $45,000/year is a pathetic joke - another sign of their utter scorn and contempt for the teacher and his work

[LPKSA]

[hash]

[moonbug76]

Meals, whether provided or paid for by yourself, or either an extra benefit or something that costs you after your take home pay. The idea that food costs detract from take home pay is ridiculous in any conversation about income.

The take home pay is approximately $3500 depending on if you take part in the 401K, and how much you have taken out for it. This is after all the deductions and such (which is what take home is).

[hash]

[jaffa]

[moonbug76]

For the 10 years I worked on and off for the military in KSA, all meals were provided free of charge to all employees every day of the week including Ramadan and Xmas and was a "benefit". I paid zilch for meals during this time.

The savings accrued to me because of this policy were outstanding. They easily allowed me to save at least 1/3 of my salary above and beyond my actual salary.

Why you call this "ridiculous" is beyond me. It may be to you but it wasn't to me nor to my collegues at the time.

The idea that free meals are great and can have a huge impact on your savings is a given. What is rediculous is the idea that this has anything to do with take home pay. Food is an expense that is measured after take home pay and takes from savings/saving ability, and it varies greatly from person to person. I definitely wouldn't mind going back to a place that provided meals!

[Captain Willard]

Really, if they want to attract Americans they should set up a foreign company to hire them and avoid the taxation and withholding issues. Why would an American take this job when there are so many others not American administered that don't have the taxation deductions?

Also understand that if they are providing free meals, they will report that to the IRS, and it becomes taxable if someone doesn't meet the requirements for excluding foreign income. Even if the employee doesn't actually eat the free meal, it could be a headache if someone at the IRS decides to conduct an audit and the company has reported meals included with the salary.

They may attract the desperate, but others will just stay away.

[veiledsentiments]

[Captain Willard]

Savvy in what way?

1. Money deducted for Federal Income tax is money which shouldn't be deducted if one can claim the foreign income tax exclusion. Far better to have that money in pocket than to need to ask Uncle Sam nicely to refund it. If the government claims someone owes them money, this money won't be refunded. So, why not earn interest on the money during the year, instead of letting the government hold the money for free?
2. Money deducted for Medicare is not recoverable at all. 1.45% of income has been lost to taxation here.
3. Money deducted for Social Security is 12.4%. (6.2% taxes to the employee and 6.2% taxed to the employer) As they say here collecting SS is all Insha'Allah. First, one needs to live long enough to collect the money to enjoy it, (and the government keeps raising the retirement age). Secondly, the government has to remain solvent enough to pay it at present rates. Third, the government does tax half of SSI for those in the upper brackets, and that tax may increase by retirement.

So total savings without withholding by Uncle Sam in 13.85% + lack of Federal withholding which must be requested for refund. Another person might prefer to put that money in a tax shelter like a Roth IRA, or pay off debt which is accruing interest, and thus losing money. Please forgive me if I decline to invest in your hedge fund, Babe.

C.W.