hash
Joined: 17 Dec 2014
Posts: 456
Location: Wadi Jinn
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| nickelgoat wrote: |
| I specifically DID ask ManTech personnel during the hiring process if I was working for them or for Jadwalean. I was told I was working for ManTech and that Jadwalean was a subcontractor. It turned out to be the exact opposite. Deception all the way! The contract was written in a very ambiguous way. |
Like credit cards and (lately in the news...banks), employers and institutions depend on the ignorance of their prospective employees (or users) to not know what they're really signing up for.
Can one really expect an ESL teacher (or similarly trained professional) to be conversant and at ease with the legal jargon that is presented to them upon signing a contract or other official-type document? How many of us really read a credit card application, for example? Or even understand it? (They are deliberately written so the average person cannot possibly understand them. As such, it is pure and simple and deliberate deception, with a capital D as suggested by the OP.)
Is the only option one has involve going to and hiring a contracts lawyer to check out your contract so you can know exactly what it says with regards your legal status as an employee? Can't you trust what your recruiter is telling you (especially if he's a US citizen representing "your" company??) Does one really have to do all this? (It's like checking out your soon- to- be spouse via a full field background investigation before you walk down the aisle).
One should realize, though, that there are tell-tale signs when it comes to overseas contracts. If you are REALLY working for a US company, and you're a US citizen, Social Security contributions have to be taken out of your salary by law, for example. If they're not, then the employer is not a US entity. A close-to-home example of this is "Aramco". Saudi Aramco is a Saudi company, plain and simple. Even if you get a "direct hire" with them in Dhahran, it's still a Saudi company and SS will not be taken out of your paycheck (nor will payments to the unemployment fund where the company is legally HQ'd in the US). But if you work for Aramco Services Company HQ'd in Houston (I believe), your status is very different (and better). (But I don't think ASC-Houston is any longer hiring ESL teachers......and hasn't for years and years. I may be wrong).
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with working for a purely KSA company (regardless of what it's called). But I think it's essential to really delve into this aspect of your contract. Who are you really working for? Who is ultimately responsible for you if push ever came to shove? Especially in these unstable times??
===========================
ADDENDUM: (see last posting on pg 1 of this thread)
"As the Exclusive Teaming Partner to the Saudi based contractor, Jadwalean International Operations & Management Company, ManTech will provide highly qualified and experienced personnel to work in various locations around the Kingdom to support Royal Saudi Air Force in systems, equipment, and training, also provide dedicated maintenance manning to the RSAF." See full ad at:
http://jobs.brassring.com/tgwebhost/jobdetails.aspx?partnerid=10696&siteid=5497&jobid=1314819
This appears to be ManTech's (I'm amazed no one's questioned the MAN portion of their name) ad for an ESL teacher.
It's very clear that JAD is a Saudi contractor. It's also clear that MT will provide highly qualified personnel to work..... It also states that JAD and MT are "partners".
That's it. That's all it says. There is no indication whatsoever that a US citizen is going to be working for a foreign (or alien) entity. I don't think it's even implied. It's definitely stated that the US citizen is going to be working in KSA but that's not the same thing as saying he's going to come under the LEGAL purview of a Saudi company while working in KSA.
What exactly then is the relationship between MAN and the US employee? Nothing? The ad states that MAN will provide highly trained personnel to work..in the Kingdom....
To me, the implication here is that MAN will hire US citizens (and others) to go work in KSA at JAD's work site. It doesn't SAY that, but that's implied. It definitely does not imply that the US citizen will actually be working as an employee of a KSA company.
The implication of all this is as the OP originally stated: he would be working for the US company MAN. In fact, if we are to believe him, he was OUT AND OUT TOLD he'd be working for a US company because he specifically asked the interviewer about this.
Conclusion? Too numerous to mention. But one lesson in all this: get everything in WRITING - as much as you can. "The interviewer told me......" would be a weak leg to stand on.
. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
