|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David W
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Posts: 457
Location: Japan
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 6:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Nagoyaguy wrote: |
| David, the reason is this. It is a kind of unspoken agreement between ALTs and their contracting organizations. The companies that farm out ALTs realize that they are probably going to teach privately, no matter what the contract says. To come down hard would be difficult for the company, and cause lots of headaches. Contract ALTs are paid little, so it is natural that they want to top up their income. With a nod and a wink, the company says OK, but just be sensible. The ALT realizes this and acts appropriately. Very Japanese, dont you think? |
Yes indeed it is. However my question was more along the lines of why is it a problem to have teachers moonlighting. Why isn't it more out in the open. The OP gave reasons in his second post that I happen to agree with. Do you agree with those reasons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wallyd
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, let's try an example case.
Teacher A is a small town Eikaiwa teacher who is working a 40 hour week (teaching about 25 hours). Teacher A's salary is 250,000 yen, before tax. Teacher A has to pay rent (about 45,000) and utilities for the apartment. Teacher A has one week holiday in Summer, one week in winter and public holidays.
Teacher B is an ALT in the same town, privately hired by the local government. Teacher B's contract specifically states that he or she cannot have any form of secondary income (ie. cannot moonlight). Teacher B's salary is more than 250,000 (after tax). Teacher B has a free apartment provided by the local government, but must pay utilities. Teacher B teaches an average of 3 hours a day, with around 1 hour for office work. Teacher B has a total of about 2 months paid holiday each year (not including weekends).
Teacher A's school has been gradually losing students over the past few years due to the economic slump and greater Eikaiwa competition. Teacher A discovers that a raise or a yearly bonus cannot be offered because if the slump in business.
Teacher A then discovers that Teacher B has been poaching a number of students from Teacher A's school, by offering reduced fees (Teacher B can offer reduced fees because he/she provides lessons in the rent free apartment and uses materials provided by the local government office).
Question: Is is fair for Teacher A to be upset with Teacher B? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Who said anything about private detectives? I never even said ALT's had taken any of my students. There's a lot of assumptions in your postGlenki. |
No, you just haven't kept up with things, or you are deviating from the original message. I quote:
wallyd wrote
| Quote: |
| I've heard that most ALTs have plenty of spare time and it's quite normal for many to supplement their income with some private classes. |
Your very first post after this was
| Quote: |
| Just make sure you don't do privates anywhere near where I live as I will definitely tell your BOE what you're doing if I find out. That's taking bread off my table as a school owner, so don't expect any favours from me. |
Now, assuming that you read English, and that you were responding to wallyd's query concerning ALTs, it is only fair to assume that you didn't want ALTs poaching students from "your" hunting grounds. Hence, my (and practically everyone else's) response. Sheesh!
More recently, you wrote something rather interesting...
| Quote: |
| As I said chances are I won't find out. |
My response to that is quite simple... then what are you complaining about in the first place???
Next bizarre comment:
| Quote: |
| If as you say discreet privates are OK but contracts that exclude moonlighting are not OK, why the need to be discreet. In what way does having a second job bring the first into dis-repute. |
Aside from what others have written, it goes like this. (I can't believe I have to explain this to a guy who already has a business teaching in Japan!) Most people who come here to teach are newbies to the profession, newbies to Japan, and newbies to any legal world. They believe whatever is on the contract. So, if it says "no private lessons", yet they see others doing it and telling them to keep it hush-hush, they merely go along with the masses. Besides, who wants the hassle of dealing with the employer that feels his contract is that high and mighty? Few people (foreigners and Japanese) here feel the conviction necessary to involve a lawyer, and foreigners have it doubly difficult because of the language barrier. Moreover, as I stated earlier, they don't even know that the contract can't prohibit them from doing things in their free time! Clear now, David?
This one lost me. Can you explain the hypocrisy? You are concerned about losing a few bucks/yen because someone else wants to make money in his free time in the same field as you. He wants to do this despite an illegal clause in his contract, and compounded with the "newbie syndrome" which I just described, he feels the need to be discreet. Hypocrisy? Not in my dictionary. You have a business. He doesn't. If you have a spouse visa, you could hold down any FT job you could get and paint houses on the side, but you won't see carpenters in the area complaining that you are scabbing work from them, even if you offer cheaper rates, will you?
| Quote: |
| The OP in this thread mentioned a few problems in his area. Are his, and by extension, my concerns not valid given that discretion is required. Isn't this hypocritical? |
BTW, I noticed you didn't answer my question about whether you took on private lessons when you started out here. How about letting us in on your history regarding this issue? I mean, we're all honest law-abiding foreigners, aren't we? (Maybe my query was buried too deep, or didn't appear as such. If so, I'm bringing it out now.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
wallyd,
In my opinion, no, fairness has nothing to do with it. Teacher B is simply doing what he can to make extra money. The fact that he was smart or lucky enough to get free housing has nothing to do with it. Teacher A could do the same thing and has more access to the same pool of students.
The fact that "B can offer reduced fees because he/she provides lessons in the rent free apartment and uses materials provided by the local government " is meaningless. B can offer reduced fees because he wants the students and is willing to accept such small fees. Having a rent-free apartment and access to materials has nothing or little to do with it.
Teacher A fails to realize that the eikaiwa market has been offering the same wages for over a decade now, despite any changes in the economy. Teacher A would get 250,000 yen now or in 1994 (although the exchange rate would be different). Few eikaiwa teachers get raises or bonuses, so his little town eikaiwa is not unique.
Bringing up the issue of small towns is a whole new topic. Live there, and you have to accept the disadvantages.
1. Greater scrutiny by the local population (and certain foreigners who run their own eikaiwas). This is another reason to be discreet when doing private lessons in small towns.
2. Less English.
3. Fewer comforts of the big cities (shopping, movie theaters, Roppongi-like bar centers, etc.).
4. Fewer job opportunities.
If you are here to make money, you either have to live where the money is made (bigger cities), or be a real entrepreneur by starting your own business or hustling to string together tons of private lessons and PT jobs. There is no other magic formula. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David W
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Posts: 457
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Glenski wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Who said anything about private detectives? I never even said ALT's had taken any of my students. There's a lot of assumptions in your postGlenki. |
No, you just haven't kept up with things, or you are deviating from the original message. I quote:
wallyd wrote
| Quote: |
| I've heard that most ALTs have plenty of spare time and it's quite normal for many to supplement their income with some private classes. |
Your very first post after this was
| Quote: |
| Just make sure you don't do privates anywhere near where I live as I will definitely tell your BOE what you're doing if I find out. That's taking bread off my table as a school owner, so don't expect any favours from me. |
Now, assuming that you read English, and that you were responding to wallyd's query concerning ALTs, it is only fair to assume that you didn't want ALTs poaching students from "your" hunting grounds. Hence, my (and practically everyone else's) response. Sheesh!
More recently, you wrote something rather interesting...
| Quote: |
| As I said chances are I won't find out. |
My response to that is quite simple... then what are you complaining about in the first place???
Next bizarre comment:
| Quote: |
| If as you say discreet privates are OK but contracts that exclude moonlighting are not OK, why the need to be discreet. In what way does having a second job bring the first into dis-repute. |
Aside from what others have written, it goes like this. (I can't believe I have to explain this to a guy who already has a business teaching in Japan!) Most people who come here to teach are newbies to the profession, newbies to Japan, and newbies to any legal world. They believe whatever is on the contract. So, if it says "no private lessons", yet they see others doing it and telling them to keep it hush-hush, they merely go along with the masses. Besides, who wants the hassle of dealing with the employer that feels his contract is that high and mighty? Few people (foreigners and Japanese) here feel the conviction necessary to involve a lawyer, and foreigners have it doubly difficult because of the language barrier. Moreover, as I stated earlier, they don't even know that the contract can't prohibit them from doing things in their free time! Clear now, David?
This one lost me. Can you explain the hypocrisy? You are concerned about losing a few bucks/yen because someone else wants to make money in his free time in the same field as you. He wants to do this despite an illegal clause in his contract, and compounded with the "newbie syndrome" which I just described, he feels the need to be discreet. Hypocrisy? Not in my dictionary. You have a business. He doesn't. If you have a spouse visa, you could hold down any FT job you could get and paint houses on the side, but you won't see carpenters in the area complaining that you are scabbing work from them, even if you offer cheaper rates, will you?
| Quote: |
| The OP in this thread mentioned a few problems in his area. Are his, and by extension, my concerns not valid given that discretion is required. Isn't this hypocritical? |
BTW, I noticed you didn't answer my question about whether you took on private lessons when you started out here. How about letting us in on your history regarding this issue? I mean, we're all honest law-abiding foreigners, aren't we? (Maybe my query was buried too deep, or didn't appear as such. If so, I'm bringing it out now.) |
Last question first. No I didn't. I valued my free time too much.
You raise one interesting point at least. Are clauses in a contract that exclude moonlighting legal? You seem to think they are. I'm not aware that such clauses are illegal. Not saying you're wrong before you get apoplectic but just like to see some source that says that.
The other points are typical Glenki nit-picking that aren't worth responding to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nagoyaguy
Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 425
Location: Aichi, Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wally wrote;
| Quote: |
Teacher B is an ALT in the same town, privately hired by the local government. Teacher B's contract specifically states that he or she cannot have any form of secondary income (ie. cannot moonlight). Teacher B's salary is more than 250,000 (after tax). Teacher B has a free apartment provided by the local government, but must pay utilities. Teacher B teaches an average of 3 hours a day, with around 1 hour for office work. Teacher B has a total of about 2 months paid holiday each year (not including weekends).
|
You are moving the goalposts of the argument by adding so many conditions. You are assuming many things in your little scenario, like;
a/ salary of ALT
b/subsidized housing
c/hours of work (irrelevant)
d/contract conditions
The argument started out as a general one, and you are making a specific scenario that supports your view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
king kakipi
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave; why are you frettin`?
If you offer a `quality product` then why, in God`s name, would naive students pay 3500 an hour to sit in a noisy, public cafe to get English lessons?
Obviously, they perceive they are getting a `good deal`.
So where, therefore, does the problem lie?
`Reality check` time MATE .
Princess Kakipi
With three ex-husbands, fourteen children and a mother with three artificial hips to support (so what?; who cares?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Are clauses in a contract that exclude moonlighting legal? You seem to think they are. |
I said nothing of the kind. If you want law case histories to substantiate that these are illegal, do the legwork yourself and look them up. NOVA has already lost course cases on similar grounds.
Since you think I'm nitpicking, it obviously shows you can't take the heat. I won't bother responding to any more of your ludicrous remarks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wallyd
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, I agree, those are a lot of conditions. Let's just say that the imaginary scenario is actually a real scenario, and the names Teacher A and B represent real people I know. So what do you think?[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nagoyaguy
Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 425
Location: Aichi, Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the above scenario, Teacher A should THANK Teacher B. AFter all, Teacher A will get the same salary no matter how many classes they have. IF Teacher B 'poaches' some of the students, it may make TeacherA's schedule a little easier.
However in most cases I think "poaching" is not what happens. Students prefer a private teacher to an eikaiwa for a number of reasons. For many students, going to an eikaiwa is NOT an alternative. either use a private teacher or dont study English.
The Teacher A Teacher B scenario above is a bit of a straw man IMHO. It very rarely happens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David W
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Posts: 457
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Glenski wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Are clauses in a contract that exclude moonlighting legal? You seem to think they are. |
I said nothing of the kind. If you want law case histories to substantiate that these are illegal, do the legwork yourself and look them up. NOVA has already lost course cases on similar grounds.
Since you think I'm nitpicking, it obviously shows you can't take the heat. I won't bother responding to any more of your ludicrous remarks. |
Whoops should have said illegal, my bad. Don't sulk Glenki  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David W
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Posts: 457
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| king kakipi wrote: |
Dave; why are you frettin`?
If you offer a `quality product` then why, in God`s name, would naive students pay 3500 an hour to sit in a noisy, public cafe to get English lessons?
|
Must be your charm  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Daid W,
I am above sulking. How about having the common courtesy to spell my name right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
king kakipi
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
king kakipi wrote:
Dave; why are you frettin`?
If you offer a `quality product` then why, in God`s name, would naive students pay 3500 an hour to sit in a noisy, public cafe to get English lessons?
Dave retorted:-
Must be your charm
|
Good point Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David W
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Posts: 457
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Glenski wrote: |
Daid W,
I am above sulking. How about having the common courtesy to spell my name right? |
I thought you weren't gonna respond anymore to my ludicrous remarks? How about my ridiculous remarks, will you respond to them?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
