Job Discussion Forums

TaoyuanSteve · Joined: 05 Feb 2003 Posts: 1028 Location: Taoyuan

Actually, in response to the Gloria reference, the teachers were never deported, required to work elsewhere or anything else. The whole matter simply blew over. Gloria is a medium sized company with multiple locations in the Taoyuan/ Chungli area. Like just about all schools with branches, teachers sometimes work out of multiple branches. This helps schools stay properly staffed and ensures teachers always have full schedules. It also technically violates the letter of the law in which you are supposed to only work at the address listed on your ARC card. This law is violated by just about every buxiban company on the island. The authorities know this and didn't do anything to the teachers in the end. I have it from someone in the company a long time that, if any teachers were ever fined or deported over this, the owner would lodge complaints against any other company engaging in similar employment practices. This would make it impossible for a lot of (all) buxiban companies to operate. I think the authorities decided the teachers were in compliance with the spirit, if not the letter of law (they all had work permits and ARCs through the company, just not at the locations they were working at that day), and decided that was enough. We can speculate whether any hong baos changed hands in the process, but I'm not privy to that information.

I suppose I fall somewhere in between Aristotle and Griswald today. Yes, it is a fact that many may be working technically illegal and not know it. However, I have no doubt that if the teachers were not in possession of ARCs (even if technically not valid at that address), they would have been deported.

clark.w.griswald · Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 2056

Aristotle · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 1388 Location: Taiwan

As we all know Brian you receive your pay checks directly from the government of the Republic of China on Taiwan. As such you are privy to information that the rest of may not have access to.
If the CLA is doing such a bang up job then I challenge you to find one case in the Council of Labor Affairs 10 year history of having ultimate authority over work visa issuance and revocation, where the CLA found that one of the many issuing departments had errored in the revocation and/or deportation of a foreign national.
Years of experience with the CLA has shown that they do nothing but attempt to hide and cover up the rampant corruption that is so prevalent in the issuance, revocation of work permits and subsequent deportation of foreign nationals by the corrupt government of the Republic of China on Taiwan.
One case is all we are asking. Out of the tens of thousands of appeals made to the CLA to overturn the decision of a lower agencies in regards to deportation and work permit revocation. There must be at least one successful appeal you can hold up to show that the thousands of other unsuccessful appeals and deportations of foreign nationals were justified.
Good luck you are going to need it.
A.

TaoyuanSteve · Joined: 05 Feb 2003 Posts: 1028 Location: Taoyuan

I work for GES and have met the teachers affected by the raid. I'm not sure about any letters, but I know the teachers were never deported and remained working for the company after the incident. The problem occurred at a new branch and, more than likely, resulted from a complaint from a competitor in the area that didn't like their business being affected by the new school in town.

Aristotle · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 1388 Location: Taiwan

Fortigurn · Joined: 29 Oct 2003 Posts: 390

clark.w.griswald · Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 2056

Aristotle · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 1388 Location: Taiwan

clark.w.griswald · Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 2056

Scott Ezell

I think that it was ridiculous what happened to Scott Ezell. It seems to me that he was of far more benefit to Taiwan than many foreigners, and some locals for that matter, and it was Taiwan's loss in having him deported. The case was clearly an abuse of power by the police officer involved, but this is not the CLA's fault.

The fact is that the law clearly states that foreigners cannot work at any place other than for the employer contained on their work permit. This includes voluntary work. Performers are required to obtain permits to perform, and as a performer he should have known that. Ignorance is no defence.

Now, I won't attempt to defend the law as the part that pertains to voluntary work seems particularly ridiculous to me, but I don't see that the CLA had much choice in the matter. They don't make the laws and have to abide by their direction whether they agree with it or not. Mr Ezell broke the law, and unfortunately for him the police chose to pursue the matter. I would have thought that it would have been better to have given him a warning as it does seem that he may have complied in future, but for some reason the police officer was unwilling to do so and wanted to make an example of him.

Is this unfair for Scott - most certainly yes!

Is this an example of CLA inefficiency - most certainly not!

The CLA was only acting under the laws of the land. An official complaint was most likely made for Mr Ezells work permit to be revoked, and as he was guilty of the offence, the CLA were obviously given no choice. In fact, to have tried to undermine the deportation could have had further more serious repercussions for the rest of us.

It seems that the CLA did in fact do their best to help him by giving him a temporary reprieve. I think that you are attacking the messenger, and do not agree that this is an example of CLA mismanagement.

Susan Tombs

I have no idea how this example rates as an example of the incompetence you have claimed that the CLA are guilty of. There is no mention of the CLA in the article, nor any mention of the fact that the CLA were even aware of the case. The only mention of the authorities was that the paperwork had been provided to her, but that she hadn't submitted an official complaint.

From my understanding of the Employment Legislation here in Taiwan it is illegal to take an upfront deposit from an employee, or make deductions from their pay during the period of their employ for the purposes of a security deposit. I don't believe that it is illegal however to levy a penalty on employees for breach of contract, a penalty which could easily be disguised as a training fee etc. In fact the practice of penalizing local staff who breach employment contracts is so widespread that I am almost convinced that the practice is in fact totally legal. This puts me at odds with those that claim such penalties are illegal, but then the people who claim this could post a link to the wording in the legislation that actually shows this to be the case. Penalizing teachers for breaching contracts is certainly morally questionable, but I have seen nothing to suggest that it is illegal.

I do not support the taking of money from teachers who breach their contracts on what would appear legitimate grounds, however it is obviously difficult to qualify what 'legitimate grounds' are. I agree entirely with the suggestion that employees breaching contracts is part of life and an expense that employees should have to wear, but knowing how readily some employees move from employer to employer, I can totally understand an employer wanting to deter this practice by instituting a penalty clause upfront.

In my opinion, if the amount of this penalty is clearly stated in writing upfront, and you agree to sign the contract then you are argeeing to this penalty. Afterall, we are all adults and we all need to be responsible for our own decisions. Of course you cannot legally enforce illegal clauses in a contract, but as I have stated above, it is not clear to me that penalties are in fact illegal. Deposits are most certainly illegal, but I don't see that penalties are. If an adult agrees to this because they want the job that is being offered, then they have to accept the good with the bad.

The case of Susan Tombs seems to be an example of a fairly common problem here in Taiwan. That is teachers accepting jobs and then for one reason or another wanting to leave. In some cases their reasons are quite legitimate, at other times not. I am confident though that in cases where the teachers reasons for leaving are reasonable that mediation would result in no penalty being levied. In cases though where a teacher simply wants to accept another higher paying job or the like, then I would be equally sure that little sympathy would be shown in mediation.

The article mentions that Ms Tombs left her job after changes in work hours and because she was not satisfied with her work conditions. As we all know, buxiban hours can change quite often as new classes open and close. Over the course of time these changes generally work themselves out. Good teachers generally have no shortage of hours, but those teachers that are just not cutting it may miss out. It would be interesting to know what the reasons were for her dissatisfication with the job. When you read some of the complaints that some teachers make about schools it becomes apparent how unreasonable some of us foreigners can be at times. If however, her complaints were totally legitimate then mediation could quite possibly have resulted in a positive outcome.

The facts of the case:
1. She signed a contract in full knowledge of the penalties for premature breach.
2. Upon breach she was penalized the amount stated in the contract that she had agreed to. No more.
3. Upon making a complaint she was provided with the relevant paperwork and invited to take advantage of FREE mediation of the matter.
4. She complained about the fact that the documents are in Chinese. Well, this is Taiwan, and Chinese is the official and legal language of this country.
5. The authorities hadn't received her complaint, without which there is nothing that they could do.
6. The school was willing to pay her her full wage less the agreed upon penalty.

Once again I disagree that this is an example of CLA inefficiency. Legally the school was in the right contract wise. The teacher had the right to appeal, but it appears that she chose not to. Had she appealed then I guarantee that she would have got a fair hearing. If it was found in her favor then she would have had the right to receive her money. If it was found that she didn't have a case to be answered, then I guess that mediation would have upheld the schools actions. That seems to be the fairest way for all concerned.

Overall the CLA are doing a fine job. They are not perfect, and I am sure that some people do fall between the cracks, just as they do in every country and with every government authority. The fact remains however that foreign teachers are better off now that the CLA is solely in charge of work permits, than we were when the MOE was involved.

clark.w.griswald · Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 2056

Still waiting for some answers to the questions raised Aristotle!

Here is the article that Aristotle referred to in another post.

Aristotle claimed that Scott was being deported as a result of inadequacies in the CLA. This is not supported by the article from which he has quoted. In fact the article seems to support the fact that the CLA did everything by the book, and everything in their power to assist Scott.

Firstly, the CLA was handed a complaint from the Taidong police containing a signed confession of wrong doing from Scott. I understand that it has become apparent that there were discrepancies in the way that this document was obtained by the police, but the CLA were not privy to these problems until after a decision had been made.