|
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 |
TaoyuanSteve
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Posts: 1028
Location: Taoyuan
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Clark, can I ask you to simply state your viewpoints in one post and stop it with the argumentation? Our differing viewpoints are known, and you are not more correct than I am. Just state your views and stop ripping apart my posts. No more pissing matches please. There's room for more than your view on this site (or at least there ought to be). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mpan
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 35
Location: Taoyuan, Taiwan
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| While I do agree with the sentiment in clark's posts, I do think that in a modern industrialized country you should be able to leave a job without financial repercusions. Any job I have ever had has never required more then 2 weeks notice. I am here for the long haul that is for sure, and i most certainly realize that you must adapt to local custom and culture. I will, however, say that in Canada any employer that would try to keep my wages for any reason would be facing some serious legal action and they would lose. Yes I am fully aware that I am not in Canada and when it comes down to it, I will have to go with the flow here or leave. I just don't think that taiwan will be able to truly be part of the international community until things like deposits and the like are done away with. On the other hand, I think clark is right in the sense that when you make a commitment you should stick with it....... just wanted to add my 2 cents to that ........ now I have to go look for a job before I teach tonight lol ...... later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilanian
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You can add Korea to your list of countries that will not be part of the international community, as they too, penalize for cutting out early, 10 days pay or 400,000 won back in the day for me. I cut out early, paid the fine and had no complaints about doing so because it had been agreed upon. I saw it has the harmless way to get out of my contract. Pay the fine, no hurt feelings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clark.w.griswald
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TaoyuanSteve wrote: |
| Clark, can I ask you to simply state your viewpoints in one post and stop it with the argumentation? Our differing viewpoints are known, and you are not more correct than I am. Just state your views and stop ripping apart my posts. No more pissing matches please. There's room for more than your view on this site (or at least there ought to be). |
TS you have accused me of being oversensitive in the past. Your last post sure looks like you are the one being oversensitive.
This is a discussion forum, and I am discussing the points that you have made. I have not insulted you nor have I made derogatory comments toward you. I have merely questioned the reasoning behind your opinion, and called into question the age old excuses used by those looking to skip out of a contract.
This is not Clark's nor TS's opinion page - this is a discussion forum. I have never said that someone is wrong for having an opinion different to mine on deposits, I have merely asked those with differing opinions to explain their reasoning.
I have asked you some questions pertinent to the opinion that you chose to post here, and in keeping with the purpose of a discussion forum it might help if you actually answer these questions. If you don't want to discuss what you post, then why post it?
Here are my questions again, which will save you from having to read through my posts again:
| Quote: |
| Well assuming that penalties for contract breach are as unreasonable and out of place as you have suggested, then please name a school (or preferably a short list of schools) that don�t have any form of penalty for contract breach. |
| Quote: |
| I�d be interested in hearing what examples of [immorla and illegal clauses] these would be. |
| Quote: |
| And if the shoe were on the other foot would you call it nonsense.[Would you call it nonsense if the employer decided not to honor the contract by saying that he/she shouldn't have signed it in the first place.] |
| Quote: |
| What should be the repercussions upon the employer if you turn up for work one day and the employer simply says �I�ve changed my mind and we want a female teacher, not a male teacher so your out of a job. See ya!� How is that any different from an employee saying �I�ve changed my mind and decided that I want to work CBA school not ABC school. See ya!� These are the same and the party breaching should compensate the other party. |
My main points just to clarify:
1. If I were an employer then I doubt that I would institute a penalty based system, but I don't blame employers that do, many of whom have been burnt in the past.
2. Employers who charge deposits or bonds upfront should be avoided as these are illegal clauses.
3. Employers who write a penalty clause into their employment contract should not be accused of acting illegally or immorally. They are operating within the laws of the land here, and only doing what the majority of businesses do here.
4. If you don't agree with the penalty system that is used by an employer then don't work for them. You have the right of choice, os exercise this right and find a job elsewhere.
5. If you have legitimate reasons for breaking your contract then seek mediation and you will quite likely be released without penalty. If your reasons for leaving are not legitimate then just pay the penalty that you agreed to and move on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ki
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 475
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is human nature to make excuses. Sometimes, just sometimes these excuses are legitimate.
It does seem in at least someway natural for employers who have been burned in the past to instigate these negative countermeasures to ensure that teachers don't skip out on their responsibilities. But these measures also help to ensure that when teachers need to leave, instead of being as responsible as they could otherwise be to their school (ie giving two weeks notice, help find a new teacher, etc) go for the lose as little as possible attitude and skip town directly after their paycheck.
If it is possible for employers to not pay bonuses then isn't it also just as feasible for them to not pay back deposits? Granted that it would be illegal to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clark.w.griswald
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ki wrote: |
| It does seem in at least someway natural for employers who have been burned in the past to instigate these negative countermeasures to ensure that teachers don't skip out on their responsibilities. But these measures also help to ensure that when teachers need to leave, instead of being as responsible as they could otherwise be to their school (ie giving two weeks notice, help find a new teacher, etc) go for the lose as little as possible attitude and skip town directly after their paycheck. |
Agreed. This can be an unexpected outcome of penalties for premature breach. Although in some cases employers are reasonable and levy these penalties fairly, in other cases employers exercise their full rights under the contract regardless of contrary logic.
For example. I noticed a guy who posted on another site about going home early after crashing his motorbike. The crash was possibly not his fault, but certainly not the emlpoyers. If the guy just decided not to go back to work then he would quite reasonably forfeit the full penalty even though from his view he may feel that there are extenuating circumstances. If however he was able to stay for a few weeks or a month until the school found a replacement, or if he supplied the school with a suitable replacement then the penalty should be reduced accordingly. I know that this does happen, but probably doesn't happen as often as it could.
I still feel though that a genuine person would accept that there is a penalty for breach that has been agreed to and that if you breach you pay that penalty. If the school decides to cut you a break then great, but if they choose to exercise their rights then that shouldn't be used as an excuse to just do a runner or to suggest that the school is a bad one.
| Ki wrote: |
| If it is possible for employers to not pay bonuses then isn't it also just as feasible for them to not pay back deposits? |
Anything is possible, but assuming that the employer is legitimate then I think it fair to expect the following.
In the case of bonuses, there will often be a clause in a contract that pertains to the payment or non-payment of bonuses in case of premature breach. In some cases bonuses such as attendance bonuses are paid during the course of the year, in others they are held till the end. More and more schools are offering less per month as they are offering end of contract bonuses that make up for this over the course of the year. Most would see these bonuses as being more positive than penalties, but in a way teachers are more vulnerable to losing money through the non-payment of bonuses than they are to loss of a penalty.
Penalties are only ever inacted for premature breach. Any employer that attempted to take the penalty even after a teacher had successfully completed the contract, could be taken to mediation for this.
Bonuses are less definite. Often there may be a clause that states something along the lines of them being paid only after satisfactory completion of the contract. Well, what does 'satisfactory' mean? There are any number of reasons that an employer could use to avoid paying these bonuses even if a teacher had legitimately earned them, and it would be next to impossible to prove that the employer should pay these monies.
My point is that yes the penalty system is open to abuse, but no more so than any other aspect of work here. In my opinion the bad employers are in the minority, and therefore anyone who has a penalty clause in their contract could only expect it to be enacted if they breach prematurely. If you stay for the term of the contract as agreed then there is no reason for the employer to attempt to penalize you, and if they did there are actions that you could take. If you do need to leave early then you can always discuss this with your boss. Sure he or she might take the full penalty, but then again they may be willing to work with you on this if you work with them. Often the people who suggest that you need to do a runner to keep your money have never actually worked with the employer on the problem, and just assumed that doing a runner was the only way out. |
|
| 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
