Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - loads of negativity to recruiters so how then???????

Get TEFL Certified & Start Your Adventure Today!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

loads of negativity to recruiters so how then???????
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Taiwan

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

TaoyuanSteve

Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Posts: 1028
Location: Taoyuan

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:06 pm Post subject:

Thought I'd set the record straight on one matter: More than one poster advises against the use of recruiters. I have always advised against them. They are a bad risk-- and one that is completely preventable at that. I do not represent any websites or secret societies. I have no agendas I'm trying to forward through my posting. I'm simply a fellow teacher who posts about Taiwan life in his free time. I don't mind telling you, though, that I had a very negative experience with a recruiter when I arrived here. I later found that most people I encountered here who used recruiters to assist in their job search and relocation were less than satisfied. Complaints ranged from low paying jobs in the sticks to outright rip-offs. In fact, the consensus among expats in the know is that recruiters are best avoided. Search the largest Taiwan expat site forumosa.com for this topic and you'll see that this point of view is anything but a fringe opinion; it is what most will tell you. Although the job market is not as good as it was in the past, a presentable person with a BA can still land here with no connections and find work on their own in relatively short order. The internet is also great resource. A few searches will reveal the web sites and contact information for most major English teaching companies here. Basically, a recruiter does nothing you can't do for yourself. This is why it is simply in your better interest to secure your own employment and leave recruiters out of the process. Not all recruiters are bad-- they can't all be-- but the risk is there. Given that recruiters aren't necessary anyway, it simply makes sense to avoid them, except in cases of desperation. I don't often agree with Aristotle. On this issue, however, he is dead on. The best advice where recruiters are concerned is: AVOIDANCE

martinphipps

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 55
Location: Taiwan

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 6:43 am Post subject:

clark.w.griswald wrote:

Hi Martin,

I am not sure what your source is on all of this,

personal experience + heresay + on line information

clark.w.griswald wrote:

martinphipps wrote:

The laws were changed back in January of last year. Nowadays, the ARC entitles you to work anywhere.

No it doesn't.

The Chinese name of your employer is named on your ARC. You cannot work at any other location expect for the registered business address of that employer.

The purpose of an ARC is to register foreigners as taxpayers. Some foreigners avoid getting ARCs so as to not pay taxes. This is, of course, illegal. It would also be illegal to work somewhere else part time and not pay taxes. However, if you pay all your taxes, either through the employer listed on your ARC or otherwise, then the government is happy.

For God's sake, this fall I have a part time job at the National Taichung Institute of Technology. It's a national college and they hire plenty of foreigners to teach part time. Do you seriously believe that this practice is illegal? I've officially been put on the payroll for heaven's sake! My current contract at Chungtai University even specifically says that I am allowed to work part time elsewhere, subject to their approval, and I've got my approval letter on my desk in front of me. NTIT also sends out letters formally requesting that they be allowed to borrow teachers on a part time basis. This is not something that is being done under the table.

clark.w.griswald wrote:

martinphipps wrote:

Even when I originally got my work permit back in 2003, it didn't specifically say I had to work where I was working: it didn't even say I had to teach English! Presumably I could have gone to work anywhere and did anything.

The work permit is a letter written entirely in Chinese, with the exception of the foreign teachers name. This document serves no useful purpose other than being essential in the process of obtaining a resident visa to remain and work in Taiwan.

And I can read Chinese. The document does not specify what kind of work you are expected to do. I was very surprised about that and asked my employer if I had read the Chinese correctly.

Quote:

martinphipps wrote:

What changed was that, starting in January of 2004, an employer could no longer cancel your ARC.

This is incorrect also.

Employers have never had the right to cancel a teachers ARC.

Employers can request to have the work permit cancelled, which in turn invalidates the resident visa, which in turn invalidates the ARC. This may sound like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction to make.

The ARC by itself means nothing. The whole process is like a stack of cards that rests on the work permit. Without the work permit the whole stack falls down.

martinphipps wrote:

If that's the case, there would be NOTHING preventing you from working somewhere else

Nothing but the law!

You cannot just work where you want to in Taiwan. You can only work for the employer named on your ARC.

martinphipps wrote:

I know: I had my ARC "cancelled" and left the country to go to Hong Kong and they told me "under the current law your ARC is still valid until you cancel it yourself".

Either you misunderstood or you were given some really bad advice. Either way, there is no point further perpetuating the myth.

Sigh. This was at the Taipei economic and cultural office in Hong Kong, the defacto Taiwanese consulate. I happen to think they probably knew more than you about the current state of the law.

Quote:

The fact is that the ARC remains valid so long as your resident visa remains valid. You just need to update your ARC each year and get a new 'Entry-Exit' stamp in your passport. The resident visa remains valid as long as you have a work permit to remain here.

People don't generally cancel ARC's be they schools or individuals, as the ARC doesn't mean anything by itself. Schools will request for your work permit to be revoked.

The fact is that the law has changed: the ARC now belongs to you and not to your employer. If your employer fires you and cancells your work permit then you cannot work, obviously, until you get a new job and a new work visa, but you no longer have to leave the country: you can stay until your ARC expires naturally. This was clearly explained to me when I went to Hong Kong. The woman at the counter was clearly dismayed that I had been misinformed about the current state of the law and had undergone a wasted trip.

Quote:

martinphipps wrote:

Go to http://www.tealit.com for more details.

That site is operated by a recruitment company and is riddled with inaccuracies. You might want to quote the information on that site that backs up your claims!

For God's sake, are you completely unable to navigate the site yourself?
Try http://www.tealit.com/arc_transfers_and_release_letters.htm The first paragraph reads

Quote:

On January 15th, 2004 the national Council of Labor Affairs, CLA, assumed responsibility for issuing foreign teacher' swork permits from local city and county Departments of Education. The resulting transfer has altered the landscape for foreign teachers working in Taiwan. One policy theCouncil of Labor Affairs has fundamentally revised: ARC Transfers. They are now not necessary.

As for the site being run by a recruitment company, you should check out http://www.tealit.com/agents.htm where they say

Quote:

There are English teaching jobs ALL OVER Taiwan. Come with enough money, US$1,000 - 2,000 to get you here and set up comfortably. If you are concerned about arriving without a job, then go with one of the majors. Otherwise, do the search yourself when you arrive. The jobs are so ubiquitous you�ll get the opportunity to evaluate them and see where you�d like to work first.

I don't see any evidence to support your claim that they are trying to recruit people beyond simply encouraging people to come to Taiwan.

Quote:

Sorry if my post comes across as offensive, but I just hate misinformation.

If you hate misinformation then please stop misinforming people.

Martin[/i]

clark.w.griswald

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056

Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:54 am Post subject:

Well Martin I don't really know what to say to you. You obviously have your mind made up about the situation, unfortunately this does not make the information you give correct.

martinphipps wrote:

clark.w.griswald wrote:

Hi Martin,

I am not sure what your source is on all of this,

personal experience + heresay + on line information

Well the factors that seem to be missing here, and the factors that I personally would think to be the most important are:

1. Legislation
2. Common sense

A lot of what you are saying exhibits a direct lack of understanding of relevant legislation, as well as common sense.

martinphipps wrote:

I am afraid that I disagree with you on this one entirely.

The only purpose of the Alien Resident Certificate (ARC) is as an identity card.

Of course the tax department is happy to get taxes from any source of income that a foreigner has in Taiwan, regardless of what work you do or where you work. That is common sense. This does not however make it legal for foreign teachers to work wherever they want, which is what you have stated.

Foreigners can only work for employers through which a work permit has been issued permitting this work. The name of any such employer must be stated on the ARC. In past years, foreigners could only have one legal employer, now they can have more than one, but each of these needs to obtain a seperate work permit and must be listed on the ARC.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that foreigners can work wherever they want just because they have an ARC?

Are you suggesting that your employers name is not written on your ARC?

As I know that your employers name is on your ARC then I have to ask, why do you think your employers name is on your ARC if you can indeed work for whoever, and wherever you want?

martinphipps wrote:

If the school has provided you with a work permit, and the name of the school is listed on your ARC then you are working legally.

If the school has not provided you with a work permit and/or the schools name is not on your ARC then you are working illegally.

I am not trying to suggest anything. I am stating fact that is backed up by the legislation on the matter.

martinphipps wrote:

I've officially been put on the payroll for heaven's sake!

This is really irrelevant. Just because you get paid and your school pays taxes doesn't make the position a legal one.

The only legal position for foreigners is one which provides the teacher with a work permit and ARC (or their name on your current ARC).

martinphipps wrote:

My current contract at Chungtai University even specifically says that I am allowed to work part time elsewhere, subject to their approval, and I've got my approval letter on my desk in front of me.

Your contract is a civil employment contract between yourself and the school. It cannot, and does not, override the law.

The clause that you refer to in your contract is the schools opinion that they do not mind if you work elsewhere part time, but this does not free you from your responsibilities under the law. It would be your responsibility to ensure that such work was legal, and the only way for you to be working legally in that second job would be for you to have a work permit with the second employer and have their name on your ARC.

If you look carefully at your contract there will no doubt be another clause that states something along the lines of if you are to act illegally in Taiwan that your contract could be cancelled and you could be held responsible for costs. You want to be careful if you are working a second job illegally as this would constitute breach under this clause if you were caught and fined by the police.

martinphipps wrote:

NTIT also sends out letters formally requesting that they be allowed to borrow teachers on a part time basis. This is not something that is being done under the table.

Just because they may operate this way does not make it legal.

At the end of the day, foreign teachers need to look after themselves and ensure that they are not leaving themselves vulnerable by breaking laws unknowingly. Often times schools themselves are not familiar with the laws that apply to the employment of foreigners, and this is why I always suggest that teachers familiarize themselves with the laws. If you don't then you may fall into the trap that Martin has obviously fallen into, and if you are really unlucky you only realize this when it's too late.

Have you noticed Martin that many people in Taiwan tend to run red lights? General lack of enforcement may allow them to get away with it dozens of times, but this does not make it legal, nor does it make it okay. One day they will get caught and they will get fined. They could try to claim that it is okay because everybody does it, but at the end of the day they will have to pay the penalty. In the case of teachers working illegally in Taiwan, this penalty may be deportation. Now you may be willing to take that risk. That is your personal choice. But please do not come here and suggest that it is okay to work anywhere you want, as it is wrong, and it is likely to get some people into trouble.

martinphipps wrote:

And I can read Chinese. The document does not specify what kind of work you are expected to do. I was very surprised about that and asked my employer if I had read the Chinese correctly.

Nor did I say that the work permit states what kind of work you can or can't do.

What the work permit does state is the name of your employer, and this is the only employer that you are permitted to work for.

Are you suggesting that the name of the employer is not stated on the work permit?

Why would the name of the employer be stated on the work permit, if as you suggest, foreigners could work for any employer, anywhere?

martinphipps wrote:

Sigh. This was at the Taipei economic and cultural office in Hong Kong, the defacto Taiwanese consulate. I happen to think they probably knew more than you about the current state of the law.

And there lieth your first problem.

Anyone who has been in Taiwan, or Asia for that matter, for any length of time would know that often the people we would expect would know the answers, don't. You could join one line in the visa office and get one answer, go to the back of the next line and get a completely different answer to the same question from a different clerk.

The sad fact is that often the staff in places such as the TECO offices have a very narrow understanding of much else that what they directly deal with. I don't blame them for this, but it is a fact.

If indeed they did tell you what you say they told you, then that is just another inaccuracy to add to the long list of inaccuracies they have told people in the past.

martinphipps wrote:

The fact is that the law has changed: the ARC now belongs to you and not to your employer.

That has not changed and it has always been the case. The ARC as I stated earlier in much like an ID card. It serves no purpose for others and therefore it is yours, not the schools. Theoretically, it probably owned by the government, but that is another story. It is however most certainly not the schools property.

martinphipps wrote:

If your employer fires you and cancells your work permit then you cannot work, obviously, until you get a new job and a new work visa, but you no longer have to leave the country: you can stay until your ARC expires naturally.

You are confusing yourself, and no doubt others too.

The employer is required by law to cancel your work permit if you leave them for any reason - not just because they fire you.

You cannot work for anyone but that employer on that work permit as the work permit is issued in your name for that specific employer. So yes, when you leave one job, you need to secure a new work permit from any new employer.

You cannot then just find another job and continue working until your ARC expires, unless you secure a new work permit to support your ARC.

Actually, you need to leave the country within 10 days of your work permit being cancelled, unless you have made prior arrangements such as having a new work permit already in place before the first one is cancelled.

Your advice that you can just stay on after leaving one employer and until your ARC expires naturally is wrong and would lead to an overstay if you attempted this.

martinphipps wrote:

This was clearly explained to me when I went to Hong Kong. The woman at the counter was clearly dismayed that I had been misinformed about the current state of the law and had undergone a wasted trip.

My suggestion is that you ask her to point out in the legislation where it states that a foreigner can do what you suggest they can do. I guarantee that you can't as it is wrong.

In fact Martin I suggest that you spend a moment or two reading through some of the relevant legislation before you post here again on this matter. You can see a lot of the legislation in English at www.buxiban.com

martinphipps wrote:

For God's sake, are you completely unable to navigate the site yourself?
Try http://www.tealit.com/arc_transfers_and_release_letters.htm The first paragraph reads

Quote:

I am quite capable of navigating websites, thank you for your concern.

I was requesting a specific quote from the text that backed up your claim. As I expected you have misread the information on that site.

What you are referring to in the quote from tealit is regarding the ARC transfer process.

Previously, teachers wanting to change jobs needed to get a release letter from their old employer before they could get a work permit for the new employer. This was because foreigners were then only entitled to one employer. The problem was that very few employers would take the time to provide the teacer with a release form as in many cases the first school didn't want to help the teacher leave and get work with the second school.

The changes that tealit refers to in that article is that foreign teachers no longer need a release letter. A teacher can now either add two employers to their ARC or change employers by getting a new work permit and making ammendments to his or her ARC.

Martin, what you have quoted does not state that teachers can work without a valid work permit, nor does it state that teachers can work until their ARC expires naturally, nor does it state that teachers can work wherever they want to work.

Please point out where it states anywhere on tealit or anywhere else that what you are suggesting is true. So far you have stated your opinion. Now you might like to back this opinion up with some facts.

martinphipps wrote:

As for the site being run by a recruitment company, you should check out http://www.tealit.com/agents.htm where they say

I don't see any evidence to support your claim that they are trying to recruit people beyond simply encouraging people to come to Taiwan.

Do you really think that tealit wants people to know that they are a recruitment company? I can assure you that they don't want this known and that it is obvious why they wouldn't publicize this fact on their site.

Just because you don't know something doesn't make it fact. The tealit recruitment company trades under the name Foreign English Teacher Consultants.

As to the inaccuracy of the information posted on that site, well there is plenty of it. Just take a look at their article on deposits!

martinphipps wrote:

If you hate misinformation then please stop misinforming people.

Yeah right!

TaoyuanSteve

Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Posts: 1028
Location: Taoyuan

Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:27 am Post subject:

Martin: Rule number 1 on "Clark's ESL Cafe" is don't go up against the omnipotent, omniscient Clark W. himself. LOL This must really be his site; after all, he seems to think only his opinions matter. Everyone else's experiences are simply "misinformation." Should you post anything that does not correspond with his particular viewpoint concerning Taiwan, he'll post a long-winded reply complete with subtle barbs and insults. He will continue to reply to anything you write in response in the same manner (he always gets the last word---always) until you either get drawn into a flame-out or get silenced by him. Of course, you'll deserve it because--don't you know-- only he knows what's going on here on our little island. The rest of us are simply spreading "misinformation."

martinphipps

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 55
Location: Taiwan

Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 4:27 am Post subject:

clark.w.griswald wrote:

Well Martin I don't really know what to say to you. You obviously have your mind made up about the situation, unfortunately this does not make the information you give correct.

martinphipps wrote:

clark.w.griswald wrote:

Hi Martin,

I am not sure what your source is on all of this,

personal experience + heresay + on line information

Well the factors that seem to be missing here, and the factors that I personally would think to be the most important are:

1. Legislation
2. Common sense

Common sense? Is it common sense to believe you instead of people who are trained to know the up to date legislation? Is it common sense that a Taiwanese University would allow foreigners to work illegally and risk losing their lisence? Is it common sense to believe that a National College would be hiring foreigners illegally?

[/quote]In fact Martin I suggest that you spend a moment or two reading through some of the relevant legislation before you post here again on this matter. You can see a lot of the legislation in English at www.buxiban.com[/quote]

Okay, let's see what I can find. I have to be careful of course to find legistlation that specifically refers to the rights and responsibilities of foreigners in Taiwan: I already know that only certain foreigners can be hired (ie those with the relevent skills and level of education) and that only certain institutions can hire foreigners (ie those which already have qualified Taiwanese teachers and which are teaching students above kindergarten age) so that legislation isn't an issue. I'll try to identify and quote the relevent legislation. Here we go:

Quote:

Engagement in work not prescribed in work permit is not allowed:
The work in which foreign workers engage shall be limited to the one prescribed in the work permit.

This is technically different from what you said in your post. I am looking at my work permit right now: granted it is in Chinese and it is a bit difficult to read but I don't see where it says what kind of work I am expected to be doing. The kind of work I am to do here in Taiwan is specified on my contract which I also have in front of me: I _can_ read where it says that I am allowed to work four hours at another college or university. Now, let's use common sense: how can a legal contract (especially one written in Chinese) allow me to do something which is illegal? It can't. It all looks perfectly legal to me. My work permit does give the name of my employer but this is understandable because it is the institution and not the employee that applies for the work permit.

Keep in mind that Taiwanese law makes distinctions between blue collar and white collar workers and blue collar workers are far, far more restricted in terms of what they can do than white collar workers. The work permit for a blue collar worker may very well state exactly where the foreigner can work and what kind of work the foreigner can do. Indeed, consider the following quote from your website:

Quote:

The maximum duration of a foreign worker to work in Taiwan is 2 years; the employers may apply once for an extension of no more than 1 year upon expiration of contract.

No way. I've already been working here two years so I guess I will be illegal no matter what I do. I know for a fact that there have been people working here eight years already and they've been able to get a ARC. It looks like you are providing people with legislation that only applies to blue collar workers. Please provide the up to date legislation that applies to white collar workers.

The legislation you provided refers specifically to "construction workers", "caretakers" and "restaurant employees". This is another indication that this legislation is for blue collar workers. Indeed, if I skip down past all those references I find this:

Quote:

According to Article 50, Employment Service Act, the foreign workers engage in the work prescribed in Sub-Paragraph 7 to 9, Paragraph 1, Article 43 (namely the blue-collar workers), shall not change employers and work.

Here they specifically say "blue collar workers". You need to read the legislation more carefully. Where is the legislation dealing with white collar workers? It doesn't appear to be available on your site.

So, in response to your objections: 1) it seems common sense is on my side and 2) you have failed to provide the relevent legislation that backs up your claims. It is because of this kind of misinformation that I engaged in a wasted trip to Hong Kong.

Martin

clark.w.griswald

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056

Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 12:38 pm Post subject:

Just so that this discussion is very clear. You have come to this forum and stated a number of times that:

1. Foreigners can work for whoever they want in Taiwan provided that they have an ARC with at least one company.
2. Foreigners who leave a job can remain in the country and continue to work legally until their ARC expires, and that no new work permit is required for this.

I disagree with these two main points and will outline why below with reference to the relevant legislation.

martinphipps wrote:

Is it common sense to believe you instead of people who are trained to know the up to date legislation?

Martin I don't really care who you choose to believe. What is important to me is that the readers of this forum get the facts. If you are so confident that you understood the lady in HK correctly and that what she said was factual then I reiterate my earlier suggestion - Why not ask her, or you yourself, produce evidence of the legislation from which she was working that states what you claim to be fact. Surely if you are correct and the lady knows exactly what she is talking about then the evidence must be written down somewhere. So let's see it.

martinphipps wrote:

Is it common sense that a Taiwanese University would allow foreigners to work illegally and risk losing their lisence?

Firstly they wouldn't risk losing their licences.

Secondly this is Taiwan and as we all know things are done differently here.

Thirdly just because they may do this does not necessarily make it legal, and this is why I repeat my warning. While I believe that the majority of employers in Taiwan are essentially honest, I believe that a huge majority of them are relatively clueless when it comes to legislation. Many employers employ foreign teachers not knowing that they are doing so illegally in some cases. The onus therefore is on US the foreign teachers to educate ourselves about what is and isn't legal. Afterall, at the end of the day, the buck stops with us in the case of illegal work.

martinphipps wrote:

Is it common sense to believe that a National College would be hiring foreigners illegally?

As I state above, it is quite possible that they do so unknowingly.

martinphipps wrote:

I am looking at my work permit right now: granted it is in Chinese and it is a bit difficult to read but I don't see where it says what kind of work I am expected to be doing.

Martin do you even read posts before replying.

At no time have I stated nor suggested that the type of work we do is stipulated on our work permit. The issue in contention is that the work permit is issued in the name of one employer, and only that employer is legally allowed to hire us.

martinphipps wrote:

The kind of work I am to do here in Taiwan is specified on my contract which I also have in front of me: I _can_ read where it says that I am allowed to work four hours at another college or university.

And again this is something that I have already addressed in my earlier post.

Your contract with the school is a civil agreement between you and the school. An employment contract cannot and does not override the legislation, so what the school states in the contract about work outside the university does not apply to you and if you did indeed accept such work without the relevant paperwork (work permit and ammendment to your ARC) then you would be doing so illegally. If you want to do this then fine, but please don't suggest that just because you contract says you can do it that it is legal. It is not!

martinphipps wrote:

Now, let's use common sense: how can a legal contract (especially one written in Chinese) allow me to do something which is illegal? It can't.

Exactly. I totally agree with you. Just because it is written in your contract does not make it legal. So as I say, as the legislation specifically states that you cannot work anywhere other than the employer named on your ARC, any work outside the school would be illegal, which makes this clause in your contract invalid.

The clause may however apply to a foreigner who had permanent residency in Taiwan through marriage or some other method. Therefore there is no problem at all with the clause in your contract - it quite simply does not apply to you.

martinphipps wrote:

My work permit does give the name of my employer but this is understandable because it is the institution and not the employee that applies for the work permit.

Exactly, just as I have been saying all along.

The work permit is issued in the name of the employer that applies for it and has your name on it. The document is just a step in the process to legal work and by itself doesn't mean much at all. It is non-transferrable and can only be used for you to legally work at that employer. The name of the employer on your work permit is that name of the employer that gets put on your ARC.

It does not allow you to work for any other employer. Each new employer needs to apply for their own seperate work permit for you.

martinphipps wrote:

Keep in mind that Taiwanese law makes distinctions between blue collar and white collar workers...

Quote:

The maximum duration of a foreign worker to work in Taiwan is 2 years; the employers may apply once for an extension of no more than 1 year upon expiration of contract.

You have not quoted legislation above. You have quoted from a guide for blue collar workers. The relevant legislation for the above is Employment Services Act, Article 52, and the legislation clearly states the category of worker that this rule applies to.

I agree that blue collar workers from South East Asian countries are treated differently at times to foreign teachers. I have been here for more than 10 years and I can assure you that the above quote does not apply to foreign teachers.

My comments are not directed to the situation of blue collar workers. My comments are directed towards foreign teachers as this is the purpose of this board. Your mention of the above has no relevance to foreign teachers and just serves to confuse. It does not answer the question posed.

The question is whether or not foreign teachers are allowed to work at an employer who does not issue them with a work permit. The answer is categorically 'No'.

martinphipps wrote:

It looks like you are providing people with legislation that only applies to blue collar workers. Please provide the up to date legislation that applies to white collar workers.

This is not seperate legislation - it is the same.

The buxiban site notes in large text at the bottom of the page that you got this information from that it doesn't apply to foreign teachers as much as it applies to blue collar workers. Have a look at the bottom of this page. I think you should look more closely when you are doing future research, and be careful not to put your foot in your mouth.

The fact is however that at any time the government could start to enforce the legislation equally, so it would be unwise of anyone to suggest that the legislation doesn't apply to them just because it isn't often used against them. You never know what will happen in the future.

Now, for someone who claims to be an assosciate professor with a PhD, I am somewhat surprised that you would think that the quoting of the legislation that you have done here is even near comprehensive. Even the crummiest of defence lawyers can pick at the legislation for scraps that might help to overwhelm a member of the jury who isn't familiar with the legislation. So, I will provide a more comprehensive linkage to the relevant legislation to show that the two claims that you have made are in fact wrong.

The Employment Services Act

This is the legislation that regulates employment of nationals and foreigners in Taiwan.

Quote:

Article 43

Unless otherwise provided for in the present Act, no Foreign Worker may engage in work within the territory of the Republic of China should his/her Employer have not yet obtained a Permit via application therefor.

So article 43 pretty clearly states that foreigners must have a work permit to work for an employer in Taiwan.

Quote:

Article 45

No one may illegally refer Foreign Worker to work for any third party.

Article 45 refers to work for a 'third party' being illegal. The third party is obviously any employer other than the employer through which the work permit has been received.

Quote:

Article 46

Employer, when employing Foreign Worker to engage in work as referred to in Subparagraphs 8 to 10 of Paragraph 1 of this Article, shall execute labor contract in writing with the employed Foreign Worker and with fixed duration only; in case where it is not so fixed, the duration of his/her employment shall be deemed as the same with the duration of Employment Permit thereof. The foregoing in this Paragraph shall hold true in the case of extension of such labor contract.

Article 46 makes reference to work permit, without which any work undertaken would be deemed as illegal.

Quote:

Article 48

Prior to employing Foreign Worker to engage in work, Employer shall apply to the Central Competent Authority for Employment Permit with relevant documents submitted. However, such a requirement of Employment Permit is exempted where the Foreign Worker in question is to be employed as counsel or researcher by the respective governmental organs or their subordinate academic research institutes, or the Foreign Worker in question has been married to a Republic of China national with a registered permanent residence in the territory of the Republic of China and has been permitted to stay therein.

Well I don't know how much clearer Article 48 can state that a work permit is required before legal work is permitted.

There are some exceptions and it is possible that you may be employed as per these exceptions, but these exceptions do not apply to the majority of teachers, nor users of this forum. You haven't stated that your work is being undertaken under one of those exceptions and you have generalized to suggest all teachers, so I assume that you are not talking about the small percentage of people to whom these exceptions apply.

Quote:

Article 53

Should an employed Foreign Worker have to transfer to a new Employer or be employed for two (2) or more Employers within the duration of the Employment Permit, the new Employer(s) shall apply for Permit therefor; in case of transfer to a new Employer, the new Employer shall submit upon such application the relevant document(s) certifying the termination of the previous employment.

Article 53 of the act also pretty clearly states the need for a work permit for each and every employer. This is also the article from the legislation that applies to the changing of employers that it reflected inaccurately in the article on the site that you have suggested as a good reference source on Taiwan, and by your own admission your source of information on the subject. Too bad that you didn't refer to the actual legislation first, rather than a poor third party interpretation of it.

Quote:

Article 57

As for employment of Foreign Worker(s), Employer shall not engage in any of the following:

1. Employing a Foreign Worker without Permit or after the expiration of Permit therefor, or a Foreign Worker that has been permitted to be employed at the same time by a third party;

2. Employing in the name of the Employer a Foreign Worker, but in reality causing that Foreign Worker engage in work for a third party;

3. Appointing the employed Foreign Worker to engage in work that is not within the sphere of the Permit;

4. Commanding, without permission therefor, an Foreign Worker who is employed to engage in the work as referred to in Subparagraphs 8 to 10 of Paragraph 1 of Article 46 to change his/her work place;

Article 57 of the act very clearly states that:

1. Employers cannot legally employ foreigners after their work permit has expired.

2. Employers cannot employ a foreigner without a permit, even if that foreigner has a permit to work for another third party.

3. Employers cannot employ a foreigner, provide them with a work permit and then allow them to work for a third party without a work permit - this would include part time or full time work for that third party.

4. Employers cannot appoint or even allow a foreigner to undertake work other than that covered by the work permit. Now, as we have already agreed, the work permit itself does not necessarily state the nature of the work, but the type of employer, and the clause of the act under which that foreigner is employed under does identify the type of work that this person may do under this work permit.

5. And finally, employers cannot ask or allow a foreign employee to work in a work place other than the registered business address of the employer named on the work permit.

Quote:

Article 73

Where any of the following circumstances has arisen or existed with respect to a Foreign Worker, the Employment Permit therefor shall be annulled:

1. The employed Foreign Worker has engaged in work for an Employer who is not stated in the Permit;

2. The employed Foreign Worker has engaged, without being appointed by his/her Employer, in work on his/her own initiative that is not within the sphere of the Permit;

Article 73 very clearly states that foreigners who work for an employer other than the one stated on his or her work permit, that the work permit will be annulled. Obviously that means that the work is considered illegal.

Quote:

Article 74

Unless otherwise provided for in the present Act, upon the expiration of the duration of Employment Permit or the annulment of said Permit in accordance with Article 73, the employed Foreign Worker concerned shall be immediately ordered to depart from the territory of the Republic of China and be barred from further engaging in work in the said territory.

Article 74 pretty clearly states that a foreigner must leave Taiwan upon the expiry or cancellation of his or her work permit. Although not stated in this part of the legislation, the grace period is 10 days. This seems to disprove your earlier suggestion that teachers can remain in Taiwan working legally until their ARC expires. It is the work permit that dictates our stay in Taiwan, not the ARC, which as I stated earlier is nothing but an ID card.

Permission and Administration: Foreign Workers

The majority of teachers in Taiwan are employed under Article 46 (3) and (4) of the Employment Services Act. As such these teachers are termed as "Class A foreign workers".

Quote:

Article 8

Should an employer find it necessary to continue the employment of the Class A Foreign Worker(s), the employer shall, within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the employment permit, apply for extension of the employment permit with the documents as referred to in Subparagraph 1, Subparagraphs 3 to 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 to the Central Competent Authorities .

This clearly states that foreign teachers need to be covered by a work permit during their entire time in Taiwan if they are working legally.

So referring back to your original assertions:

1. Foreigners can work for whoever they want in Taiwan provided that they have an ARC with at least one company.
2. Foreigners who leave a job can remain in the country and continue to work legally until their ARC expires, and that no new work permit is required for this.

It seems pretty clear that foreign teachers cannot work for any employer without a work permit for that employer.

And that foreign teachers must leave Taiwan if their work permit is cancelled and no new work permit has been approved.

The rest of what you need to know about leaving upon the cancellation of the work permit can be found in the Immigration Legislation.

clark.w.griswald

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056

Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 12:39 pm Post subject:

Double Post Last edited by clark.w.griswald on Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:48 pm; edited 1 time in total

martinphipps

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 55
Location: Taiwan

Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 10:44 pm Post subject:

clark.w.griswald wrote:

I didn't actually say that. Obviously it would be illegal to do work and not pay taxes. I said that already.

Quote:

2. Foreigners who leave a job can remain in the country and continue to work legally until their ARC expires, and that no new work permit is required for this.

Again, that's not what I said. I said quite clearly that they would have to obtain a new work permit. My point is that the previous employer cannot do anything to stop you from finding a new job. The former employee is free to go look for new work.

Quote:

martinphipps wrote:

I am looking at my work permit right now: granted it is in Chinese and it is a bit difficult to read but I don't see where it says what kind of work I am expected to be doing.

Martin do you even read posts before replying.

At no time have I stated nor suggested that the type of work we do is stipulated on our work permit.

You have specifically said in previous posts that employees are only allowed to do the work described on their work permit.

Quote:

martinphipps wrote:

It looks like you are providing people with legislation that only applies to blue collar workers.

So are there any limits on how long white collar workers are allowed to stay in Taiwan and are they ever likely to be enforced?

Quote:

Alright then, it's starting to make sense. NTIT is a national school and thus a "governmental organisation" and Chungtai is a "research institute" and I am employed as a "researcher" as well as a teacher so it may very well be that I am entitled to certain allowances that most people aren't.

Quote:

Which is all very well and good because I did leave the country after I left my previous job. (College and university positions only begin in the fall, not any time of the year like at buxibans, so I really didn't have a choice if I wanted to take a better job with a higher salary.) Thing is, they told me my visa was still valid. You see, I had a multiple entry exit visa so the mere fact that I had left the country didn't mean that my visa was cancelled. I tried to convince the woman at TECO in Hong Kong that my employer had cancelled my working visa already but she insisted that my visa was still good and that I didn't need a new one. I returned to Taiwan and was able to get a new work visa and ARC to work at Chungtai, so presumably she was right because otherwise I don't know how I was able to legally obtain a new work permit?

Maybe the government should enforce the law more. I used to work in Korea and, of course, people were expected to find a job before they arrived there so that they could get their work permit and begin work right away. Here, most people arrive in Taiwan, start looking for a job and, having found one, start working right away while, meanwhile, the employer applies for the teacher's work permit. A strict interpretation of the legislation would clearly imply that this practice is illegal and yet I am sure that most people here believe that, because this is the way things are done, that it is perfectly legal.

Indeed, a lot of the jobs listed on www.tealit.com are described as "part time". In Korea, none of the jobs are advertised as "part time" because it would clearly be illegal: if you are working "part time" somewhere then you are either working full time somewhere else or you are working illegally under either a tourist or student visa. Why doesn't the government crack down against these buxibans then? In Korea, the government would actually go to the buxibans and order foreign teachers to show their ARCs. It would be so easy for the government to crack down on schools here in Taiwan this way because they adevertise openly here that they are looking for part time positions!

I am actually quite serious and not being sarcastic: there may be plenty of people working part time that don't even have ARCs, that are simply here under a tourist visa or a student visa. Why shouldn't the government crack down on such a flagrant violation of the law? It actually bothers me quite a bit because people who don't have ARCs might not even have a university degree, something which those of us with ARCs are expected to produce.

When I left my previous job and my work visa was cancelled, I did leave the country but I was told I didn't have to. The fact that I was able to return to the country and legally obtain a new work permit makes me think that I trulu didn't have to leave the country. If it turns out that I did have to leave the country and that everything was made legal by me leaving and coming back then that would be good to know because I was under the impression that I had wasted nt11 000.

Martin

clark.w.griswald

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056

Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:48 am Post subject:

martinphipps wrote:

clark.w.griswald wrote:

You have come to this forum and stated a number of times that:

1. Foreigners can work for whoever they want in Taiwan provided that they have an ARC with at least one company.

I didn't actually say that. Obviously it would be illegal to do work and not pay taxes. I said that already.

The issue of taxes was always a minor consideration and was in fact nixed by me in my very first post. You can work in a legal job and not pay taxes, and you can work in an illegal job and still pay taxes. Taxes are an afterthought and are not related to the employment of foreigners, they are related to the earnings of foreigners. Whether or not you pay taxes does not make that position a legal position. To avoid paying taxes however remains illegal, but it doesn�t affect the terms of the employment.

The main thrust of your argument wasn�t based upon tax considerations anyway, but really upon your opinion that foreigners can work wherever they want.

Just take a look at these quotes:

martinphipps wrote:

The laws were changed back in January of last year. Nowadays, the ARC entitles you to work anywhere. Even when I originally got my work permit back in 2003, it didn't specifically say I had to work where I was working: it didn't even say I had to teach English! Presumably I could have gone to work anywhere and did anything. Of course, I would still have had to pay income tax.

martinphipps wrote:

there would be NOTHING preventing you from working somewhere else, although the government would want you to show that you still paid taxes for the work you did.

martinphipps wrote:

For God's sake, this fall I have a part time job at the National Taichung Institute of Technology. It's a national college and they hire plenty of foreigners to teach part time. Do you seriously believe that this practice is illegal? I've officially been put on the payroll for heaven's sake! My current contract at Chungtai University even specifically says that I am allowed to work part time elsewhere, subject to their approval, and I've got my approval letter on my desk in front of me. NTIT also sends out letters formally requesting that they be allowed to borrow teachers on a part time basis. This is not something that is being done under the table.

martinphipps wrote:

I _can_ read where it says that I am allowed to work four hours at another college or university. Now, let's use common sense: how can a legal contract (especially one written in Chinese) allow me to do something which is illegal? It can't. It all looks perfectly legal to me.

I am sure that you now agree that foreigners can only work for companies with which they have a work permit.

martinphipps wrote:

clark.w.griswald wrote:

2. Foreigners who leave a job can remain in the country and continue to work legally until their ARC expires, and that no new work permit is required for this.

Martin this may have been your point, but this is not what you said. Where in our discussion has anyone suggested that you couldn�t get a new job without your employers permission? No where. Because this was never the topic of discussion.

What was being discussed was your suggestion that once a teacher has a work permit and leaves a job, that they can continue working in the country as long as they have an ARC. This is what we were discussing, and this is where you are wrong.

Here are some more quotes:

martinphipps wrote:

I know: I had my ARC "cancelled" and left the country to go to Hong Kong and they told me "under the current law your ARC is still valid until you cancel it yourself".

martinphipps wrote:

This quote is almost correct, except for the fact that you refer to a work visa instead of a work permit. If we substitute the word work permit for work visa in this quote then I would say that this is a pretty accurate summation. This shows how important it is to get the terminology correct when suggesting how things work.

martinphipps wrote:

You have specifically said in previous posts that employees are only allowed to do the work described on their work permit.

No I have not. Please provide quotes to show this as I don�t believe it to be true.

I have repeatedly stated that foreign teachers may only work for the employer named on their ARC. The ARC comes from the work permit which is issued in the name of the employer and the employee. I have at no time suggested nor stated that foreign teachers may only do the work described on their work permit. You should really read posts more carefully.

martinphipps wrote:

So are there any limits on how long white collar workers are allowed to stay in Taiwan and are they ever likely to be enforced?

To my knowledge there are not, provided that the foreigner remains gainfully employed or has another valid reason for remaining in Taiwan. This could change at any stage in the future, but I doubt that it will.

martinphipps wrote:

Well let�s assume at this stage that this is correct. Your situation is different from the majority of foreign teachers due to the type of institution you work for and the way in which you were employed.

This does not however take away from the inaccuracies of much of the posting in this thread.

martinphipps wrote:

So now we are talking about visas � not ARC�s nor work permits. This is why I suggested earlier that you seemed confused and that your posts were confusing. As I have mentioned earlier it is really important to get your terminology correct when discussing these matters.

The resident visa (which is the visa that you get after you have obtained a work permit) permits you to remain in Taiwan indefinitely, provided that you have a valid work permit. When you go to get your ARC, the Foreign Affairs Police (FAP) place a re-entry permit in your passport which has a validity as long as your contract with the school. The ARC has the same validity. Once the work permit is revoked, the visa and the ARC become invalid and the foreign teacher must leave Taiwan within 10 days. If you have a look at your re-entry permit in your passport it clearly states that the re-entry permit becomes invalid if the ARC is cancelled, and the ARC is automatically cancelled once the work permit is revoked.

Therefore, when a foreign teacher leaves a job for any reason (fired, resigned, end of contract) the work permit is revoked. Once the work permit is revoked, the ARC becomes invalid. Once the ARC is invalid the re-entry permit becomes invalid at the same time.

So assuming that you were here on a resident visa, then the woman in Hong Kong was wrong. Not her fault though really, as all she had to go on was your passport. The problem is that the physical re-entry permit in your passport still looks valid as no one will have stamped it invalid and the expiry date is still good. The problem is that upon trying to re-enter Taiwan immigration computers are likely to pick this up. This is of course, provided that your employer has actually cancelled your work permit. If they have forgotten to do this, or haven�t gotten around to it yet, then your visa will appear valid, even though theoretically it isn�t.

The fact that you were able to return to Taiwan on that same re-entry permit and secure new work suggests that your previous employer did not in fact cancel your work permit and therefore the government still assumed that you were working for them. The employer is required by law to notify the government within a week if a foreigner leaves the employer, and the fact that your previous employer didn�t do this, worked in your favor. Had you known that your previous employer wasn�t going to cancel your work permit immediately then I agree that the trip to Hong Kong was unnecessary. However, again your experience is the exception to the rule. Most employers are very quick to cancel the work permit, and if the employer had done this in your case then yours would have been quite a different story.

So, your account has validity, but is the exception to the rule.

martinphipps wrote:

Maybe the government should enforce the law more. I used to work in Korea and, of course, people were expected to find a job before they arrived there so that they could get their work permit and begin work right away. Here, most people arrive in Taiwan, start looking for a job and, having found one, start working right away while, meanwhile, the employer applies for the teacher's work permit. A strict interpretation of the legislation would clearly imply that this practice is illegal and yet I am sure that most people here believe that, because this is the way things are done, that it is perfectly legal.

I for one hope that this situation never changes.

It is the best system for everyone. Teachers get to come and check out employers and Taiwan first, before making any commitments. Schools have a chance to ensure that the teacher is the sort of person that they want. Everyone can ensure that they are happy with the deal, and then the contracts can be signed.

Maybe the problem with Korea, and the reason that so many teachers seem to get sent home very early on in their contracts is that schools and teachers never have a chance to check each other out before signing. I mean, how can anyone reliably know that an employer is good when they have never met that employer nor quite possibly even been to the country in which that employer is situated?

martinphipps wrote:

Indeed, a lot of the jobs listed on www.tealit.com are described as "part time". In Korea, none of the jobs are advertised as "part time" because it would clearly be illegal: if you are working "part time" somewhere then you are either working full time somewhere else or you are working illegally under either a tourist or student visa. Why doesn't the government crack down against these buxibans then?

Just because those positions may be illegal to you and me, doesn�t mean that they are illegal to every foreigner. For example a foreigner who is here by marriage to a local can work pretty much anywhere, so they can legally accept part time jobs anywhere. Therefore it is up to the individual teacher to determine which positions are legal for them according to their individual visa arrangements.

I am critical however of the fact that tealit makes no mention of this within it�s jobs section. The fact that that site presents itself as being a source of information in Taiwan seems rather amusing when you consider the fact that they don�t even provide simple and helpful warnings to users of their site.

martinphipps wrote:

In Korea, the government would actually go to the buxibans and order foreign teachers to show their ARCs.

The police in Taiwan do this too. Both uniformed and plain clothes police do visit schools � however haphazardly they may do this!

martinphipps wrote:

there may be plenty of people working part time that don't even have ARCs, that are simply here under a tourist visa or a student visa. Why shouldn't the government crack down on such a flagrant violation of the law? It actually bothers me quite a bit because people who don't have ARCs might not even have a university degree, something which those of us with ARCs are expected to produce.

I totally agree with you on this one. The good news is that the police do deport these individuals when they are caught, and with some more enforcement, Taiwan could ensure that teachers working in Taiwan can at least meet the minimum requirements.

martinphipps wrote:

When I left my previous job and my work visa was cancelled, I did leave the country but I was told I didn't have to. The fact that I was able to return to the country and legally obtain a new work permit makes me think that I trulu didn't have to leave the country. If it turns out that I did have to leave the country and that everything was made legal by me leaving and coming back then that would be good to know because I was under the impression that I had wasted nt11 000.

In your case the trip was a waste of money and totally unnecessary.

Unfortunately there is no way to know this as it all hinged upon whether or not the employer cancelled your work permit promptly. In many cases they do, and therefore a trip may become necessary. Each teacher needs to manage their own cases.

martinphipps

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 55
Location: Taiwan

Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:27 am Post subject:

clark.w.griswald wrote:

martinphipps wrote:

You have specifically said in previous posts that employees are only allowed to do the work described on their work permit.

No I have not. Please provide quotes to show this as I don�t believe it to be true. I have repeatedly stated that foreign teachers may only work for the employer named on their ARC.

Alright then I apologise. It seems that the quote "Engagement in work not prescribed in work permit is not allowed: The work in which foreign workers engage shall be limited to the one prescribed in the work permit." was from the site www.buxiban.com and not you. But this just highlights some of the lingering doubts in this matter: the distinction between blue collar and white collar workers in terms of what they can and can not do is so great that we need to be extra careful in deciding whether legislation is meant to refer to one or the other or both.

Quote:

So assuming that you were here on a resident visa, then the woman in Hong Kong was wrong. Not her fault though really, as all she had to go on was your passport. The problem is that the physical re-entry permit in your passport still looks valid as no one will have stamped it invalid and the expiry date is still good. The problem is that upon trying to re-enter Taiwan immigration computers are likely to pick this up. This is of course, provided that your employer has actually cancelled your work permit. If they have forgotten to do this, or haven�t gotten around to it yet, then your visa will appear valid, even though theoretically it isn�t.

This is really the crux of the matter. If an employer does cancel your ARC -sorry, work permit- then how much time do you really have? And if you leave the country and come back and he then cancels your work permit then wouldn't you have to leave the country again, based on what you've been saying? Or does the fact that you had already left the country in good faith when he originally said he would cancel it mean that you don't have to leave again? I had to scrape together money to go to Hong Kong and then leave when I had time so it was more than a week after my previous employer had presumably cancelled my work permit. I went and came back and was then told about the changes that had taken place back in January of 2003 and that this probably meant that my trip to Hong Kong had been unnecessary.

My feeling is that it either was necessary after all or that it isn't necessary any more to leave the country when your work permit is cancelled because the rules have been changed, and that this would apply to everyone. I know my previous employer and I believe him when he said he cancelled my work permit so it appears to me that my ARC and resident visa remained valid regardless. This was almost a year ago and I not only was able to obtain a new work permit but was able to renew my ARC before it expired.

If you remain convinced that everything you have said is right then what actually happened in my case remains a mystery to me.

Martin

clark.w.griswald

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056

Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:05 am Post subject:

martinphipps wrote:

It seems that the quote "Engagement in work not prescribed in work permit is not allowed: The work in which foreign workers engage shall be limited to the one prescribed in the work permit." was from the site www.buxiban.com and not you.

The quote actually comes from the information provided by the migrant services center on behalf of the Council of Labor Affairs (CLA) and can be found on the buxiban.com website. As stated on the buxiban.com website the information on that particular page relates largely to blue collar workers, but some of the information is pertinent to some foreign teachers in some cases.

martinphipps wrote:

But this just highlights some of the lingering doubts in this matter: the distinction between blue collar and white collar workers in terms of what they can and can not do is so great that we need to be extra careful in deciding whether legislation is meant to refer to one or the other or both.

I think that the distinction is pretty clear if you read through the legislation. Designations are made as to what category type a foreign worker is.

I doubt that you will ever see a seperation of the legislation as the situation is pretty clear now - but admittedly not 100% clear in every case. I think if pressure was applied though that the CLA would likely just enforce things evenly among foreign workers and this would be a disadvantage to foreign teachers. As things are now, foreign teachers are largely exempt from the more stringent applications of the law, and that suits me just fine.

martinphipps wrote:

This is really the crux of the matter. If an employer does cancel your ARC -sorry, work permit- then how much time do you really have?

You have 10 days to leave the country. You are supposed to receive notification of this from the police but as most teachers registered address is the school or possibly a house they no longer live in, many people never receive this notification. Don't wait for it, just make sure that you leave within 10 days of your last day of work and you will be fine.

martinphipps wrote:

And if you leave the country and come back and he then cancels your work permit then wouldn't you have to leave the country again, based on what you've been saying?

The employer has a legal obligation to cancel your work permit (and hence your resident visa and hence your ARC) within three days of you leaving their employ. Most schools are only too happy to oblige with this requirement.

The scenario that you have suggested is not a common one at all, but as in your case it can happen. The best thing for teachers to do to be absolutely sure of things would be to cancel the visa at the FAP before you leave Taiwan and then apply for and return on a new visa that you know the duration of. Even if the school says that they will keep your visa active my advice would be never to believe this. Protect yourself and you won't meet any surprises.

martinphipps wrote:

Or does the fact that you had already left the country in good faith when he originally said he would cancel it mean that you don't have to leave again?

No. Visa matters are often very black and white. If you don't have a visa for whatever reason then you will need to leave the country or face a penalty.

martinphipps wrote:

I had to scrape together money to go to Hong Kong and then leave when I had time so it was more than a week after my previous employer had presumably cancelled my work permit. I went and came back and was then told about the changes that had taken place back in January of 2003 and that this probably meant that my trip to Hong Kong had been unnecessary.

I don't think that your trip was unnecessary. If you had made arrangements for a second work permit with your new employer before your first employer cancelled your work permit then you could have avoided the trip, but under the circumstances you faced, the trip wasn't pointless.

martinphipps wrote:

My feeling is that it either was necessary after all or that it isn't necessary any more to leave the country when your work permit is cancelled because the rules have been changed, and that this would apply to everyone.

OK. It's like this.

You need an active work permit to work legally in Taiwan. You can have more than one work permit and more than one employer, but you need at least one. If you are going to leave one employer then you need to ensure that you have a work permit with another employer before the first employer cancels their work permit for you. If you can arrange this then you won't need to leave Taiwan and can keep your resident visa and just amend your ARC to reflect your new employers details.

If you cannot arrange for a new work permit to be issued before your old one is cancelled then you will need to leave and begin the whole process again.

Display posts from previous:

	Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Taiwan	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

Jump to:

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

Teaching Jobs in China