Job Discussion Forums

[nolefan]

OK Mr. Bear, you succeeded in getting me back in here.

First of all, let's avoid the name calling please. We are not children and this is for the benefit of everyone concerned. I'm gonna skip on your strong words since you seem to get off on conflict and i have no time for this childish behavior.

If you go back to my original post, it clearly states that:

a- the clause cannot be removed
b- It can be changed or explained in the the appendix.

My other statements have further explained my point of view so i'm not sure if you're reading what i am writing or something else.


99% of the teachers here can confirm that this is the case for their contracts, myself included. You keep talking about these mysterious folks that have told you they succeeded in having it removed yet i don't know any of them. I don't doubt some of them exist but they are the exception, not the norm.

China is a country where procedures and rules vary from province to province and are subject to multiple interpretations. The SAFEA contract remains as close to a standard here as we will ever have ( for public school employees).

[bearcanada]

Middy, thank you so much for your post. I'm going to pull together the few good things we've learned here and on the other contract thread and add them to Yamahuh's sticky on contract items. That way they won't be lost.


Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[bearcanada]

Middy, an afterthought. Would you like to copy your post and re-enter it in the
Sticky: [ Poll ] Contract Questions thread? Your information was really useful and it might help people to read your comments directly. I will enter a brief post there on a couple of things we learned, but entering your full post would be helpful.

Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[bearcanada]

Keath, I have a couple of questions for you.

In one of your posts you said the following:
<Quote>there are plenty of examples of teachers who have modified SAFEA contracts, our company has modified SAFEA contracts to add assurances and clearer language to both parties and my associate and I have sat in the office of the director of SAFEA reviewing the differences. <Endquote>

1) Just to be clear, when you say you have modified the SAFEA contracts, do you mean you actually amended the main body of the contract, or did you put the changes into the appendix?

2) In which provinces might your comments apply? Am I correct that the content of your quote above might vary by province or jurisdiction?

3) I have seen "printed page" copies of the SAFEA contract - identical in wording in every respect, but not in the booklet form but rather in pages that came off a printer - and used by what I believe were legitimate institutions licensed to hire FEs. I would have to conclude that this printed version (main contract) could be amended IF the SBFEA doesn't object. Otherwise, the amendments would have to be in the appendix just as with the booklet version. I'm guessing it probably doesn't matter where amendments are placed, but I wonder if you can shed any light on this.

Thanks,


Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[stil]

[clark.w.griswald]

It seems to me that regardless of whether he is right or wrong in theory, that Bearcanada's advice on this subject has little relevance to the very people that he is aiming to help - that is the teachers on the ground here in China.

In reality any teacher who refused to sign a contract that contained a breach clause and then proceeded to insist upon full payment of the airfare upfront would be at best seen as suspect, and at worst would just be discounted. Cutting off your nose despite your face if you ask me.

Breach penalties are a fact of life and as Babala points out they do have a relevance to employment contracts in China where unfortunately some teachers are not as responsible as they could be. Provided that these penalties are levied fairly then there should be no problem as both parties enter into an agreement with an understanding of the penalties for breach.

It seems to me that whether you can change the body of the contract or not is next to irrelevant. The advice given by some as far as adding an appendix that more clearly outlines what would consitute a breach for which a penalty could be levied, or conversely outlining what would constitute fair reasons for breach, would seem to overcome this problem.

[cj750]

Does anyone know of anyone who has suffered under this clause...

and if you will not sign your goverment contract..they often have the incorrect salery amount so as to lesson the schools tax bill......they will sign it for you....

[Keath]

If you modify a SAFEA contract it is no longer a SAFEA contract anymore, but rather a propriatary contract. If you add to the appendix or an addendum to it SAFEA CONTRACT, then it is a SAFEA contract with an addendum.

I like someones suggestion about prorating the penalty fees, we're going to look into that for our own contracts.. It is far more fair and realistic.

But nolefan has a point, SAFEA contracts have a certain weight to them, a serial number and technically in theory should be registered with SAFEA though they rarely are. You cannot really modify a SAFEA issued contract cause they're mass printed. You can only add an addendum to it.

A contract is most often registered with SAFEA during the invitation process before a teacher arrives at the school. A copy of the singed contract must be provided to SAFEA before they will issue the invitation letter for the Z visa.

But that being said, our contracts were based on the foundation of SAFEA contracts and look like SAFEA contracts with one major difference, we've modifed them for clearer language and enforcability. They are being accepted by SAFEA and invitation letters are being issued based on agreements forged using them. We even have copyrighted some parts with our corporate name clearly labeled on the contract.

Again, no issues thus far.

[bearcanada]

Keath, my compliments (if I may) on the content of your last post. That would seem to be a significant accomplishment. And thank you for the clarification.

p.s. You said, "based on agreements forged". Should that have been, "forged agreements"? Just kidding.

Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[bearcanada]

Gentlemen;

Part of the reason we've been having so much trouble on this thread (aside from my forceful, condescending and impatient attitude) relates to the following:

1) Conditional facts not identified as such. Something true in one context (or many) is stated flatly and interpreted as a universal, unfortunately leading readers to attack the writer or discount the fact altogether. Easy mistake to make, we all do it; author not stupid, no intent to mislead.

2) Opinions mixed with facts but not clearly identifed as such. Again, something we all do, difficult to avoid, no intent to mislead but not helpful.

3) Opinions stated as facts. This is not something we all do, and is very unhelpful. Sometimes due to carelessness, but more often from someone's determination to be 'right'. This one can often (but not always) be a conscious attempt to mislead.

4) "Shoulds" stated as facts. This one irritates me the most. For e.g., I don't think you "should" be able to avoid English Corner, a determination I make from my superior moral qualifications, so I tell you as a fact that it is legally impossible to do so or that your attempt would be an unforgiveable sacrilegious attack on the Chinese culture. I hope you will believe me, and I don't much care about the consequences to you if you do. I know I'm 'right' and besides, it's good for you. This one is always a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Some of you may find it instructional to re-read some of the above posts and, for each comment, ask yourself, "Is this a fact or an opinion?". And then ask yourself, "Do I agree with the opinion"?

For example, consider the following from an above post by Clark Griswald:
<Quote>In reality any teacher who refused to sign a contract that contained a breach clause and then proceeded to insist upon full payment of the airfare upfront would be at best seen as suspect, and at worst would just be discounted.<Endquote>

The above is an opinion, a "should", stated strongly and presented as a fact, apparently from wisdom or prior knowledge. The words, "in reality" mean nothing. Clark, from his moral superiority, doesn't believe that you "should" be able to avoid a breach clause or get your airfare reimbursed up front and, to discourage you from trying, he tells you as a fact that you will certainly be "suspect" or "just discounted" if you do try. There is nothing to indicate that he actually KNOWS this to be true nor that he has any factual knowledge of this particular circumstance. But he is willing to cut off all your options at whatever consequence to you because he thinks that's the way it "should" be. And he knows he's 'right'. And besides, it's good for you.

He presented the same "should" on another thread where he said that is wasn't possible to have airfare paid up front, and further that it had never been done, and yet further that it might be dangerous to ask. Those were opinions stated as hard facts and were completely false. Clark apparently had no hard knowledge whatever, and was proven badly wrong when someone did a poll, so the "should" was based on fabricated facts.

But do you believe that if you don't want a breach clause but DO want upfront airfare you will be "suspect" or "just discounted"? It's conceivable, but unlikely. In fact, it is the OPINION, the "should", that is "suspect" and should be "discounted", not the topic itself. We need to know what is true and what is real, so we can make informed and sensible decisions. Nobody is telling you that you have to avoid a penalty clause, but it is useful to know that it can be done, that it is not sacrilegious to ask, and that you will not be deported for trying.

For what it's worth to all of you, for the short time I've been reading posts on this board only one name comes to mind immediately of a person who doesn't seem to partake in the above, and that name is Middy's.

If Middy knows a thing to be true, she states it as a truth. (I'm guessing Middy is a 'she'. Advance red-faced apologies if wrong.) If Middy is almost but not quite sure a thing is true, she says that. If she has an opinion, she states it as an opinion. If she has a 'should', she states it separately. And her 'shoulds' are not the moral judgments referred to above, but are practical suggestions based on sensible considerations.

I like her attitude. What she does is intelligent, sincere, intellectually honest (which I am prone to very much admire and respect) and, importantly, her words can be trusted. I think you can take her statements to the bank. You can't do much better than this.

At the other end of the spectrum - the hind end, if I may be so bold - we have Clark Griswald. Clark should have, "specialising in insincerity" printed on his business cards. He seems to have 25 facts, 8,000 opinions and 165 'shoulds', mixed in no particular order. I can't find evidence that he much cares if a thing is true or not; he seems to fabricate facts at will, to prove one of his points.

This all seems to be a game for him, a place to practice innuendo, suggestive half-truths, misleading statements and something we call 'damning with faint praise'. Most notably, he seems to specialise in a strangely polite but particularly nasty form of slandering the person of anyone who disagrees with him.

For him, this seems to be a place to be cute, clever and slippery. If challenged on an error or some totally wrong comments, Clark isn't embarrassed to ignore the facts and just find clever and not very honest ways to slip out. He seems so saponaceous I don't see how much credence could be given to almost anything he says. And I have no reason to believe the information on his buxiban website would be different in kind.

Lastly, Clark, I don't believe there is any such expression in English as, "cutting off your nose despite your face".


Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[clark.w.griswald]

Bearcanada I find your continued involvement on this board quite amusing. You come here without any experience as a teacher in China and attempt to dictate to all of us how things should be done according to your experiences back home. I certainly don't begrudge you the right to do this as I believe that your heart is no doubt in the right place, but I do find it somewhat comical that someone who has made so many mistakes during his short involvement with this board would be the one to stand up and suggest how righteous he is.

At the heart of all of your animosity toward me is the fact that I proved you horribly wrong during your first forays onto this site and removed a lot of the credibility that you had hoped to build here. I make no apologies for this. Anyone not familiar with this earlier discussion can view it here. The fact is that you attacked the site that I am involved with both on this board as well as with posting on many other boards on the internet. The content of your posting was wrong. You assumed too much and made suggestions about that site that I proved to be totally wrong. You have since retracted those statements and apologized for your failure to properly research prior to posting, but the fact remains that you were more guilty of promoting misinformation than probably any other person on this site. This is why I find your current arguments somewhat comical.

As I stated in my last post a lot of what you suggest we should all do when negotiating contracts would just not work here. I am certainly not suggesting that we should just accept what our employers want to offer us, but I am suggesting that each individual needs to negotiate conditions on their own terms. I certainly doubt that anyone could actually get a job teaching English in China if they followed all of the advice that you give. And this is largely the problem that I have with you espousing your views on this site. They are worth reading but much of what you say is pretty much impractical.

[bearcanada]

Clark, I never read your posts because they are too long and I don't have the patience to sit through them. Why don't you try to do as I do, and ensure that your posts are never more than 2 or 3 short paragraphs?

But at least you aren't cutting off your nose despite your face.

Disclaimer:
"Do not eat. Not for use by children under 3. Do not leave in direct sunlight. May cause headache if worn instead of hat. Colors may vary. Batteries not included." (Courtesy of DOS)

[Midlothian Mapleheart]

Edited to remove offensive content.

Middy

[clark.w.griswald]

[Roger]

As I see it, friction began building when outsiders wanted to have a watertight answer to a highly hypothetical question they concocted.
If you are a lawyer you have a specialised training reflected in how you phrase your questions and how you deal with people endeavouring to answer you. In most cases, including the current debate here, the outside specialist won't settle for feedback from the grassroots that report on their own experiences or further anecdotal evidence. I think this pedantic approach is the problem, not the amateurish replies you generate from us.
Most who have been in China for more than half a year know pertinently that a contract in China is not a contract in the Western sense of the term. SAFEA contracts may be an exception.
The OP should accept that we report back to him what we personally know, not what he expects to be told. This is largely untested and uncharted waters, and I for one wouldn't want to be the first to go to the extreme of finding out - it would no doubt be at my expense.

I find such debates highly unproductive and wasteful since they inevitably lead to people believing the other side is acting on bad faith. Our every experience with the law here is novel and a discoverty; whatever the "law" says you can't rely on it. It's the human nature of Chinese in particular to remain as noncommittal as possible while tieing you down as rigorously as they can.
Obviously some geographical administrations have pushed the limits of national law farther than others. I venture to say airfare as a bonus is not legally ours until we have discharged our duties to the satisfaction of our employer - hence the need to wait until our contract expires. I don't need the odd exception to be thrown my way as an example that you can in fact bargain for an up-front settlement; I have no problem in believing this occurs from time to time.
Ditto for penalty clauses: they are a legal part and parcel of Chinese-style contracts and agreements; it is a national tradition, pure and simple. If you can get away without fixing them in your contract you have scored a major victory.

But it is useless to indoctrinate all TEFLers, especially new ones, to believe that such acquired privileges are henceforth the norm and should only be ignored at the foreign job applicant's graceful mercy. To argue thus is to deceive a sizeable number of TEFLers into believing they have more power than they actually do.
It's the same with those expectations of inflated hourly wages (should we paid 5000 an hour or a month???). Most of us have to accept the conditions imposed on us, not the other way around. You are totally ignorant of China's realities if you think your presence here is viewed as anything other than an the lesser of 2 evils needed for the promotion of Chinese education.

Imagine if all foreign teachers went on strike to get what they might prefer to call a "level playing field" - i.e. no penalties any more: would the Chinese allow them to subdue them? I don't think so! The FTs would be ignored, then replaced by more malleable foreign elements.