Job Discussion Forums

[Xenophobe]

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/03/18/2003297916

I'd like to hear some thoughts and opinions on the CLA's move to limit foreign ESL teachers to 32 hours per week. I wonder how long they'll keep trying to enforce this rule once it's on the books. This is only going to further an underground economy.

[clark.w.griswald]

I voted 'No' for two reasons.

First off I believe that it is the individuals right to choose to work as many hours as he or she wants. I accept the minimum requirement as there is a basis for this requirement but I see no logical reasoning for a maximum limit.

Secondly, I see this as yet just another ridiculous and totally unenforceable regulation. I am all for clear and reasonable regulations that are consistently enforced. Clearly the way around this is to pick up hours at two different schools and work less than 32 hours at each of these schools. Provided that you have a work permit with each of these schools and they are both named on your ARC I don't see that doing this would be a breach of the new rules. I do however think that a teacher who teaches 35 hours at one school would probably do a better job than a teacher forced to work 25 hours at one school and 10 at another in order to meet the governments requirements on the issue.

[TaoyuanSteve]

I voted no, simply because it is another innefective regulation in a country that already has too many silly laws that people ignore. Creating laws like this simply makes more honest people into rulebreakers.

I understand the spirit of the rule, though. FTs taking on too many classroom hours get worn out and the quality of their work suffers. I suppose the law is intended to ensure reasonable quality of instruction. I think there are other things that could be done to accomplish that goal, though.

[Xenophobe]

"Clearly the way around this is to pick up hours at two different schools and work less than 32 hours at each of these schools. Provided that you have a work permit with each of these schools and they are both named on your ARC I don't see that doing this would be a breach of the new rules."


"The new policy will also require that those with more than one teaching position teach at least six hours at the other institutions. The total workload, however, still cannot exceed 32 hours." Taipei Times


Clark, you'll notice in the article that the CLA says that a teacher would still be able to work at more than one school. However, the CLA states that the combined hours can't exceed their imposed limit of 32 hrs per week. They also state that the secondary school has to give a minimum of 6 hrs week to be considered a legitimate employer. Now, do these 32 hours refer solely to teaching hours or do they include administrative hours too? Foreign Teachers with the MOE had/have it in their contract that they are expected to be at the school 40 hours a week as they are being paid for 40 hours work a week. These hours include teaching and administrative time. The article mentions that exceptions will be made, setting the legislation up for failure even before it is implemented.

This seeems to be a case of making rules for the sake of making rules. We have to remember that the Chinese invented bureaucracy and have had thousands of years to perfect its inefficiency.

[clark.w.griswald]

Yes Xenophobe you are right. I missed that part about the total number of hours.

That seems to me to be even more difficult to enforce then. I assume that the concept is that the CLA is to concentrate on the schools not the teachers, so they will no doubt spot check schools. They will check the teaching schedules in the school and look for teachers teaching more than 32 hours a week at that school. How are they to know however how many hours that teacher may or may not have at another school?

Surely there are more important and resourceful things these CLA staff could be doing with their time!

[Xenophobe]

[SanChong]

Thanks for the laugh Xenophobe Aristotle is probably planning some super secret response which is so super secret that no one will ever hear anything about it. Kind of like his SSET thingy. Or, maybe he's just realized that no one is listening to him any longer.

Anyway, the law is very frustrating. There are a lot of better ways for the CLA to spend their time. There are so many positive things they could choose to tweak, and this isn't really one of them.

The contradictions in statements by the government officials are the most disturbing part of the article. For example:

[TaoyuanSteve]

[Northwood]

I voted YES

I believe that this ruling could help prevent legal teachers from being overworked and it will also help students get what they pay for. I shouldn�t imagine that any illegal teachers will be too bothered either way.

I was quite surprised to read that the teacher Joel Charron (interviewed in the press article) said: "...he did not know any foreign teacher who had been offered 32 teaching hours". This seems quite foreign to me as I know quite a few teachers that regularly work over 35 hours per week, and one who has worked over 40 (all within one school).

Surely (?) we all know that some schools make their teachers work unreasonably long days/weeks (especially during the state school vacation periods) and teachers rarely have a choice or voice in the matter. This incidentally, is in spite of documented facts and basic common sense that says that tired workers are generally less effective, prepared, productive, happy, responsive, etc, than their 'fresher' colleagues. Worse still, some overworked people develop and suffer from health complications as a result.

For every exhausted teacher, there are a bunch of students who are not getting the education they have paid for, expect and deserve. They come to the 'professionals' only to end up with a tutor that can't think or see straight for being so tired and numb, or who has simply not had enough time to plan the lesson. I know the feeling as I've taught poorly planned lessons with matchsticks holding my eyelids open more times than I care to mention and very much against my better judgment and will. Sadly, I know my students didn't get the consideration or attention they needed and the entire experience has always seemed to be a complete waste of everyone�s time. Fortunately, I no longer have to put myself or my students through all this - but I know that others still do.

This law will hopefully make some legit schools think twice about the workload they are dishing out. We may even find that schools start bargaining with teachers to work the extra hours on the sly, rather than simply demanding it as they do now. At least the tables will be turned and teachers will finally have a choice. Sure, they won't have the right to legally work over 32, but they will have the right to say no beyond 32.

Yes, you could argue that teachers are responsible for negotiating hours and conditions before they sign a contract. True. Unfortunately, with the job market as it is, teachers cannot be overly demanding or choosy about whom they work for and the hours they agree to work. Currently, most employers hold the trump card of: 'take it or leave it, there's always someone else who will sign.'

I am not suggesting that we are all having our arms twisted. We probably all know people that just want hours, hours & more hours. In this case, the teaching profession still needs to consider the damage that might be done by having too many of these crazed 'workaholics' who seem far more interested in the hours/cash than in any aspect of their job or the progress of their students. Sure, cash is king for many of us, but I think Taiwan has recognized that there is no benefit to the profession in having overworked teachers in the system, even if teachers want to be.

I appreciate that this ruling erodes yet further into our so called 'rights and freedoms'. Personally, yes, I would prefer the government kept its nose out of my business and options, but I think there is a need to address this particular issue.

What will be interesting in the case of Taiwan, is to see how well they implement and uphold the law - this is the part I actually worry about, but that's a whole new thread.

[trukesehammer]

Umm, well, I voted yes for the same reasons that Northwood did, as well as the depiction above.

Also because the "NO Option" is missing a question mark.

[Aristotle]

The Council of Labor Affairs has never done anything to benefit the hundreds of thousands of minority residents working on Taiwan without being forced to do so.
That being said, there are no signs of pressure being put upon the CLA to implement this policy. The CLA also made no efforts to consult with the thousands of minority native English teachers on Taiwan directly being affected in regards to this policy.
The reasons for this policy are unclear but you can be assured of one thing. It is not intended to benefit anyone but the self appointed occupational government and their racist, corrupt cronies.
Good luck!
A.