Job Discussion Forums

[Hansen]

Section VI.2 of the SAFEA contract states: "Without Party A's [employer]consent, Party B [employee] shall not conduct any part-time job assigned by any other party"

Section VIII states: When either party fails to fulfill any part or all of the obligations as stipulated in this contract, that is, in the event of breach of the contract, the said party shall pay a breach penalty of $US 800 up 3000 or equivalent to 3 to 10 times Party B's salary in RMB.

Working outside your sponsoring employer's dominion, without permission, is a breach of the contract. Working outside obligates the worker to the breach penalty.

Some people enter into these contracts planning to work extra jobs and earn as much money as possible. That is called "bad faith." Some FTs have no intention to honor the contract. When FT's have legitimate issues with their employers regarding contract violations, those working outside the contract do not thave "clean hands," thereby weakening any legitimate grievance regarding the contract.

Many employers will not allow FTs to work outside, thereby impacting our earning potential and requiring us to become sneaky contract breakers or have limited income.

The breach penalties in the contract are becoming more punitive for FTs who break the contract. The breach penalty has increased $1000 from my previous contract to this one.

Solution? Qualify or invalidate this clause with a sentence or two in the appendix to the contract.

[cormac]

[The Ever-changing Cleric]

[Hansen]

ECC
Section VIII in this year's contract and last year's contract concern the breach penalty. Supposedly, SAFEA contracts are all the same. To what does section VIII in your contract refer? The amounts in my contracts are as above.

The notation in your appendix or something like it, should be included in the contract of those who plan to work outside. Some schools, however, will not allow outside work it and will not append the contract to that end.

[The Ever-changing Cleric]

[randyj]

[Hansen]

What has surprised me is the unreasonableness (at times), of the administration. Regarding outside work, I went, asked permission, and was denied. More than once. It's a mistake to assume that reasonable requests will be granted.

In America managers, bosses, and so forth, are often interested in empowering, enabling, encouraging employees to try new things, to innovate,to be different. Here, people with power often use it to crush innovation, to thwart new approaches, and to prevent people from attaining excellence.

Systems in place are a nightmare to negotiate in order to do things "legally." Every person along the way, who recognizes a money making venture, wants a piece of it. If they don't get theirs, they will interminably delay the process or sink the project.

Mobster organizations realize the "criminal" nature of the legitimate system; consequently, they simply bypass the channels which they know will thwart their interests. Many "legitimate" businesses resort to various types of fraud and subterfuge in order to operate "legally."

While many FTS are worried about their salaries, there is more to lose than money. Things like integrity, honesty, responsibility, once lost, through the byzantine processes of China, are not so easily regained.

If you become a cheat and a liar to succeed in China, you have still become a cheat and a liar.

[randyj]