|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pop Fly
Joined: 15 Feb 2003
Posts: 429
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| EOD wrote: |
| Quote: |
Hey BJ Stud,
Thanks for dropping by with that insight. In fact he does work for SSETT. He is the Founder, President, VP, CEO, CFO, COO, Secretary, Chief Cook and Bottle Washer. He is to SSETT what 100 pennies are to a dollar. Everything and the only thing. It is a Union of one. But hey, once you join, you'll double that number.
All the best. |
He's right, they are BS. |
They? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
teacha
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ramakentesh wrote: |
Despite what we are told in this particular forum, these kind of activities are quite common - particularly in Taipei.
I know of a couple of brits who complained about their boss for doing the usual tax dodge (where they take the tax out of your pay but choose not to submit it to the revenue organisation here) and the guy from the Taxation department actually rang the boss to tell her that her staff were making a complaint! She phoned Immigration and made accussations that the two staff members in question were working illegally doing privates and their ARC was withdrawn and they were deported. They literally arrived to work on A thursday morning, immigration were there, took the employer's side and they were on the plane a day later...
As for the avenues of appeal - well I hope you are fluent in written mandarin...
When I first arrived I was told to seek out the positive-minded teachers here and try to keep away from the negative ones - Ive seriously only met one positive teacher here in 2 months - and atleast 30 negative ones.
At the end of the day the way the industry is run here provides everything for the employer and nothing for the employee other than wages - and even then your employer can arrive at work and demand you sign a new contract or threaten you with your ARC...
It happens and Im sure it aint fun.
My advice is to get an editing job - i did and lo and behold Im actually treated as a human! |
BEHOLD------TRUTH AND ACCURACY !!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teacha
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| Couldnt have said it better myself |
FINALLY, POP FLY, KI, CLARK AND OTHERS ARE NOT OVERPOWERING THE TRUTH..........I WONDER WHY? NO FORGET it, I don't care. It's a good thing, period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big John Stud
Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 513
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pop Fly wrote: |
| EOD wrote: |
| Quote: |
Hey BJ Stud,
Thanks for dropping by with that insight. In fact he does work for SSETT. He is the Founder, President, VP, CEO, CFO, COO, Secretary, Chief Cook and Bottle Washer. He is to SSETT what 100 pennies are to a dollar. Everything and the only thing. It is a Union of one. But hey, once you join, you'll double that number.
All the best. |
He's right, they are BS. |
They? |
I was only taking a guess! I am only doing research about Taiwan! Is that true! If so too funny! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pop Fly
Joined: 15 Feb 2003
Posts: 429
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big John Stud wrote: |
| Pop Fly wrote: |
| EOD wrote: |
| Quote: |
Hey BJ Stud,
Thanks for dropping by with that insight. In fact he does work for SSETT. He is the Founder, President, VP, CEO, CFO, COO, Secretary, Chief Cook and Bottle Washer. He is to SSETT what 100 pennies are to a dollar. Everything and the only thing. It is a Union of one. But hey, once you join, you'll double that number.
All the best. |
He's right, they are BS. |
They? |
I was only taking a guess! I am only doing research about Taiwan! Is that true! If so too funny! |
Write to him and ask for a list of union members. Then come back and let us know how you were received. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teacha
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You have TO BE A MEMBER to have access. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ki
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 475
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ephemeral real was one person pretending to be two different other people. Now we have a couple of jokes who seem to be the one person with two different personas to quote and back each other up. And the laughs keep coming every time I read one of their posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teacha
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sorry Ki Darling, there are about 4 people here now that are not putting out the hunkey dorey Mainland Lie of golden steets you and your 3-4 cronies do. Could it be that reality is seeping into this forum depsite your efforts? Nooooo, it must be a troll......Yeah, a troll.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clark.w.griswald
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:57 pm Post subject: Re: Yonghe School threatens to blacklist me |
|
|
I think that this is a really useful thread as it is such a scary topic to most foreign teachers. The truth is that it is not as half as scary as some people will have you believe.
| CndnEnrgy wrote: |
| I gave this one month notice to Ron school today. This school is owned by a seemingly nice American from Montana named, you guessed it, Ron. He does really seem like a cool, nice guy. But today he threatened me with legal action stemming from a "Ministry of Education" blacklist. |
Firstly, I think it is sad that a school would not want to work with a teacher who is clearly trying to do the right thing. As CndnEnrgy points out, why should teachers try to do the right thing if they are going to punished the same as a teacher who just does a runner?
The fact is that provided you meet the conditions of resigning that are outlined in your contract and/or the labor law then you needn't worry about being blacklisted. Even if it was to occur it would easily be overturned once you produced evidence that you had given the appropriate notice.
Proof is key here. Make sure that you have your notice in writing and that you can prove the date that you sent it (that they received it) and that your last date of work is stated clearly. I always recommend a paper copy and sending an email.
| CndnEnrgy wrote: |
| I've done my homework, and I know that its the CLA that issues blacklists, and that they do it for leaving work without 30 day notification, which I've given. |
That is correct.
The fact the Ron referred to the MOE suggests that he has not blacklisted a teacher for a while as the MOE have not been involved for a while. This suggests that he is not an habitual problem, and as Popfly points out he has been around for a while so this is likely just a misunderstanding.
I recommend that you fulfill your contract terms, pay any penalty due and then move on. Start the application process for your work permit with your new school now.
| teacha wrote: |
| GRISWALD will tell you this is rare. I know because I have said it is the NORM. |
It is the norm, based upon what?
I know of one teacher who has been blacklisted in the last couple of years and even he conceeds that it was a legitimate blacklisting even though he is not happy about it. I am sure that there are others and most likely they accept that their blacklisting was also legitimate. Where are all of these people you suggest have been unfairly blacklisted? Surely they would be posting their gripes here if they indeed existed. They don't, as the system is fair.
| teacha wrote: |
| I trust he knows how to beat corruption and unfairness more than some other people who will deny it exists as the status quo. |
Where is the illegality or the corruption?
Teacher blacklisting is a totally legitimate practice in the right circumstances. If you don't want to be blacklisted then make sure that you meet the legal requirements of any employment contract that you sign as well as the legal requirements under Taiwan's employment laws.
| Aristotle wrote: |
| If you have been working there for less than 90 days you are not required to give any days notice under Taiwan's toothless and widely ignored labor laws. |
I would advise against taking this advice.
I have personally spoken about this very matter with the CLA and they were very clear in that they expect foreign teachers to give at least 30 days written notice. If your contract states less then you can probably get away with less, but if I were you I would either work the thirty days or maybe contact the CLA for advice on the notice period stated in your contract.
| Aristotle wrote: |
| You should also send the same notice to the CLA. The terms of your contract are not the domain of the CLA and if they blacklist you for not abiding by the terms of your contract even though your abide by the labor laws |
Why would they do this? I mean honestly this is just ridiculous.
If the CLA were as anti-foreigner as Aristotle suggests then none of us would get our work permits in the first place. Surely it would be easier for them to find grounds for refusing our work permit rather than trying to work out ways of blacklisting us and thereby leaving themselves vulnerable to investigation.
| Aristotle wrote: |
| They would be more than interested in this case if you do get blacklisted. |
What a useful group they will prove to be if they suggest that a legitimate blacklisting is corruption!!!!
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| Despite what we are told in this particular forum, these kind of activities are quite common - particularly in Taipei. |
As I asked earlier in my post, where is the evidence that any teacher has ever been blacklisted by the CLA without fair reason? I have looked and not found any. I have spoken with the people who undertake the blacklisting and they were very forthcoming and honest with me. I really don't see that what you suggest is true, but if your opinion is based upon any information then I suggest that you share this information with us so that we can all develop the same opinion.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| I know of a couple of brits who complained about their boss for doing the usual tax dodge (where they take the tax out of your pay but choose not to submit it to the revenue organisation here) and the guy from the Taxation department actually rang the boss to tell her that her staff were making a complaint! She phoned Immigration and made accussations that the two staff members in question were working illegally doing privates and their ARC was withdrawn and they were deported. They literally arrived to work on A thursday morning, immigration were there, took the employer's side and they were on the plane a day later... |
I don't like third party reports as they are often lacking in information, very one sided, and make it impossible for us all to verify.
I of course know nothing about the case that you refer to. I do however have personal experience in pursuing an employer through the tax office. I found them to be tough but fair. The girls at the front desk were a bit naieve and misguided, but once the supervisor got involved the matter was resolved quite quickly.
I don't doubt that the girl in the tax office called the employer, but I do doubt that it was to 'tell' the employer, but rather more likely to find out the other side of the story. What did you expect her to do, carry out a full prosecution without even speaking to the school?
Again I don't understand what you think the girl in the tax office was going to get to her advantage by 'sleeping with the enemy'? This is too much of the us and them mentality for me. Of course upon receiving a complaint she would contact the other party. This does not mean that she was taking sides, nor is there really any reason for her to care. What does she care either way? I am sure that the quicker she could resolve the problem the better.
Of course we foreigners are at a bit of a disadvantage if we don't understand the language as it doesn't enable us to understand what the school is telling the tax office, but if you have documented your case and you deal politely with the tax clerk then there is no reason to suspect that she won't help you. Indeed in my case they were very helpful.
So, were your friends teaching privates? I suspect that they were as many teachers do. What did their employment contract say about teaching outside of the school that was sponsoring the visa? Surely the employer as the visa sponsor and person responsible for you during your time here has the right to enforce their employment contract and the laws that govern this land. If your friends were teaching privates on the side then technically they were working illegally. They no doubt knew this, and if the school chose to ignore it in the past but then bring it to light later then that is the way the cookie crumbles. It sucks for them, but it is not unjust, unfair, illegal, nor corrupt. If they weren't doing anything wrong then there would have been no grounds for them to be removed.
| ramakentesh wrote: |
| As for the avenues of appeal - well I hope you are fluent in written mandarin... |
Why? The process can be conducted in English if you prefer, but you would of course be well advised to have a Chinese speaker present to ensure that you could understand exactly what the other side was saying.
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| As some of you may remember I was blacklisted last year because according to my former employer I just disappeared for 3 days. That was totally untrue. I resigned while I was on an approved vacation. I left because my employer clearly breached my contract and when I raised the issue with them they weren't willing to listen. I gave 1 weeks written notice of my resignation. I found out later that two weeks notice was the standard minimum. So in the end I was blacklisted because I didn't give my employer an extra 7 days notice. |
This is the case that I referred to earlier in this thread.
I feel for Frankie because at the time he was the first to bring to our attention that the CLA was involved in blacklisting. I really feel that he was unlucky to be the first, but the positive is that he has been vocal enough that we have all been warned and hopefully the rest of us can now avoid meeting the same fate.
As unfair as it may seem, Frankies case is a legitimate case of a teacher being blacklisted and I am sure that he will conceed this. He didn't give the minimum amount of notice required under the law, and I suspect, under his contract. So he was blacklisted for breaching these conditions, not for anything else.
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| I just think that is so pathetic. I was given the same punishment as someone who just does a runner without even telling their employer. I actually gave them a weeks notice so they could get other teachers to cover my classes. |
I agree with these sentiments. It seems silly to punish someone who does try to do the right thing the same as someone who chooses not to do the right thing.
Also I disagree that the blacklisting should be permanent.I believe that it should be for a determined period of time.
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| My school lied and said that I went missing for 3 days cos that was the only was they could get the CLA to blacklist me. |
As Frankie points out, it is the CLA who decides upon the blacklisting, not the school.
This is why it is so important to document your notice so that in a case where a school does lie, you can appeal and prove that you did indeed give notice. The CLA have assured me that they would take action against schools in this case, but it is unclear what action they would take.
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| After I proved to the CLA that I didn't go missing for 3 days they told me to contact my former employer so we could come to some arrangement. They said I had to fulfill the proper procedures for resigning. |
I assume by this that the CLA means that you need to meet the requirements of the employment contract that you agreed to and signed, in regards to both notice and the payment of penalties for any breach that has occured.
Was there a breach penalty in this case? And if so did you fulfill this term of the agreement that you had with the school by paying this breach penalty? If not then I suspect that it was considered that you had not fulfilled your contract and therefore were still in breach.
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| From that moment on I knew that it was actually my former employer that had the real power to blacklist me. They were making the decisions and not the CLA. |
How do you come to this conclusion?
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| Why on earth does the Taiwanese government allow private companies to make decisions for them?? It is really sad that Taiwanese companies have such a strong influence over certain government departments. It really showed to me how corrupt Taiwanese society is. A private company should never be allowed to make the final decision on whether a person should be prevented from working in Taiwan. |
Companies don't make these decisions. The government does based upon information given to them. If you have information that contradicts the information given to them by the employer then I am sure that the government would be only too happy to review the situation.
Afterall, what does the government stand to achieve through your blacklisting? I am sure that they don't care either way so what makes you think that they stand on the side of the employer?
My understanding is that the CLA gave you the opportunity to appeal the blacklisting. What steps were you able to take to show that the blacklisting was unjust?
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| I tried to contact the CLA after my former school made the decision and as expected they failed to reply. |
There are three ways to contact the CLA - phone, mail,and email. I would always recommend the phone as it is instantaneous and much more productive than email. I too have had trouble receiving information from them via email, but never had any trouble by phone. Did you contact them by phone or email? Which worked better for you?
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| I didn't pursue the matter any further because I am no longer in Taiwan nor do I have any intention of working there again. |
I understand why you chose not to pursue it, but I don't really feel that it is fair to bag the system if you chose not to exercise your rights. It seems to me that they gave you a fair hearing while you were communicating with them, but I don't expect that they will chase you for a resolution if you give up and walk away. For all they know you may have decided that the blacklisting was in fact fair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frankie Knuckles
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clark,
I am sorry but I never accepted that being blacklisted was a fair decision. I actually think it is grossly unfair considering my only crime was not giving enough notice to my employer. I never thought I could be blacklisted for simply giving one weeks notice and leaving. Why was that such a terrible crime?? When I first contested the decision I spoke to someone from the CLA who told me I had been blacklisted specifically because I went missing for 3 days and failed to contact my employer. Like I have said many times before I didn't go missing cos I was on approved vacation. I resigned during vacation so I cannot for the life of me understand how this constitutes going missing for 3 days. My employer was well aware that I was on vacation and I sent written notice of my resignation on the first day of that vacation. I believe my former employer persuaded the CLA to blacklist me in spite because they just wanted the final say in the matter. The CLA may physically hold the 'blacklist' but I believe it is the influential schools which make the final decisions. I believe in my case the CLA has told my former employer that they could make the decision that they felt was appropriate. Therefore, the CLA was not making the final decision, the employer was. If the CLA made the decision why didn't the email come from them and not from my former school? I just think the CLA has made the wrong decision to allow my former employer the final say. If it wasn't my employers decision to uphold my blacklisting then why didn't the CLA inform me of the outcome. What kind of public service is the CLA providing? Can you imagine in court of law or any informal mediation dispute for that matter, where a judge or a mediator would tell an accused former employer to inform their former employee of the outcome of the case. That is absurd!!! The outcome of any type of mediation should come from the mediator, in this case the CLA. My former employer should not be informing me that I am not eligible to work in Taiwan, that should be the responsibility of a government department that issues work permits for foreigners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ramakentesh
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 145
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Third hand reports are easy to question, but since ive been here Ive heard far too many third-hand reports for there not to be some core of truth to them.
If you come to Taipei and meet up with other teachers here you will find it as I have. If you live in a bubble spending all your time writting endless replies to other people's posts because of a deeply-seated inferiority complex - or the misguided beliefe that others bother to read them and accept that the person's opinion is valid then things may look brighter for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teacha
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey Frankie 3 days missing is a very easy to fake offense and I feel bad for anyone that gets abused as severely as you. Since you are banned unjustly from the country what has become of you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clark.w.griswald
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| I am sorry but I never accepted that being blacklisted was a fair decision. I actually think it is grossly unfair considering my only crime was not giving enough notice to my employer. |
It may not be fair in your eyes and I can understand this, but it may also not have been fair in the eyes of the school for you to have left without giving the required amount of notice. When looking at these sorts of things I always try to appreciate both points of view.
The fact remains however that there is a minimum requirement for notice as stated under the law, and also in many civil employment contracts. If we fail to abide by these terms, however justified we may feel in failing to do so, then we need to accept that we are in breach.
So in accepting that you didn't give the required notice, you are accepting that you were in breach and therefore vulnerable to the blacklisting. This is why I feel that your blacklisting was most likely warranted, even though I conceed that it really sucks to be in your shoes as you were the first to get blacklisted for this as far as I can tell even though many others had done what you did in the past. My posts may not show it, but I am sympathetic to you, but I still believe that you have not been wronged by the government here.
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| I never thought I could be blacklisted for simply giving one weeks notice and leaving. Why was that such a terrible crime?? When I first contested the decision I spoke to someone from the CLA who told me I had been blacklisted specifically because I went missing for 3 days and failed to contact my employer. Like I have said many times before I didn't go missing cos I was on approved vacation. I resigned during vacation so I cannot for the life of me understand how this constitutes going missing for 3 days. My employer was well aware that I was on vacation and I sent written notice of my resignation on the first day of that vacation. |
The general expectation is that when an employee goes on vacation that they will return to work after the vacation. I am assuming that by resigning while you were on vacation your intention was that your vacation would serve as the notice period such that you would not return to work after the vacation. I also assume that you did this to avoid the school withholding the penalty stated in the contract as you most likely had been paid what you had earned and as you weren't earning in your absence you expected that this was a good way to avoid paying the penalty that you most likely agreed to when you signed the contract. No doubt this is why the school was so persistent in their efforts to ensure that you were punished, and also no doubt why the CLA decided that you were a good candidate for blacklisting. Maybe this is why you were the first. Maybe past teachers had paid their dues to the school even though they breached early. Maybe this was a way of holding you accountable for your efforts to avoid your responsibilities under the contract you signed with the school. Maybe abuses like this by teachers are one of the reasons that breach penalties and blacklisting were brought in in the first place.
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| I believe my former employer persuaded the CLA to blacklist me in spite because they just wanted the final say in the matter. |
If what I suspect above is true then I don't doubt that the school did little to protect you from being blacklisted. Afterall you tried to screw them out of the breach penalty that you agreed to when you signed the contract, so why wouldn't they try to penalize you for this? You have mentioned that the school you worked for is one of the large chain schools so I assume that you are not the first to break the contract early. Maybe one of the reasons that they supported your blacklisting when they didn't support the blacklisting of other teachers is because those other teachers abided by what they agreed to, gave the required notice and/or paid the relevant penalties.
Does this mean that the school can ask to have you blacklisted? Not in my understanding. Teachers don't get blacklisted for breaking contracts or not paying penalties, they get blacklisted for breaching without the required notice. In many cases a school would likely be pissed off that a teacher was leaving early, but if the teacher works with the school then the school is more likely to let the CLA know that the teacher has left without incident. The school could however ensure that CLA knew that you had breached without fulfilling your notice, and your school most likelydid this as they were fully aware of your intentions when you resigned while on vacation. Surely you knew before your vacation that you were going to resign so I am curious why you didn't tell them before taking off on your holiday? Was is so that they only found out during your non-paid holiday?
Schools, as your visa sponsor, are required by law to notify the CLA three days within you leaving their employ. That is a fact and is very clearly stated in the legislation. There are penalties for schools who fail to provide the CLA with this information. Part of the notification process involves informing the CLA the reason for your leaving and when you left. Based upon this information the CLA would decide whether or not to blacklist you. Therefore I do not agree that the school has any part in the decision to blacklist you, but it does seem clear that if you work with the school in resiging that they may be willing to work with you in failing to let the CLA know that you breached. Clearly in cases where teachers get blacklisted the school has decided to provide the CLA with the information that is used to effect the blacklisting.
Malicious blacklisting is a possibility if a school were to lie to the CLA about the terms of your departure, but the CLA have been firm in their statement that schools that do this will be dealt with harshly. There has never been a single case of a teacher being maliciously blacklisted by the CLA.
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| The CLA may physically hold the 'blacklist' but I believe it is the influential schools which make the final decisions. |
Short of lieing, I don't see any way that schools could negatively and unfairly influence a blacklisting. I mean t be blacklisted you simply have to fail to give the required notice. If you fail to do this then you can be blacklisted. I can see that a school could 'influence' for you not to be blacklisted by failing to let the CLA know that you hadn't given the required notice, but I don't see anyway that a school can influence a blacklisting where one isn't warranted.
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| I believe in my case the CLA has told my former employer that they could make the decision that they felt was appropriate. Therefore, the CLA was not making the final decision, the employer was. |
I read this differently.
As I have stated above, and as you seem to agree, you were blacklisted for failing to give the required notice. This is what the CLA states people are blacklisted for, and this is what you seem to agree you failed to do. So your blacklisting stands regardless of what the school may say about it.
I believe that the CLA may have given the school the opportunity to say that you had fulfilled your contractual requirements in regards to notice in order to avoid you being blacklisted, but the school may not have been willing to do this if you were not abiding by other parts of your contract such as paying the requred penalties.
It is clear that the CLA does make the final decision, but that this decision is clearly and obviously based upon the information that they get from the school. If you dispute the information that the school gives the CLA then you go to appeal.
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| If the CLA made the decision why didn't the email come from them and not from my former school? I just think the CLA has made the wrong decision to allow my former employer the final say. If it wasn't my employers decision to uphold my blacklisting then why didn't the CLA inform me of the outcome. |
The CLA have explained to me that notification of blacklisting is sent to the teacher at the address that they have on record for the teacher. For most of us this is the address on our ARC. If you have moved house and not updated your information with the CLA, or if that address was somehow incorrect then you would not receive this notification. If the address listed as your contact address is that of the school that you work for then the school would obviously receive this. I am not sure if the CLA was aware of your email address, but if they weren't I am unsure how they could have emailed this notice to you. So possibly the reason that you didn't receive any notification directly from the CLA is that they couldn't contact you directly.
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| What kind of public service is the CLA providing? |
CLA stands for Council of Labor Affairs. There are two sides to any labor dispute - the employer and the employee. In this case the employee breached the employment contract by ending the contract early, failed to abide by the notice requirements stated either in this contract and/or under the labor law, and most likely failed to abide by the agreement entered into as far as penalty for breach.
How did you expect the CLA to find any differently in this case?
Had you given the appropriate amount of notice then you couldn't have been blacklisted.
Had you paid the appropriate penalties that you agreed to in your contract then you would likely not have ensured that the school notified the CLA of your failure to give appropriate notice.
Had you shown the school the respect of resigning appropriately rather than while on vacation again it seems likely that the school may have shown you an appropriate level of respect.
I think that you showed this school utter contempt in your efforts to leave, and I believe that they returned the favor by ensuring that the CLA knew all they needed to know to effect a blacklisted. I have little doubt that this is why you are now blacklisted.
| Frankie Knuckles wrote: |
| Can you imagine in court of law or any informal mediation dispute for that matter, where a judge or a mediator would tell an accused former employer to inform their former employee of the outcome of the case. That is absurd!!! The outcome of any type of mediation should come from the mediator, in this case the CLA. My former employer should not be informing me that I am not eligible to work in Taiwan, that should be the responsibility of a government department that issues work permits for foreigners. |
I can actually and it is quite standard legal practice. In any court case there will be two or more parties. If one of these parties is not present or uncontactible then it is standard practice for a judgement to be entered into and each party notified of this. If one party cannot be contacted then how are they supposed to receive this notice.
I think that you need to stop complaining about how unfair the school is, the CLA is, the government in Taiwan, and the system in Taiwan is, and accept that it is you that was being unfair in attempting to break your contract AND avoid paying the breach penalty. That is afterall why you were blacklisted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
teacha
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 186
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gotta agree with Clark on the reason tehy blacklisted you. I do not agree that the labor law i fair. I think it's insane. It is however something you admit you broke. Sometimes the rules get bent sometimes not. It's hard to win when you leave unceronmiously and without good proof of keeping the law on your side. I think schools and the CLA are vigilant about blacklisting. Consider the terms of the law, it's pretty severe. What has become of you now? Where do you live? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frankie Knuckles
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Teacha,
I am now living back in Australia and completing postgraduate studies here in Melbourne. I am very happy with my current situation here but my only gripe is that my Taiwanese girlfriend is still living in Taichung. I am going to Taichung in January for a month to visit her and then she is planning to come back to Australia next June. She wants to do more study here in Australia so she is trying to save money at the moment. It is very expensive for international students to study here so she has to continue working full-time for a while.
Clark,
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on some points. Look I will happily admit that the way in which I resigned was not the most respectful or proper way to leave. However, let's not forget as I told you before my employer was guilty of breaching the terms of my contract by not providing me with the minimum amount of hours that were stated on my contract. When I approached the supervisor she was not willing to properly listen to my concerns and the problems just continued. I just felt that if my contract clearly stated that I am guaranteed to receive a minimum amount of hours per week then I am entitled to receive those hours and the salary that I have been promised. I wasn't given the hours or the salary I was supposedly 'guaranteed'. If they couldn't provide me with those minimum hours as stipulated on the contract then they should still pay me the difference. That is the law in my country and I believe it would also be the law in most other countries including Taiwan.
Clark, in regards to the exact reason that I was blacklisted. When I spoke to a CLA employee on the phone earlier this year when I first enquired about my situation she told me I was blacklisted because according to my former employer I went missing for 3 days. She said that was the only reason I was blacklisted. At that time she also told me that going missing was the only offence that I could be blacklisted for. Either she was not telling the truth, was misinformed or they just made up a new rule after they realised I didn't go missing for 3 days. Not giving the required notice of resignation did not seem to be a factor initially and was never mentioned to me by CLA until much later. It was only after I was able to successfully prove to the CLA that I didn't go missing for 3 days that they had to try and find some other way to blacklist me.
In Australia if I am given a contract by an employer that states that I am guaranteed to receive $3000 per month but after working there for the first month they decide to give me only $2500 then I have a right to issue legal proceedings against that employer and I would no doubt be successful in such a case. I am fortunate in that I come from a family of lawyers so legal costs in this country are not really an issue for me. I was successful not that long ago in a case against my former employer here in Melbourne. I was not being paid the minimum award wage according to my position. I knew when I started that the wage was quite low but seeing as I was new and just learning a new job I accepted the conditions under the assurance from my manager that I would receive a pay rise after I completed my 3 month probabation period. After the pay rise didn't come my way after the end of the 3 months I continued to raise the pay issue with my manager. After 6 months and no pay rise for myself or my co-workers who started at the same time as me I decided that was enough for me and it was time for me to 'exact my revenge'. I resigned and then shortly after I issued legal proceedings against the company and soon after was paid several thousand dollars in back pay. I think I scared my former employer because I don't think he saw it coming. I think the problem is so many people just accept that they are being taken advantage of and either don't do anything about it or just leave without standing up for themselves. He was so concerned after my lawyer threatened to report his company to the Industrial Relations Commission that he gave the whole company a pay rise. That must have cost him quite a bit. He had to pay out several thousand dollars to some employees that had been there for quite a while. It is really quite amazing what can be achieved when you stand up for your rights. I of course was very popular with my former co-workers as most of them received substantial payouts because of my actions. My former boss that I sued is Chinese. Surprise, Surprise!! Doesn't matter where they are in the world when it comes to business they are the biggest liars, cheaters and tightarses on earth. I may have gone a bit too far there. Those comments were a bit too harsh I think. I am sure there are some very good Chinese and Taiwanese employers somewhere but I just haven't come across them yet.
Back to my situation in Taiwan. Why should I have been expected to obey my schools contract when it is clear they had no respect for the contract they created?? They clearly breached the terms of the contract before I did. Is it really fair to pay a 20,000NT fine under those circumstances??? I believe most people with half a brain would think not. Hypothetically, if my school had not breached the terms of my contract and I just decided that I wanted to leave, then I think I should pay 20,000NT to the school. If one party breaches the terms of a contract how can the other be expected to abide by what is then essentially a false contract?? Why on earth in that situation should I have to pay 20,000NT to an employer that had already cheated me out of pay I was entitled to because they didn't pay the salary that was stipulated on the contract. That is completely absurd!!! The school kept money that I was supposed to receive and then I am expected to pay them 20,000NT for the pleasure of being ripped-off. That is bullshit!!! Clark, how could you support a system like that?? I am surprised sometimes how you can be so defensive of lawless employers in Taiwan. They continue to take advantage of employees because they know that more often than not they will get away with it. These problems exist in Taiwan because for too long authorities haven't done anything about it. They don't care about the little guy, it's not part of their culture. Employees in Taiwan are supposed to be subservient to their employers and never complain. When my girlfriend tells me about problems she is having with her managers or work colleagues I ask her why she doesn't raise the issues with her boss. She tells me it is very difficult to complain or raise concerns to her employers because it is not the norm for Taiwanese to question their superiors. Unfortunately, in this type of work culture it is always going to be difficult to receive fair treatment from employers and government authorities. The recent treatment of Thai workers in Kaohsiung only serves to highlight the poor treatment many foreign workers receive in Taiwan. Of course I am not trying to compare my treatment to those poor Thai workers but I think it is obvious that the average worker in Taiwan regardless of nationality does not have anywhere near the same rights and protection as most countries in the western world. I never expected it would either but I think I expected slightly better standards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
