| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
vikdk
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 1676
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Well it looks like Clark has decided to go silent in the open forum - so I hope he's PM'ing ChinaAndrew to give him a little more of his "insider" info on Joy, so that Andrew can at least inform those who have some pull in this organisation about what can happen at one their mainland branches!!!!
But carrying on in the vain of informing newbies of the real-life situation of Chinese employer/FT relationships - I will progress from that brick-wall that Andrew didn't want to attempt to climb - "China legal", to an equally perplexing matter for the newbie - "Chinese face" - and how your boss may go to the most amazing lengths to save face when challenged by an employee. This is because in Chinese culture the boss position is one where perceived social power through thinking of yourself as a person of superior class is still very evident. And when a servant - the paid employee - starts to make ripples in this cultural millpond - ohh deary me we do have a problem!!!! This is why the China vet will usually tell any newbie - like it or not � that negotiation that is truly understood and appreciated by your boss often involves considerable brown-nosing - and our more abrupt tactics of table banging is often like a foreign language to their ears - in such a way - that if you start to shout your case - then that case is forgotten and replaced by a new case - the rudeness and disrespect of the lao wai!!! No in many ways disputes between employer and employee here - in whatever way they are pursued - soon take on that air of the boss attempting to keep face and keeping the employees in their place - to such an extent that sometimes it seems the bosses just wont contemplate losing - whether the sum being fought over is 20 or 20,000RMB. Just another factor to take into account when you read the advice of folk like Clark and their accounts of an FT legal safety net in China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cj750
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
Posts: 3081
Location: Beijing
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
lesson one..contract law and court procedure does not match up...any thing can been considered in a court of law so the contract is not the ruling instrument..
All Safea contracts contain a breach clause applical to both parties..but never seen one enforced..I wouldn't pay one..
The labor board is the only one who can mediate this kind of mess...and it's ruling is not binding...
Contracts in china mean that the negotiations have just begun...seems like your use of an agency was the start of your problems.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clark.w.griswald
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ChinaAndrew I really respect the way that you are viewing all of this. Personally I would take the school to task on this one as I believe you have a pretty good case. But as it seems that you are not out of pocket too much and that the penalties have basically cancelled themselves out, I think your decision to put it behind you and move on is probably not a bad decision.
I would encourage you to let the owner of Joy schools in Taiwan know about this situation however. If you would like her contact details then let me know by PM and I will pass these onto you.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| Clark - the clauses in an FTs contract are ignored when need be by many, many schools in China. |
They are also ignored by many, many teachers so I don't think it very fair to put all of this on the schools.
If the individual and the school concerned don't have a problem then why should we be concerned. If either the school or the individual have a problem with the other party ignoring their responsibilities under the contract then they should raise this issue with the other party, and if necessary involved a third party.
If they choose to take no action then that is their right, but in my mind it does not help to reinforce their argument against the at fault party.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| Also, to suggest just because something is put into a signed contract that it must be honoured isn't the whole story. |
I don't believe that I said this at all. What I wrote was that if something is written in the contract then it is legally enforceable provided that it is not illegal. Including breach penalties in a contract is not illegal and therefore they are legally enforceable.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| Even in China many of the contracts that are signed with FTs would not hold up in court. |
I am no fan of courts anywhere in the world and I believe that I have indicated this earlier on. I believe that they are cumbersome and not the best way to resolve a problem. They are definitely the last, and least desirable option.
However I disagree that contracts would not hold up in court. They definitely would and I welcome you to explain further your point of view here.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| Some contracts for example ask for three month notice to quit on as small as a twelve month contract or for some ridiculous leaving fee to be paid. |
If you don't agree with anything that is written in a contract offered to you then you should not sign it. This is a pretty fundamental rule that I believe we are all familiar with - check the fine print before signing on the dotted line.
Once you sign a contract you are indicating that you agree to those terms. Have a look at the line of text above your signature which in most cases would read along the lines of 'I have read and agree to the above terms and conditions'.
So if you don't agree to the terms then have them removed or changed, or just walk away. But don't sign up and then complain about how unfair the terms are after the fact!
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| True but that does not mean that ANY old number can plucked out of thin air as you seem to be suggesting. You mention it must be fair but then say 20,000 is fine so I have no idea how high you would have to get for it to be deemed unreasonable in your eyes. A 20,000RMB release clause on a 3,500RMB per month contract is ludicrous yet exists! |
There is no way that I can tell you how much would be reasonable and how much wouldn't be as it will vary among all of us. Again, if you feel that the penalty amount is unreasonable then don't sign agreeing to it. Once you do then you are bound by that just as the school is bound to pay you the wages that they promise.
Would you think it acceptable for a school to sign a contract with you agreeing to pay you RMB5,000 per month, only to decide later that they feel this to be a ludicrous amount such that they then decide to only actually pay you RMB2,000 per month? I think not.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| The only way schools could retrieve money is by refusing to pay what they owe. You seem to be supporting this approach by schools rather than having them go through legal procedures to regain their money. |
I have no problem with a school deducting the agreed upon penalty if the teacher breaches. Are you suggesting that it is common practice for schools to deduct these monies from teachers who don't breach? If they did then that teacher should follow that up of course, but I don't believe that this is common practice at all.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| Contracts can't just violate employment and labour laws just because there is a signature on a piece of paper. |
That is correct. But we are talking about breach penalties here and they are not illegal and are therefore legally enforceable.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| Actually I agree that there should be a fair breach clause in the contract for both parties as we all must be have known some schools treated poorly by FTs who just decided to leave because they found that they felt like doing something else. |
Agreed. I would take it one step further however. A good school will allow a teacher to breach without penalty or with a reduced penalty provided that he or she gives adequate notice and perhaps does not leave until a new teacher is in place within a reasonable period of time. This is what good schools do, but just because a school may choose to levy the full penalty in the contract that does not make them a bad school.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| This should be fair though and not unfairly high. The schools write up the contract so it is their responsibility to make sure it is fair to both parties. If not then it really isn't worth the paper it is written on. |
I disagree.
The teacher ultimately decides whether the penalty is fair or not. If it is not then the teacher just doesn't sign the contract. If it is fair then they do.
Whether you like the terms of the contract or not is of no consequence once you sign it as by signing you are stating that you agree with those terms. As such the contract is a very important piece of paper, but if you choose not to follow it up then you are not going to get what you are entitled to.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| The school reneged on its commitments by failing to procure the necessary visa. That is an integral part of the employment process. Why should the teacher suffer? If, as seems likely, they messed up then why defend them? |
I think that this is really off base.
I have not defended this school at all. I have merely pointed out that the breach clause in this contract is perfectly legal and valid, and that the school was doing nothing wrong with enforcing this penalty. How is that defending the school? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prof
Joined: 25 Jun 2004
Posts: 741
Location: Boston/China
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| clark.w.griswald wrote: |
I think your decision to put it behind you and move on is probably not a bad decision....
They are also ignored by many, many teachers so I don't think it very fair to put all of this on the schools...
I am no fan of courts anywhere in the world ...
However I disagree that contracts would not hold up in court...
Once you sign a contract you are indicating that you agree to those terms. Have a look at the line of text above your signature which in most cases would read along the lines of 'I have read and agree to the above terms and conditions'.
So if you don't agree to the terms then have them removed or changed, or just walk away. But don't sign up and then complain about how unfair the terms are after the fact!
Would you think it acceptable for a school to sign a contract with you agreeing to pay you RMB5,000 per month, only to decide later that they feel this to be a ludicrous amount such that they then decide to only actually pay you RMB2,000 per month? I think not.
That is correct. But we are talking about breach penalties here and they are not illegal and are therefore legally enforceable.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| Actually I agree that there should be a fair breach clause in the contract for both parties as we all must be have known some schools treated poorly by FTs who just decided to leave because they found that they felt like doing something else. |
The teacher ultimately decides whether the penalty is fair or not. If it is not then the teacher just doesn't sign the contract. If it is fair then they do.
I think that this is really off base.
I have not defended this school at all. |
"Clark" personally I find you hilarious. And I'm not laughing with you. Choosing the user id of a Chevy Chase National Lampoon character, the holier than thou tone, the constant attempts to sound authoritative. It's so over the top ridiculous that I can figure out what type of EFL burnout you likely are in the 'non-cyber' world.
But I'm concerned about how New Teachers can be influenced by your fraud and misinformation.
The way the recruitment "game" works is that you need schools to hire your "clients." This is why you constantly take the "schools" side, as they pay for the little ads on your crappy misleading website. So even newbies should understand where you are coming from.
But stop giving your misleading legal advice. You aren't a lawyer and you aren't aware of Chinese law or how the Chinese system works. You are misleading people in this thread.
There is a myth that there is no "legal system" in China and one should avoid it. Well the "courts" play a very different role in China than where most EFL teachers are from. But the "law" exists. Rules exist. And not just to control teachers.
I also request (again) that you provide details about yourself and your teaching experience. I can't find information on your website. Certainly someone who so willingly provides "advice" on this forum can let people know where it's coming from.
I'm certain that you have nothing to be afraid of and will gladly inform people about yourself so they can have a betther understanding of your advice and the nature of the website you advertise in each of your posts.
Have a great evening! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TravellingAround
Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 423
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for reply Clark, I don't have enough time now to reply in full so I will just mention one thing about this particular case - the school messed up according to the OP. They did not provide the necessary visa for him to be able to work. Why the hell should they then be able to enact the release fee clause? They have not fulfilled their obligations so why should the teacher have to stump up? They are withholding money owed despite having been at fault themselves.
Why should the school be able to keep his money when they have no fulfilled their part of the contract?
How are these clauses fair when it seems that the school never pays up when at fault? Furthermore, schools will often not change the clause even with prompting. Should teachers forgo employment in that case? In reality most teachers fully expect to finish the contract and so decide to sign anyway. The clauses are often vague and can be twisted if need be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vikdk
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 1676
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That is correct. But we are talking about breach penalties here and they are not illegal and are therefore legally enforceable. |
Dearest Clark - once again fine rousing words - but as teachers we know all about putting the theories of pedagogy into pragmatic classroom practice - and in the same spirit some of us would like to find out if some of this fine legal theory you are always harping on about - is ever used to real-life pro-FT advantage - you know mate that same ol' question - can you give us a few examples of an FT being awarded damages - in the case of a breach penalty, damages above the wages and bonuses owed to the FT - because of an employer failing to uphold the terms of contract 
By the way if once again you fail to answer - well silence itself tells its own story 
Hey by the way - I'll give you a hand - a poster called Karen B once gave second hand account of an FT on Hainan winning a case (the only one I've ever heard of - and I think it was only a payment of owed wages/bonus type payment) - I can't be arsed to dig that post out - but surely being so adamant on the legaly binding power of the contract - and your faith in the Chinese legal service - you must know of more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cj750
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
Posts: 3081
Location: Beijing
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| However I disagree that contracts would not hold up in court. They definitely would and I welcome you to explain further your point of view here |
Clark, with this kind of statement..it is evident you know little about the court procedures in civil courts...
With the wide ability's of the courts to interpret evidence and consider hearsay and implied results..a contract can be voided if the situation changes for the school...or financing ..or even class expectations are lower than initially thought...not only procedures but also speedy trials are not a reality and the amount of time a fT may have to spend in a court can be over a years worth..and if the employer wants to withhold funds they can simply appeal..now through in the cost of an attorney..one that speak English...and you have a work system that does not encourage the use of a court to settle differences..better for the FT to consider the contract a basis for collective bargaining...continued through out his/her employment and to never expect a school to live up to their obligations in full...
and these threads you champion the virtue of the schools in China is sounding more and more like a "carpetbagger selling snake oil"..
and before you start that SAFEA crap..you still have to provide information as to where someone can contact the national, field or regional office...where are the procedure for bringing a complaint..(by the way..in a handbook the Chinese use to give FTs..the mediation was supposed to be taken care of by the Bureau of Foreign Affairs..what ever and where ever that is... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
clark.w.griswald
Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Posts: 2056
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| prof wrote: |
| But I'm concerned about how New Teachers can be influenced by your fraud and misinformation. |
Please point out what specifically in my posts is �fraudulent� or �misleading� and then correct it for everyone. If what you say is true then it should be easy to do and in doing so you can validate your own point.
I have seen your posts before prof and they are always pretty much the same as far as avoiding actually offering anything of much value but perhaps now is your chance to �correct� the information I have provided here.
| prof wrote: |
| The way the recruitment "game" works is that you need schools to hire your "clients." This is why you constantly take the "schools" side, as they pay for the little ads on your crappy misleading website. So even newbies should understand where you are coming from. |
The same old rhetoric. Prof, if my intentions here were to make money from recruiters and schools then I would hardly be involved with a site that contains a blacklist of such companies nor would our site contain negative comments about listed schools. I have explained how that site works many times and you choose not to accept this, but neither have you brought any proof to this forum that supports your claims. I have on the other proven that some of the recommended schools don�t even know that they have been recommended (which undermines your claims that they pay for this), and I have proven that we refuse payments from schools and recruiters who have bad reputations (which undermines your claims that there is a bias here).
| prof wrote: |
| But stop giving your misleading legal advice. You aren't a lawyer and you aren't aware of Chinese law or how the Chinese system works. You are misleading people in this thread. |
Prof you know nothing about me so please stop stating your guesses here as apparent fact. I am free to offer my opinions here just as anyone is and anyone who thinks that this comprises legal advice is thinking a bit too much!
| prof wrote: |
| I also request (again) that you provide details about yourself and your teaching experience. I can't find information on your website. Certainly someone who so willingly provides "advice" on this forum can let people know where it's coming from. |
Why? Who I am or where I am from has no bearing on the accuracy of the opinion that I offer here. If what I post here is incorrect then explain why in your opinion you feel it to be incorrect and back that up with any information that you feel may be pertinent.
You spend far too much time on trying to blacken the name of the person making the post and far too little time actually discussing the subject. Again, if you have an opinion about what I post then please post this.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| I will just mention one thing about this particular case - the school messed up according to the OP. They did not provide the necessary visa for him to be able to work. Why the hell should they then be able to enact the release fee clause? |
I have not said that in this particular case the school is entitled to enact the breach penalty. In fact I have pretty clearly stated that to the contrary I believe that the school acted improperly in this case.
My comments about breach penalties have been of a general nature and in answer to comments that seemed to me to suggest that they were unfair and unenforceable. I have outlined why I disagree with those opinions and I welcome discussion on the topic.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| They have not fulfilled their obligations so why should the teacher have to stump up? They are withholding money owed despite having been at fault themselves. |
Again TravellingAround I have not suggested that the teacher in this case should have to accept any penalty in this case. In fact, to the contrary, I have posted that I believe that this teacher in this case would have a good case against this employer.
One correction though. It is my understanding that the school is not withholding any money for the contract breach � perhaps because they realize that they are not entitled to. The money that has not been paid to the teacher was a penalty for unexcused absence before the breach. I believe that I have also stated in my posts that I believe that the teacher would have a valid case to appeal this.
It is the teacher himself who has posted that he is not going to pursue the matter.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| Why should the school be able to keep his money when they have no fulfilled their part of the contract? |
They shouldn�t and I haven�t stated here that they should so I am not sure where you got this impression from. Maybe take a moment to have a re-read through the thread again and I think that you will agree.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| How are these clauses fair when it seems that the school never pays up when at fault? |
As I have stated above, if you personally feel that such a clause is unfair then don�t sign a contract with such a clause in it. That is your right, and in doing so you are guaranteeing that you will never need to pay a breach penalty.
The problem is that most schools have breach penalties as they feel that they are a good way of seeking commitment from foreign teachers, who in some cases can be quite transient. We see this on this very forum with posts about teachers leaving jobs prematurely for various reasons � some valid, some not so valid.
If you have such a clause in your contract and if the school breaches then it is your responsibility to ensure that the clause is enforced. If you choose not to follow this up for whatever reason then I don�t see why you can complain about it nor why it is unfair. Most people and companies do not just hand over money unless they are asked for it and in China we all know that things require more persistence than back home.
| TravellingAround wrote: |
| urthermore, schools will often not change the clause even with prompting. Should teachers forgo employment in that case? In reality most teachers fully expect to finish the contract and so decide to sign anyway. The clauses are often vague and can be twisted if need be. |
I agree that few schools would remove or change the clause as if it wasn�t important to them then they would never have included it in the first place.
As far as whether a teacher should forgo employment in those cases well that is up to the individual. Personally, I would not walk away from an otherwise good job over this issue. The way that I would look at things is that I would look at the deal considering the worst � that I may breach and therefore may lose the breach penalty. If it turns out that I do not need to breach then I am doing so with a prior understanding that this is the case. If I don�t breach then I will not be penalized.
Of course most teachers who sign a one year contract do so on the understanding and belief that they will be there for a year. Things change and this is why no school can prevent you from leaving before the year is out. My advice is that in most cases if you work with the school about your premature departure then you can generally avoid all or some of the penalty. If you do a runner without notice then you will pay the full penalty. In that sense I believe that such penalties can serve a purpose.
| cj750 wrote: |
| Clark, with this kind of statement..it is evident you know little about the court procedures in civil courts... |
Do you care to explain?
I have never professed to be an expert and I merely post on what I believe to be true. I do have a good deal of experience in the civil court system back home and here in Asia, but I would agree that I am far from an expert.
Yours is a pretty strong statement however, a somewhat offensive in tone, so surely it is not unreasonable to ask you to point out what it is that is not correct in what I have posted here.
| cj750 wrote: |
| With the wide ability's of the courts to interpret evidence and consider hearsay and implied results..a contract can be voided if the situation changes for the school...or financing ..or even class expectations are lower than initially thought... |
I do not agree with this at all.
A contract is an agreement between two parties and both parties can be brought to comply with their responsibilities under the contract.
Although mitigating circumstances such as a school or individual being short on money can have an effect upon how payments are made, they do not remove the legal responsibility to make these payments.
The only financial consideration which would allow a company or individual to avoid payment would be official bankruptcy proceedings but I do not know anything about this in the China context so will not discuss that.
What is clear is that what parties agree to in a contract, provided that it is not illegal, is legally binding on both parties.
| cj750 wrote: |
| not only procedures but also speedy trials are not a reality and the amount of time a fT may have to spend in a court can be over a years worth..and if the employer wants to withhold funds they can simply appeal..now through in the cost of an attorney..one that speak English...and you have a work system that does not encourage the use of a court to settle differences..better for the FT to consider the contract a basis for collective bargaining...continued through out his/her employment and to never expect a school to live up to their obligations in full... |
Cj750 perhaps you should take a moment to read my posts above. I have already stated that in my opinion the court system is cumbersome and I have not recommended trying to resolve any issue through the courts. Courts are the last port of call.
Everyone knows that court systems around the world can take a long time to make decisions in extreme cases if there are appeals, but that does not invalidate the rights of both parties of a contract to go to court. If you aren�t in there for the long haul then that is your choice but does not invalidate the system.
| cj750 wrote: |
| and these threads you champion the virtue of the schools in China is sounding more and more like a "carpetbagger selling snake oil".. |
I see this time and time again on this forum. People attack one of the posts that I make, they post no real information of their own, but instead resort to attempted insults. This is a discussion forum not a kids playground! If you have an opinion that varies from mine then express it like an adult.
I am not here championing any cause. I do not unreasonably support schools nor recruiters. I merely post my opinions which are not as negative as some. If you disagree then take the time to explain clearly why you disagree � without the need for insults.
| cj750 wrote: |
| and before you start that SAFEA crap..you still have to provide information as to where someone can contact the national, field or regional office...where are the procedure for bringing a complaint..(by the way..in a handbook the Chinese use to give FTs..the mediation was supposed to be taken care of by the Bureau of Foreign Affairs..what ever and where ever that is... |
Why do I have to do this? I am not your mother. Be a grown up and use google to find this for yourself if you want this information. I have posted links to relevant information whenever requested and the site that I am involved with contains links to this sort of thing. I do not however have to comply with anyones demands and I think that the fact that you demand this does not speak very highly of you.
While we are on the subject of what is outstanding however there is a question that I have asked of you over on that thread about �how recruiters work� that has gone unanswered by you. Perhaps you would like to answer that one as I really believe that it is relevant to that thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vikdk
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 1676
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
among the thousands of words in the normal Clark post - I have manged to find a single sentence in the last post that seems to be his bottom line -
| Quote: |
| I have never professed to be an expert and I merely post on what I believe to be true. |
well Clark - some people beleive in santa, others are convinced babies come with storks - shizer some folk even look for hairs on the palms of their hands - but when we get to know more about these folk - then we start to understand why they think these things - and why we shouldn't have to beleive in what they say merely because they are adamant that their beleifs are true. Nawwww Clark establishing a real and beleivable truth is a far more difficult task 
So Clark why should we beleive you - after all we don't know anything about you - apart from inserts in your posts that suggest that you have more than an average knowledge of at least one chain company that hires many FT's - that you always advertise a websight that is involved with recruiting - that you always seem to paint a rather rosy picture of Chinese ESL market - That you always seem to post a great deal in those periods when max recruitment activity is taking palce (at the moment a good few schools are looking for new FT's to fill gaps after the spring holiday) - that you can never give us any real examples of legal justice being handed out to wronged FT's - that you never tell us anything of your practical teaching experience or your FT history in China or indeed your present work. In this case it seems to a simpleton like me - that any thinking person would have to do a lot of that thinking - to believe what you say just on the strength of you beleive its true |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinaAndrew
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 48
Location: china
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject: op |
|
|
Sorry I seemed to have opened a can of worms here.Sounds like a ciber episode of jerry springer! Clark you certainly have a lot to say for yourself, I'll give you that. No, the breach penalty occured before the before mentioned unexcused abcence. That is why it is a breach of contract.I thought I made myself quite clear on that you seem to have missed the point.If either party doesn't honor the agreement then either party is obliged to pay the penalty agreed apon signing the agreement.I refer to it as an agreement which(in china) is more on par with a 'gentlemans agreement' rather than what we would call a legal contract in the west that can't be manipulated like playdough as the chinese empolyer sees fit.
It can be quite unhelpful if not detremental to offer uninformed opinons to those seeking advise.I was not, by the way, seeking advise. Sure you can post your opinions till the cows come home, but who will take you seriously without credibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TravellingAround
Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 423
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clarke - You have many points but I don't have the time to answer them all so I will just not concentrate on a general point. 
You seem to be suggesting that it is OK for the schools to act as a court of law. How do I mean? Well...you seem to suggest that it is okay for the breach clause to be triggered by them and deducted from the salary owed to the teacher.
Yet I would suggest that this means that there is nothing fair whatsoever regarding the contract situation as if the teacher would want to receive compensation for a trigger the breach clause they would have to go through a lengthy and costly legal process. Yet all the school has to do is keep hold of the money owed to a teacher if they go through the process of giving notice.
Everything is stacked against the FT in favour of the school...you mention "If you do a runner without notice then you will pay the full penalty" however that wouldn't happen. The system is so poor that it also rewards teachers for doing this!
Many schools would shaft the FT given the chance if they went about it the right way. That is why I am saying that it is understandable if a teacher doesn't give notice...I'm not recommending it but quite simply release causes for breach of contract in China are not fair. Something needs to change as far too often schools will unfairly withhold money. When these companies are shafted it is hard to feel any sympathy. Now I do feel sympathy for those schools who try their best to be fair, I know as I have worked for some and been dismayed to hear that they have had poor treatment from foreign FTs. However...if only there were more schools that behaved better in China. As the country seems reluctant to care how FTs are treated. 
Schools in China expect teachers to honour contracts while many just view them as pieces of paper. Until that changes then sympathy should usually go to the teacher until we know the whole story I suggest.
PS - If I misunderstood what you were suggesting then I apologise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vikdk
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 1676
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
TravellingAround writes -
| Quote: |
| Something needs to change as far too often schools will unfairly withhold money. |
Now that is really something that can be backed-up with hard fact (well hard in the form of a lot of posts on the subject) - shall we start to re-hash posts where FT's bemoan the fact that they are not being paid promised wages/bonuses/travel-costs - or indeed have to carry out extra duties that were not written up in contract!
Dearest Clark - please give us some real-life examples of how Chinese contract law has helped FT's in such cases |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cj750
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
Posts: 3081
Location: Beijing
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
A contract is an agreement between two parties and both parties can be brought to comply with their responsibilities under the contract.
Although mitigating circumstances such as a school or individual being short on money can have an effect upon how payments are made, they do not remove the legal responsibility to make these payments.
The only financial consideration which would allow a company or individual to avoid payment would be official bankruptcy proceedings but I do not know anything about this in the China context so will not discuss that.
What is clear is that what parties agree to in a contract, provided that it is not illegal, is legally binding on both parties.
|
Again...court procedure does not match up with contract law..if a judge can consider evidence other than a contract...it weighs on the outcome of the trial...
with your responce I am sure you have not been to a civil court in China...and your advice can be a dis-service |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
