Job Discussion Forums

[ogburns]

I would advise people to avoid this company, if for no other reason than job security.

The concern here is twofold. The university to which Shabaka is contracted (King Faisal University) won’t allow students to continue if they fail the first quarter. This means that Shabaka requires many more teachers in the first three months of the year than they have subsequent need for. Availing themselves of Saudi Arabia’s 90 day probationary period, management relieved themselves of a number of new staff as the first semester came to a close late last year. At no point leading up to these dismissals were concerns raised with the outgoing teachers, and, in one case, the strongest indictment that could be levelled was that his apartment was untidy (no exaggeration). Most tellingly, none of the positions were restaffed, which, by definition, made these redundancies, rather than performance-based firings.

After several years teaching English in Saudi Arabia with a number of companies, I can say that dismissal under probation is very unusual, and only reserved for its intended purpose: allowing the employer to remove seriously incompatible staff. It would be a stretch to call Shabaka’s practice a scam – they fulfilled most of their contractual obligations during the truncated employment – but their management certainly fail to demonstrate employment practices that would be legal in most countries. (Indeed, they are ostensibly illegal in Saudi Arabia, but, as illustrated in the case of Dr. James Leslie Braun, Shabaka will go to pains to put itself beyond practical legal recourse). In short, seeking employment elsewhere would offer a far greater prospect for job retention.

The second matter of job security relates to contract renewal. While most other companies in Saudi have no issue inviting staff to return for the following year, Shabaka’s contract renewal is capricious, at best. Professional, competent teachers, even those who have been with the company for several years, are often not offered the option to return, while demonstrably less adequate teachers who are perceived to ‘fit in with the community’ (for which playing ice-hockey and sycophancy rate as a high criteria) retain ongoing employment. While a less serious problem than abrupt, arbitrary dismissal – especially for people intending to spend only one year in the Kingdom – potential staff would do well to bear in mind that they will spend their tenure working beneath the sword of Damocles; and, as I have iterated already, this is not something you would have to deal with working for almost any other employer in Saudi Arabia.

[nomad soul]

Those cut were likely on business visit visas. That equates to having zero legal recourse since they weren't bona fide employees per the labor law. Regardless, Al Shabaka has always had a lousy track record (plenty of discussion threads on them within this forum). By the way, it should be noted that the situation with the individual indicated in the above post goes back to Jan. 2009.

[AbeCross]

This is a well-written and incisive view of a third-rate employer. Indeed, Shabaka remains a quintessential cowboy operation where the callow and unprofessional management cares more about hockey games than academic matters. By the way, no hockey player has ever been dismissed from his teaching post at Shabaka.

[Grendal]

I see Mr P. and his hockey team are still running the show there. They should be called for off-side at least. Game misconduct would suit them better though.

grendal

[Captain Willard]

Game misconducts in hockey are hard to come by in the NHL anymore. Referees have much discretion, unless it is a third major penalty of the game:
(See list on ppg. 134-35 of the NHL rule book:
http://www.nhlofficials.com/_files/_pdf_2013/2013-NHL-Rulebook.pdf#zoom=100 )
Unlike soccer, the team doesn't play short-handed after the penalty time is served.

I never worked for this group, but have experienced management at another place promote a completely obnoxious jock simply because he played soccer. Working in the Gulf simply is what it is.

It sounds like the people getting dismissed were working without iquamas. Work visas for the slaves, er workers, are too expensive to waste like this. The positive aspect of that is that the employer is obligated to repatriate these people. Some people looking for a quick buck would find this acceptable. Work in the sandbox for three months, make some quick cash, then leave for greener pastures where the liquor flows freely, and socializing with the opposite sex is legal.