Job Discussion Forums

[ntropy]

Interesting link below.

http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20041208f1.htm

[sidjameson]

Doesn't surprize me. I teach 7 classes a semester part time. When I look down the ladder of course I know how lucky I am, but when I look up. I mean! the Japanese english teacher in the class next to mine. Starts his classes later than me, finishes ealier, probably has less actual teaching than I do and yet I'd guess he earns four times as much.
Someone please tell me that the cup is half full.

[Gordon]

Good article, certainly no surprises. It sounds very similar to the link PaulH provided a couple of weeks ago, only this one is much shorter. May come from the same source.

[Gordon]

sid, what is f/t at your university? I am f/t with 8 classes, we don't have any part-timers.

[PAULH]

[PAULH]

This was presented b Stephanie Houghton who is on the executive committee of Fukuoka General Union, at the recent JALT conference in Nara. If anyone wants the full text please PM me.

Introduction

Hi everyone. My name is Stephanie Houghton and I`ve been invited to talk to you today on the general topic of leadership with specific reference to the way the United Nations human rights reporting system can be used to address human rights problems facing, amongst others, foreign academics in Japan.

I had an inkling back in 2001 that such a system may exist, perhaps because I had just spent a year teaching legal English to Constitutional Court judges in the Czech Republic, who were going through the process of bringing Czech law into line with EU law (prior to accession to the European Union.) At that time, I observed first-hand how states go through the process of bringing domestic law into line with supra-national law (in that case, European law) and when I ran into problems at work myself, and Japanese domestic law seemed to offer little redress, I remember hoping that international (or supra-national) law would impact upon Japanese domestic law in a similar way. I found out about the existence of the United Nations human rights reporting system on the internet back in 2001 and have since managed to persuade the General Union in Osaka (with help of Fukuoka General Union), to apply for consultative status with the United Nations, which they did earlier this year, and we are just waiting for the application to go through. All they seem to need is an official translation of one document. The stage is set.

So, at my suggestion, a system is being put into place through the General Union in Osaka that will allow us to report problems we face directly to human rights committees at the United Nations and to hopefully pressure the Japanese government to improve working conditions for everybody. This has resulted from a rather determined kind of social activity on my part and to put that in its proper context, I would like to relate it to other fields of activity I have been involved in, so I will be alternating between three different standpoints during my speech:

1. As a foreign lecturer (gaikokujinkyoshi) employed at the University of Kitakyushu
2. As a PhD research student at the University of Durham in northern England specialising in the theory and practice of intercultural communication
3. As chairperson of Fukuoka General Union

The general thrust of my speech, however, is to speak out in favour of dialogue: meaningful dialogue, and in particular, dialogue that is supported by legal frameworks, both domestic and international. I want to encourage the kind of dialogue that aims to gather detailed and accurate information about situations so that they can be analysed logically without jumping to conclusions, that considers situations from various points of view taking into account cultural difference, that leads to the identification of problems without prejudice and that addresses problems head-on through communication in an attempt to solve them in creative and constructive ways, whether the parties to the dialogue happen to be employers and employers, or the Japanese government and human rights committees at the United Nations. The main topic of my speech today is dialogue.
GKK
Who am I? I am a foreign lecturer (a gaikokujin kyoshi) at the University of Kitakyushu and when I started working there in the year 2000, I had no idea how my terms and conditions of employment compared with other members of staff. I had spent a very happy three years as an ALT on the JET Program and had a sense of how good working working relationships with Japanese colleagues could be but after 6 months at the University of Kitakyushu, I knew something was wrong. The degree of social distance between my Japanese colleagues and I seemed abnormally large. I was not allowed to speak or vote in meetings and my position as a foreign lecturer was clearly stigmatised, judging by some of the comments made by Japanese colleagues in my presence.

We foreign lecturers mobilised and started to research the issue in more depth. The university union was particularly helpful in helping us gather accurate information about how our terms and conditions of employment compared with other staff at the university and much to my regret, once we had gathered the information, I concluded that we were victims of racial discrimination. Why? In short, we found that the `foreign lecturer` position was the only one that in principle required applicants to be within 8 years of graduation (which functioned as an indirect age cap.) We found out that once employed, we were the only teaching staff to be employed on 1-year contracts renewable 4 times only and since we were ineligible to re-apply for our own jobs, we were consequently excluded from the promotion structure and denied long-term employment, along with the social security that brings.

Since we unearthed this information in 2001, almost all the foreign lecturers have engaged in constructive and meaningful dialogue colleagues in various ways to greater or lesser degree, whether it be writing papers or visiting people in their offices to talk the matter through on a personal level. Just by writing and talking to people, we have drummed up a lot of good will over the last 4 years and given the problem a good airing through informal channels. The upshot is that in September 2004, the University of Kitakyushu announced that they had made some interim decisions regarding the foreign lecturer position that they have promised to review again in summer 2005:
1. They have agreed to change the job title from gaikojujin kyoshi to gogaku kyoshi
2. They have lifted the `8-years within graduation` restriction upon applicants
3. Foreign lecturers can now re-apply for their jobs at the end of the 5-year period (which opens up the possibility for longer-term employment.)
We are still not satisfied with these changes but nonetheless, given how conservative Japanese public officials can be and also considering that we have managed to maintain goodwill along the way, I am still very pleased. However, I don`t think that just going through the informal channels of writing papers and talking to people in their offices would have been enough to bring about these changes. The turning point, I think, came in July 2004 when we made use of two legally supported frameworks for dialogue that are available to everyone:

1. The collective bargaining procedures under the Japanese Trade Union Law
2. The United Nations Human Rights Reporting System
FGU
Let me talk firstly about the collective bargaining procedures under the Japanese Trade Union Law in my capacity as chairperson of Fukuoka General Union. Fukuoka General Union is one of many registered labour unions in Japan who are empowered by the Trade Union Law to demand collective bargaining with employers. This should not be confused with going to court. It is quite a different process. As I see it, the purpose of the Japanese Trade Union Law is to place employers and employees on an equal footing in negotiations to provide a structured framework that enables them to sort problems out by themselves. The employer has a duty to meet employees upon demand, to bargain in good faith and should the employer engage in unfair labour practices, recourse can be had to the Labour Commission, which can order the employer to cooperate.

At Kitakyushu University, we demanded collective bargaining with officials at the University of Kitakyushu in July 2004 and sat down to talk things through with them. During negotiations, I think one thing that really made a difference was that we had researched the issue in great depth and I knew exactly how our terms and conditions of employment differed from those of other staff. Once or twice, I was sure I had even more information than they did, which enabled me to catch them out. So, one purpose of my speech today is to recommend you to research your own working situation carefully and then make use of collective bargaining procedures under the Trade Union law (rodo kumiai ho) to discuss how to improve them with your employer.

Whilst I can recommend the Japanese Trade Union Law highly, when it comes to the particular question of discrimination, I don`t find domestic Japanese law to be so supportive. There is currently no specific law outlawing racial discrimination. I believe the Japan Civil Liberties Union has the second draft of a proposed law ready in Japanese but not yet in English, so I haven`t been through that in detail yet. As for the Labour Standards law, I can`t decide what I think about it. Initially, I thought it just prohibited discrimination on the basis of nationality (`kokuseki`) but according to my handbook of Japanese employment law, it seems that `kokuseki` also covers `race` which I suppose would assume the definition of the one given in ICERD since international law overrides domestic law if there is a conflict between the two.

Discrimination based on `creed` is also prohibited under the Labor Standards law, which refers not just to religious creed but extends to a person`s innermost ways of thinking. If you consider a person`s innermost ways of thinking are expressed through language and language change (brought about by living in Japan) must necessarily reflect internal change, an employer could not logically sack a native-speaker for having lost their native-like language through having lived in Japan for so long, unless they were specifically employed for their foreign ways of thinking, but then that couldn`t possibly be justifiable could it? Hmm. Only in Japan�I am thinking now of the Gwendolyn Gallagher case and also the situation facing gaikokujinkyoshi at Kobe University. I`m not sure what I think about that line of argument. It`s still a bit confused but please have a look at Appendix 2, read the extract given and see what you think. The extract comes from a very good book on Japanese Employment Law, which I recommend and comes highly recommended from the General Union in Osaka. Perhaps we can come back to the prohibition of discrimination under the Labor Standards Law in the discussion later. I`d like to hear what people think.
GU/UN
Now, let me talk briefly about second legally-supported framework for dialogue we are making use of at the University of Kitakyushu: the United Nations human rights reporting system. Opening collective bargaining procedures with officials at the University of Kitakyushu provided us with a forum for discussion with key decision-makers who we could not otherwise have met through normal channels. Before the meeting, we met all the Deans, the Vice-President and President of the university personally to tell them about the international conventions Japan has ratified, gave them their own personal copies to read, told them about the United Nations human rights reporting system and gave them a copy of the report I had drafted for the United Nation with the help of the General Union in Osaka. I think it was all new information to them and they responded with great interest, even suggesting that we should teach the students about it.

At the collective bargaining session, we went a step further and threatened to report the university directly to human rights committees unless they stopped discriminating against us and we made sure they knew we had a good case too by laying all our arguments out in full, referring to the various provisions in the international conventions, and asking them to respond in writing, which under the Japanese trade Union law, they are required to do (though they haven`t done it yet�) In my opinion, it was at this point that they started taking us seriously. In short, we made a pre-emptive threat in good faith. We told them about our intention to report them with enough notice that they can rectify the situation of their own accord. Let me now tell you about the system we threatened to use in more detail.

Japan has ratified a number of international human rights laws that, since international law overrides domestic law can be considered part of Japanese domestic law. The two international laws we have been using are the International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the Convention on Cultural, Social and Economic Rights (CESCR.) Let me summarise what for me are the four key points about this system.

Firstly, any state that ratifies a human rights convention obliges itself to bring its domestic law into line with the international law. If there is a conflict between the two, international law overrides domestic law. That is what they agree to when they ratify a human rights convention, although there is no enforcement as such. Secondly, any state that ratifies a human rights convention obliges itself to prepare and submit periodical reports to UN Human Rights Committees (every 3-4 years) detailing the current socio-legal situation, what needs to be changed and what steps will be taken etc. A dialogue then ensues between the government concerned and the human rights committee. The human rights committee makes recommendations that the state should address in its next report. Obviously, there are sometimes disagreements due to different interpretations but this generates even more dialogue. Such recommendations are not legally binding and progress is dialogue-based. Thirdly, the Japanese government has already submitted a number of state reports to the human rights committees regarding their compliance with ICERD and CESCR. These reports are available online, along with the various discussions that ensued. In the Japan State Report on ICERD, problems facing the zainichi Koreans, the burakumin community, the Ainu, the Okinawans and refugees are detailed but the problems facing foreign academics relating to employment and the position of foreigners within the Japanese pension system were conspicuously absent.

Finally, the dialogue is not a two-way dialogue reserved just for governments and human rights committees. The dialogue is three-way and includes NGOs. NGO`s that have taken consultative status with the United Nations (ECOSOC) can also submit reports to human rights committees and engage in the dialogue in various ways. They can provide extra information or information which conflicts with the state report. To give you an example, let me talk about the 1st and 2nd periodic state reports submitted by the Japanese Government on 13th January 2000. I identified two problems in this report:

1. Information concerning the problem of term limits for foreign educators in Japan was conspicuously absent.
2. Information provided on social security provision for foreigners was misleading. Consider the following statement taken directly from section 29 of that state report:

`Social security is�.granted on the basis of the principle of equality regardless of nationality. For example, the nationality requirement for joining the National Pension and the National Health Insurance schemes�.has been abolished`
What this report fails to mention is that whilst no distinction is made as to nationality in eligibility requirements for joining the pension schemes, such distinction is made when it comes to qualification for pension benefits. Only Japanese nationals, special permanent residents and permanent residents are eligible to apply for `karakikan,` whereby any periods of residence abroad are factored into the period counted for pension eligibility requirements. Thus, they do not need to work in Japan for 25 years in order to qualify for pension benefits. Foreign nationals on visas who do not sustain work in Japan for 25 years, however, will not qualify for pension benefits upon retirement and up to 22 years of pension contributions may be lost.
Of course, foreigners must sustain work in Japan in most cases for ten consecutive years to qualify for permanent residence (though even the rules that apply in practice at immigration offices round the country are themselves not so transparent) but this problem clearly relates to the imposition of term-limits on foreigners in employment contracts. Where is the incentive to take permanent residence with such fundamental, long-term job insecurity? I find the lack of governmental recognition of this kind of problem to be highly unsatisfactory, which is why I personally want to make use of the human rights reporting system.
But what is the scope of NGO activity within this system? NGOs can submit reports on convention-related issues directly to human rights committees in order to both bypass and encourage the Japanese government to bring its policies more closely into line with the convention. [vi] NGOs are encouraged to attend the meetings in Geneva in which the report of the state party is being examined, where they can also arrange informal briefings for CERD committee members lasting approximately one hour before the committee examines the state report. They do not have the right to make statements during the session itself but can try to lobby committee members informally outside meeting hours. As follow-up, NGOs can inform the public about salient points of the discussion, involve parliamentarians in further discussion, approach governmental bodies to make them more aware of their responsibilities under ICERD and generally pressurize the government in a more informed way.
As I said earlier, if a problem is not on the table for discussion, change is unlikely to happen of its own accord. I was very pleased that the General Union in Osaka welcomed the idea of taking consultative status with the United Nations but to report responsibly, we need to research the issue in depth. We need to gather detailed and accurate information about situations so that they can be analysed logically without jumping to conclusions. We need to considers situations from various points of view taking into account cultural difference and we need to identify problems without prejudice, so that they can be addressed head-on through communication in an attempt to solve them in creative and constructive ways.

I have to confess that because my Japanese reading ability is not very good, I cannot gather the facts and figures about the employment patterns of foreigners in Japan myself. I am hoping that some people here today may be able to offer help. I have brought along copies of the draft report I compiled with the General Union. If you read it, you`ll see that we`ve put the onus on the government to do the research and present the facts and figures, which they should be doing anyway. We just want to demand they they look at the issues we are reporting on. Any comments, suggestions and constructive criticism would be very welcome. We are happy to email the report out freely, so if you want to add or edit whole parts, or even re-write the whole thing, that`d be great. Just email me at the address given on the handout.

Whilst the main approach we are currently taking is to demand that the Japanese government look into the issue, the General Union has also been trying to gather data first-hand by compiling a set of on-line questionnaires for foreign teachers at universities, private language schools and public high schools to fill in. Shockingly, we received, I would say, less than 15 responses and even more shocking to me was the fact that people seem to have no idea AT ALL how their terms and conditions of employment compare with those of their colleagues. Either they are scared to ask for fear of upsetting people or making their employer suspicious or they cannot successfully overcome the language barrier. I remember one person wrote something like `I am employed on equal terms to my colleagues but I don`t know what their terms and conditions are like` (?!) How can you claim you are employed on equal terms if you don`t have enough information to make that judgment?

It is with that in mind that I look at you here today and I ask you to reflect back on yourselves, and by extension ask that we look back on ourselves as a minority group, living in Japan. I really wonder whether living here long-term disempowers us psychologically. Many of us are highly educated, yet most of us, I think, are virtually illiterate. If we cannot read kanji and cannot communicate effectively in Japanese at a high enough level, do we just get used to not being able to read the information that surrounds us? Do we just switch off and give up on trying to understand or find out about the predicaments we face? Do we just stop caring whether we have enough accurate information? Is it just easier to let it all slip and live in a little bubble in which we can believe, through wishful thinking, that everything is OK? Is it just too exhausting to keep trying to overcome the language barrier every day? Do we just get tired or are we just plain lazy? Or underneath it all, do we just want to let it all go and enjoy the feeling of playing no useful role in society at all? What are we doing? Let`s put the spotlight firmly back on ourselves and consider the role we play in all of this.
PhD
In my case, I do care. All of this upsets me and makes me angry. More importantly, though, it interests me on an intellectual level and I want to understand it. I find intercultural relations fascinating. When I ran into problems at the University of Kitakyushu, I was already registered on a PhD set to investigate through classroom research how foreign language teachers can best help their students respond constructively to cultural difference, focusing on the issue of judgment. A fortunate by-product of that is that I have internalised, along the way, lots of ideas and theories about the psychology and dynamics of intercultural communication that have really helped me `dialogue` effectively.

One purpose of my speech today is to encourage you to do the same. Let`s remember who we are. We are all members, I think, of the PALE Sig. and we are all attending the JALT Annual Conference. I presume most of you are foreign language teachers, communication professionals to boot, but for those of you that have problems at work, how many of you actively `dialogue` with your employer about your working conditions? But what exactly do I mean by `dialogue`? If you look at Appendix 1, you`ll find the definition I am consciously referring to comes from the Greek Director of the Division of Cultural Policy and Intercultural at UNESCO in Paris. To sum it up in my own words, we all have our own personally constructed systems of thought, or `logics`, regardless of what language we speak and to `dialogue` with another person is to discuss an issue, such as discrimination, and to confront the other person`s logic, or way of thinking, to the end. The prefix `dia` can be translated as `trans` (the same `trans` as in `transform`) and dialogue can thus bring about change internal change, both in oneself and in the other person. I think it basically means hammering things out with your adversary and thrashing arguments out head-on honestly, analytically and constructively.

`But doesn`t that go against the grain of Japanese norms and values`, I hear you say. `That isn`t the Japanese communicative style`, says another. `It`s best to do nothing. That`s the way to win respect here in this cultural environment` In response, I say I don`t think that engaging in dialogue with our employers and `confronting their logics to the end` means that we cannot, at the same time, be extremely sensitive to Japanese culture.

<sum> As English-speakers, we can make an effort to develop stronger bottom-up processing, inferencing skills and adjust body language to communicate effectively using `isshindenshin.`
<sum> We can remember that the Japanese communication style is high-context and not low-context (see Edward T. Hall`s The Silent Language) and adjust our communication accordingly.
<sum> We can critically analyse other people`s concepts, breaking people`s arguments into parts, identifying similarities and differences that can then help us identify previously hidden common ground and where the real sticking points lie (see Mike Byram`s Teaching-and-Learning-Language-and-Culture.)
<sum> We can try to empathise with our employers and try to see things from their point of view and consider what really motivates them and what they are trying to protect (see Milton Bennett`s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.)
<sum> We can engage in acts of creative thinking to put our carefully analysed, broken parts back together like pieces of lego in new and novel ways, conjuring up new solutions that mesh people`s way of thinking together (see Edward De Bono on creative thinking) and allow for some disagreement to remain admitting that sometimes we might be wrong.
<sum> We can remember that many people, especially, older Japanese have collectivist tendencies (see Geert Hofstede`s Culture`s Consequences: the Software of the Mind) but not forget that this does not give us the right to stereotype them and presume they all think the same (see entries on racism and stereotyping in an encyclopedia, or an introduction to, psychology or social psychology.)

We can do all that, and more, but if the issues we care about are not on the table for discussion in the first place, I maintain that change is unlikely to happen of its own accord. If we do not actively enter the fray and engage in dialogue, there is simply a communicative void in which nothing can move, nothing can grow and we just hit stalemate. You might think that by keeping your head down and staying quiet, you`re doing things the Japanese way but I maintain that no communication is NOT intercultural communication. It`s simply nothing, which is one very likely reason why I think we often get treated like nothing.
International and Local
In conclusion, I want to promote dialogue itself. I have become a very active `dialogger,` if you like, and I think this has paid great dividends in my own personal situation. We have hopefully laid the seeds of change at the University of Kitakyushu and some fruit is ready for the picking, but not enough to make a pie. The beauty of it all for me is that on a personal level, at least, I think I am succeeding in converting what have been at times very negative and painful experiences into positive learning experiences that enrich not only my research but also myself as a person. I have grown tremendously as an individual over the last few years and for this reason, I am deeply grateful to my PhD supervisor Professor Mike Byram from the University of Durham for constantly pressing me for increased intellectual rigour, for forcing me to question everything again and again and by so doing, providing me with the quality conceptual space that has allowed me to develop myself in many different ways. My social activity has brought me into contact with some really great groups of people who are all trying their best, in their own way, to make the world a more comfortable place for us all to live. On that note, it seems appropriate to end my speech with the following words from Fergus in the film Greenfingers, which I have been using with my students these last few weeks: Make friends with your adversity. If you don`t, it`ll just make you angry. And also: Think global. Act local. Thank you for listening.

[Nismo]

Honestly, I wasn't impressed by the research conducted, and the way it was typed was clearly biased, despite stating that it was not trying to be.

Just out of curiosity, how much tax do uni professors pay?

[PAULH]

[Nismo]

I was just wondering if Foreign uni teachers pay the same as Japanese nationals. I know English teachers pay less. It would seem that being in a special tax bracket would justifiably reduce our rights on certain issues. The only solution to gaining every benefit that Japanese workers have would be to raise the taxes on foreign teachers, which I would prefer does not happen.

And, the bias seems to lie in tenured teachers, as what they are looking for would reduce job opportunities for younger teachers on short term contracts.

[taikibansei]

[PAULH]

[PAULH]

[Nismo]

I'll try and read the links later. I've read some of Debito's work, and he's very pretentious. It's hard to get through his articles. What he really needs is an editor.

[sidjameson]

Gordon, to be honest I don't know. As a part timer I really don't have much contact with the rest of the faculty let alone the university. I go, I teach, I leave. But when I see those job ads. "Full time, 8 classes a week" Oh how I dream.