| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hyeon Een
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: Re: Here's a phantom rumour |
 |
|
| Tobias wrote: |
What the hell, let me throw this rumour out there:
Korean government has a secret agreement with the US government to allow US citizens to get jobs here for, at most, two years at a time. This allows those citizens to find good-paying jobs that allow them to pay off their student loans. Two years after beginning a job, Joe TESOL is forced out and John TESOL comes aboard to have his turn. Joe's loans are now paid off, so his ditching hurts no one save for Joe. John replaces Joe and the cycle begins again. It could be something akin to the PetroDollar cycle.
Could reality be something this crazy? |
And all us non-Americans are mere collateral damage? =)
Anyway this only seems to be a uni thing rather than an across the board regulation so your theory doesn't quite work. Also only.. what.. 0.1% of American graduates go to Korea to pay off their loans. Not a significant number. Now if it was a CANADIAN conspiracy you might be on to something  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hyeon Een wrote: |
| Young FRANKenstein wrote: |
| Hyeon Een wrote: |
| They said it was "the law" and I think they said it was a new law. |
There is no law that makes them fire you after two years or three years or however many years they say you're limited to. It is a uni-by-uni policy and that's all it is. There is no national law. If there was, 80% of the foreign instructors and profs would be turfed from my uni.
It's the same old thing. Rather than tell you straight up that it is THEIR internal uni policy not to renew you after XXX years, they blame it on some phantom law no one's ever heard about. "It's the new law, so sorry, not our fault you lost this job." |
I understand what you're saying, but why would they want to do this? |
There was the new law a couple years back about part-timers becoming full-time contracted workers and receiving all the benefits of full-timers (including salary increases)** but that doesn't apply to most of us. Most at unis are instructors and not actual professors, so limiting us is pointless. I can only imagine the ones using the excuse of this law (if this is the law they are referring to) to limit employment, don't actually understand what the law entails. Some Joe Schmo unigwon instructor is not going to be force-promoted to full-professor at the uni after working 2 years in the unigwon. That's not how the part-timer law works.
Course, that was a couple years back. I have no idea why they would be bringing this up now.
**the reason why the E-land employees went on strike... they were fired before they got to 2 years, so the company didn't have to make them full-time workers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: Re: Here's a phantom rumour |
|
|
| Tobias wrote: |
| Could reality be something this crazy? |
No. There are no limits to employment by law, only by internal school policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hyeon Een
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Young FRANKenstein wrote: |
There was the new law a couple years back about part-timers becoming full-time contracted workers and receiving all the benefits of full-timers (including salary increases)** but that doesn't apply to most of us. Most at unis are instructors and not actual professors, so limiting us is pointless. I can only imagine the ones using the excuse of this law (if this is the law they are referring to) to limit employment, don't actually understand what the law entails. Some Joe Schmo unigwon instructor is not going to be force-promoted to full-professor at the uni after working 2 years in the unigwon. That's not how the part-timer law works.
Course, that was a couple years back. I have no idea why they would be bringing this up now.
**the reason why the E-land employees went on strike... they were fired before they got to 2 years, so the company didn't have to make them full-time workers |
OK I'll take this explanation; it's the most plausible one. A mis-understanding of the rules. That would make perfect sense in my University's case because the administration department are clueless idiots. (But the professors are lovely!)
So.. would the salary increases still be mandatory? Or simply not the case because there are no equivalent full time employees that they have to match? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
semi-fly
Joined: 07 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Here's a phantom rumour |
|
|
| Young FRANKenstein wrote: |
| Tobias wrote: |
| Could reality be something this crazy? |
No. There are no limits to employment by law, only by internal school policy. |
How then would an individual obtain ten year if they are forced out (that if effects Koreans as well as foreigners) at their respective universities? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tobias
Joined: 02 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: It was just for grins |
|
|
[quote="Hyeon Een"]
And all us non-Americans are mere collateral damage? =)
Anyway this only seems to be a uni thing rather than an across the board regulation so your theory doesn't quite work. Also only.. what.. 0.1% of American graduates go to Korea to pay off their loans. Not a significant number. Now if it was a CANADIAN conspiracy you might be on to something ;)[/quote]
It was just for grins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think YougnFrankenstein is on the right track though of course I don't really know how these things work. But, I think a lot of schools are worried about how this law will be interpreted. I am not sure if anyone knows how the courts will react to this law, concerning part-time teachers, Korean and foreign. I know that at the university I work at non-tenure KTs are limited to three consecutive years of employment. So far, us Fts have not been effected but it clearly states in our contracts that we are "visiting professors." Earlier this clause was not put in though we were called them. I think they made this clearly worded in our contracts to make sure we were not effected by this ruling but I never asked to clearify. (the ruling -my guess - would benefit us unless we were fired because of it.)
Anyway, I have heard a number of universities that have certain "rules" for the length of time a FT can stay. And, I have heard a lot that don't. As far as I know, there isn't any national law limiting the length of stay of FTs.
As YoungFrankenstein pointed out there is a Korean law that says an employee cannot be "part-time" for more than two consecutive years, thus if they worked longer they would automatically become "full-time" with its requisite benefits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hyeon Een wrote: |
| So.. would the salary increases still be mandatory? Or simply not the case because there are no equivalent full time employees that they have to match? |
If you are a part-time instructor, they may have to make you a full-time instructor, which includes the salary, medical, pension, etc benefits that come with being full-time. But instructor <> professor. I could see a foreigner who was a full professor being "upgraded" after two years to a Korean professor's salary, maybe. But an "instructor" is not going to get bumped up to a professor. They are simply not equivalent.
For the most part, I don't see this affecting very many, if any ata ll, foreigners. It was written for the Korean part-timers who had no benefits to be eventually made full-time with benefits and a raise, so companies couldn't take advantage of a cheap labor force. The law backfired on the part-timers, though, because now they are fired well before the 2-year mark, so the company doesn't have to make them full-time, and the company just hires another part-timer and the cycle of screwing starts anew.
| Unposter wrote: |
| As YoungFrankenstein pointed out there is a Korean law that says an employee cannot be "part-time" for more than two consecutive years, thus if they worked longer they would automatically become "full-time" with its requisite benefits. |
Yeah, that's what I was saying, but since most of us are not part-time, it doesn't affect us. Putting term limits on us is just a misunderstanding of what the law actually says (I'm speculating here). It's got nothing to do with being vetted for your private pension because that doesn't happen until the FIVE year mark. I see no legal reason why they would put a term limit on your employment before the 5 year mark, but even the 5 year limit means nothing because private pension follows you to the next school and continues to accrue from where you left off at the previous school.
| semi-fly wrote: |
| Young FRANKenstein wrote: |
| Tobias wrote: |
| Could reality be something this crazy? |
No. There are no limits to employment by law, only by internal school policy. |
How then would an individual obtain ten year if they are forced out (that if effects Koreans as well as foreigners) at their respective universities? |
I'll assume you meant tenure. And you can't get it if they force you out. Tenure is not a given for a prof. It takes a lot of paying your dues and publishing your research to even be considered for tenure (plus in Korea, you have to contribute a "cake box" to upper admin) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| here is a very very tiny increase in pay for instructors after a couple of years.. |
I CAN easily believe that a Korean employer would see ANY mandatory pay increase as an excellent reason to fire an employee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
| Quote: |
| here is a very very tiny increase in pay for instructors after a couple of years.. |
I CAN easily believe that a Korean employer would see ANY mandatory pay increase as an excellent reason to fire an employee. |
My last uni actually STOLE my pay increase (2500/hr*24hrs/wk). If I had been successful in finding out which government arm was responsible for giving it to us, I would have reported them and gotten my money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chaz47
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been here long enough to accept the lying but what really gets me about this, is that it will now take me that much longer to even have a chance to get my F-5.
On the subject of F-5 visas... does anyone know of a single person getting one with, uh, perhaps a little bit of monetary compensation thrown towards the immigration official as encouragement.
Sorry to sidetrack my own post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
semi-fly
Joined: 07 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Young FRANKenstein wrote: |
| I'll assume you meant tenure. And you can't get it if they force you out. Tenure is not a given for a prof. It takes a lot of paying your dues and publishing your research to even be considered for tenure (plus in Korea, you have to contribute a "cake box" to upper admin) |
Yes. I meant tenure (pardon my ignorance). Exactly what is a "cake box" ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| semi-fly wrote: |
| Young FRANKenstein wrote: |
| I'll assume you meant tenure. And you can't get it if they force you out. Tenure is not a given for a prof. It takes a lot of paying your dues and publishing your research to even be considered for tenure (plus in Korea, you have to contribute a "cake box" to upper admin) |
Yes. I meant tenure (pardon my ignorance). Exactly what is a "cake box" ? |
A cake box like you'd buy at any bakery, but there is no cake inside. However, there is a whole lotta bread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
