| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012 Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sounds like what happened to my friend, that's good. Not all hagwons are bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Troglodyte

Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| YTMND wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I would be very reluctant to sign that new contract because it basically puts you at the mercy of your new boss. If he wants, he can fire you the day after you sign it for some made-up reason. |
Before you stated, "The school can't fire you on the spot."
Which is it? You are right "he can fire you the day after you sign it for some made-up reason."
|
Both are correct. Check the context.
With his ORIGINAL contract, they can't (legally) fire him on the spot. They need to give him due notice (or pay in lieu of). They also can't fire him in the 11th month. Since he's in the 10th month, then firing him now would put him into the 11th month.
With a NEW contract, then they CAN fire him on the spot. Granted they need to come up with a reason, but it's not too hard to make up something.
Ewlandon. You need to stop thinking of the severance pay as a simple bonus that the company is giving you as a sort of job benefit. It's not. It's something legal. The new contract should not refer to it with the same wording as the original contract or else it MIGHT be possible for them to reneg on it with the argument that the law really only obligates them to pay it if you work 12 months WITH THAT COMPANY. With the new contract, you're working with a new company --> the clock resets.
Read through the Korean Labor Standards Act.
http://wiki.galbijim.com/Labor_Standards_Act
Article 31 says that they CAN fire you if the school is sold. This is what your mother was talking about. BUT they have to give you 30 days notice. They also need to first register this situation with the labor board. They can't fire you until it's been cleared with the labor board. After labor says ok, then they can give you 30 days notice. Get that in writing.
Severance is covered under Article 34.
A lot of hogwon owners are nice and friendly up until there's a problem. Then it's a free-for-all attempt at self preservation. Why is the parent company selling the school? Was it not profitable enough? Does the current owner think that he can manage it better? Are you sure that he can? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012 Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| With a NEW contract, then they CAN fire him on the spot. Granted they need to come up with a reason, but it's not too hard to make up something. |
You are fishing buddy. Try again. How does school employer 2 make up something easier than school employer number 1?
| Quote: |
| you're working with a new company --> the clock resets. |
That's where my concerns lie too.
The rest of Troglodyte's post details my concerns in the beginning and throughout. However, the replies from the original poster tell me to play it by ear. Maybe near the end of your employment working with the school you will face issues, but now, it's business as usual as it pertains to the hagwon regime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Troglodyte

Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| YTMND wrote: |
| Quote: |
| With a NEW contract, then they CAN fire him on the spot. Granted they need to come up with a reason, but it's not too hard to make up something. |
You are fishing buddy. Try again. How does school employer 2 make up something easier than school employer number 1?
|
Read the LSA and then get back to us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012 Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't see where the LSA states employer 1 has to treat the teacher better than employer 2. Which chapter am I missing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Troglodyte

Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| YTMND wrote: |
| I don't see where the LSA states employer 1 has to treat the teacher better than employer 2. Which chapter am I missing? |
I already mentioned it.
If the words are too big for you, then try sounding out the letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012 Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, I am sounding it out.
I don't see how Employer 1 is more obligated than Employer 2. Sound it out instead of insulting me.
The challenge is on.
HOW DOES EMPLOYER 2 FIRE THE TEACHER ANY EASIER THAN EMPLOYER 1? Proof is in the pudding. Serve the pudding, put me and others to shame, and let us eat crow.
Ball is in your court, MINUS the insults. Facts, just the facts. What do you have?
Why not reference the LSA? You can't. Period. The LSA post was a blockade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Troglodyte wrote: |
[q
With a NEW contract, then they CAN fire him on the spot. Granted they need to come up with a reason, but it's not too hard to make up something.
? |
To my understanding this is inaccurate. As long as you work at the SAME place for more than six months then it doesn't matter about a new contract. The labor laws cover length of employment at the same workplace and do not re-set when you sign a new contract.
| Quote: |
Article 23 (Term of Contract)
The term of a labor contract shall not exceed one year, except in cases where there is no term fixed or a term is fixed as necessary for the completion of a certain project. |
| Quote: |
Article 35
The provisions of Article 32 shall not apply to workers who fall within each of the following subparagraphs:
1. a worker who has been employed on a daily basis for less than three consecutive months;
2. a worker who has been employed for a fixed period not exceeding two months;
3. a worker who has been employed as a monthly-paid worker for less than six months; |
As we see the terms of a labor contract must not last more than one year and this is for Korean and foreign workers alike.
Article 35 states that some of the protections afforded by the labor act do not cover workers who have been employed for less than six months. But if you sign a new contract with the same place with no gap in between that is considered continuous employment. Otherwise severance pay would not be pro-rated.
They wouldn't have one law for severance pay and another for employment since severance pay is based on length of employment |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Troglodyte

Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Troglodyte wrote: |
[q
With a NEW contract, then they CAN fire him on the spot. Granted they need to come up with a reason, but it's not too hard to make up something.
|
To my understanding this is inaccurate. As long as you work at the SAME place for more than six months then it doesn't matter about a new contract. The labor laws cover length of employment at the same workplace and do not re-set when you sign a new contract.
|
Technically though the new contract won't be with the same company. It will be with a new company. In reality it's the same school, but legally it's a separate entity. The old school went out of business (or so it seems from what the OP wrote) and the building, furniture and other stuff was bought up by someone else. The person who bought up the above stuff is now offering jobs to the ex-employees of the former company. The new employer has no legal obligation to honor the contract of the former employer.
But really, the BEST advice of all is to go to the labor board and see what THEY say. In the end, it's going to come down to how they interpret the situation. But the OP should go to the labor board before he signs anything.
By the way, OP, you'll probably need to get a letter of release and transfer your visa to the new employer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sojusucks

Joined: 31 May 2008
|
Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:33 pm Post subject: Re: changing contract after 10 months |
|
|
| ewlandon wrote: |
| Ive been here since September and my employer is telling me that the parent company no longer owns this branch and the principal owns it now so I need to sign a new contract. The contract they gave me is basically the same except for no mention of severance or pension (not signing it till they fix that). My question is will signing the new contract change the dates or my eligability to recieve pension and severance in 2 months? |
They are trying to get out of paying you those things. If a new owner took over, then they agreed to honour previous contracts. After all, the person that signed your contract was an authorized representative of the company of that time.
Signing the new contract means that you don't get severance or any of the other benefits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Troglodyte

Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:22 am Post subject: Re: changing contract after 10 months |
|
|
| sojusucks wrote: |
| ewlandon wrote: |
| Ive been here since September and my employer is telling me that the parent company no longer owns this branch and the principal owns it now so I need to sign a new contract. The contract they gave me is basically the same except for no mention of severance or pension (not signing it till they fix that). My question is will signing the new contract change the dates or my eligability to recieve pension and severance in 2 months? |
They are trying to get out of paying you those things. If a new owner took over, then they agreed to honour previous contracts. After all, the person that signed your contract was an authorized representative of the company of that time.
Signing the new contract means that you don't get severance or any of the other benefits. |
This is a definitely possibility. The school that the OP works for might be an independent business (a legal entity) which was sold by the big company (another legal entity) to Mr. Kim the former manager of the hogwon. In this case, the OP's contract is with the school. So it wouldn't matter who owns the school because his contract is not with the owner but with the school itself.
If on the other hand the previous owner closed the school and sold off the building and equipment, then the current owner of the building and equipment who has just happened to open a new school on the same premises, perhaps using the same or a similar name on the sign outside has no legal obligations to the OP.
But in either case, Sojusucks is right. If the OP signs the new contract, then severance is likely gone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|