|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| So, it seems clear the contract did not allow outside working, whether in Korea or abroad. |
I would like to see a law in one country that can dictate working conditions outside of that country.
What if I sign a contract in my home country before teaching in Korea with the school like this that already knows I have work to do in my home country at certain times?
If we completely disallow the above premise, then what happens if you have a business in your home country and your spouse takes over the business while you work in Korea? You don't do any work directly in your home country, but you still earn income through your spouse's actions. Should your spouse now not run your business while you are in Korea?
The absurdity of allowing a country to dictate terms beyond their borders is eventually going to surface. I hope more teachers take action like this teacher is doing.
| Quote: |
| His Korean school found out and stopped paying him - citing a contract clause that prohibited outside teaching... |
Did it actually state abroad or his home country? I have always read that clause to be confined to the country for reasons I mentioned above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
iggyb
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's a contact dispute. It applies to what the Korean courts and labor law say.
If a hypothetical case touched on some nature of international law, I would guess there is some means to address that dispute somewhere...
This case doesn't stretch that far.
Just because you leave the borders doesn't mean anything goes and your employer in Korea can't do anything concerning your employment.
You're hypothetical is too far removed from the actual case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You're hypothetical is too far removed from the actual case. |
I don't agree. It's not a hypothetical if you look at the terms in the "hypothetical" contract. Since, we can't see the contract, we can only suppose, and my suppositions are not that far removed. I'll list them.
1. The main concern for Korean employers is that you aren't working with a competing school. Granted, it might get "international" if you are worried about one student going to two different universities where each is located in a different country. That to me is too far removed from the "actual case".
Furthermore, the intent would be until I see otherwise applied to just working in the country. The person/s who wrote/drafted the contract is the not the same person/s who fired the teacher. They took a literal or different interpretation. I agree it would be handled in Korean courts, so we would have to see how it goes. If it doesn't go in his favor, I don't know what more he could do.
2. The word in question is "work", or it is possibly "employed". If the contract only states you cannot work for another company or simply you can't do "other" work (in the case of owning a business at home), then we are looking at the same issue.
There is nothing about the word "work" which specifically delineates it being what this teacher did or what I asked. This is why the person/s who fired him took this action.
If it had been spelled out, "You can run your business while teaching here, but you cannot go to China to teach" then my premise would be obviously far removed from the "actual case" where he did go to China.
It isn't, it probably just states "work" and not a country or give any reference to the home country.
3. If the contract stated, "You cannot use computers on campus unless you are preparing for classes", and this teacher goes to China and uses computers on that campus, can the school in Korea fire or penalize him because the clause clearly states you "cannot use computers on campus unless you are preparing for classes."?
This example highlights 2 things:
a. It shows how far removed the decision is to fire this teacher from the intent of the clause to prohibit working elsewhere. If we looked at the "actual case", I think it would be clear that the school didn't initially set out to punish anyone for their actions outside of the country, so long as they abode by the rules within the country (being Korea).
b. A clause can be ambiguous. Unless the school can specifically show a clause which stated he could not work in another country, then it wouldn't be a private agreement. It would have to be some national law that Korea can prohibit foreign employees outside of its borders.
If so, I would like to see it because it sure would pertain to this actual case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckylady
Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Location: u.s. of occupied territories
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
what's so ironic here is how often Korea's unis whine and lament how little respect they receive from other globally-recognised unis. oh they don't think we're as good, oh we're not on the top 100
then when one of their professors at a top school, in this case KAIST, is actually invited and paid as a visiting professor at another country's uni, rather than use that to their advantage (perhaps because it was a Westerner, not a Korean?) and let their uni shine, KAIST goes sh*tfaced and fires the prof.
did they honestly think he's going to take that much time off to be there for free?? I was paid once for a demo lesson at a high school in Seoul - 1 lesson - this guy let them know he was going to be there for a couple of months.
further, one could even say it was his administrators' responsibility to make sure all the paperwork was done properly.
I agree with those who say they just wanted him out. am still glad he sued though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iggyb
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the contract said the guy couldn't work a second job and he did, it wouldn't matter if it were in Korea or not, unless the contract specified it for some reason.
He went to China with two months left on his contract. Started teaching and taking a salary at another school.
The one in Korea decided it didn't want to continue to pay him once he had found other work, so they fired him based on what the contract said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| it wouldn't matter if it were in Korea or not, unless the contract specified it for some reason. |
Where does it state this is the case? Where is the law?
Apparently, the Chinese have no problem. So, Koreans can dictate what someone can and cannot do in China? I doubt the Chinese would be pleased about that, or any other country.
The "spirit" of the contract, or the intent, as far as I can see is that when you are in Korea they don't want, or want permission first, for you to work a second job in Korea.
There is also ample proof if we look at immigration procedures.
Let's say that for argument sake that Korea could dictate what a foreigner can and cannot do outside of its country, how do they process visas then?
Korean immigration would add a second location stamp onto the passport, right? When I did it, I believe it said "change or addition", so it would have been the same stamp.
If the university and Korean immigration both gave a thumbs up and allowed the teacher to teach in China, would there be a Chinese address then? Would there be a name of the school? After all, we would have to report this.
Can you show me 1 foreigner in Korea who has done this? Is there one foreigner who got permission to work in another country from their school in Korea and went through the same procedure as if they got a second teaching job in Korea?
My bets are that you can't, because Korea can't tell someone they can't work in another country. They can only decide things within their country. They are using their "forms" as a substitute for this lack of evidence, but they are missing the other half....the forms immigration would make the teacher fill out in order to work 2 places.
That is going to be their downfall. They will not be able to enforce their rules beyond the scope of the contract. The scope of the contract as far as I have seen only deals with second locations within Korea.
Feel free to show me otherwise. Show me 1 teacher who had to get paperwork through immigration in Korea in order to work in China or another country. I would love to see it.
Until then, try plan B.
Go to immigration in Korea yourself. Ask for an addition of workplace form. Fill in Beijing, China as your second location. See what immigration says. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| YTMND wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So, it seems clear the contract did not allow outside working, whether in Korea or abroad. |
I would like to see a law in one country that can dictate working conditions outside of that country.
. |
Not what they are doing. They are saying you can't work in another country AND WORK IN KOREA.
They are perfectly entitled to enforce the law in their own country. They didn't enforce any law outside their own borders. The guy was not allowed under the university's policy to have a second job. So they fired him from his JOB INSIDE OF KOREA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Who's Your Daddy?
Joined: 30 May 2010
Location: Victoria, Canada.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ㅅㅅ Exactly, that the other job was in China is irrelevant, it was another job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Not what they are doing. They are saying you can't work in another country AND WORK IN KOREA. |
No, that is NOT what they are saying.
1) There is no reference to another country.
2) There is no evidence of a contract which states "another country" in it.
Do you have some law that would override this lack of evidence (like you can't do drugs)?
| Quote: |
| They are perfectly entitled to enforce the law in their own country. |
Now you are saying it is law. What law states a foreigner cannot work outside of Korea? Show me the law.
| Quote: |
| The guy was not allowed under the university's policy to have a second job. So they fired him from his JOB INSIDE OF KOREA. |
So, show me a form then he would have filled out if they had given him permission. I'll accept it exists. Let's skip to the next form.
Show me the form immigration would have them fill out to add a second workplace then. Either show me the law or the form. That simple.
| Quote: |
| that the other job was in China is irrelevant, it was another job. |
Show me the law then. If it was irrelevant, then you wouldn't need a different form to add a second workplace.
Think this out logically guys and come back to me with either:
1) A law that states the employee cannot work abroad
2) A form needed to add a second workplace which could have a place outside of Korea added on to it
Have any of you tried adding Beijing, China as your second workplace yet? I'll pay to see a video with a clear reaction from the officer you talk to and submit the form to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iggyb
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Show me! Show me! Show me! Shhhhhhioooowowwwww meeeee!! (And even then, get it notarized and then apostilled before I'll believe it!!!)
Until then, you have NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING! I tell you!!!
--sigh--
This doesn't take a rocket scientist or CSI forensic evidence specialists.
| Quote: |
| So, Koreans can dictate what someone can and cannot do in China? |
As others said, this isn't what they are doing. They are setting conditions of employment FOR THEM.
You are making this about "personal freedom" and then twisting the idea of law and international law and demanding conditions of "evidence" and then throwing in immigration law beyond reason.
Setting contract conditions that prohibit outside work (anywhere) does not curtail your "freedom" to work in China. It prohibits your ability to work in China AND for them. You don't have to sign their contract. You can keep looking until you find a job that doesn't disallow what you want to do...
I don't care if Immigration doesn't care about enforcing immigration law about working more jobs than with your visa sponsor if the extra work is outside Korea. I don't care if immigration law does or doesn't have specific laws about overseas employment. I don't care about immigration. You threw that in and it convolutes something simple.
The company did care about enforcing the conditions of employment it set out before the guy signed the contract.
This is a labor contract issue...
If the conditions in the contract violated Korean law, then he'd have a case. Not the other way around. The contract is legally binding unless it conflicts with Korean law.
You are bypassing the contract demanding we scour law books for something that specifically says an expat working in Korea can't work overseas or needs special permission from immigration to do it...
Or you act like you are demanding we get a verified, certified, apostilled copy of the guy's actual contract and point to clauses that said overseas employment was prohibited.
That's unreasonable -- and it isn't how it works.
The school stopped paying the guys salary because it said his working elsewhere violated the terms of the contract. The guy is the one who will have to go to court and convince them the school was wrong in terminating him.
Walking into a Korean court and saying the contract clauses became null and void because he crossed the Korean border when he went to work the second job isn't going to get him very far... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| They are setting conditions of employment FOR THEM. |
They are claiming something, and that is being disputed.
| Quote: |
| It prohibits your ability to work in China AND for them. You don't have to sign their contract. You can keep looking until you find a job that doesn't disallow what you want to do... |
This is why I say show me. You say it is in the contract. Let's see it. Show me. If you say there is a one thousand pound gorilla in your kitchen cooking with an alien chef, I am not going to believe you until I see it.
Show me where in the contract it states the employee can't work in China. Simple request. If it is there, show me. It doesn't need to be notarized.
Just show the English where it states this in the contract.
| Quote: |
| If the conditions in the contract violated Korean law, then he'd have a case. Not the other way around. The contract is legally binding unless it conflicts with Korean law. |
Fine, then you are arguing it is not a labor dispute, and that this is a private agreement in the contract (like airfare). So, show the contract clause which states he could not work in China.
| Quote: |
| You are bypassing the contract demanding we scour law books for something that specifically says an expat working in Korea can't work overseas or needs special permission from immigration to do it... |
That is the harder thing to win on. If it isn't against Korean Law, then what does the contract state? I am more than happy to make this an easier win and say it isn't in the contract.
Make me eat crow. Show the contract then. I am more than happy to move on from Korean law if you want to claim it is not against Korean law to work 2 different places, one in Korea, and one WITHOUT PERMISSION in China.
Awesome.
| Quote: |
| The school stopped paying the guys salary because it said his working elsewhere violated the terms of the contract. |
Where does it state this then in the contract? If he violated the terms of the contract, why are they saying he didn't fill out the right forms? If he violated the contract, then it wouldn't matter if he filled them out or not.
Sorry, I just caught you in a catch 22 there. Like Bart Simpson, you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.
| Quote: |
| Walking into a Korean court and saying the contract clauses became null and void because he crossed the Korean border when he went to work the second job isn't going to get him very far... |
Posting on a Korean English teaching forum and saying that contract clauses become enforceable when there is no proof they were in the contract isn't going to get you very far... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iggyb
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're talking nonsense and acting as if everyone else is.
How is a contract dispute not a labor one? How is a contract being a private agreement not a legal one? Or a legal one not private?
"Show me! Show me! Show me!"
The man got fired for working another job. The article is clear enough on that point. I don't have to fax you copy of the contract...
| Quote: |
| if you want to claim it is not against Korean law to work 2 different places |
I'm claiming all this talk about immigration and law you have thrown up are pointless. They are a misdirection. That you are trying to force everybody to focus attention in an unproductive direction.
And then on the other hand, you are trying to destroy a look at the actually key area that should be under consideration by making ridiculous demands on documentation.
We all read the same article.
It is clear the prof had his contract terminated. He got fired for the last two months of the contract. It is also obvious he got fired for working another job, and that the school said that is why they terminated him.
I don't have to produce a copy of the contract. That is ridiculous.
You have nothing better than the article to stand on but you are dismissing it in a convoluted fashion.
Like:
| Quote: |
If he violated the terms of the contract, why are they saying he didn't fill out the right forms? If he violated the contract, then it wouldn't matter if he filled them out or not.
Sorry, I just caught you in a catch 22 there. |
No. Not close to it.
From the article:
| Quote: |
| until he was dismissed in June 2011 for alleged double-jobbing and unauthorized overseas travel |
| Quote: |
| Jordan claims that his trip to China was approved by the school before departure. |
| Quote: |
| In emails seen by The Korea Herald, Jordan informed his then-department head, professor Han In-goo, of his plans to travel to find new work in November 2010. He also requested the rescheduling of his teaching duties to accommodate the trip. Han accordingly changed Jordan�s teaching schedule. |
| Quote: |
| �We also received a confirmation email from the Peking University that he was paid for teaching. Double-employment is clearly against the school policy. So we decided to fire him two months before the one year extension (ended),� the official said. |
The school dismissed him from the last two months of the contract because they said he broke it by working another job - and - for not filling out the proper paperwork for taking a leave of absense to travel.
Yes, it is unfair they would throw the proper paperwork thing at him when he clearly let them know by other means he was going away and they did rescheduled his workload, but that is the way of the world, and bosses generally get away with arbitrarily holding an employee to the letter of the rules whenever they feel like it.
Regardless, the more important point is - they aren't claiming the primary reason he was let go was for not filling out the forms. They are saying it was because he worked a second job.
Now you are stomping up and down demanding I prove what the article is telling me by quoting directly from the contract.
Not too fair or reasonable.
If you want to dismiss what the article says, shouldn't the burden of proof be on you? If you don't want to believe the article is one thing.
Demanding I produce a copy of the contract is another....
| Quote: |
Jordan admits teaching at Peking University in early 2011, but insists his work as a visiting professor was consistent with university policy and the norms of academia.
�It is standard when you visit at a university you will engage with the university in full, you are going to work with the students, you are going to work with the faculty, they are going give you an office,� he said. |
So, does the standard operating procedure match written policy?
He says yes. The school says no. His direct quote above doesn't inspire confidence to me. Added to the skepticism is what I've seen and heard about working second jobs when I was in Korea.
However, you started this argument by basically saying what the contract says doesn't matter: That prohibition against outside work doesn't count if the work takes place outside Korea's borders.
And then you stomped around again demanding I prove it through documentation...
You are arguing your point of view, but it is coming out as a smokescreen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iggyb
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
And again, this isn't how things like this work:
You don't take a contract and then pore over labor and immigration law matching every contract clause to a law one.
Korean law does supercede the legal standing of a contract: A Korean boss can't get away with breaking labor or immigration law by pointing to the expat's signiture and saying the law doesn't apply since he agreed to the contract.
(Technically, the whole contract isn't null and void if it has clauses that violate law - only those clauses are voided.)
But a boss doesn't have to prove every clause in a job contract matches a specific clause in Korean law.
The clauses in a contract are legally binding UNLESS they violate the law.
So, you -- need to show -- me -- where in Korean law it says a school can't prohibit someone from working a second job or working a second job overseas.
Because I'm convinced enough with what the article says that the contract prohibited such paid work.
If you need to see the actual contract, email the reporter and see if he'll forward you one or at least fax you the notes he took from the interviews he actually did.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Jordan�s second contract included a clause specifying payment would continue only as long as he remained with the school. |
I don't see how that can directly be interpreted to mean he is not allowed to take a second job.
| Quote: |
| Double-employment is clearly against the school policy. |
I wonder how many KAIST professors have worked as visiting professors. �It is a fairly common practice after all. �Anyways, it seems to me that this is an issue of how a university policy (which he may not have known about) gets interpreted as opposed to a direct contractual violation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iggyb
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| �We also received a confirmation email from the Peking University that he was paid for teaching. Double-employment is clearly against the school policy. So we decided to fire him two months before the one year extension (ended),� the official said. |
Elsewhere, the school is said to have said it is in the contract.
What reason would I have to completely disbelieve them? Or that the author didn't check on things? Since prohibiting extra employment is not uncommon in the teaching field in Korea, I'd need some reason to just completely dismiss what the school is saying.
| Quote: |
| I wonder how many KAIST professors have worked as visiting professors. It is a fairly common practice after all. Anyways, it seems to me that this is an issue of how a university policy (which he may not have known about) gets interpreted as opposed to a direct contractual violation. |
The two are not mutually exclusive. When you start a job, you often sign something saying you are familiar with the employer's policies. Usually after they have just handed you a handbook which you don't read. As an expat in Korea, you often can't read the material because it's in Korean. --- That doesn't mean you can't be held accountable for what the words say.
Ignorance of the law, or policy, isn't an excuse. Not to the courts or where it officially counts...
I'm not trying to be a hardass about it. I think it is unfair in practice, but such practice generally stands up when they throw the letter of the policy in your face...
Or inotherwords, arbitrary application of the rules stands up in court. The school points to the written rules. Points to your signiture. And no amount of talking by you will change the coming results.
Fair? Usually not. Do the employers have the advantage? Yes. Both in the US and in Korea... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
