| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
archaeologist5
Joined: 25 Dec 2013
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| EZE wrote: |
| Quote: |
"3.5 Airfare
Employer shall provide flight ticket. In the event that Employee willfully leaves the Employer before completion of his/her contract, Employer is not responsible for the return airfare. |
|
EZE--that is NOT a promise to pay return air fair.
Go to the contracts forum and view the clauses that actually state a promise to pay return air fare and compare them with the one the OP posted.
| Quote: |
| n short: You have no evidence to support your accusations |
You live in a fantasy world don't you.
Two questions: #1. Did you do Mormon missionary work in Korea?
#2. Did you obtain the Missionary visa Korea has for those doing missionary work in this country? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| archaeologist5 wrote: |
| EZE wrote: |
| Quote: |
"3.5 Airfare
Employer shall provide flight ticket. In the event that Employee willfully leaves the Employer before completion of his/her contract, Employer is not responsible for the return airfare. |
|
EZE--that is NOT a promise to pay return air fair.
Go to the contracts forum and view the clauses that actually state a promise to pay return air fare and compare them with the one the OP posted. |
OP: Please post the entire contract. The clear reading, though, of what the OP has already posted is that the employer is, in fact, responsible for return airfare upon completion of the contract.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| n short: You have no evidence to support your accusations |
You live in a fantasy world don't you. |
Nope. In my world, that of reality, one substantiates accusations with proof.
| Quote: |
| Two questions: #1. Did you do Mormon missionary work in Korea? |
No, as I have not served a mission.
| Quote: |
| #2. Did you obtain the Missionary visa Korea has for those doing missionary work in this country? |
Since I have not served a mission, it's quite obvious that I have never had a D-6 (Religious Activities) visa. Each and every time I have entered Korea, I have done so with the appropriate visa.
What is your purpose in asking those two completely irrelevant questions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
archaeologist5
Joined: 25 Dec 2013
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The clear reading, though, of what the OP has already posted is that the employer is, in fact, responsible for return airfare upon completion of the contract. |
No, that is your biased, filtered, unobjective reading.
| Quote: |
| Nope. In my world, that of reality, one substantiates accusations with proof. |
ha ha h aha I have by pointing to your most recent actions but you choose to ignore them with the, 'they disappeared so I didn't commit a lie' mentality.
| Quote: |
| No, as I have not served a mission. |
Didn't ask you if you served on or did a 2 year Mormon Mission. Nice way to avoid the question.
| Quote: |
| Since I have not served a mission, it's quite obvious that I have never had a D-6 (Religious Activities) visa. Each and every time I have entered Korea, I have done so with the appropriate visa. |
Nice way to avoid the question.
Missionary work is not limited to a mission but then maybe I should have said 'temple work' or 'Mormon evangelism'.
I am betting you cannot be completely honest in answering those questions and having lived and worked for/with Mormons I highly doubt they let you sit there and do nothing when their is temple work to be done.
| Quote: |
What is your purpose in asking those two completely irrelevant questions?
|
They are not irrelevant. They just add to the evidence concerning your honesty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Biased? So far, the only native English speaker posting in this thread agreement with the employer's parsing of the passage in question is you. That should tell you something; however, I'd bet you will not realize what it should tell you.
You asked if I had the missionary visa for doing missionary work. That would entail serving a mission in Korea. As I did not serve a mission, I did not have such a visa. Regarding the Temple, yes, I have worshiped in the Temple--as permitted by the laws and constitution of the Republic of Korea regardless of what type of visa one has.
The only bias in this thread is your inane and insane rantings and tortuous interpretation of a contract in an attempt to portray an innocent foreigner as someone seeking something not earned.
Really, Thiessen; you need serious help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
archaeologist5
Joined: 25 Dec 2013
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Biased? So far, the only native English speaker posting in this thread agreement with the employer's parsing of the passage in question is you. That should tell you something; however, I'd bet you will not realize what it should tell you. |
Are you afraid to admit that the Korean director got it right? I am not.
| Quote: |
| The only bias in this thread is your inane and insane rantings and tortuous interpretation of a contract in an attempt to portray an innocent foreigner as someone seeking something not earned. |
I said their problem would be the wording of the bold phrase. I also said that the Koreans may or may not catch that if they filed a claim, so the only one doing the inane and insane ranting is you as you can't see what you are reading
I have not portrayed anyone as anything but then you like to distort what others say and misrepresent their words which is a form of lying.
So all your posts in this thread I will point out to you as evidence for your dishonest representation of anything remotely connected to reality.
As for your temple answer I think you are creatively dodging the questions in order to sound like you are telling the truth.
P.S> by the way OP, usually contracts state that the Korean language is the official language of the contract so I would take your contract to a fluent Korean speaker and have them see what the Korean says in that article. You may be surprised to see that the Korean wording is different from the English version and you may have a case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| archaeologist5 wrote: |
| Are you afraid to admit that the Korean director got it right? I am not. |
If the passage in question were vague, then I wouldn't be too concerned about it. The thing is that passage is not vague.
| Quote: |
| I said their problem would be the wording of the bold phrase. I also said that the Koreans may or may not catch that if they filed a claim, so the only one doing the inane and insane ranting is you as you can't see what you are reading |
There is no problem with my reading comprehension.
| Quote: |
| I have not portrayed anyone as anything but then you like to distort what others say and misrepresent their words which is a form of lying. |
And what have I distorted? Note to others: distort is one of Thiessen's favorite words which he likes to use in an attempt to belittle others.
| Quote: |
| So all your posts in this thread I will point out to you as evidence for your dishonest representation of anything remotely connected to reality. |
Be specific. Saying "all your posts" is no different than having no evidence.
| Quote: |
| As for your temple answer I think you are creatively dodging the questions in order to sound like you are telling the truth. |
Huh? The truth is that I have worshiped in my church's temples in Korea, Hong Kong, Georgia, and California. In none of those venues was I violating any laws, not even visa laws.
| Quote: |
| P.S> by the way OP, usually contracts state that the Korean language is the official language of the contract so I would take your contract to a fluent Korean speaker and have them see what the Korean says in that article. You may be surprised to see that the Korean wording is different from the English version and you may have a case. |
Whether it's usual or not is irrelevant. You did manage to hit on a valid point: what language the contract states is the binding language. Once the OP, if they so decide, posts the whole contract, then which version of the contract prevails will be known. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| archaeologist5 wrote: |
| EZE wrote: |
| Quote: |
"3.5 Airfare
Employer shall provide flight ticket. In the event that Employee willfully leaves the Employer before completion of his/her contract, Employer is not responsible for the return airfare. |
|
EZE--that is NOT a promise to pay return air fair.
Go to the contracts forum and view the clauses that actually state a promise to pay return air fare and compare them with the one the OP posted. |
"I'm nearing the end of my contract and my director is refusing to pay for my return airfare."
It is reasonable to assume the original poster is going to complete the contract. Basic logic would indicate the clause was put in there to justify when the employer is NOT responsible for paying airfare home. If there was going to be no airfare home, then this clause would not be needed. It is not vague. It is not confusing. The school is trying to pull one over on the teacher because they are betting the teacher needs to leave and they have the last month's pay in case the teacher decides to act before last pay day.
Typical Korean employer tactics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
archaeologist5
Joined: 25 Dec 2013
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Typical Korean employer tactics. |
No, this is not isolated in Korea it is everywhere. When you read contracts terminology and how words are used is very important. What you think is being or want said may not be the case.
That is why I put the key words in bold. Under normal contract rules, the sentence is vague and the hagwon does not have to pay for the return air fair.
You have to be very specific in contracts or you could lose out on a lot more than air fare.
| Quote: |
| It is reasonable to assume the original poster is going to complete the contract. Basic logic would indicate the clause was put in there to justify when the employer is NOT responsible for paying airfare home. If there was going to be no airfare home, then this clause would not be needed. It is not vague. It is not confusing. The school is trying to pull one over on the teacher because they are betting the teacher needs to leave and they have the last month's pay in case the teacher decides to act before last pay day. |
I think I answered the points raised here except for :
logic--doesn't apply to contracts. Wording does.
complete contract--doesn't matter. article wording does.
vague--you do not understand the meaning of the word 'vague' especially for contracts. you are reading one word in one sentence and applying to another sentence and contracts do not work that way unless there is specific wording stating it does.
fast one-- possibly. They could be taking advantage of the vagueness to save some money but they also may be following the contract.
This is why you are to read the contracts first. You need to find these problems and have them corrected before you sign them. After you sign them it is too late to do anything--(for the most part.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
archaeologist5
Joined: 25 Dec 2013
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| f the passage in question were vague, then I wouldn't be too concerned about it. The thing is that passage is not vague. |
It is vague you just do not want to admit you are wrong.
If you talk to a lawyer, he will tell you that he would have a field day with the wording of that sentence.
As for the rest of your post and any future posts you invent, I am tired of you. You really have nothing to add to the discussion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michlerish
Joined: 08 Jan 2013
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was planning on leaving Korea after completing my contract.
To everyone arguing about whether the wording is vague or not: would it even matter if there were no question that the contract specifically and clearly stated the employer would pay for return airfare? It seems like no one in Korea gives a shit about contracts anyway; the employer dies whatever he/she wants regardless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
archaeologist5
Joined: 25 Dec 2013
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michlerish wrote: |
I was planning on leaving Korea after completing my contract.
To everyone arguing about whether the wording is vague or not: would it even matter if there were no question that the contract specifically and clearly stated the employer would pay for return airfare? It seems like no one in Korea gives a shit about contracts anyway; the employer dies whatever he/she wants regardless. |
Here is what a clear and unvague contract article looks like (taken from the contract review thread)
| Quote: |
2.0 Transportation: At the beginning of the contract period, the employer will provide employee with an economy class ticket to South Korea. On completion of the full contract period and employee will come back to his country, employer will provide for the employee an economy class ticket for passage from Korea to point of departure. The return air ticket will be provided at the time of termination of employment. If employee won’t return from Korea, employer will not provide
air ticket. Employer is not responsible for return airfare should the employer terminates employment based upon performance as outlined in paragraph 5.0 of this employment contract. |
Now compare that with the article in your contract and see the difference.
Yes it would matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michlerish
Joined: 08 Jan 2013
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2014 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| But if my contract was clear like that, what's stopping the director from refusing to pay anyway? Contracts mean nothing unless I'm willing pay a lot of money for a lawyer to file a lawsuit. At least that's what I'm seeing here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| archaeologist5 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| f the passage in question were vague, then I wouldn't be too concerned about it. The thing is that passage is not vague. |
It is vague you just do not want to admit you are wrong. |
How is it vague, in your (non-lawerly) opinion? Provide specifics.
| Quote: |
| If you talk to a lawyer, he will tell you that he would have a field day with the wording of that sentence. |
Actually, my rating when I was in the military entailed some matters related to legal issues. I see nothing in the wording provided thus far for that contract to give any lawyer a "field day". But, hey, if you can prove it's vague, go for it. So far, all you've been doing is repeating, essentially, a mantra: "It's vague. It's vague. It's vague."
| Quote: |
| As for the rest of your post and any future posts you invent, I am tired of you. |
Yet another of your tiresome tricks when called out on your prejudice against foreigners in Korea or when shown that you're dishonest. I was wondering how long it would take for you to come to that this time.
| Quote: |
| You really have nothing to add to the discussion |
I've had plenty of positive contribution in this thread:
- Informed the OP about the requirement for both health and pension payments.
- Informed the OP what they can do regarding non-payment of pension contributions.
- Informed the OP about small claims filing.
- Showed what kind of person you are, as usual, when it comes to foreigners in Korea.
Looks like a good day's work, Thiessen. Or should I say calendar? (Until you're banned again; the site management here supposedly doesn't like banned posters coming back.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YTMND
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Location: You're the man now dog!!
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| logic--doesn't apply to contracts. Wording does. |
Yes it does. If the employer and employee agree to do something illegal in the contract, it is not enforceable. How do you decide if it is enforceable or not? By using logic.
If the school was not responsible for paying airfare, then they wouldn't need to add exceptions to a rule that was not in effect. Mentioning of overtime in a contract and not salary amount doesn't mean the teacher will work full-time or part-time hours aside from overtime hours for free.
There are certain understandings and common knowledge that you are not required to put in a contract. For example, you are allowed a break. You are not required to work 24 hours straight, even though it's not directly written in the contract. You are allowed a break. You are not required to work 23 hours straight, even though it's not directly written in the contract. You are allowed a break. You are not required to work 22 hours straight, even though it's not directly written in the contract. You are allowed a break. You are not required to work 21 hours straight, even though it's not directly written in the contract. You are allowed a break. You are not required to work 20 hours straight, even though it's not directly written in the contract. You are allowed a break. You are not required to work 19 hours straight, even though it's not directly written in the contract. and so on and so on.........
You would have an encyclopedia for a contract, and this is why lawyers actually do use logic and they do use established precedent to logically connect a case with one similar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
It seems like there's a flame war of some sorts is going on. This thread is hereby locked. Cool your jets, fellows.
And archaeologist how is that you've read Cali's posts for years if you only joined in December? Something seems amiss here. I'm not taking sides with one poster over the other, but something's amiss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
