|
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 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 7:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Wildbore wrote: |
It does appear I misread that post. However, it doesn't change the fact that an IC status at the pension office isn't determined by the tax office.
| ontheway wrote: |
The pension office
This does not change how you become either an employee or an IC. |
Then why would they bother to define "employee" in their pension act, and have an enforcement decree section for failure to make an accurate report.
| Quote: |
The term "employee" means a person (including directors and officers of a
corporate body) who offers service, regardless of the type of occupation, in a
workplace and whose livelihood depends upon the wages received in return for
the service: Provided, that those who are determined by the Presidential Decree
shall be excluded; |
|
Again you misread the Pension information.
Remember that when we are discussing employee vs. independent contractor the Koreans at the Pension office write in Korean. They have translated these concepts as those who are "Workplace-based Insured" and "Not Workplace-based Insured."
"Workplace-based Insured" = employee (A person whose workplace is responsible to register the worker)
"Not Workplace-based Insured." = independent contractor (IC)
Where you quote the law above and the labor office is translating to their interpretation of the word "employee" they mean every person who works for pay. The intent of this section is to exclude housewives, students, children, and individuals who earn their living from speculation or investments in Real Estate, bonds or stocks. You will note that they are sure to include directors and officers who may also be investors as eligible for the National Pension.
The Pension Office use of the word "employee" includes everyone who works in any way and gets money for it, including the self employed and ICs. This is to set up an inclusive National Pension plan. This Pension office use of the word "employee" has nothing to do with our discussion about those who are self responsible (that we would call ICs) and those who are covered through their workplace (that we would call employees). The "workplace-based insured" are covered by their place of work, and the "not workplace-based insured" are ICs, both of which are included under the category "employee" by Pension Office use of English. Don't let the confusing translation of legal terminology confuse you. The Tax Office rules still determine who is an IC and who is "workplace-based insured."
Normally, an IC should enroll him or herself at the Pension and Health Ins offices. If the IC doesn't do so, the Pension and Health Ins offices may eventually find out and ask questions. The Pension office will find out from the Health Insurance list if you are registered for one and not the other. The Pension office can find your information at the tax office once your taxes have been reported, which for most E2 teachers at hogwans will be once per year. However, some E2 hogwan teachers are working for bigger employers and will be reported more often. In some cases the school pockets the tax money, or does not file in a timely manner, so the Pension office won't find out at all - which is why some teachers have had to actually go to the various offices and report their bosses.
Small employers do not remit IC tax information monthly just as they don't remit employee tax information monthly. The reporting requirement is based on the size of the business not the type of worker. So, if your friends had their information remitted monthly it seems likely that their employers were large enough to require monthly reporting.
If the Pension office finds a worker who is not enrolled, they will send out a letter demanding that the worker be enrolled. At that point ICs must enroll themselves and workplace-based insured that we call employees must be enrolled by their employers. The letters go out to everyone working who is not enrolled or does not have an exemption on file (South Africans, over age 60, acceptable alternate plan, etc. there are many such exemptions).
If the worker has a contract that states that he is an employee then the Pension Office should at that time enroll the worker as an employee. It does not have to do with hours worked, fixed location or any of the other current US rules for being an IC. You are a workplace-based worker or an IC depending on what you and your boss agreed and reported to the tax office. Of course if your contract says that you are an "employee" by our English meaning, then you should be registered that way and if your boss registers you as an IC that could be fraud.
Given the legalities and the language translation confusion it's not surprising that many teachers and the various Korean bureaucrats are confused by the employee vs IC, or workplace-based insured vs. not workplace-based insured, problems.
(BTW a 40 hour shift would be a long time to be at work. I did a lot of 16 hour shifts working my way through college, sometimes longer, up to a few 24 hour shifts. But never 40.)
Last edited by ontheway on Sat Aug 09, 2014 7:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wildbore wrote: |
Abit misleading here......
The pension office definition of IC is posted above. There is NO GREY AREA about working relationship, etc... Less than 60 contractual hours you are an IC, more than 60 you aren't. Doesn't matter what the tax office says, or if you contract says "IC," if you work more than 60 hours pre month, under the law, you need you be supplied pension.
Also, I'm skeptical about whether the "tax office" registration has anything to do with the pension office, as you suggest. For one, whether you are provided pension and health has to mainly do with whether your employer submitted that form or not to the health insurance office. It is a different form than the one submitted to the tax office. One could be registered differently at each place.
In addition, recently, a few of my friends, who are registered as ICs (at tax office only), received letters from the pension office telling them they worked at a pension workplace under the pension act and to demand a pension from their employer as they are entitled to. The pension office didn't just assume they were ICs because they had no record of pension payments, nor did they just assume my friends were ICs because of their tax office registration, or maybe they did..... and they realized there's alot of fraud that happens and want to protect peoples pension rights anyways. |
ontheway is right. I work over 100 hours a month and my contract lists me as an "employee" dozens of times throughout my contract and never mentions the phrase "independent contractor." It lists my pay as monthly, not hourly. Still, when I went to the NHIC offices and National Pension Service offices last year, they wouldn't do anything because my boss told the tax office I'm an independent contractor. Whatever your boss says you are is what they consider you. It doesn't matter what your contract says. I showed the tax office my contract and they said it's true that I'm an employee in the contract, but they called my boss on the phone, she told them I'm an independent contractor, and it's impossible to get out from under that. Your boss's word over the phone trumps anything and everything that is in your signed contract.
My boss is paying half of my NHIC enrollment even though I'm still listed as an independent contractor, because she probably knew I'd pull a runner since she was aware I pulled a runner at my previous employer, Wonderland. The pension office did finally say that I have to be enrolled and they'll be taking it out of my bank account on the 10th of each month. I have ten days remaining in the second year of working at this hagwon. That's how long it takes for the NPS to catch up, even when I went to multiple NPS offices in February of 2013 and begged them to get me enrolled. Tomorrow will be my first pension payment, with nine days left in my second year!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wildbore
Joined: 17 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Where you quote the law above and the labor office is translating to their interpretation of the word "employee" they mean every person who works for pay. The intent of this section is to exclude housewives, students, children, and individuals who earn their living from speculation or investments in Real Estate, bonds or stocks. You will note that they are sure to include directors and officers who may also be investors as eligible for the National Pension.
The Labor Office use of the word "employee" includes everyone who works in any way and gets money for it, including the self employed and ICs. This is to set up an inclusive National Pension plan. This Labor office use of the word "employee" has nothing to do with our discussion about those who are self responsible (that we would call ICs) and those who are covered through their workplace (that we would call employees). The "workplace-based insured" are covered by their place of work, and the "not workplace-based insured" are ICs, both of which are included under the category "employee" by Labor Office use of English. Don't let the confusing translation of legal terminology confuse you. The Tax Office rules still determine who is an IC and who is "workplace-based insured."
Normally, an IC should enroll him or herself at the Pension and Health Ins offices. If the IC doesn't do so, the Pension and Health Ins offices may eventually find out and ask questions. The Pension office will find out from the Health Insurance list if you are registered for one and not the other. The Pension office can find your information at the tax office once your taxes have been reported, which for most E2 teachers at hogwans will be once per year. However, some E2 hogwan teachers are working for bigger employers and will be reported more often. In some cases the school pockets the tax money, or does not file in a timely manner, so the Pension office won't find out at all - which is why some teachers have had to actually go to the various offices and report their bosses.
Small employers do not remit IC tax information monthly just as they don't remit employee tax information monthly. The reporting requirement is based on the size of the business not the type of worker. So, if your friends had their information remitted monthly it seems likely that their employers were large enough to require monthly reporting.
If the Pension office finds a worker who is not enrolled, they will send out a letter demanding that the worker be enrolled. At that point ICs must enroll themselves and workplace-based insured that we call employees must be enrolled by their employers. The letters go out to everyone working who is not enrolled or does not have an exemption on file (South Africans, over age 60, acceptable alternate plan, etc. there are many such exemptions).
If the worker has a contract that states that he is an employee then the Pension Office should at that time enroll the worker as an employee. It does not have to do with hours worked, fixed location or any of the other current US rules for being an IC. You are a workplace-based worker or an IC depending on what you and your boss agreed and reported to the tax office. Of course if your contract says that you are an "employee" by our English meaning, then you should be registered that way and if your boss registers you as an IC that could be fraud.
Given the legalities and the language translation confusion it's not surprising that many teachers and the various Korean bureaucrats are confused by the employee vs IC, or workplace-based insured vs. not workplace-based insured, problems. |
I didn't misread the pension information. It clearly states the work-placed based insured includes employees, and the definition of employee is clear, if your livelihood depends on the wage provided, you should be enrolled by your employer. Most others would either be ICs or exempt.
You seemingly agreed with this, however you digressed about the "Labor Office" definition which has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
If your employer doesn't register you because he claims you are an IC (usually to save money), that's fraud. We agree there too, and you seem to recognize this. There are specific parts of the pension act that deal with failing to file a report, and so on....
To add to EZE's experience, I've been to the Labor Office and Pension office before with various problems. The staff will give you excuses and say "the tax office says this....etc..." or "talk with your boss," just so they don't have to do their job. If you bring an older, more respected Korean with you, your issue usually sent to the enforcement officers right away. The enforcement officers at the pension office and NHIS are the ones who ultimately decide whether to enforce their own laws or not.
| Quote: |
| (BTW a 40 hour shift would be a long time to be at work. I did a lot of 16 hour shifts working my way through college, sometimes longer, up to a few 24 hour shifts. But never 40.) |
I meant to say 40 hours total in a week, I thought that was implied but I guess not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wildbore wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Where you quote the law above and the Pension office is translating to their interpretation of the word "employee" they mean every person who works for pay. The intent of this section is to exclude housewives, students, children, and individuals who earn their living from speculation or investments in Real Estate, bonds or stocks. You will note that they are sure to include directors and officers who may also be investors as eligible for the National Pension.
The Pension Office use of the word "employee" includes everyone who works in any way and gets money for it, including the self employed and ICs. This is to set up an inclusive National Pension plan. This Pension office use of the word "employee" has nothing to do with our discussion about those who are self responsible (that we would call ICs) and those who are covered through their workplace (that we would call employees). The "workplace-based insured" are covered by their place of work, and the "not workplace-based insured" are ICs, both of which are included under the category "employee" by Pension Office use of English. Don't let the confusing translation of legal terminology confuse you. The Tax Office rules still determine who is an IC and who is "workplace-based insured."
Normally, an IC should enroll him or herself at the Pension and Health Ins offices. If the IC doesn't do so, the Pension and Health Ins offices may eventually find out and ask questions. The Pension office will find out from the Health Insurance list if you are registered for one and not the other. The Pension office can find your information at the tax office once your taxes have been reported, which for most E2 teachers at hogwans will be once per year. However, some E2 hogwan teachers are working for bigger employers and will be reported more often. In some cases the school pockets the tax money, or does not file in a timely manner, so the Pension office won't find out at all - which is why some teachers have had to actually go to the various offices and report their bosses.
Small employers do not remit IC tax information monthly just as they don't remit employee tax information monthly. The reporting requirement is based on the size of the business not the type of worker. So, if your friends had their information remitted monthly it seems likely that their employers were large enough to require monthly reporting.
If the Pension office finds a worker who is not enrolled, they will send out a letter demanding that the worker be enrolled. At that point ICs must enroll themselves and workplace-based insured that we call employees must be enrolled by their employers. The letters go out to everyone working who is not enrolled or does not have an exemption on file (South Africans, over age 60, acceptable alternate plan, etc. there are many such exemptions).
If the worker has a contract that states that he is an employee then the Pension Office should at that time enroll the worker as an employee. It does not have to do with hours worked, fixed location or any of the other current US rules for being an IC. You are a workplace-based worker or an IC depending on what you and your boss agreed and reported to the tax office. Of course if your contract says that you are an "employee" by our English meaning, then you should be registered that way and if your boss registers you as an IC that could be fraud.
Given the legalities and the language translation confusion it's not surprising that many teachers and the various Korean bureaucrats are confused by the employee vs IC, or workplace-based insured vs. not workplace-based insured, problems. |
I didn't misread the pension information. It clearly states the work-placed based insured includes employees, and the definition of employee is clear, if your livelihood depends on the wage provided, you should be enrolled by your employer. Most others would either be ICs or exempt.
You seemingly agreed with this, however you digressed about the "Labor Office" definition which has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
If your employer doesn't register you because he claims you are an IC (usually to save money), that's fraud. We agree there too, and you seem to recognize this. There are specific parts of the pension act that deal with failing to file a report, and so on....
To add to EZE's experience, I've been to the Labor Office and Pension office before with various problems. The staff will give you excuses and say "the tax office says this....etc..." or "talk with your boss," just so they don't have to do their job. If you bring an older, more respected Korean with you, your issue usually sent to the enforcement officers right away. The enforcement officers at the pension office and NHIS are the ones who ultimately decide whether to enforce their own laws or not.
| Quote: |
| (BTW a 40 hour shift would be a long time to be at work. I did a lot of 16 hour shifts working my way through college, sometimes longer, up to a few 24 hour shifts. But never 40.) |
I meant to say 40 hours total in a week, I thought that was implied but I guess not. |
Sorry, all those places above where I wrote Labor office I should have written Pension office.
This was similar to your obviously unintended mistake about hours in a shift vs. week. I should have reread my post.
The point is that under the Pension office rules they use the word "employee" to mean what we would call a worker, including the self-employed and ICs of all kinds. They use the phrase "workplace-based insured" to mean what we call an employee and they use "not workplace-based insured" to mean something similar to what we call an IC.
In reality, their descriptive phrases: "workplace insured" and "not workplace insured" are more accurate than the English expressions we commonly use.
As a result, you did absoluely misread and misunderstand what the pension office has on their site.
Over half of all workers in Korea are "not workplace-based insured" LEGALLY under the pension law. They are also "employees" by the Korean meaning of this word as defined by the pension law (meaning anyone who performs any kind of work for money including the self employed, corporate directors etc.), however they are self-responsible; they are "not workplace insured." Their place of work does not have to enroll them or pay half of their National Pension or National Health Insurance.
Under the English version of the Korean law the people that we call ICs who are the "not workplace insured" are also called "employees" because of they way they are using the word to include all workers. It is your misreading of this part of the law has you confused.
Everyone who is an "employee" by the Korean use of the word must be enrolled for the pension and health insurance. This is the first level of the law: who is a covered worker.
The next level divides these workers into two groups: workplace-based insured (we call this group employees) and not workplace-based insured (we call this group ICs).
It is not illegal, even if your contract calls you an employee, to be registered as an IC, but it is an act of civil fraud against you if your boss does it without your consent, which in some cases could also be criminal fraud.. However, if you both agree, then its perfectly legal and fine for you to be registered as an IC, no matter what your contract says, which explains why the Pension, Health Ins and Tax Offices accept your boss's word when (and if) he registers you. These bureaucrats have no time to double check with or to check and read contracts for every worker in Korea.
EZE's experience reflects the reality that once you are registered as an IC with the tax office, no one wants to make any change. For those individuals whose contracts list them as employees in the English sense of the word, the Pension, Tax and Health Ins offices should make the change if the worker indicates that the contract as written also reflects the intent. However, if the boss does not concur in this representation as to the meaning of the contract, then a civil suit might be required to resolve the issue and the Pension office may not want to take sides - so they refuse to make changes in such circumstances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sethtes
Joined: 30 May 2011
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey I really appreciate this argument as Im trying to figure out my own pension deal right now. I know this is an old post but on the chance youll see it...
I was wondering if ontheway has maybe a link to some of these pages in korean so that I can have a go at interpreting it for myself? IT seems the english versions are only going to make things murkier, based on Wildbore's half of the argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wildbore wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
In Korea, it has nothing to do with being hourly or on salary, you are an IC simply by declaring to the tax office that you are an "IC." It's that simple and easy, just as it was in the US until the mid 1980s. What we call an Independent Contractor is not the same what we think of as an IC at home.
In Korea you are, as mentioned above, either a Workplace-based insured person (employee) so that your employer has to register you for the National Health Insurance and Pension, or you are Not a Workplace-based insured person (IC) meaning that you are Self responsible and must enroll yourself for the National Health Insurance and Pension. Either you or your boss tells the tax office which one you are; they don't check your contract or decide, they only record the information. |
Abit misleading here......
The pension office definition of IC is posted above. There is NO GREY AREA about working relationship, etc... Less than 60 contractual hours you are an IC, more than 60 you aren't. Doesn't matter what the tax office says, or if you contract says "IC," if you work more than 60 hours pre month, under the law, you need you be supplied pension.
Also, I'm skeptical about whether the "tax office" registration has anything to do with the pension office, as you suggest. For one, whether you are provided pension and health has to mainly do with whether your employer submitted that form or not to the health insurance office. It is a different form than the one submitted to the tax office. One could be registered differently at each place.
In addition, recently, a few of my friends, who are registered as ICs (at tax office only), received letters from the pension office telling them they worked at a pension workplace under the pension act and to demand a pension from their employer as they are entitled to. The pension office didn't just assume they were ICs because they had no record of pension payments, nor did they just assume my friends were ICs because of their tax office registration, or maybe they did..... and they realized there's alot of fraud that happens and want to protect peoples pension rights anyways. |
Guess that's the death knell for CDI? Like I said, though, if you do the IC thing, go well over 30,000 won an hour. More for experience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmaw01
Joined: 13 May 2013
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:51 pm Post subject: Re: SMALL hogwans that do NOT pay pension... |
|
|
| trueblue wrote: |
Hello all,
Is EVERY school required to pay into pension, or must it have a certain amount of employees that remove them from that legal obligation? |
I worked full time for a school for 2 years. I didn't get my pension and I didn't have health benefits. This was for the 2011-2013 year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When I spoke with them on the phone, they said it's optional for employer's to pay into pension. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Although, I've never had the experience of this, what I have discovered is a lot of lazy @$$e$ who don't want to do anything that's a hassle. Also, folks change their jobs every two years so generally don't know what they are doing. You have to keep on them and be a real pain in the @$$ to get your way. In this culture, it's whoever screams the loudest who gets their own way. Also, what someone else says. Bring an ajossi who can speak sternly and boss the junior clerks around.
But, what is the minimum amount of time to wait to call the pension office - 90 days? If the pensions not being paid, if I were in that situation, I'd ask my boss and give him a chance to solve it and then wait till the next month. After that if the pension's not in there and being paid, I'd show up to work and not teach any classes until I get confirmation the health and insurance is being paid. It might be ok, if you have low hours and low pay and are making money teaching. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Good Will Riker
Joined: 25 Dec 2009
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2014 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
CP wrote:
HERE ARE THE FACTS STRAIGHT FROM THE PENSION OFFICE:
Persons not deemed as Workplace-based insured Persons under the following criteria are NOT required to be under the National Pension Scheme.
1. Single-day workers or workers employed for a period of less than one month.
2. Workers employed in a workplace, the location of which is not fixed.
3. Part-time workers whose contractual working hours are less than 60 hours a month.
** Also foreigners whose home countries' pension scheme exclude Korean nationals from coverage are likewise excluded from coverage under Korea's national pension scheme. **
Everyone else is obviously required to be covered by the National Pension Scheme.
I am a registered foreigner with an E-2 visa who accepted a part time job with a contract of less than 60 hours a month. I am not legally required to pay into the pension plan, nor is my employer so I won't do it. Even if the law required me to pay into the plan I would just do it myself because I am happy with my current work situation and it wouldn't be worth arguing with my boss for a little more money monthly. It's up to you to decide if it's worth fighting over or not.
The National Health Plan is no different, however every foreigner must be registered under the plan no matter what. You will even be charged for all your missed payments up until the day you sign up. Your employer does not have to provide health insurance to you either. The cost is minimal and it's not worth arguing over, if you have an excellent paying job. As I said I have an E-2 sponsor but I don't receive any basic benefits. So, I signed up for the health plan myself, get the bill directly sent to my place and I pay the bill myself. No problems.
Everyone is in a different situation - you just have to decide if it's worth fighting over at the end of the day. |
Dear CP,
1.) I am an F4 visa holder and an American citizen who recently started working at a new hagwon under a 12-month contract. If I work less than 14 hours per week at this hagwon, I am an Independent Contractor, correct? JUST TO BE CLEAR HERE: Am I considered an Independent Contractor if I work less than 15 hours per week OR is it if I work less than a total of 60 hours per month?
2.) How do I prove that I am an Independent Contractor? When my hagwon registers me as a Native English instructor, WHO DO WE REPORT THIS INFORMATION TO IN ORDER TO CONFIRM my official registration as an Independent Contractor?
3.) Also, what do we call an Independent Contractor in the Korean language? Please provide what it is called in "한국어," so that my employer and I are on the same page here, so that we can report it properly.
4.) Finally, am I still required to submit an FBI Criminal Background check? I have it in my possession, and even as an Independent Contractor, it would give me a peace of mind to submit it to the appropriate government agency once and immediately and be done with it while living and residing here in South Korea. ~ ^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sethtes
Joined: 30 May 2011
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Good Will Riker wrote: |
3.) Also, what do we call an Independent Contractor in the Korean language? Please provide what it is called in "한국어," so that my employer and I are on the same page here, so that we can report it properly.
|
그러니까 thats the same information im tryna get |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Good Will Riker
Joined: 25 Dec 2009
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sethtes wrote: |
| Good Will Riker wrote: |
3.) Also, what do we call an Independent Contractor in the Korean language? Please provide what it is called in "한국어," so that my employer and I are on the same page here, so that we can report it properly.
|
그러니까 thats the same information im tryna get |
Please be polite next time, even though there are plenty of openly rude individuals online and in South Korea. ~
Independent Contractor = 개인사업자 ~
For further inquiry in regards to this matter, PM ttompatz about it. ~
He has all of the answers as long as your questions are clearly and consisely addressed to him. ~
AND PLEASE BE POLITE NEXT TIME, TONTO. (With your level of impatience and overall rudeness, you may as well be from South Carolina?) ~
DO THAT PLENTY OF TIMES, AND YOU'LL GET FURTHER IN LIFE. ~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sethtes
Joined: 30 May 2011
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good Will Riker wrote: |
| sethtes wrote: |
| Good Will Riker wrote: |
3.) Also, what do we call an Independent Contractor in the Korean language? Please provide what it is called in "한국어," so that my employer and I are on the same page here, so that we can report it properly.
|
그러니까 thats the same information im tryna get |
Please be polite next time, even though there are plenty of openly rude individuals online and in South Korea. ~
Independent Contractor = 개인사업자 ~
For further inquiry in regards to this matter, PM ttompatz about it. ~
He has all of the answers as long as your questions are clearly and consisely addressed to him. ~
AND PLEASE BE POLITE NEXT TIME, TONTO. (With your level of impatience and overall rudeness, you may as well be from South Carolina?) ~
DO THAT PLENTY OF TIMES, AND YOU'LL GET FURTHER IN LIFE. ~ |
My impoliteness was directed at others who had already not answered my question (despite coming back to post additional comments in the debate) when I did ask politely, friend. Sometimes you have to talk loud to get information out of people who are arguing. Thank you for keeping track of an old post and coming back to it when you found the answer to your(our) question
also I take insults to either carolina srsly  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hogwonguy1979
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Location: the racoon den
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
here is a good article that pretty much refutes the drivel apologists like ontheway have been saying for years that being an independent contractor is legal
http://www.koreaobserver.com/english-teachers-duped-by-employers-in-korea-27140
apparently according to kimmig it is illegal to employ an e2 visa holder as an independent contractor is illegal it just sounds like they dont have the manpower to enforce it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troglodyte
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hogwonguy1979 wrote: |
here is a good article that pretty much refutes the drivel apologists like ontheway have been saying for years that being an independent contractor is legal
http://www.koreaobserver.com/english-teachers-duped-by-employers-in-korea-27140
apparently according to kimmig it is illegal to employ an e2 visa holder as an independent contractor is illegal it just sounds like they dont have the manpower to enforce it |
The Seoul High Court ruled on the CDI case back in November. The decision was that the teachers were clearly employees and not independent contractors. CDI was forced to make some huge compensation payments to each of the teachers (over 40 million Won to some of them). |
|
| 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
